Johnson's Russia List #5595 13 December 2001 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: 1. Reuters: Russia's Putin rules out extending Kremlin term. 2. strana.ru: Legitimate Holiday. For 67% of the Russians, Constitution Day is nothing more than an extra day off. 3. Laura Belin: amending the constitution. 4. AFP: US seeks to downplay fears of instability from ABM treaty withdrawal. 5. Luba Schwartzman: ORT Review. 6. gazeta.ru: Co-Author of Constitution on Extending Putin's Term. (Sergei Shakhrai) 7. Vremya MN:of Foreign Policy Strategists Noted. 8. BBC Monitoring: Cross-country vehicles, donkeys, camels subject to mobilization in Russia. 9. RFE/RL: Michael Lelyveld, Economic Advisers Disagree On Tariffs For Natural Monopolies. 10. Moscow Times: Alexei Pankin, Election Cash Blocks Media's Development. 11. Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta: Shushkevich recalls events leading to Brest accords. 12. Asia Times: Sergei Blagov, Moscow move could freeze holiday hopes. 13. Mercury News: Mark Purdy, Russia deals injustice by keeping Nabokov off its Olympic team. (hockey)] ******* #1 Russia's Putin rules out extending Kremlin term MOSCOW, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin quashed speculation on Wednesday that he would seek to extend the presidential term of office from its present four years. "The term of presidential powers will not be changed to suit the present president," Putin declared at a Kremlin ceremony marking Russia's Constitution Day holiday. Speculation grew that Putin would act to get the four-year presidential term extended after the new speaker of Russia's Federation Council, parliament's upper house, announced last week he would back a constitutional change to prolong the current mandate. Sergei Mironov, only recently elected to the Federation Council post with Putin's backing, argued that four years in office was too short a time for a president to have any real chance of tackling the large number of problems facing Russia. Mironov said the Constitution could be amended and he added that the Federation Council might set such changes in motion. Earlier media reports said the Kremlin wanted the presidential term to be prolonged from four to seven years. Putin, 49, who was elected to office in May 2000, appeared however to set himself firmly against any such process, declaring on Wednesday : "The question of amendments, leading to a new constitution in principle, is not on the agenda." The Constitution Day holiday was introduced by then president Boris Yeltsin in 1994 to mark a landmark constitutional referendum a year earlier. The 70-year-old Yeltsin was one of the guests at the Kremlin ceremony on Wednesday which brought together top officials from political and civic life in Moscow and the provinces. ******* #2 strana.ru December 12, 2001 Legitimate Holiday For 67% of the Russians, Constitution Day is nothing more than an extra day off In Russia, Constitution Day (December 12) is not considered a popular holiday. According to the results of an opinion poll this month, for 67% of the people in this country, Constitution Day is simply an additional day off. Every fifth Russian (20%) regards Constitution Day as a holiday. However, a poll conducted in January (2001) showed that only 9% of the citizens viewed that day as a holiday. The survey demonstrated that Constitution Day does not arouse any special emotions among the public. "I view it only as a day off. There is no feeling of pride or anything like that in my heart." This was quite a typical response according to a poll conducted in Samara. Such an attitude towards the holiday is explained largely by society's attitude towards the country's Fundamental Law. In the opinion of 47% of the respondents in the December poll, the Constitution is purely a formal document, whereas 41% consider that the Constitution plays a decisive role in the life of the country. Quite a large segment of Russian society (38%) consider the present Constitution to be a "poor" one, 28% view it as a "good" one, while 34% were unable to express their opinion. Besides that, 67% of the respondents consider that the Constitution today should be reexamined and that amendments should be added. Only 8% think otherwise. It is noteworthy that besides indifference towards the Constitution, the poll also demonstrated that the citizens of the country do not know much about it. More than half (55%) of the citizens admit that they know nothing about the basic statutes in that document, whereas 36% claim otherwise. However, poll analysts believe the number of people who really know something about the basic provisions in the Constitution is in reality considerably smaller. Polls conducted in Samara and Novosibirsk revealed that none of the respondents had ever read the Constitution and knew nothing about it, whereas as poll in Moscow demonstrated that only two respondents had ever read the Constitution. Although the results of the polls do not represent the nationwide situation, they are nevertheless quite indicative. It is noteworthy that the ratio of respondents in big cities who declared they were acquainted with the Constitution was somewhat higher than in smaller cities and rural areas. Also noteworthy is the fact that 60% of the respondents that knew nothing about the Constitution, nonetheless, expressed their attitudes towards the document (25% - positive, 35% - negative), whereas 40% were unable to define their stand. Among the respondents that were acquainted with the Constitution, 35% view it as a "good" one, 46% - "bad" and 19% were undecided. A total of 1,500 respondents in cities and rural areas participated in the polls that were conducted December 1-2 and January 13, 2001. ******* #3 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: laurabelin@excite.com (Laura Belin) Subject: amending the constitution Some of the recent articles on possible amendments to the 1993 Russian constitution contained inaccurate or misleading statements about the amendment process. In particular, NTV's report of 12 December claimed that "The constitution that has not been amended since 1993 is now on the brink of reform. Three of its articles are untouchable, and can only be amended through a constitutional assembly, the other articles introducing changes to the existing bodies of power can be amended by a simple majority vote." I don't know whether the problem is with NTV or with the translation by BBC monitoring, but a few points should be clarified: The Russian constitution has nine chapters and 137 articles. When NTV says that three "articles" can only be changed by convening a constitutional assembly, they are really talking about three chapters: chapter 1 (which contains articles 1 through 16, covering Russia's basic constitutional structure), chapter 2 (containing articles 17 through 64, about citizens' basic rights and freedoms) and chapter 9 (articles 134 through 137, dealing with the process for amending and reviewing the constitution). Article 135 states that chapters 1, 2 and 9 cannot be amended by the parliament (Federal Assembly), and can be changed only by calling a constitutional assembly. It also says that such an assembly can be called by a two-thirds vote in both the State Duma and Federation Council. A constitutional assembly can approve amendments by a vote of two-thirds, but before the amendment is finally adopted it must be approved in a nationwide referendum (supported by a majority of voters, provided that turnout exceeds half of all voters). It is not correct to say that other articles of the constitution can be amended by simple majority vote. Article 136 says that a federal constitutional law should be adopted to govern the amendment procedure for articles in chapters 3 through 8 of the constitution. Article 136 does not specify what kind of majority vote would be required in the State Duma and Federation Council, but it makes clear that before an amendment can go into effect, it must be approved by the legislatures of at least two-thirds of all Russian Federation subjects. ******* #4 US seeks to downplay fears of instability from ABM treaty withdrawal AFP December 13, 2001 Senior US officials moved frantically to downplay fears that President George W. Bush's decision to abandon the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty could cause global instability. But with the White House, State Department and Pentagon all refusing to publicly confirm the move until Bush announces it, possibly as early as Thursday, the officials' messages appeared aimed at defending the decision to treaty partner Russia, wary allies in Europe and rising power China. "We have reached the point where we have to do it," one senior US official said, noting tests for the national missile defense Bush wants to deploy will soon run afoul of the treaty which bars such systems. "But we don't see it as creating a major crisis of any kind," the official said of Washington's impending notification to Moscow that it will unilaterally withdraw from the treaty six months after the announcement. That official and others stressed negotiations with Moscow on strategic topics other than missile defense -- particularly reductions in offensive weapons -- would continue. And they insisted repeatedly that Bush had done all he could in three summit meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach an agreement that would have stopped short of unilateral withdrawal. "The president made a very strong attempt, but it wasn't possible so we find ourselves in the position that we tell the only country in the world that has a missile defense that we are going to withdraw," a senior State Department official said. He referred to the fact that Russia took advantage of a provision in the 29-year-old treaty that allows a limited missile shield to be deployed over one city and other officials said US attempts at compromise followed a three-stage process. The first, they said, was the idea that the treaty could be edited or amended to allow for missile shields that would meet Bush's aim to defend against so-called "rogue states." After that initiative failed over US concerns, the idea of mutual withdrawal of the treaty was mooted. Russia rejected that concept and then proposed a looser reading of the pact that would allow missile defense tests Washington had considered to be prohibited. Ultimately, US officials believed that to be unfeasible and began to try to focus on ambitious cuts in offensive weaponry to assuage concerns that its withdrawal from ABM could spark a new arms race. The officials pointed to the fact that Bush -- who has made no secret of his belief that the treaty is a Cold War relic -- and Putin -- who believes the pact is a cornerstone of strategic stability -- had agreed in principle to lower the number of nuclear warheads they keep by about two-thirds. "Greater stability being achieved by these reductions in offensive weapons than instability caused by getting rid of this outmoded treaty," a second State Department official said. Convincing the rest of the world of this, however, appeared Wednesday to be a difficult task. Already, US allies in Europe have voiced concern and on Monday, after Secretary of State Colin Powell held meetings with officials in Berlin, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he favored keeping the treaty in place "in one form or another." Schroeder, presumably briefed by Powell on US plans to withdraw from the pact, said it was clear that there were differences on the matter that would result in "some upheaval." Many in Washington believe that a nervous Europe will push very hard for the United States and Russia to negotiate some kind of broader strategic deal in the six months between Bush's announcement and the actual withdrawal. "The Europeans will be disappointed and will be pressing the United States to try to negotiate a replacement agreement before the six months is up," said Lee Feinstein, a fellow at the Carnegie Institute for International Peace. "Europe wants predictability and some kind of a framework in which US-Russia relations are managed." US officials have made clear there is room for talk about the strategic relationship in general but Feinstein and others believe a harsh Russian reaction to the pullout announcement might not make that feasible, giving Europe even more to be concerned about. "If Russian reaction is muted then they will be muted," Feinstein said. "If Russian reaction is negative, then they're going to push very hard for a replacement." ******* #5 ORT Review www.ortv.ru Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba7@bu.edu) Research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology and Policy at Boston University HEADLINES, Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - Today is "Constitution Day" - this important document of the Russian Federation celebrates its eight anniversary. - Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke at the Constitution Day banquet. He stated that an extension of presidential terms would be inadmissible. The Russian President also attended the opening ceremony for a new section of Moscow's third transport ring road, for Moscow's 163rd Metro station -- "Annino" and visited the military town of Lefortovo. - Russian General Prosecutor Vlaidimir Ustinov read the closing argument against Salman Raduev. Ustinov demanded a life imprisonment for the accused. - Snipers in Chechnya continue to neutralize landmines along the central streets of Grozny. - Federal service officers have conducted a special operation in Argun. Twenty people suspected of belonging to illegal military formations have been detained. - Yakutian President Mikhail Nikolaev has decided to withdraw from running for a third term. He asked his supporters to vote for ALROS Director Vyacheslav Shtyrov. - Central Electoral Commision Chairman Aleksandr Veshnyakov declared that it is necessary to get at least 50 percent of the eligible voters to attend the elections and make sure that the election goes through as planned.. - Dogowners in Kostroma have offered to patrol the streets and parks to make them safer at night. ****** #6 gazeta.ru December 11, 2001 Co-Author of Constitution on Extending Putin's Term The very same day as being elected chairman of the Federation Council, Sergei Mironov an old acquaintance of President Putin, spoke in favour of considerably extending the term of presidential rule in Russia. Many believe Mironov’s proposal is a signal of the beginning of a campaign by the Kremlin to ensure Putin stays in power for at least another 15 years, a move that would require fundamental changes to the Russian Constitution. In an interview with Gazeta.Ru co-author of the current Russian Constitution Sergei Shakhrai gives his opinion of the proposed changes to the Constitution. Last Thursday the new speaker of the upper house Sergei Mironov suggested that the constitutional term of office of the Russian head of state should be extended from four to seven years. Valery Goreglyad, the leader of the pro-presidential alliance of upper house senators called ‘Federatsia’ or ‘Federation’ immediately backed the proposal. However, although it would appear that the initiative to extend Putin’s term in office was concocted within the walls of the presidential administration, the well-known Russian politician Sergei Shakhrai, one of the co-authors of the Federal Constitution, told Gazeta.Ru that neither Sergei Mironov, nor his colleague Goreglyad, the leader of ‘Federatsia’, had discussed the idea with the president. On December 12 Russia marks Constitution Day. On that day eight years ago the Russian people endorsed the current Constitution of the Russian Federation. On the eve of the 8th anniversary of the adoption of the Russian Constitution, Sergei Shakhrai who together with Sergei Alexeyev elaborated the fundamental Russian law back in 1993, granted the following interview to Gazeta.Ru in which he comments on the recent proposals to radically revise certain provisions of the Constitution. Mr.Shakhrai, what do you think of the idea to amend the Constitution? In your opinion, do you think that time has come to change anything therein? Today, for me as a lawyer and a politician remembering the eerie period (in early 1990s) when the old Constitution (adopted in 1978) was no longer working and the new law had still not come into force, one thing seems obvious: as soon as they start voting for amendments, everything will again collapse at once. I believe that given the fact that the effective Constitution is a framework act, changing it is likely only to entail further difficulties. We have the Constitutional Court that can give interpretations of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court may remove any ambiguity. Besides, the Constitution envisages the adoption of federal laws designed to fill the existing gaps. We are to adopt thousands more such laws, hence there is no need to change the Constitution. Otherwise we will knock everything loose again: Starting with good intentions we will end up opening a Pandora’s box. Therefore, if after all the issue of the Constitution is raised, one should work on the project in its entirety, and not chop off pieces. The other day the new speaker of the Federation Council spoke in favour of extending the presidential term of rule in Russia. In your opinion, is such a proposal well founded? And in your opinion how long should the new term be: five or seven years? I would like to answer that question, firstly, in my capacity as a professional lawyer, and then from the standpoint of political necessity. Article 81 of the Russian Constitution reads that the president of the Russian Federation shall be elected for a term of four years. In compliance with the law, to amend that provision the proposal would need the backing of two thirds of the State Duma deputies, three quarters of the Federation Council senators and two thirds of the regional legislatures. (Gazeta.Ru note: In Russia there are 89 regions which in the Constitution are defined as ‘subjects of the federation’. Each region has its own parliament, therefore the approval of 2/3 of the 89 local parliaments is also required to make amendments to the Constitution). On the one hand, it seems somewhat complicated to do so. Nonetheless, given the present-day situation, the idea may as well be implemented. Such is the legal aspect of the matter. At the same time, from the standpoint of political necessity, even if that amendment is passed it will apply only to the next presidential term of office. The new term of office, a term of five, or seven, or maybe even fifteen years, would begin as from the next presidential election date - March 7, 2004. Since everyone understands perfectly well, that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin by all means will run for a second term in office, for him the 2004 poll will be not only a vote for his personality and his deeds, but also for that amendment. In fact a mini-referendum will be held. I think, that (the new FC speaker Sergei) Mironov did not coordinate his proposal (concerning the extension of presidential term – Gazeta.Ru) with Putin. But then again why should he need to? He is the chairman of the Federation Council, an independent political figure, well known as a deputy and a lawyer. Sergei Mikhailovich (Mironov) never said that the Constitution needs to be changed tomorrow. It was, I’d say, a public deliberation. But since in his official capacity the speaker is the third figure in the state hierarchy and a man from Putin’s team, everybody has begun to guess whether the president issued the order. Putin did not. I know that for certain. If the Constitution is amended before Vladimir Putin’s present term of office expires, will that legally enable the incumbent president to retain power for three consecutive terms: his first term of 4 years (2000-2004) plus two more terms (of 7 years each)? We are an interesting nation indeed, living in a world of myths and abbreviations and moving in a circle. The ink has hardly dried on the Constitutional Court’s ruling on Yeltsin’s case. At that time the State Duma inquired with the Constitutional Court whether the period during which Yeltsin ruled Russia before the adoption of the new Constitution (1991-1993) should be considered as his first term of office. The Constitutional Court said: “Yes. That was his first term”. The Constitutional Court will not change its legal stance. The only thing that lawyers could devise is that when amending the provision on the length of the presidential term they include a clause saying that the amended provision shall not apply to the earlier term of presidency. Why did not you make the presidential term of office 7 years from the very beginning? Such proposals were made at the time the Constitution was drawn up. In the times when the modern Constitution was elaborated everything was very much personified. Everyone understood that the issue concerned president Yeltsin. The opposition that was very powerful at the time would never have accepted such a term. For the authors of the Constitution that meant that the ‘7-year provision’ could have destroyed the entire text of the act. Was there any sense to insist? Moreover, the argument was almost the same: the proponents of the 7-year term cited France as an example. Later the French themselves reduced the term. Thus, it emerged, that we had been right (not to introduce a 7 year term) in the first place. It is said that apart from amending the term of presidential rule, more amendments may be proposed pertaining to the procedure of the formation of the Federation Council? Do you think such changes are appropriate? At present the Constitution outlines basic things: it says that the legislative organ should have a chamber of regional representatives. According to the Constitution, two deputies from each subject of the Federation are to be members of the Federation Council: one from the representative body and one from the executive body of the regional authority. Such wording suggests that several variants are possible. Transitional provisions (P. II of the Constitution) envisage that representatives to the Federation Council shall be elected on the basis of a direct vote by secret ballot. That is exactly how the Federation Council of the 1st calling was formed. Later the new order was introduced, the one that exists now: Each region (of Russia’s 89) is represented in the upper house by 2 senators. Sergei Mironov has suggested that senators should be elected directly by the residents of the regions. And on this point I fully agree with him. I think that the new procedure of forming the upper house should be as follows. Governors would propose their candidates and regional parliaments would propose theirs. The population would be invited to vote either in favour or against those candidates, in other words, to give them a vote of confidence or no confidence. Thus, senators would receive a vote of confidence, not from the governors or regional legislatures, but directly from the residents of the regions. I am convinced that in 2003 we will have not only State Duma elections but also elections to the Federation Council. If you were now offered to rewrite the Constitution of Russia anew, how would the new document differ from the one that we have now? It would be even wiser. ******* #7 Russia: Dearth of Foreign Policy Strategists Noted Vremya MN 7 December 2001 [translation for personal use only] Article by Anastasiya Kornya: "The Sweet-Sounding Word 'Adviser'" Foreign policy experts are willing to help the state, but the centralization of government is clearly not conducive to qualified expert appraisals. The highly publicized recent Civil Forum is beginning to produce results: The next round of "civil debates," to be hosted by the Effective Policy Foundation, will deal with the details of a specific project--a national public council on foreign policy. Ideally, the council should become one of the control groups that will--according to the original plan--serve as a liaison between the government and the civil society for the continuation of the dialogue at the forum. According to the organizers, the plan to set up this council has already won the general approval of Presidential Administration Chief Aleksandr Voloshin and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. The council is expected to unite the leaders of unofficial but "active" public organizations, respected academics, experts, and other members of the social elite with the heads of ministries and departments. They will meet quarterly to make decisions on matters researched in advance in the expert subdivisions of the council and thereby formulate a national consensus on foreign policy issues. One thing is not quite clear, however: What are they supposed to do with this consensus? The organizers of the debates expected the participants to recommend ways of building specific elements of the new structure. This did not happen, however. The legislative branch of government, represented by Deputy Chairman Vyacheslav Igrunov of the State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs and Relations with Fellow Countrymen, confined itself to categorically denying government agencies the qualifications required for a completely effective ethnic policy. The executive branch, represented by Deputy Foreign Minister Aleksandr Meshkov, did not attend, citing circumstances beyond its control. Gleb Pavlovskiy, the Kremlin's chief political theorist, made vague allusions to the causes of the current battles in the Kremlin. Members of the social elite, who constituted the majority of participants, wanted an answer to their main question: Does the government really need any advisory councils? Judging by all indications, it has no great need for them. There is no question that foreign policy is the inalienable prerogative of the president, and as some participants in the debates correctly pointed out, public opinion cannot and must not be the supreme adviser in this area. If Vladimir Putin had been guided by the results of public opinion polls after 11 September (when the prevailing response was spiteful: "They had it coming, those bourgeois pigs"), the alignment of forces in the world arena would be completely different today. On the other hand, there is clearly a vacant niche in the area of analytical and advisory support for foreign policy strategy, and nature abhors a vacuum. Today Russia does not have a center for the planning of foreign policy strategy as such, Director Mikhail Delyagin of the Institute of Globalization Issues maintains. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has had no inclination to play this role for a long time. The Security Council, which had almost risen to this level, has now become a host of retired statesmen. Deputy Director of the Europe Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, and Chairman of the Presidium of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council (SVOP) Sergey Karaganov has noted that the advisory community is on the verge of extinction. There is still a glimmer of hope for the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, but the academy institutes, which worked in close contact with foreign policy agencies and the intelligence community in the good old days, supplying them with highly qualified analyses, cannot come up with any expert conclusions on urgent issues today. In fact, the experience of SVOP is quite indicative. This council has united government officials with the business and social elite for 10 years now. In other words, it could be viewed as an active national council, but its actual influence in the area of state foreign policy is highly questionable. In general, the reason is quite obvious. As government becomes more centralized, the group of individuals and organizations with access to it, even if only as advisers, keeps growing smaller. The more competition there is for the role of adviser, the less objective interest the state has in a substructure of qualified experts. Consensus, on the other hand, is, if you will pardon the expression, a horse of a different color. ******* #8 BBC Monitoring Cross-country vehicles, donkeys, camels subject to mobilization in Russia Source: NTV, Moscow, in Russian 1600 gmt 12 Dec 01 [Presenter] Car owners may start facing more problems. The leaders of the State Road Safety Inspectorate have turned to the presidential decree, adopted three years ago, under which all cross-country vehicles made in Russia are subject to wartime mobilization. To be more precise, they must be registered with military commissariats. Incidentally, the list consisting of Niva and UAZ vehicles also includes deer, donkeys and even camels. Here are more details in a report by Yevgeniy Ksendzenko... [Correspondent] From now on, cross-country vehicles are subject to military service in Russia, and their owners must be prepared to give their vehicles to their motherland as soon as it requests them. The list of vehicles subject to military call-up in wartime includes Niva and UAZ cross-country vehicles, light lorries and heavy-duty motorcycles. Private owners must register their property with a local military commissariat, otherwise it would be impossible to either register or de-register a vehicle [with the vehicle registration authority] or pass an MOT. A relevant instruction has already been sent to all regional units of the State Road Safety Inspectorate. The instruction was issued in line with the 1998 presidential decree on the mobilization of vehicles in wartime... [Mikhail Prostodushev, captioned as deputy military commissar of Moscow and chief of the 1st (mobilization) directorate] The owner of a means of transport will receive an individual warrant on the strength of which the means of transport in their possession will be taken away from its owner. [Correspondent] The owner of a means of transport will receive an invoice showing its market price. The military cannot say when the owner will be able to get money for his property. They say a procedure is still being worked out... Jeeps and other foreign-made cars, which have become so common in Russia that they seem to have adjusted themselves to its roads, will not be subject to military registration. The so-called foreigners will not be entrusted to defend our homeland for the simple reason that it wartime conditions it would be impossible to repair a Jeep, whereas any soldier can repair a Niva using almost no tools... The decision to put private vehicles on military registration lists was a well thought-out move, and this is proved by the fact that the list of means of transport subject to compulsory registration includes, apart from Niva cars, camels, donkeys, deer and sleighs. Their owners also must visit their respective military commissariats. ******* #9 Russia: Economic Advisers Disagree On Tariffs For Natural Monopolies By Michael Lelyveld President Vladimir Putin's economic aides have been debating policy for Russia's natural monopolies in public. The decision-making process may be an unusual instance in which the government is encouraging dissent. Boston, 11 December 2001 (RFE/RL) -- A split has opened up among Russia's top economic advisers, presenting a political challenge for President Vladimir Putin. Putin's best and brightest aides have openly differed about raising tariffs for the "natural monopolies" that control the commodities and services that all citizens need, like gas, electricity, and rail transportation. On 6 December, Economic Development and Trade Minister German Gref emerged from a cabinet meeting, saying, "The government, taking into account [inflation, gross domestic product growth and the investment needs of monopolies,] has set a 35 percent maximum level of raising tariffs for all natural monopolies." Gref said, "The range of hikes might be from zero to 35 percent," according to the Prime-TASS news agency and "The Moscow Times." One day later, Gref was contradicted by Putin's economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, who said the government had made no such decision. Illarionov told the Interfax news agency, "These are distorted reports," adding that no such numbers were included in the formal minutes of the cabinet meeting. Illarionov warned that an "artificial" rate hike for monopolies could bring on recession and argued that current tariffs are "significantly exaggerated, not understated." His meaning was not entirely clear. It is widely acknowledged that domestic charges for utilities like gas and electricity are too low to attract the investment needed to keep the systems running. In the case of gas, which sells in Russia for one-eighth to one-tenth of export prices, domestic tariffs are too low to recover the costs. The tariff system is a throwback to Soviet times and survives only thanks to subsidies from exports. But raising the rates has proved to be one of Putin's hardest political and economic tasks. After canceling hikes for the second half of this year because of rising inflation, Putin is now besieged with a wide array of recommendations from monopolies like Gazprom for increases at the start of 2002. Some of Gazprom's plans call for increases of over 40 percent next year, despite Putin's statement in November that there should be no growth in tariffs before the end of the winter. Arkadii Volsky, president of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, recently urged Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov to block any "ungrounded increase" in monopoly tariffs. Volsky argued that higher charges could slow down the country's industrial growth, the RBC news service said. Beyond the question of how Russia can raise tariffs without raising inflation, the situation may also tell much about Putin and his tolerance for conflicts within his government. Last August, a similar argument erupted after Gref announced a freeze on increases due to inflation concerns. Kasyanov contradicted him, saying, "There won't be any freezing of tariffs." In that dispute, it appears that Gref won. In this case, the conflict could shine a spotlight Illarionov, who may have been Putin's most radical economic appointment when he was named as an adviser in April of 2000. As head of the independent Institute for Economic Analysis, Illarionov was an outspoken critic of Putin's predecessor and benefactor, former President Boris Yeltsin. He urged the government to break away from dependence on loans and advice from the International Monetary Fund, a step which it has since taken with largely positive results. But in bringing Illarionov into government, Putin opened the door to public arguments about economic policy, because Illarionov has continued to show the same independence that he practiced outside the government. It is hard to understand why Putin seems to tolerate and even encourage open dissent on such issues, while he has shown far less acceptance of dissident voices in the press. Crackdowns on media outlets controlled by the ousted oligarchs Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky have left Russia with less independent media than before Putin gained power. Some closures were accomplished through monopolies like Gazprom, which are at the heart of the current economic disputes. One possible explanation of Putin's willingness to hear many voices on the economy is that he is no economist himself. His strength may lie in his ability to choose from among the strongest arguments. Such a process may not only benefit from debate but may actually require it. Why, then, does Putin's policy seem to follow such a different path on press issues? Nearly two years since his sudden rise to power, Putin remains a mystery. But his tolerance of economic dissent may raise hopes that he will not see the press as another natural monopoly. ******* #10 Moscow Times December 11, 2001 Election Cash Blocks Media's Development By Alexei Pankin In the November edition of my magazine, Sreda, I published a "Declaration of Ethical Norms for Journalists During Elections." The declaration which comprises seven clauses, was signed by a number of leading Krasnoyarsk media outlets, a region currently in the thick of a gubernatorial election campaign. The signatories state their responsibility to the public, condemn the use of smear tactics and promise to be objective and impartial. Several days ago, I met with one of the authors of this document. "How is the declaration's implementation going?" I asked. "The hidden advertising revenues have increased sharply," he joked weakly. "Now clients have to pay extra to the press as compensation for them having to break their promises." In the December edition of Sreda, I am carrying news of the decision by the Siberian regional branch of Mediasoyuz -- one of the public associations uniting media industry employees -- to support the Charter of Honest Journalism, one of the codes of journalistic ethics. This news item serves as an ironic illustration to an article about the role of the press in the scandalous Sakha-Yakutia presidential election campaign. The title of the article is: "It's more profitable to elect a president than to mine diamonds." Here are a few examples. Two local private newspapers have a print run of 20,000, considering this the optimal level. The overall print run of newspapers supporting incumbent President Mikhail Nikolayev is almost half a million copies, while the republic's electorate is 550,000 people. The print run of publications supporting Nikolayev's opponents varies between 50,000 and 140,000 copies. Add to this the fact that many publications are distributed for free. How can honest journalists compete? All they can do is join the rest in the queue for election money. One of the main and, I'm not afraid to say, tragic paradoxes of Russian life in this period of democratic transition is that elections have become one of the chief impediments to creating a truly free, independent and commercially viable press. A huge amount of money is poured into the press during federal, regional and local elections. Neither legislative restrictions nor the state of the economy have any effect on the "golden rain" that pours down on the press during election campaigns. Provincial journalist acquaintances tell me that during the federal Duma elections in post-crisis 1999, the money spent was of an order of magnitude greater than in prosperous 1995. Journalists and the political consultants think up highly refined gray and black schemes for getting their share of the cash. As a result a general system of corruption takes hold, with the attendant effect of journalists, politicians and the public becoming very cynical. In Yakutia, for example, the local prosecutor general arrested several political consultants from Moscow at the end of November. Speaking in their defense, the Russian Public Relations Association in a carefully worded statement did not even try to claim that they had done nothing wrong. All they said was that arrest is too strong a measure in the fight with dirty political campaigning. Alexei Pankin is the editor of Sreda, a magazine for media professionals (www.internews.ru/sreda) ******* #11 Belarus: Shushkevich recalls events leading to Brest accords Minsk Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta 7 December 2001 Correcting Kuchma to Kravchuk throughout The former parliament speaker of Belarus, Stanislaw Shushkevich, has described the events 10 years ago which led to the signing of the CIS founding accords at a Belarusian government residence near Brest. Recalling his fateful summit with Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Shushkevich said the CIS was successful in preventing uncontrolled collapse of the USSR and establishing succession rights over nuclear weapons. The former Belarus leader said that he was the one to inform Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev of the USSR's demise, but that US President George Bush got the news minutes earlier from Yeltsin. He also revealed that the KGB had known the presidents' plans but did not cause any obstacles. The following is an excerpt from Shushkevich's interview with the Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta newspaper on 7 December: This person is respected abroad for his boldness and political foresight. But at home he is misunderstood and misjudged for his failure to make the idiot's dream of the victory of communism all over the world come true. The blame for all the problems current leaders are unable to solve is laid at the door of Stanislaw Shushkevich because 10 years ago he brought the Republic of Belarus to the path of democratic development. Together with the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, he declared the end of "the great and powerful" [Soviet Union, as described in the USSR national anthem], and gave all the former Soviet republics an opportunity to come together in a new economic community, the Commonwealth of Independent States. On the eve of the jubilee, a Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta correspondent met Stanislaw Shushkevich. [Correspondent Yuryy Rabchuk] Mr Shushkevich, who do you expect to send you greetings on the 10th anniversary of the CIS? [Shushkevich] Frankly speaking, nobody. It is not my own jubilee. It is a holiday for the whole of Belarus because, thanks to the agreements signed in Viskuli [government residence in Brest Region], our country gained its sovereignty and became an independent state. [Passage omitted: general remarks] [Rabchuk] A new generation has grown in these 10 years, to whom much of this is unfamiliar. Could you please describe how the events as they unfolded in December 1991? [Shushkevich] On the eve of the meeting in Belavezhskaya Pushcha [natural reserve in Brest Region where the CIS accords were signed], I had no components of a political decision. We faced a whole range of economic problems. And the [Soviet] government had to solve urgent problems: how to get through the winter, how to make a transition to civilized capitalism without any capital- The ideals were not bad, but the initial conditions (in terms of paying for oil and gas) were zero. This was the purpose of our trip to Viskuli. The Ukrainian delegation had similar thoughts. But by the time of our arrival (it is easy to say it now) it was clear that it was impossible to speak of further cooperation without solving political problems. The USSR, as a more or less steady and stable system, was not functioning. It was falling apart. And the threat of uncontrolled disintegration was substantial. Therefore, at least two problems had to be solved in the beginning: a civilized divorce and civilized integration. It seems to me that we solved the first problem perfectly: the shoots of an uncivilized and bloody divorce were cut off. As for "the marriage", it was done in a Bolshevik manner. To tell you the truth, it did not fulfil its potential due to the low political literacy of all CIS member states. Therefore, the second part of the obligations undertaken by the CIS has not been fulfilled. [Rabchuk] How can you explain [Soviet President Mikhail] Gorbachev's grudge against you? [Shushkevich] I do not know why he bears a grudge against me. Gorbachev did the greatest thing and is respected for this throughout the world. I think by the time of the Viskuli agreements he had exhausted his potential and was practising Bolshevism on a capitalist basis. [Passage omitted: Shushkevich compares the union treaty proposed by Gorbachev in 1991 to humorous stories by O. Henry; denies he, Yeltsin and Kravchuk were drunk when they signed the CIS accords.] [Rabchuk] Mr Shushkevich, did you fear being arrested by special services when you were signing a death sentence on the USSR? Despite the country's weakness, the KGB was strong and it was quite easy for it to discover the plot. [Shushkevich] I had faith in our Belarusian special services. [Former Belarusian KGB head Eduard] Shyrkowski briefed me two or three times a day on the state of affairs and his cooperation with Russian special services. My main task was to ensure the safety of the two [Ukrainian and Russian] presidential delegations in Viskuli. Certainly, the union special services knew what was going on. At that time, there was a mixture of different services and ours had more to do with the union than with Belarus. Now, the situation is the same. However, they were guarding the presidents' safety and they did it well. Besides, I knew Gorbachev's habits, and after [his house arrest in] Foros [during the August 1991 coup attempt] I did not expect him to take any active steps without the advice of Mrs Gorbachev. And this was a judicious and slow process (I had seen it in action). Therefore, I was absolutely not afraid of such a turn of events. I can say that Gorbachev behaved decently in this case. [Passage omitted: Shushkevich says he is proud that Belarus became independent.] [Rabcuk] Viskuli could be called not only "the grave" of the Soviet Union but also "the cradle" of the CIS- [Shushkevich] It cannot be called "the grave" as the Soviet Union was already at the last gasp. A state that gets out of control no longer exists. Just imagine a nuclear state out of control! And the CIS determined control over nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, a whole range of provisions in the Viskuli agreements was not properly followed up. For example, we insisted on solving Chernobyl problems: if Russia became successor to the USSR, it would compensate us. Russia did not agree to it. The issue on the union's assets abroad was also raised. It was decided to draft a separate agreement on it, but it never saw the light of day and everything became Russia's property. [Rabchuk] Mr Shushkevich, whom did you inform first that the Soviet Union no longer existed? [Shushkevich] I started reporting to Gorbachev. But while I was being connected, [former Russian President Boris] Yeltsin, who began calling much later, was already talking to [US President George] Bush. When I was connected to Gorbachev, he asked me in a lecturing voice: "Do you understand how this will be received by the world community?" I said: "I do understand, we have told Bush and he received it normally." [Passage omitted: Shushkevich criticizes current Belarusian policy, describes his good relations with former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk.] ******* #12 Asia Times December 11, 2001 Moscow move could freeze holiday hopes By Sergei Blagov MOSCOW - Thousands of Russian travelers have booked or purchased package tours in hopes of escaping local frost for warmer climes in Thailand or Bali over the New Year's holiday period. Moreover, many Russians remain undeterred by the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States and still feel comfortable to travel abroad. However, their hopes of a dream vacation may well fail to materialize. Russian aviation regulators have moved to forestall a repeat of a situation that saw hundreds of Russian tourists stuck in Bali, Thailand or Egypt with no charter flights back to Moscow. The State Civil Aviation Service ordered all Russian airlines to renew their charter licenses immediately or face losing them during the December 15-January 31 holiday season. The regulators insist the measure is needed to prevent scams like the one that happened last New Year's when a charter carrier failed to come up with planes and hundreds of passengers were stuck in Moscow airports and/or exotic Asian destinations. The travel agencies backed the move but lashed out at the timing. Tourist agencies find themselves in a difficult position, as they have sold most of their New Year's packages. They argue that the aviation regulators could have warned them a couple of months ago rather than two weeks before the peak season. It remains to be seen whether and how passengers will be notified if their flights were canceled. The State Civil Aviation Service insisted the crackdown was intended to protect passengers' rights during this holiday season. The service said that in order to operate charter flights, airlines must prove by December 10 that they have proper international charter licenses and provide a list containing their routes, dates of flights, flight numbers, and availability of backup aircraft. Airlines also must provide documentation showing that their aircraft are equipped with air collision avoidance systems on routes where they are required. The requirements were designed to forestall "a repetition of the situation with international charter flights in 2000," the service said. The situation referred to occurred when the Rusavia airline sold seats on nine charter flights although it did not have a single aircraft for those flights. As a result, more than 1,000 passengers were stranded at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport for nearly two days. In Thailand and Bali, hundreds of tourists were stuck until the Russian government stepped in and flew them home. Although Rusavia lost its license, this was poor consolation for the unfortunate tourists. In the wake of the much-publicized scandal, aviation authorities promised to crack down on small airlines, or "babyflots", that operate only during peak seasons and don't own any aircraft. So far this year, the regulators have suspended the licenses of some 30 Russian airlines, although more than 200 small airlines are still in business. Major airlines say they will have no problems meeting the new requirements. Aeroflot will comply with all the new criteria, the company said in a statement. Nonetheless, fears remain that there could be disruptions over the New Year that may hit Russia's outbound tourist sector. The number of Russian holiday makers going to Southeast Asia may drop because of the sudden regulatory changes, said Alexander Muratov, head of Aquarius Express tourist agency. Aquarius has been selling package tours to resorts in Hainan, the Philippines and Phuket with a couple of days in Hong Kong. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse in 1991, millions of Russians began traveling abroad. A decade ago there were only three state-owned companies engaged in international tourism in Russia; some 10,000 private firms are now in business, and many offer tours to Southeast Asia. However, tax evasion is rampant and cash transactions amount to at least 70 percent of the overall turnover of the Russian tourist companies, according to official estimates. Most of the private tourist companies are small and fraud is widespread, peaking during the Christmas-New Year season, according to the Russian League to Protect Travelers' Rights. Nonetheless, according to the World Tourist Organization, by 2020 Russia may join the world's top 10 tourist destinations, with some 40 million international arrivals per annum. Experts also say that Russia still faces imbalance between inbound and outbound tourism. Some 10 million Russian tourists travel overseas every year, while the country recorded only about 2 million international tourist arrivals, according to the Russian Association of Tourist Agencies. Russia's cultural and historical destinations may turn the travel sector into top foreign-exchange earner, but experts warn that the country's tourist industry could turn out to be unable to sustain inbound tourism. The Russian government has approved a federal program designed to support the country's tourist industry and promised annual subsidies amounting to some US$30 million, yet the sector has received only a fraction of the monies so far. Unfortunately, Russia's tourist market remains largely disorganized, said Yelena Drapeko, deputy head of the Culture and Tourism Committee of the State Duma, the Lower House of the Russian parliament. As a result, Russia now needs a national tourist authority to clear up the mess, she said. ******* #13 Mercury News December 12, 2001 Russia deals injustice by keeping Nabokov off its Olympic team BY MARK PURDY Mercury News Staff Columnist Lately, it's been really hard to get mad at Russians. That's so different for those of us who lived through the Cold War. The old Soviet Union was the evil empire. Its citizens were the enemies of apple pie, baseball, hot rods, pinup calendars and all other great American institutions. Now, forget all that. The Russians are our pals. Heck, their female tennis stars are on our pinup calendars. The Russians stand alongside us in the terrorism war. They open Burger King franchises. They play on our pro hockey teams. We embrace the Russians. Applaud them. Cheer them. But today, let's make an exception. Let's go back to getting incensed -- at the Russian hockey federation, anyway. Evgeni Nabokov deserves that much. Nabokov is the Sharks' goalie. He was the rookie of the year last season and has been even better statistically this season. He's a major reason the Sharks are off to their best start ever after 30 games. And right now, Nabokov is being served a rotten plate of borscht by the people in charge of the Russian Olympic team. Two months from now, Nabokov wants to play hockey for Russia at the Winter Games in Salt Lake City. As one of the NHL's two best Russian goalies -- Nikolai Khabibulin of Tampa Bay is the other -- Nabokov deserves to make the team. ``That's what we're all playing for, living for, to play in something like the Olympics,'' Nabokov says. ``It's the best players, the best challenge. It's just a great honor.'' But as of this morning, Nabokov is a non-Olympian. He's the victim of an arcane eligibility rule. And the Russian Olympic folks aren't working very hard to overturn that rule. When the cauldron is lit in February, Nabokov will be a man without a team. I know, I know. So what? Why should we care? It's no skin off our USA goalie pads. In fact, we should be happy that a goalie as good as Nabokov won't be facing the Americans. Someone, though, has to start screaming on Nabokov's behalf. And apparently, it's not going to be anyone in Moscow. One of the good guys So it will have to be me. Ever since Nabokov showed up in a Sharks uniform two years ago, he has been an exemplary member of the team and the community. He does charity work with children on a regular basis. And he recently participated in a bowling event that raised funds for widows of policemen and firemen in New York City. That's why it stinks to see him get cheated. The story is a typical mess of Olympic bureaucracy and stupidity. But I'll try to briefly explain: Nabokov was born in Kazakhstan, which then was part of the Soviet Union. When the USSR broke up, Kazakhstan became its own republic. Kazakhstan may be a terrific place. But it has no Olympic hockey team. That's why Nabokov wants to play for Russia. It makes perfect sense. Nabokov grew up in the Soviet hockey system. He spent three seasons playing for the Moscow Dynamo before the Sharks signed him. ``I've got a Russian passport, not a Kazakhstan passport,'' Nabokov says. ``I love Kamenogorsk, my hometown in Kazakhstan. But I'm Russian.'' Not according to the Olympic pooh-bahs. In 1994, when Nabokov was 18, he was asked to play for a thrown-together squad that represented Kazakhstan in a world championship tournament. The team played at the ``C'' level, the equivalent of NCAA Division III football in America. Nabokov saw action in three games. Those three games may forever ruin his chance to play in the Olympics. The International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF) has a rule that as soon as anyone plays for a particular national team, he must play for that team more or less indefinitely. He can't ``jump sides.'' I know what you're thinking. If Kazakhstan has no Olympic hockey team, how can Nabokov even jump from anyplace? Why not let him play for Russia? Well, that could happen. The IIHF has an appeal process. But the Russian hockey federation is in charge of making that appeal. Support slow to come And here's where it gets truly upsetting: The Russian hockey federation doesn't seem to care enough to make that appeal. Earlier this month, the federation missed the deadline for submitting Nabokov's documentation. ``It's got to be frustrating for him,'' Sharks Coach Darryl Sutter says. ``But to his credit, he's said all along it's out of his hands. And he doesn't see a whole lot of light out there.'' There's one final chance. Viacheslav Fetisov, a former All-Star NHL defenseman, is the Russian coach and general manager. He's also an assistant on the staff of the New Jersey Devils. According to reports, the IIHF has agreed to hear an appeal from Fetisov on Nabokov's behalf. Fetisov says he will get around to it when he can. When he can? Good gravy, Viacheslav. Get it done. This is crazy. Some of the NHL's best Russians -- including Sergei Fedorov and Alexander Mogilny -- have said they aren't sure if they want to compete in Salt Lake City. Nabokov is eager and ready. If he were playing in Moscow, where every Russian hockey fan could witness his excellence, there would be outrage. But with Nabokov in San Jose, the average Ivan might not even understand the travesty that's occurring. In fact, do they have sports talk shows in St. Petersburg or Irktusk? Maybe we should start calling them. If Nabokov misses the Olympics, the former evil empire is making a wicked, wicked mistake. As our new pals, the Russians need to know that. ****** ------- David Johnson 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