Johnson's Russia List #5596 13 December 2001 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: 1. Reuters: Fight begins for Russia farm land reform. 2. BBC Monitoring: Russian church leaders convene to discuss 21st century threats and opportunities. 3. BBC Monitoring: Russia's Putin confirms loyalty to democracy, religious tolerance. 4. BBC Monitoring: Putin says fundamental provisions of Russian constitution should be preserved. 5. Alexis Klimoff: Putin. 6. Wall Street Journal: Carla Anne Robbins and Guy Chazan, Russia's Putin Is Likely to Weather U.S. Departure From ABM Treaty. 7. BBC Monitoring: Russian Liberal Democrat leader sees USA as ally despite ABM dispute. (Zhirinovsky) 8. New York Times editorial: Tearing Up the ABM Treaty. 9. Krasnaya Zvezda: NEW RUSSIA-US RELATIONSHIP MUST BE STRENGTHENED. (Interview with Sergei ROGOV, Director of the USA and Canada Institute) 10. Novaya Gazeta: Nadezhda Kevorkova, GLEB PAVLOVSKY: IT IS BEST TO LIVE LIGHT IN RUSSIA. An interview with Gleb Pavlovsky, political consultant. 11. Reuters: S&P expects to upgrade Russia due to econ progress. 12. BBC Monitoring: Rebel web site wary of Russian "perfidy" now Chechen peace talks under way.] ******* #1 ANALYSIS-Fight begins for Russia farm land reform By Aleksandras Budrys MOSCOW, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Russia took a revolutionary step in October, giving its citizens the right to buy and sell real estate, and now agricultural producers are battling to have that right extended to farm land. Officials and agricultural producers will hold talks in the coming months, including parliamentary hearings on December 24, aimed at reconciling differences over farm land laws. A draft bill should be in parliament next year. Agricultural producers say the Russian farming sector is in desperate need of capital, but investors -- including foreigners -- will not part with cash without laws providing guarantees of a return on their capital. Plots of land, once they can be traded, could provide such guarantees. "If a law setting reasonable rules for transactions with farm land is passed, Russia will have a great number of private farms and foreign investments will follow," said Vadim Moshkovich, general director of the Rusagro group, one of a new brand of post-Soviet farming conglomerates. Large Russian companies, such as the Interros financial and banking group, have turned thier attention to agriculture on expectations of reform. Interros head Vladimir Potanin said the group planned to invest $100 million in farming by the end of 2002 and would use every opportunity to promote farm land reform. FROM COLLECTIVES TO PRIVATISATION "We are going to lobby for general changes in the legal environment in the direction of a more modern and, if you wish, a more liberal attitude towards agriculture," Potanin said. Farm land is a delicate issue in Russia, where all land since the 1917 Bolshevik revolution belonged to the state. Farms were subject to forced collectivisation. Now Russians can own farm land in a restricted way as people who lived on collective farms were given common ownership but it cannot be bought, sold, mortgaged or leased. President Vladimir Putin signed a new Land Code into law in October, covering trade in around two percent of Russia's total land area of 1.7 billion hectares (4.2 billion acres). It did not include 406 million hectares of farm land. Some regions allow trade of farm land at a local level, but it can be only be legalised by the adoption of a federal law. The pro-reform Union of Right Wing Forces has presented a draft law to the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, proposing extending the Land Code to all land. The proposal met strong opposition from some left-leaning Duma members. Others are less rigid. The head of the Duma Committee for Agrarian Issues, Vladimir Plotnikov, proposed allowing owners limited trade on the land after a period ranging from three to 10 years. A draft of a bill prepared by members of an agri-industrial group proposes a ban on the sale of over 50 percent of existing farm land but allows restricted trade in the remainder. The centrist Fatherland group in the Duma is to hold parlimentary hearings on a farm land bill on December 24 and has invited all parties to participate. GOVERNMENT READY TO DISCUSS VARIOUS CONCEPTS The pro-reformers hope that freeing land for sale will increase investment and allow Russia to boost crop output. The country has this year harvested some 83 million tonnes of grain, but as recently as 1998 it received food aid from the European Union and the United States after a bad harvest and currency devaluation, which made commercial imports too dear. Recent output compares with the over 100 million-tonne harvests that the old Soviet agriculture system used to produce. The Agriculture Ministry is also working on a draft law and has invited political parties and organisations to debate the issue. But it is also insisting on restrictions. "Farm land should only be owned by farmers and used exclusively for agriculture. Farm land can be leased only for long-term investments," a ministry statement said. "We will discuss several drafts of the bill and will hear all the proposals," Agriculture Minister Alexei Gordeyev said. "We will try to stay away from purely political discussions." Gordeyev said the ministry planned to present a draft of the law for discussion at the State Council, a presidential advisory body, early next year. It will then need government approval before being sent to the Duma. ******* #2 BBC Monitoring Russian church leaders convene to discuss 21st century threats and opportunities Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 0500 gmt 13 Dec 01 [Presenter] In two hours' time, the 6th World Russian People's Synod will open in Moscow's Christ the Saviour Cathedral. The opening ceremony will be conducted by Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Aleksiy II. Russian President Vladimir Putin is also expected to attend. The overall theme of the assembly is "Russia, Faith and Civilization". One of the participants of the synod, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, is in our studio. The main topic to be discussed at the synod by the clergy as well as by representatives of various public and political movements is Russia, faith and civilization. Within this theme, which issues will the assembly focus on? [Kirill, captioned as metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, speaking live] The 20th century is consigned to history with all its conflicts which emerged from differences in ideology and contradictions in philosophy. But the 21st century is threatening us with new conflicts. And the events of 11 September have shown that these conflicts are indeed a reality. These conflicts are based on people's lifestyles, on various civilization models, if you will. Since religion is one of the factors that defines people's lifestyle and religion is one of the main factors defining a particular model of civilization and often people's behaviour as well, a need has arisen to look from the religious point of view at where we are going and who we - humanity entering the 21st century - are today. This will be a serious attempt to comprehend the 11 September tragedy from a philosophical perspective, and to try to understand what happened then and what is happening to us today and to see what role religion can play in overcoming the horrendous conflicts which are threatening humanity in the 21st century. [Presenter] Yet another topic to be discussed at the synod today is the relationship between Muslims and Orthodox Christians. In view of the recent events in the world and in Russia, would you say that there is a contradiction between the two beliefs? [Kirill] For a thousand years Christians in Russia have lived side by side with Muslims, Jews and Buddhists. The four traditional religions have always interacted with one another. Russia is probably the only place in the world not to have had a single religious war for a thousand years. And we have lived through such difficult times, take the 20th century, for example, and the tragic situation in which religion was. What does it mean? What conclusions can we draw from our thousand years' old, ancient and not so ancient history? We think that the experience of interaction between the traditional religions can today be of help not only to Russia but to humanity as a whole because in this country a wonderful image of cooperation between the traditional religions has been established. ******* #3 BBC Monitoring Russia's Putin confirms loyalty to democracy, religious tolerance Source: Russian Public TV (ORT), Moscow, in Russian 0900 gmt 13 Dec 01 President Putin has spoken in favour of building of a democratic, fair and safe world system. Addressing the 6th World Russian People's Synod in Moscow, he also urged society to reject xenophobia, violence and all that feeds the ideology of terrorism. He said barbarism and the desire to fan a conflict of civilizations and religions should be opposed by spirituality and tolerance. The following is the text of a report by Russian Public TV on 13 December: [Presenter] The 6th World Russian People's Synod has opened in Moscow. Orthodox and Muslim clergymen, as well as the country's leading politicians, gathered in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow this morning. Several minute ago, the Russian president addressed them. Our correspondent Anatoliy Lazarev has the details. Anatoliy? [Correspondent] The World Russian People's Synod is being held for the sixth time now, but for the first time it is being held in the restored Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and for the first time President Putin is attending it. The current synod can be described by the following phrase: Russia, faith and civilization - the dialogue of epochs. Opening the synod, Patriarch Aleksiy II of Moscow and all Russia said the humanity's morals and world outlook are in crisis. At the end of the 20th century, people were looking with good intentions at the new century. However, evil forces triumphed on 11 September, the patriarch said. Therefore, the main task of the synod is to find a philosophic answer to the question: What has happened in the world and why has it changed so drastically? Addressing the synod delegates, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the fight against terrorism was not just counterterrorist operations, military strikes and aircraft. Terrorism and all its manifestations should be countered by spirituality and tolerance. And Russia is playing a leading role in the world in that respect, the president said. [Putin] The 11 September events not just shook the world. They not just changed the world and reminded us all how fragile it is. They also made us ponder about the huge responsibility which we all bear, responsibility for the future in our efforts to build a democratic, fair and safe world system. I am convinced that it is not enough for states to pool efforts in order to build such a system. We need society's unity in its rejection of xenophobia and violence, and of all that feeds the ideology of terrorism. We must counter barbarism and the desire to fan a conflict of civilizations and religions with spirituality and tolerance. Russia has always been a country of a multitude of unique national cultures and religions. Russia united and unites the peoples of Europe and Asia. It unites Orthodoxy and Islam, Buddhism and Judaism. Precisely this is the source of our homeland's wealth and spiritual strength. [Correspondent] The synod will last two days. The president emphasized that the voices and opinions of its delegates are now particularly important and needed. ******* #4 BBC Monitoring Putin says fundamental provisions of Russian constitution should be preserved Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 1100 gmt 12 Dec 01 [Presenter] Russian President Vladimir Putin said today that the fundamental provisions of the constitution would not be re-examined. This includes the changing of the presidential term for the acting head of the state. Putin said this at a reception in the Kremlin held on the occasion of the Constitution Day. Over to Igor Kozhevin: [Correspondent] The elite of the Russian society gathered for the reception in the Grand Kremlin Palace on the occasion of the Constitution Day. There were members of the cabinet, deputies, party leaders and representatives of various confessions. The first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, was also present. Those who attended the event, were saying that the eight years, during which the constitution was in force, confirmed its viability. Putin said the same in his speech. At the start of it he said that the issue of amending the constitution, which is being actively discussed at the moment, is out of the agenda. This also concerns the presidential term. [Putin] The issue of amendments that would lead to a fundamentally new constitution in our country is not on the agenda, along with the issue of dismantling its fundamental values and the rejection of democratic gains. I would like to return once again to what I has been talking about and to repeat: This also refers to the presidential term which will not be changed to the advantage of the current president. [Correspondent] Everything Russia has achieved, the president said, is based on the constitution. Any deviations would inevitably lead to a deadlock. [Putin] Even during the difficult times, the times of crisis - we know about these times - the authorities did not give in to the temptation to change the constitution to their advantage. Eventually, both the authorities and the state benefited from this. Our constitution is neither a stick, nor carrot. It will never be an ideological symbol or someone's political toy. The constitution is the main law of the state. [Correspondent] The main task today, according to Putin, is to continue the build-up the state and the work aimed at reducing bureaucracy in the public life. This is all based on the constitution. [Putin] We haven't finished the vitally important work aimed at dividing the authority between the [federal] centre and the constituent parts of the Russian Federation. Key issues related to the spheres of joint responsibility have not been resolved yet. I would like to draw the attention of both federal and regional state bodies to the fact that these problems are directly linked to the integrity of the state and the guaranteeing of equal rights to all citizens of the Russian Federation. It is absolutely inadmissible that the absense of a law is often substituted by voluntaristic decisions or even the arbitrariness of officials. It is inadmissible that regional laws, along with municipal and departmental instructions, often violate political, social and property rights of the citizens. [Correspondent] This is why the president is appealing to judges and officers of law-enforcement bodies. He said that it depends on their work whether Russian citizens will be able to feel themselves protected in future. ******* #5 Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 From: Alexis Klimoff Subject: Putin Dear David, If you have not ceased including contributions from individuals as opposed to published media accounts,I would like to submit the following response to a recent item you carried. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the allegations in S.Frederick Starr's December 11 article in WSJ (JRL 5593) deeply disturbing, both for the message it conveys and for the manipulation of the news by our side to which it testifies so clearly. We all remember the way Putin was praised in the Western media for what was then described as his well-nigh heroic effort of working the phones to browbeat his military people into accepting a U.S. presence in Central Asia. But Fred Starr now tells us that in reality Putin's telethon had a diametrically opposite purpose. Left unmentioned either then or now is the intriguing question on what this information is based, since Putin's attempts at persuasion, whatever his ultimate aim might have been, could not have been meant for public consumption. One has little choice but to assume that Putin's conversations were intercepted with the help of the vaunted eavesdropping equipment of the NSA. What are we then to make of the two radically different emphases in the evaluation of Putin, both being based on the very same source? In mid-September we were told of Putin's admirable pro-Western efforts, but now, it would seem, we are being advised to be wary of Putin and his hidden proto-Soviet agenda. I have no idea which version is closer to the truth, but it does not take a great effort to realize what a heavy-handed spin factor was involved ­ perhaps both times -- in feeding this information to the media. In the bad old Soviet times this was called disinformation, and it is painful to see such a flagrant example of this detestable practice in the United States. Alex Klimoff Vassar College ******* #6 Wall Street Journal December 13, 2001 Russia's Putin Is Likely to Weather U.S. Departure From ABM Treaty By CARLA ANNE ROBBINS and GUY CHAZAN Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL While Russian politicians angrily protested President Bush's decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, U.S. officials predicted that Russian President Vladimir Putin would easily ride out any domestic crisis and said he has committed to matching Mr. Bush's pledge of a two-thirds reduction in offensive nuclear weapons. U.S. officials said that they have spent months preparing the Russian leader for the move. At their November summit in Washington Mr. Bush told Mr. Putin "One day I'm going to call you and say it's time," recalled a U.S. official. On Friday, Mr. Bush made that call. Since then U.S. diplomats have worked with the Russians to orchestrate statements intended to minimize the political fallout -- both for Mr. Putin and for Mr. Bush, who Wednesday was strongly criticized by Democratic leaders for abandoning the treaty. U.S. officials said that in a statement Thursday Mr. Bush would give formal notice that the U.S. is withdrawing from the 1972 treaty that bans national missile defenses but also would strongly affirm the "broader" U.S.-Russian relationship. Mr. Putin, in turn, was expected to express his disappointment but also affirm the relationship and back it up with a commitment to match or better 2,200 long-range nuclear weapons. Bush Is Expected to Announce Withdrawal of U.S. From Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (Dec. 12) "I expect the Russians will have numbers of their own, or say they're ready to meet President Bush's," said another U.S. official, adding that Mr. Putin's statement "should undermine any arguments that this will fuel a new arms race." However, the initial Russian reaction Wednesday was far from enthusiastic. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov told reporters in Brasilia that Russia "would very much regret if [the U.S.] left the treaty," Reuters reported. "What worries us is strategic stability." Russian politicians from across the political spectrum were furious, predicting that the move would be seen as a major defeat for Mr. Putin and the aggressively pro-American policies he has pursued since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "Russians were just beginning to believe they could have a strategic partnership with America and now this happens," fumed Vladimir Lukin, a liberal deputy and former Russian ambassador to the U.S. "The U.S. has shown that it will always do exactly what it wants, whenever it wants, without ever taking our opinion into account." Dmitry Rogozin, chairman of parliament's foreign-affairs committee, warned that Russia could respond by pulling out of other arms-control agreements. Since Sept. 11 Mr. Putin has been willing to break Cold War taboos, most dramatically by agreeing to the stationing of U.S. troops close to Russia's borders in Central Asia and endorsing the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan. Mr. Putin has received tangible benefits in return, including Mr. Bush's commitment to deep nuclear-weapons cuts and support for Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization. This week, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the two sides would work to codify weapons cuts in some formal agreement, as Mr. Putin has been insisting. The first U.S. official said that Washington will look seriously at purchasing Russian "components" for the Pentagon's missile-defense program. The official also said that U.S. efforts to postpone a withdrawal by negotiating an agreement that would allow the Pentagon to test technologies banned by the treaty had quickly foundered over Moscow's insistence that it be allowed to vet each test. "If this decision had come eight months ago, I think it would have been a real problem in U.S.-Russia relations," said the official. "But we've had a period of time now in which a lot of the elements are coming into place for a new relationship." But many politicians and commentators in Russia say that Mr. Putin -- who has built his reputation on tough-mindedness -- hasn't gotten nearly enough and looks increasingly the loser in his dealings with the U.S. In Washington, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) warned that the withdrawal would strain relations with Russia and China just when Washington needs their support for the war on terrorism. "I think it undermines the fragile coalition that we have with our allies," he said. ******* #7 BBC Monitoring Russian Liberal Democrat leader sees USA as ally despite ABM dispute Source: NTV, Moscow, in Russian 0800 gmt 13 Dec 01 [Presenter Denis Soldatikov] Yet another political party is due to be born in Russia today when it is transformed from the LDPR [Liberal Democratic Party of Russia] public and political movement. The LDPR's 13th congress will be held in Moscow today. Our correspondent Aleksandr Kolpakov is hooked up live with the studio. Aleksandr, how is today's congress expected to go and which documents will it pass? [Correspondent] Denis, you have mentioned the most important point that the congress is being held to bring the format of this organization into line with the current law on political parties so as to enable the Liberal Democrats to take part in the forthcoming elections. Obviously, the charter and the political manifesto of the party will be reviewed today. But yesterday [12 December] the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, made a few statements on the party's new foreign policy ideology. He is here with us today. Vladimir Volfovich, I wanted to ask you about your statements and their possible repercussions. Does the fact that the Americans are withdrawing from the ABM Treaty change your party's and your own personal attitude to the Americans as to allies? [Vladimir Zhirinovskiy, captioned as State Duma deputy speaker, LDPR faction] No, it does not because they have more than once spoken of it and in compliance with the treaty, they are entitled to do so. You may also remember that it took us some time and trouble to ratify the START-2 Treaty. There will be further talks on these issues. We should guarantee mutual security. I think that the new relationship that is being built this autumn will last for many years to come and we shall find parameters to guarantee our security. It is natural that the Americans are scared. They became subject to such assaults for the first time in 200 years. No one had ever bombed their country before. That is why they of course are forced to take some additional steps. But we also have new security systems. We can coordinate or adjust them and - at minimal financial cost - provide for our own security and the security of potential new partners. [Correspondent] Following your statements of yesterday, do you not fear that the congress may accuse you of political opportunism as your party's draft manifesto is still worded in a rather different spirit: the interests of US industrial and financial circles do not coincide with Russia's national interests. [Zhirinovskiy] We realize that this still may be the case. Whenever there is talk of an alliance, one should remember that even in a marriage, when a man and a woman agree on one thing, life sometimes turns out different. It is quite possible that, in terms of economic relations, the interests of certain industrial circles in the USA will not coincide with our interests. To give you an example, the Americans are interested in lower oil prices, whereas we are in favour of higher prices. We have a surplus of wheat and we have nowhere to sell it because all the places in the market have been taken up by the USA. [Correspondent] I was talking of a different thing: will your party not object to your statements since you made them before the congress? [Zhirinovskiy] Yes, they may. We have had 12 congresses and they have not objected so far. This is the 13th congress, it is an unlucky number and some objections may be raised. But this is what the congress is for: to discuss all these issues. This is a new factor. It happened and we live in a new international situation. We should therefore develop a different approach. Previously, we as a party were looking eastward - at relations with China, India and the Arab world; Iraq remains in the focus of our attention, as an economic partner, I mean in that respect. But we now want to be open in a westward direction as well, to get rid of anti-American, anti-Western and anti-NATO attitudes. ******* #8 New York Times December 13, 2001 Editorial Tearing Up the ABM Treaty With his decision to junk the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush is rolling the diplomatic dice. If he is lucky, the Russians will live with the decision and relations with Moscow will continue to improve while Washington freely experiments with new missile defense systems. If he is not, Mr. Bush may alienate the Kremlin and give rise to a dangerous new arms race with Russia and possibly China as well. Why he would choose to take that risk at a moment when he badly needs Russian cooperation in the war against terrorism is baffling. It is not as if the lesson of Sept. 11 was that the United States is vulnerable to a missile attack. Mr. Bush has been sold on the idea of disowning the ABM treaty since the earliest days of his presidential campaign. The idea is the foreign policy equivalent of his large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans — he remains wedded to it even though circumstances have changed and the idea is not in the best interests of the nation. Long after the war against terrorism winds down, the world will still face the problem of managing the nuclear weapons of the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan and other nations. Mr. Bush's disdain for the ABM treaty — and other international agreements — hardly sets a constructive precedent for controlling these weapons. Giving Russia and China an incentive now to build more missiles so they can defeat an American shield that may not be perfected for years does not make sense. Mr. Bush's decision will severely test his budding friendship with Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, who has taken considerable political risks at home by embracing the West in recent months. At their last meetings Mr. Putin seemed prepared to work out a nuclear bargain with the United States that included modifications of the ABM treaty. As part of the new framework, America and Russia would also cut their offensive weapons. The reductions have already been outlined, and a written agreement to ensure that the retirement of weapons can be verified is under discussion. But Mr. Putin, faced with strenuous opposition from his generals to altering the treaty, has not proved flexible enough on that front to satisfy Mr. Bush. In his haste to press ahead with missile shield tests, Mr. Bush overruled Secretary of State Colin Powell, who favored a negotiated resolution. Russia is not eager to invest billions of dollars to modernize all its nuclear weapons, but it can renounce other nuclear arms treaties and rather easily add multiple warheads to some of its missiles as a quick counter to the American decision. Mr. Putin can also respond in other arenas. Without his acquiescence, American forces would be unable to use bases in several nations bordering Afghanistan that were once Soviet republics, including Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Mr. Bush will certainly need Russian support if he hopes to get international arms inspectors back into Iraq. Even if the Russians choose not to respond immediately, it is hard to see why Mr. Bush feels the need to push them. The ABM treaty leaves Washington free to continue the testing of ground-based interceptors. Given time, Mr. Putin seemed likely to agree to revisions that would permit development of sea- and air-based technologies, and he might have eased his demand for detailed discussions with Washington about each American test. Mutual abandonment of the accord might even have been possible. The hardest move for Mr. Putin to absorb is an unnegotiated American withdrawal, the step Mr. Bush plans to take. President Bush is right when he says the United States and Russia should develop an enduring friendship, free of cold-war policies. It is also reasonable for the United States to explore new technologies to better defend itself against foreign threats, including a missile strike by a rogue nation like Iraq. But those goals can be achieved without scrapping a treaty that has played a critical role in keeping the peace. ******* #9 Krasnaya Zvezda No. 229 December 13(?), 2001 NEW RUSSIA-US RELATIONSHIP MUST BE STRENGTHENED Sergei ROGOV, Director of the USA and Canada Institute, talks with Sergei SUMBAYEV about Russo-American relations Question: It has become nearly axiomatic to say that the world has changed after the September 11 tragedy. Do you agree? Answer: The September 11 tragedy and subsequent events have created a fundamentally new situation on the world scene. International terrorism has become the common threat facing Russia, the USA and the rest of the civilised world. I don't think this is a mere declaration, for terrorism has acquired a new quality in modern conditions. I think the reason for this is that terrorism today is part of globalisation, when many important events take place not within states, but at the supra-state level. This explains the appearance of new interstate associations, the growing role of international, inter-ethnic corporations, the appearance of international crime syndicates and new terrorism, which is not limited to state boundaries but is trying to operate on the global scale. The USA and its allies have pinpointed international terrorism as the main threat. Question: Russia was one of the first to support the energetic US actions against terrorists. Answer: We experienced the danger of international terrorism long before others and have been calling to pool the efforts of the international community in the struggle against this evil. It was the classical principle of international relations in action: "The enemy of my enemy is my partner and ally." I want to stress that when we speak about Russia's support for the USA, we frequently forget one major circumstance. It was not the USA that involved us in the war in Afghanistan. It is Russia that is using the USA to rout the terrorist units of bin Laden and the Taliban, which have long become the source of instability not only in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia (independent states now), but also in Chechnya and several other regions of Russia. Seeing the situation from this angle, we can make the conclusion that the new Russia-US cooperation is not a unilateral process and not Russian concessions to the USA, as some people here say. It is a relationship that benefits both sides. And if we rout Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Russia's southern borders will become safer. I don't think it would be an overestimation to say that Russia's assistance - political, military, technical and intelligence - to the US war against bin Laden and the Taliban is no less important than the support provided to the USA by all NATO countries taken together (Britain is probably an exception in this case). No wonder a fundamental breakthrough was achieved in Russia-US relations in the past two months. Question: A few words about this breakthrough. You surely know that a certain part of Russians are wary of US intentions. They argue that Washington will need Russia only for the war against the Taliban and that the situation will be reversed after its end. Will you comment, please? Answer: Of course, new partner, let alone allied relations between Russia and the USA have not become a fact of life yet. They are still largely a potential possibility. It will take three things for the fundamentally new model of Russia-US relationship to become a fact of life. First we should negotiate the framework of our common interests. Next we should create a mechanism of joint decision-making for the protection of these interests. And lastly, we should create a mechanism of implementing these decisions. The US visit of President Putin in November this year showed that this possibility can become a reality. The documents signed in Washington not just sealed the fact that Russia and the USA are not adversaries any more. They sealed the closeness of our countries' positions in the sphere where differences were traditionally very great. I mean that there are no fundamental differences between our ideologies and political and economic systems today. The two presidents pointed to the existence of a common threat. They also proclaimed that Russia and the West are allies in the struggle against international terrorism. This is a breakthrough. But the new Russia-US relationship must be strengthened. To do this, we must determine if we have a common definition of international terrorism or if double standards are still effective. For example, who are Basayev and Khattab, who are fighting in Chechnya? Are they freedom fighters or terrorists? And what is the Kosovo Liberation Army? The list can be continued. And it would be too early yet to say that the USA, the West and Russia fully agree in this sphere. The next question is: Do we have other fundamental common interests besides the enemy in the person of international terrorism? I think we do, and they are the joint struggle against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical and biological. One more common interest can be economic cooperation. Regrettably, one can only dream about the economic link, for our interests apparently clash in the sphere of oil prices and the repayment of Russian debts. Neither do Russia and the USA have a mutual security treaty. And it is difficult to say if such a treaty is possible in the future. And lastly, the agenda that existed prior to September 11, 2001 has not changed. It still includes arms control, NATO enlargement and the integration of Russia into the global market. These problems have seemingly moved to the background today, yet we must tackle them anyway. The problem of Russia's foreign debts is even more important. Debts are an extremely heavy burden on the Russian economy and will become even heavier owing to the fall of oil export revenues. In this situation Russia's foreign debts should be restructured and a part of them - say, Soviet debts - should probably be written off. Maybe the first positive element will be the decision of the Senate foreign relations committee on writing off a large part of Russia's debts to the USA. Question: Is it a rumour or a practical decision? Answer: The Senate commission made the decision before Putin's visit to Washington. It is not a bill so far, but it is a very good beginning. It is not clear, though, what conditions will be put forth for the restructuring of our debts, and if the USA will be able to convince Europe to follow suit. The thing is that Russia owes a large part of its debts to Europe and not to the USA. Question: The greatest achievements in Russo-American relations were registered in the sphere of strategic stability. Answer: Indeed. A vital result of Putin's visit to the USA was the US pledge to abstain from unilateral denunciation of the ABM Treaty. Moreover, the Bush administration proclaimed readiness to make deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. On the other hand, the USA is not prepared to sign new treaties and the search for compromise solutions in this sphere will be very complicated. I think such solutions are possible if both sides make compromises. Question: What can you say about Russo-American cooperation in the solution of regional problems? Answer: Their common stand would greatly facilitate the solution of some regional conflicts. But there is no common stand so far. Take the situation in the Balkans. Will the USA and other NATO countries recognise the independence of Kosovo? This would be unacceptable to Serbs and many other European countries, including Russia. Or will a proper attempt be made to bring about a political settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Ariel Sharon used the pretext of combating terrorism to blow up the existing agreements, which almost resulted in the withdrawal of several Arab countries from the international coalition created by the USA for the struggle against terrorism. Consequently, the Bush administration had to put pressure on the Sharon government and even proclaimed recognition of the Palestinians' right to an independent state. There are several other serious regional conflicts where Russia-US cooperation is possible and I think necessary. Question: What about the prospects of Russo-American relations? Answer: The current situation offers us a unique opportunity to change the entire nature of our relations, the very model of Russia-US and Russia-NATO relationships. But to use this opportunity we should formalise the breakthrough achieved at the top political level in practical agreements and treaties, in new mechanisms of collaboration. The Bush administration has been speaking at length about a new strategic framework, but what is inside this framework? We will know the answer within the next few months. Neither can we rule out new attempts by the USA to use the world community for camouflaging its lop-sided policy. In particular, it is feared that the Bush administration may choose to escalate the war and spread hostilities to several other states denounced as rogue countries. I believe that this would not just destroy the multilateral coalition, but also considerably strengthen anti-American sentiments in the world, including Russia. ******* #10 Novaya Gazeta No. 90 December 10-16, 2001 GLEB PAVLOVSKY: IT IS BEST TO LIVE LIGHT IN RUSSIA An interview with Gleb Pavlovsky, political consultant Author: Nadezhda Kevorkova [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] TOP KREMLIN POLITICAL CONSULTANT GLEB PAVLOVSKY TALKS ABOUT HIS FORMAL AND INFORMAL STATUS IN THE KREMLIN. HE DISCUSSES BORIS BEREZOVSKY AND PRESIDENT PUTIN. HE COMMENTS ON PUTIN'S FOREIGN POLICY: "HE IS FROM ST. PETERSBURG; AND A GOOD MAN FROM ST. PETERSBURG CANNOT BE AN ENEMY OF THE WEST." Question: Your relationship with the Kremlin: is it something that happens naturally and easily? You are not a state official after all... Gleb Pavlovsky: I've been interacting with the Kremlin these last five years. Interaction is the process of working out a language. This is my language I use with the authorities. I'm a historian by background. I therefore understand the flaws of the authorities in Russia, the authorities' limitations, and the threats they pose. The authorities should be treated cautiously. They should not be screamed at or accused. The authorities are like a dangerous predator. Question: And that's how you communicate with Putin? Without screaming or accusations? Gleb Pavlovsky: Let me remind you I'm an adviser to the director of the presidential administration. I met the president, we talked, but I'm not his adviser, and that's an important [pomt. Talking to him is not my job. Question: Whom do you find it more pleasant to talk to - Putin or Berezovsky? Gleb Pavlovsky: They are absolutely different. I did not meet with Berezovsky too often. Our relationship is problematic. As for Putin... I think I understand his way of thinking (or I'm starting to), I think I understand his course. It is not so with Berezovsky. Actually, I have not even tried to understand it. We quarrelled with him a lot in the Kremlin. I dislike his style or what he forced on the state. Actually, it was Berezovsky himself who forced Putin's group to sever all ties with him. He drew first blood, as the saying goes. I think that was all right. Putin would have come to the same conclusion sooner or later. Question: As rumor has it, Putin is a devout believer who sees leading Russia to an alliance with the West as his religious duty. Putin is rumored to be virtually a sect member. Do you think so? Vladimir Putin: Putin is a sober Russian man. He is what Dostoyevsky called "a Russian European". As for members of sects, they do not learn anything new, they only force their truth on others. Putin is not like that. Putin is open. He is from St. Petersburg; and a good man from St. Petersburg cannot be an enemy of the West. But cautioun with regard to the West was typical of the first man from St. Petersburg as well: Peter the Great. It is typical of Russian common sense. Question: Would you say our political elites are annoyed by Putin's turn toward the West? Gleb Pavlovsky: This is an interesting question with regard to the elites, not the West. From the point of view of Moscow-based establishment, Putin's style is not a style of the elite. Who was the elite under Sobchak? Officers including men from secret services, professors, lawyers, and to a certain extent businessmen. And what about Moscow elites? Who comprises them? Bankers, criminals, and to a certain extent political scientists and political technologists. Political technologists horrified everyone in St. Petersburg... Putin is not a man of the elite for Moscow. He behaves differently, he speaks differently, he is unpredictable. Style in the Kremlin has changed now. The people from St. Petersburg attach greater importance to family ties, they are more friendly. As far as Moscow is concerned, they are more closed. Men from the corridors of power could be encountered in clubs and restaurants in the past. Muscovites view men from St. Petersburg as a caste. IN St. Petersburg, however, they do not appear a caste. Question: Does it mean a struggle between the elites? Between the people from the Federal Security Service and St. Petersburg? Gleb Pavlovsky: The people from St. Petersburg can be easily counted. They do not see themselves as Muscovites see them. It's a kind of Moscow racism. Muscovites always feel other styles and cultures and prevent their absorption by Moscow. Tell a person every now and then that he is from St. Petersburg, and that's how he will eventually come to regard himself Question: Who do you think supports Putin morally? Gleb Pavlovsky: Figures indicate support of society. Question: Why wouldn't you tell the authorities that it won't hurt to stop harassing the TV-6 network? Gleb Pavlovsky: I'm absolutely certain it's not the authorities that have been harassing it. I even have a theory that I think rings true. It is big business, eager to present a Christmas gift to the authorities. And neither do I think the authorities asked them for it. Question: We remember it from the Soviet history - the eagerness to guess the Master's wish... Gleb Pavlovsky: We do. A great deal has happened in Russia throughout its history. Russia is a historic testing site. And I think that a great deal will happen yet. Precedents do not apply here, and neither does the European experience. Question: Let's get back to the Christmas gift. So Putin cannot put an end to TV-6 harassment? Why don't you do something about it? Gleb Pavlovsky: Because society doesn't set itself this task. It like being weak. It is very feminine in Russia. The self-assessment of society has to be changed first. It is too grand. And its evaluation of the authorities is too low. Question: What about the president's approval rating then? Gleb Pavlovsky: The authorities are really handling the tasks society should be specifying but has not been specifying. So many liberal reforms implemented in the last eighteen months, and the public takes it all for granted. But when the bureaucracy implements liberal reforms, it begins to consider itself all-important. Question: A few words about negotiations with Aslan Maskhadov, if you don't mind. Do they indicate Putin's disillusionment with the generals and their abilities? Gleb Pavlovsky: There are no negotiations as such with Maskhadov. There are but conversations, dialogues, and discourses. But all this is within the war, these are not details of a peaceful process. I do not see warring sides here. Zakayev doesn't represent all of Chechnya, and his partner in the meeting doesn't represent the federal authorities as such. This is just a political experiment I do not understand as yet. Question: Do you have a solution? Gleb Pavlovsky: I would like to have one but I do not. What I know is that neither the hostilities - they way they have been waged - nor the negotiations - the way they were organized - will ever lead us to the solution. Something else is apparently needed, in both areas. Question: Putin fired some Northern Fleet commanders a year after the Kursk submarine disaster. The public is told there is no connection. What should the people think? Gleb Pavlovsky: I'm not informed about the situation in the Army and Navy. I can only hope - and I do hope that the generals were not dismissed for the Kursk... or not for the Kursk alone. In my view, take any general or admiral, investigate what he has done over the last twelve months, and you will inevitably find something to dismiss him for. I do not know the Navy all that well, but I think other reasons and motives must have played a role. And before you ask, I don't like it that the reasons or motives are not being revealed. Question: Here you are, in Moscow, at the center. You are close to the authorities, close to the regime whose image you have shaped, and you like it. Out there, beyond the myth, are starving people living without electricity or gas, and without hope. You probably remember what it is like out there. Gleb Pavlovsky: I do. Question: And you still insist that the regime has been active? Gleb Pavlovsky: Pictures, even the darkest ones, are only pictures. Life is always more diverse. It is untrue to say that nothing has really changed. It is just that we do not see these changes from here. There is a difference, and it is huge. We had a certain civilization that we blew up; we did it, not the Americans or the Martians. For reasons the people who did it thought sufficient. Society sank into barbarism. That goes for the masses and the elites. They watch TV, what they themselves ordered to be shown, and make decisions on the basis of what they see on TV screens. This is a vicious circle. How can money come to these God-forsaken places? It is time we stopped being afraid of ourselves, stopped scaring ourselves with our own impoverishment. Question: Do you think we have an opposition in Russia? Gleb Pavlovsky: We are sadly short of opposition. Question: An opposition cannot exist. The law on political parties was adopted, and we have only one party now. Ambitious oligarchs were driven into exile, all the rest were moved to an "equal distance" from the corridors of power and are looking for ways of getting back into favor... Gleb Pavlovsky: This is the past. These days, we are witnessing the reverse process. Business is being brought closer to the authorities and forming a relationship with the government anew. Our society is weak when it comes to initiatives, and businesspeople are all we can rely on. Question: Do you recommend a pact between business and government? Gleb Pavlovsky: The bourgeoisie in Russia will always live in a cultural ghetto. This is part of our civilization. Question: And you yourself, with regard to the ghetto? Are you inside or outside? Gleb Pavlovsky: I'm outside. I'm here only for a time. Can't wait to get out. Question: And what is needed for that? Gleb Pavlovsky: Opening the door. It's best to live light in Russia. ****** #11 S&P expects to upgrade Russia due to econ progress By Julie Tolkacheva MOSCOW, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Rating agency Standard & Poor's said on Thursday it was likely to boost its ratings for Russia due to its sound economic progress, although the timing was uncertain. Russia has impressed analysts and markets with its economic and political reforms in the last two years, although a shadow has recently fallen over the economy due to fears of pressure from a slide in world oil prices. But Cynthia Stone, S&P's managing director for Russia and the CIS, said things were going well. S&P's last action on Russia was to raise its outlook to positive in October. "It means that we see an improvement in Russia's investment climate, progress in structural reforms and better economic factors," she told a news conference. "We expect in the future that there will be an upgrade, but when it will happen we cannot say," she added. S&P's current rating for Russia is single-B and the long-term issuer credit outlook is positive. Moody's has the country at Ba3, with a positive outlook while Fitch has a rating of B+ for Eurobonds, with a stable outlook. S&P president Leo O'Neill said Russia still had some work to do. "Russia needs to create a track record of reliability in world markets," he said, although he added that Russia was making "great strides" to this end. Russia's economy is expected to show growth of around 5.5 percent this year after a record 8.3 percent in 2000. OIL PRICES A fall in oil prices, revenues from which are one of the main engines of the economy, is expected to bring GDP growth down to some four percent next year. But Stone said structural reforms were helping to smooth out the fall. "Of course, the Russian economy is heavily dependent on the oil price and so it is not a factor that can be ignored in any assessment of the economic situation here," she told Reuters. "However, taking a slightly longer view...continuing progress in the area of structural reforms is probably the most significant factor now." She said Russia had made a lot of progress in demonstrating its willingness and ability of service the external debt. "Of course, our analysts do recognize that the oil price has a dramatic effect on the budget," Stone said. "(However), we do not see that (oil prices) over the longer term as the absolutely key factor determining where our rating will be." But she said S&P would like to see a move away from such reliance on the oil sector and already saw some encouraging signs of this. ****** #12 BBC Monitoring Rebel web site wary of Russian "perfidy" now Chechen peace talks under way Source: Marsho news agency web site in Russian 1310 gmt 12 Dec 01 The Chechen Marsho news agency web site has said that history has taught Chechens that Russia is not to be trusted. Even now that the Chechens control the situation in the republic, forcing the Russians to hold talks with rebel President Aslan Maskhadov's representative, the Chechens are wary and suspect that there is a difference between what Moscow says and what they are planning to do. The following is the text of an M. Timurov report by Chechen Marsho news agency web site: 12 December, Marsho news agency correspondent M. Timurov: Do not take a dip in the same river twice. The Chechens, who have learnt well from many centuries of bitter experience, do not intend to relax in the slightest from now on as the perfidy of the Russian aggressor became the "talk of the town" long ago, and anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Caucasus history and Russian politics is well aware of this. One recalls how back in March 1996, Russian President Boris Yeltsin disconcerted television viewers when, with a depressed air, he acknowledged during an exclusive interview that the war in Chechnya was his personal mistake. Because of this, he announced his intention to sit down at the negotiating table "even with Dzhokhar Dudayev himself". And we recall the events which followed this! Only three weeks later, Russian special services murdered the first president of sovereign Ichkeria, that famous son of the Chechen people - Generalissimo Dzhokhar Dudayev - an unprecedented act of baseness. As emerged later, the decision to eliminate the Chechen leader was adopted long before President Yeltsin made this statement to the media. The Chechens will never forget this lesson, as history has a habit of repeating itself. And now we recall Putin's phrase, which has been cited a lot by other Kremlin so-called politicians: "The formal status of Chechnya is not important to us, as long as Russia is not attacked from its territory!" The Russian press goes on to report that General-Governor Kazantsev has been declared politician of the year. (In truth, it does not specify by whom!) Is all this not connected with the fact that it is Viktor Germanovich who is the Russian president's authorized representative for conducting a dialogue (Russia stubbornly refuses to recognize the term "talks") with the deputy prime minister of the CRI [Chechen Republic of Ichkeria], Akhmed Khalidovich Zakayev, the equally authorized representative of the president of Ichkeria!? This begs the question, what goal is the Kremlin pursuing!? There is no doubt that in Moscow they are dreaming of the Chechen conflict ending as soon as possible, as it has not justified their hopes and is developing in a totally different way than was planned at the start of the "anti-terrorist campaign". But once again, the question arises: at what price do the occupiers wish to get out of this war? Whatever the case, Russian wants to preserve the remnants of its imperial dignity! And how events will develop in the future now depends on the Chechens. At this stage Russia is trying to realize its plan concerning the elimination of the most prominent figures in the Ichkerian resistance, including the legitimate president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Aslan Maskhadov, to at least turn the situation back in their favour at this closing stage. The Chechen side has reliable information that Putin gave such an order to the leaders of the Russian power [defence, internal affairs and national security ministry] structures: whatever happens, deal with this before next spring! If this does not happen, Russia will be forced to ask for talks "without preconditions". The situation in Ichkeria is such that the Chechen mojahedin fully control the situation in the state. Now even the Russian press, breaking through all the barriers set up by the special services, has been forced to admit the existence of such a factor as attacks on military columns and shelling of the federal forces' positions, although there was previously a taboo on this topic being covered in the media. It is true that now in the military reports presented by the Russian military, the following detail can always be found: "federal artillery fire scattered the enemy" or "20 fighters were killed when the Russian forces returned fire". But nobody reacts to these "consolation prize" words any more: if Russian military officials report huge losses among the "fighters", that means that things are not going in the best way possible for them. The growing pressure from the fighters of the Ichkerian resistance is effectively forcing the occupiers to reconcile themselves to the idea that their days on sovereign Chechen territory are numbered, although this was clear from the very start of the criminal anti-Chechen Kremlin adventure. This is the reason why the previously arrogant tone employed in Kremlin political circles has now been replaced by a more considered one. But even in the light of all this, Russian diplomacy will always be like "a suitcase with a false bottom". ******* ------- 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