Johnson's Russia List #5604 18 December 2001 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: 1. Reuters: Yeltsin well after heart check-up in Berlin clinic. 2. Reuters: U.S., Russia to begin nuclear reductions talks. 3. Wall Street Journal: Guy Chazan, Berezovsky, His Influence on the Wane, Alleges Putin's Involvement in Bombings. 4. BBC Monitoring: Chechens welcome fugitive tycoon's words on Moscow, Volgodonsk explosions. 5. BBC Monitoring: Russia's Putin stresses importance of new judicial and pension laws. 6. Interfax: Head of national power grid says Russia should not miss its chance. (Chubais) 7. Moscow Times: Boris Kagarlitsky, New Labor Learns to Lobby. 8. Asia Times: Marjorie Farquharson, Russia on the rack over torture. 9. Financial Times (UK) letter: Pascal Lamy and Chris Patten, EU backs Russia's accession to WTO. 10. Reuters: Russian officials probe rights abuses in Chechnya. 11. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Anders Aslund's policy brief, Building Capitalism: Lessons of the Postcommunist Experience. 12. nationalreview.com: Nikolas Gvosdev, The Key to Russian Stability. It's not the ABM Treaty. 13. US Department of State: U.S. Ambassador on New U.S.-Russia Relationship, Media Freedom. (Alexander Vershbow at Moscow State University)] ******* #1 Yeltsin well after heart check-up in Berlin clinic December 17, 2001 BERLIN (Reuters) - Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin is in very good health, a German heart clinic said Monday after examining Yeltsin five years after bypass surgery. Roland Hetzer, director of the German Heart Center in Berlin, said in a statement that the 70-year-old had come to seek a second opinion after an examination by doctors in Moscow. Hetzer said it had been necessary to review Yeltsin's condition five years after his multiple bypass operation in Moscow. "The result of the operation can still be assessed as excellent and the health of the president as very good," he said. Russia's Itar-Tass news agency quoted Yeltsin's aide, Vladimir Shevchenko, as saying that Yeltsin was feeling well and would return to Moscow Tuesday. "The doctors in the clinic conducted important analyses, took all his vital signs and checked how the bypass valves were working," Tass quoted Shevchenko as saying. Renat Akchurin, the surgeon who operated on Yeltsin's heart in 1996, told Russia's Interfax news agency that he had suggested Yeltsin go abroad for an examination by an expert in coronary angioplasty after he expressed concern about his own health. It was not clear Akchurin thought Yeltsin might soon have to undergo angioplasty -- a technique which involves inserting and inflating a balloon inside obstructed coronary arteries to dilate them and can be an alternative to open-heart surgery. Yeltsin, whose second term in office after re-election in 1996 was marked by serious health problems, appeared well when shown on Russian television Saturday voting in Moscow local elections. Yeltsin was first elected in 1991. Soon after re-election for a second term in 1996, Yeltsin told the Russian public he was to have major heart surgery and the Kremlin admitted he had suffered several heart attacks during the election campaign. ******* #2 U.S., Russia to begin nuclear reductions talks By Charles Aldinger BRUSSELS, Dec 17 (Reuters) - The United States and Russia agreed on Monday to begin technical talks in January to plan details of joint and deep nuclear arms cuts despite their differences on a controversial U.S. missile defence plan. Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov announced the meeting of technial experts from both countries following two hours of cordial talks with U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on a range of issues. Ivanov and Rumsfeld said last week's announcement by U.S. President George W. Bush that Washington would withdraw in six months from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty between the two countries had not put a chill on U.S.-Russian relations. "We have come to an agreement that in January, on an expert level, we will start discussing the specific issues or military aspects of radical reductions of strategic offensive weapons," Ivanov said. "Both levels of reductions and time-frame of those reductions will be discussed and worked out as well as the issues of verification and transparency," he added. While Russia remains strongly opposed to a U.S. plan to build a national missile defence, which is prohibited by the ABM treaty, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin each earlier announced plans for deep cuts in their large nuclear arsenals. DEEP CUTS IN NUCLEAR WARHEADS The Russian level could go as low as 1,500 to 2,200 warheads while the U.S. level could dip to 1,700 to 2,200. There was no immediate announcement on the exact date and place of January's technical meeting. But the Rumsfeld-Ivanov meeting went so well the two ministers agreed to meet again on Tuesday. Both are in town for a gathering of NATO defence ministers. "We had an excellent meeting, which will be continued," said Rumsfeld at a joint news conference by the two men, who have met several times over the past year on orders from Bush and Putin to work on a new and improved strategic relationship between the two former Cold War adversaries. Rumsfeld also denied a report he might be opposed to a new plan being discussed by NATO, tentatively dubbed the format of 20, under which Moscow would take a more active part in discussing decisions proposed within the 19-member Atlantic Alliance. "Weeks and months ago, I sat down with the minister in Moscow and, without prompting, proposed some ways that I thought Russia and NATO might cooperate," said Rumsfeld. DON'T READ 'MISCHIEF-MAKERS' "So we need to be careful about reading mischief-makers." Ivanov and Rumsfeld said they discussed a range of issues, including Russian-NATO cooperation and recent and growing cooperation between the United States and Russia in the war on terrorism. But both cautioned that the war in Afghanistan was not over despite the recent dismantling of Taliban military power in that country. "Yes. In fact, you're right," Ivanov responded to a reporter who asked if the two countries would move full speed ahead toward a new strategic relationship. "We still have a desire to bring the relations in the area of strategic weapons to a reliable and predictable area. So we have attached a lot of importance to reductions on strategic offensive weapons." Ivanov said Russia had not been surprised by the U.S. announcement on the ABM, but he cautioned again it could spark problems for other international and bilateral arms agreements. "Russia is not concerned or afraid regarding its military security," he said. "But we are very much concerned of how other countries will behave and whether they will apply, or not, to any international agreement, thinking logically that if one country doesn't abide, why should we?" "This unilateral decision of the United States was not a surprise for us. We still believe it was a mistake. We have been presenting our arguments on the issue for many years," he added. Rumsfeld earlier told reporters travelling to Brussels with him for the two-day NATO meeting that Wahington still very much wanted closer ties with Russia even as the clock ticked toward next year's U.S. withdrawal from ABM. "Nothing has changed except that the clock is running," he said. ******* #3 Wall Street Journal December 17, 2001 Berezovsky, His Influence on the Wane, Alleges Putin's Involvement in Bombings By GUY CHAZAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MOSCOW -- In the latest stage of his one-man crusade to stir opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin, self-exiled tycoon Boris Berezovsky has blamed the country's intelligence services for a string of explosions two years ago that killed more than 300 people and were the prelude to Russia's invasion of Chechnya. In an interview, Mr. Berezovsky said security services carried out the explosions to "consolidate society around Putin's candidacy" in the run-up to presidential elections. The blasts set the stage for a resumption of Russia's military campaign in Chechnya, and "the Chechen war ensured Putin's victory," he said. Both Mr. Putin's press service and the FSB domestic intelligence agency declined to comment on the allegations. Observers say this latest salvo in Mr. Berezovsky's increasingly quixotic campaign against the Kremlin reveals the desperation of a man who once was one of the most powerful players in Russian politics but has seen his influence wane under Mr. Putin. Mr. Berezovsky said he doesn't know whether Mr. Putin personally ordered the blasts, which tore through apartment blocks in Moscow and the two southern towns of Buinaksk and Volgodonsk in September 1999. The Kremlin blamed them on Chechen terrorists, though no one has been prosecuted for the attacks. The businessman said he has no proof to back up his claims, but is prepared to defend them in court. Mr. Berezovsky isn't the first to tie Russian intelligence to the blasts. Russian newspapers speculated on a connection in late September 1999, when Russian police said they had foiled an attempted terrorist bombing after finding three suspicious sacks of powder in an apartment block in Ryazan, southeast of Moscow. The FSB later said it had placed the sacks there as part of a training exercise. "What happened in Ryazan was the exact model for what happened in Moscow and Volgodonsk, a model which they did not succeed in carrying out," Mr. Berezovsky said in a statement broadcast on Russian television Friday. Before their highly public rift last year, the Putin-Berezovsky relationship had defined Russian politics. The tycoon helped engineer Mr. Putin's rise to power by providing fawning coverage of his presidential campaign on ORT, the television network he once controlled, and forming a party, Unity, which served as Mr. Putin's springboard into national politics. But last year Mr. Berezovsky went into opposition, accusing the president of authoritarian tendencies. He moved abroad, launched an opposition movement and began funding human-rights organizations critical of Mr. Putin. This month he published an open letter urging Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and other Yeltsin-era officials to voluntarily step down and join him in opposition to the Kremlin. But so far, the self-styled "oligarch" has failed to land a punch on Mr. Putin, whose popularity rating remains above 70% and whose enthusiastic support for the U.S.-led antiterror coalition has burnished his image abroad. Meanwhile, Mr. Berezovsky has had little success recasting himself as a dissident and defender of democracy. For many Russians, he is still closely identified with the corruption and cronyism of the Yeltsin era, when a small coterie of influential businessmen won control of some of Russia's prize assets through privatization auctions that some observers have argued were rigged. Mr. Berezovsky, who now lives in London, is wanted by the Russian authorities in connection with an alleged scheme to siphon off millions of dollars from the national airline Aeroflot. The tycoon says the investigation is politically motivated. ****** #4 BBC Monitoring Chechens welcome fugitive tycoon's words on Moscow, Volgodonsk explosions Source: Chechenpress web site, Tbilisi, in Russian 17 Dec 01 17 December, Chechenpress state news agency correspondent A. Khalidov: For four days now the Russian authorities have maintained a deathly silence regarding the serious charges the entrepreneur Boris Berezovskiy has levelled against the FSB [Federal Security Service], accusing them of blowing up houses in Moscow and Volgodonsk. We should recall that more than 300 people died at the time as a result of these terrorist acts, committed by criminals. The 300 included old people, women and children. As we know, the Kremlin authorities violated the principle of presumption of innocence in their haste to blame these monstrous crimes on Chechens. This was one of the pretexts for Russia's new military aggression against the Chechen state. As a result of the fact that the Chechens were accused by the Russian authorities of preparing and carrying out these explosions, a thousand CRI [Chechen Republic of Ichkeria] citizens who temporarily found themselves on the territory of Russia were subjected to punitive repression. The Kremlin stubbornly tried to pin the blame for this crime against humanity carried out in these Russian towns on the Chechens, trying to represent this long-suffering people as a nation of potential criminals and terrorists. Individual attempts by a few honourable Russian politicians to express their objective view about the crimes committed were immediately silenced by the Russian special services. Today, when the powerful Russian businessman and oligarch Boris Berezovskiy has openly accused the FSB of carrying out these explosions in Russian towns, the Kremlin's silence on this score looks like a sign of admission to these accusations. If things were otherwise, Russian politicians, who systematically speak out in the Russian media on even the most trivial of topics, would long ago have expressed their attitude towards such serious charges against the Kremlin authorities made by such a well-known Russian entrepreneur. For their part, the Chechens are hoping that the brave Russian politician Berezovskiy will manage to establish those truly responsible for this tragedy for Russian and Chechen citizens. [Chief spokesman for the Russian Federal Security Service Lt-Gen Aleksandr Zdanovich responded to Berezovskiy's accusations on 17 December, describing them as "nonsense and gibberish", Russian Interfax news agency reported.] ******* #5 BBC Monitoring Russia's Putin stresses importance of new judicial and pension laws Source: Russia TV, Moscow, in Russian 1100 gmt 17 Dec 01 [Newsreader] We will begin with an important political event. Today Russian President Vladimir Putin signed two decrees confirming the most important federal packages of laws - on pension and judicial reform. And this is the subject with which Putin began his meeting with the cabinet of ministers today. Speaking on the laws on judicial reform, the president said the new criminal procedure code was the most important document. [Putin] I believe that this is a very important stage in the process of modernizing our state. Of course, first of all, I ought to draw your attention to the new criminal procedure code. It is exceptionally important that the new legislation strictly conforms to the constitutional requirements in the area of human rights safeguards. May I remind you that decisions, for example, on taking someone into custody may now be adopted only by a court. This is a very important provision. The right of the defendant for his case to be examined by a jury is guaranteed in all regions of the Russian Federation. There will be a balance between the rights of the lawyers and the prosecutors in the judicial process. The participation of a defence lawyer in all criminal cases is now mandatory. The process is now a true contest. The prosecutor becomes one of the sides in the process, responsible for a substantiated criminal prosecution and charges. [Newsreader] The president also dwelt on two other laws that have been signed - the status of judges and the constitutional court. He stressed that the amendment of additions on the status of judges will provide additional guarantees of their independence. In particular, local authorities will not take part in the process of appointing judges. Also, the judges' liability to disciplinary measures will be increased, the issue of suspending their powers has been resolved, and the age limit for judges has been established. [Newsreader] Speaking on the pension laws, the president noted above all that the old system for calculating pensions was extremely involved and at times incomprehensible even to specialists. Following lengthy consultations, according to the president, the country has now got a very high quality document. [Putin] Above all, the new system is comprehensible and fair. It guarantees the so-called basic level pension irrespective of length of employment and earnings. The basic level will be provided by the state. The cumulative part of the pension will depend on the labour contribution and the citizen will be able to transfer funds to the pension fund if he so wishes, which will later be paid to him in addition to the designated basic pension. Thus, the new system creates a stimulus to earn for one's old age and the opportunity for citizens to plan their standard of living in retirement. We have managed to preserve the right to receive two pensions, namely the right to receive pensions for the disabled and participants in World War II and members of families who have lost their breadwinner in combat actions, that is, to preserve the so-called social pension, as well as the pension they are entitled to in old age, also the right to receive pensions for working pensioners. ****** #6 Head of national power grid says Russia should not miss its chance Interfax Moscow, 16 December: Anatoliy Chubays, Union of Right Forces' co-chairman and chief of the Unified Energy Systems of Russia (UES) energy utility, thinks that the current situation is extremely favourable for the assertion of Russia's strong positions in the world. "A fantastic window of opportunities has opened for Russia, which will not last indefinitely, however. Today, we can speak to the West, not vice versa," Chubays said on the "Zerkalo" programme on RTR television [Russia TV channel] on Saturday evening [15 December]. He said President Vladimir Putin's moves and statements following 11 September had made "a very strong impression on the West", noting, however, that "it is merely a sign after which more large-scale events must occur". Putin will have to make "a very large-scale, global choice", said Chubays. He said what he was talking about was likely to happen in the next five to seven years. In just a couple of years the key role will be played by Russia's relations with other countries, not by economic issues, Chubays said. When asked about Boris Berezovskiy's plans to establish his own party, Chubays said Berezovskiy "will not achieve any results" by doing so. "This is neither business nor a shadow influence on authority. It is an open policy. I think he has turned to this sphere, driven not by the best of circumstances," he said, adding that the Union of Right Forces was ready to compete with Berezovskiy's future party. Commenting on Berezovskiy's open letter to him, Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov and the head of the presidential administration, Aleksandr Voloshin, Chubays said that outside Russia Berezovskiy had "completely lost understanding of what is going on in Russia". He said his party would mostly likely nominate a candidate for the next presidential elections. He also said that electricity tariffs would definitely rise. ****** #7 Moscow Times December 18, 2001 New Labor Learns to Lobby By Boris Kagarlitsky The second State Duma reading of a bill rarely causes any sensations. While in its first reading a bill is approved in principal and in the third reading the final text is adopted, the second reading is usually devoted to amendments of a largely technical character. After a parliamentary majority approves a bill in its initial version, it rarely permits any amendments that could alter it cardinally in subsequent readings. Thus, few expected the second reading of the Labor Code, scheduled for this week, to be a major event; nor were mass protests expected. In the depths of winter, street demonstrations do not hold much appeal; people are already getting ready for the New Year's public holidays and, moreover, the economic situation in the country is not sufficiently bad to provoke major gatherings. However, protest measures undertaken by the union of air-traffic controllers ahead of the Duma vote have turned into an important and high-profile event. The union probably does not intend to push things to the limit, but everyone understands full well that this could potentially lead to the paralysis of most of the country's airports. The labor movement in Russia has progressed considerably in recent years. Workers have become aware of the importance of legislation, and some trade unions have learned not only how to get people out for rallies and demonstrations but also how to act in an effective and timely fashion. While the air-traffic controllers were on hunger strike, it unexpectedly came to light that the text of the bill could be altered significantly in the course of discussing amendments. This summer, the government's version of the bill was not only approved by a Duma majority but also received the support of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia -- successor to the Soviet trade unions. The crux of the deal was very simple: The FNPR would give its consent to limiting the rights of hired employees, and in return the law would effectively consolidate its monopoly position. In terms of membership, old trade unions outnumber the new unions that emerged in the 1990s. However, the more active union members are by and large in alternative unions, and it is these people who cause problems for employers and the government. These troublemakers were the main target of the deal between the FNPR and government. It looked like the old Soviet system was returning, with official unions becoming de facto an appendage of the adminstration and alternative unions being banned, the only real difference being that the new draft labor laws provide for a much lower level of social protection -- in fact almost none. The deal between the government and FNPR caught opponents of the bill off guard last summer. However, this fall alternative unions started a lobby campaign in the Duma, arguing that an FNPR monopoly flies in the face of basic democratic principles. They found support among SPS and Yabloko deputies and -- paradoxical as it may seem -- from the Communist Party as well. The reason is that the FNPR does not inspire much love. Liberals see in it the continuation of the odious Soviet regime, while the Communist Party sees the FNPR leaders as traitors who turned their backs on their own party. The government, which needed FNPR support for the first reading, is not now prepared to sacrifice its relations with the above-mentioned parliamentary factions. Furthermore, independent deputies from the regions feel growing social tension and are trying to prove that they are sympathetic to workers' needs. Irrespective of the outcome of the vote on the Labor Code, the current conflict is proof that the social situation in the country has changed. Economic growth tends to favor development of the labor movement, and in this regard the last three years have born fruit. Today, the FNPR is in profound crisis, and the alternative trade unions, which have learned to combine protest rallies, lobbying and political measures, are growing in effectiveness. The government doesn't yet fully comprehend that these unions could become a very serious adversary in the near future. In the spring, a new hike in utility payments is expected. The country is experiencing the consequences of a world economic crisis that has resulted in falling oil and gas prices. Taken together, these factors betoken the very real possibility of a politically "hot" spring and summer. Boris Kagarlitsky is a Moscow-based sociologist. ******* #8 Asia Times December 17, 2001 Russia on the rack over torture By Marjorie Farquharson MOSCOW - Russia's first chicken came home to roost at the European Court of Human Rights in late November, when the court decided the country must answer for its treatment of a detainee. The prisoner in question was Valery Kalashnikov, the former president of the Northeast Commercial Bank in Magadan (no relation to the famous Soviet arms manufacturer). He was arrested on embezzlement charges in June 1995 and spent nearly five years waiting for his case to be heard. During that time he lived with 23 other prisoners in a cell designed for eight. In his complaint, Kalashnikov said that three people shared one bed and slept in shifts, 16 prisoners sitting on the floor, or on cardboard boxes, waiting for their turn. There was an open toilet situated next to the eating space and the cell was full of cigarette smoke. Kalashnikov contracted numerous fungal infections and lost almost 30 kilograms in weight. These conditions and the indeterminate length of his time on remand amounted to torture, his lawyer said. In its defense, the Russian government argued that since Russia became party to the European Convention on Human Rights only in May 1998, it was not responsible to Strasbourg for what happened before then. Seen from that dateline, Kalashnikov's detention could not be regarded as very long. The fact that he did not appeal against his conviction in 1999 meant he had not exhausted every avenue open to him before writing to Strasbourg and should disqualify his complaint, Russia said. The government's decision to grant Kalashnikov amnesty in 2000 showed it had no intention of ill treatment toward him, it further argued. But he European Court of Human Rights decided that Kalashnikov's complaints about his conditions, the length of his detention, and the length of his trial proceedings are admissible, and will rule on their merits next summer. Its judgement is likely to be in two parts. First, it will consider whether financial compensation should be awarded to Kalashnikov himself for any damages he may have suffered, and secondly, if it decides his complaints are justified, it will consider whether the Russian government should implement "general measures" to prevent similar situations from arising in the future. The "general measures" required by Strasbourg can have far-reaching effects. In a case against the United Kingdom, for instance, they provoked a legal revolution and the introduction of a system of duty solicitors on call 24 hours a day to give free legal advice to detainees. More recently, Italy has been obliged to recruit thousands of judges following a negative judgement in Strasbourg about the length of its trial proceedings. The striking thing about the Kalashnikov case is that situations such as his are so commonplace in Russia. Traditionally, the state prosecution service has had wide powers to remand suspects in custody and prolong their detention for long periods without recourse to Russian courts. Enormous numbers of people are in Russian jails waiting for their trial date to be set, and the authorities freely admit that the remand prisons are the most overcrowded part of the penitentiary system. Since most remand prisons were built in Tsarist times, stories of filthy and disgusting conditions abound. A ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in this area could therefore have far-reaching impact. But what are the chances that it would be implemented? Nearly half of the rulings of domestic courts in Russia are ignored, according to surveys by the Justice Ministry. Can an international court 11 time zones away from Magadan expect to have more bite? So far, the Russian Federation has given every indication that it will abide by Strasbourg's decisions. When it became a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, it undertook to do so, and it has since put aside money in the federal budget for financial compensation to successful claimants. Russia has every incentive to implement Strasbourg judgements because if it fails to do so, it will face a steep bill when similar complaints appear before the court. The government has also made it clear that it will reclaim compensation awards from the budget of any of the 89 regions whose laws or practices are found to be at the root of a negative judgement by Strasbourg. This, if nothing else, should concentrate minds powerfully in regions like Magadan. Strasbourg is also used to dealing with reluctant governments and pursues the implementation of its court judgements - sometimes over several years - until they are carried out. Russia, like the Soviet Union before it, is party to various human rights treaties, some of which are worth little more than the paper they are written on. Its commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights are the only ones that can be tested in an international court - and the only ones that carry legal and financial penalties if they are not respected. Kalashnikov versus the Russian Federation could open the floodgates. Around 2,000 complaints have been registered against the Russian Federation at the Court - including from the North Caucasus - and 50 have been transmitted to the government for investigation. In the not too distant future, decisions taken in a quiet Rhineland courtroom could supply much-needed voltage to the meandering process of legal reform in the Russian Federation, as they have already done in other parts of Europe. arch According to human rights organization Amnesty International, the knowledge and awareness of widespread torture and ill-treatment in police custody, in prisons and in the army in Russia has grown in recent years. But this has not ended the use of torture and ill-treatment, nor changed the conditions in many prisons and pre-trial detention centers, which often amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In many cases this is due to overcrowded prisons and the lack of ventilation and light. Diseases like tuberculosis are widespread. In pre-trial detention centers, for example, people have to sleep in shifts as there are not enough beds in the cells. In addition to these conditions, which affect a large number of the population of the Russian prison system, Amnesty says that allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees as well as deaths in custody, have been raised again and again in letters to them. These letters have come from victims, their relatives or human rights organizations. In the letters, it is stated that people have been tortured to extract confessions or they have been accused of disobeying the rules of the prison and therefore were ill-treated. Amnesty states that to its knowledge there have been few or inadequate investigations so far into these allegations by the appropriate authorities. The non-government organization (NGO) has in the past cited several cases of victims of torture and ill-treatment in detention in Russia. (With additional material by Asia Times Online) (c)2OO1 RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved. ******* #9 Financial Times (UK) December 17, 2001 Letter EU backs Russia's accession to WTO From Mr Pascal Lamy and Mr Chris Patten. Sir, Contrary to what Prof Carl B. Hamilton argues (Letters, December 12), the European Union has been crystal clear in pressing a positive, broad and ambitious economic agenda with Russia. We are fully committed to Russia's accession to the World Trade Organisation. As Russia's largest trade partner, the EU has led the way accelerating negotiations in recent months and we expect to make decisive progress in 2002. The EU is more open to Russian exports than any of its other trading partners. With EU enlargement, we will account for no less than 50 per cent of Russian exports! Rather than limiting Russian imports through quotas, we will grant them enhanced and improved unilateral preferential access through the recently approved General Scheme of Preferences (GSP) system. At a time when the siren calls of protectionism are getting louder in the US, we are currently negotiating access for Russian steel into the EU. Underpinning the ambitious goal of creating a common European economic space is a determination to support and help in Russia's efforts to improve its domestic economic legislation and create strong independent regulatory authorities. The EU may welcome as many as 10 new members in 2004, many of them significant economic partners for Russia. Therefore Russia has every interest in aligning itself with the rules and standards of the EU single market. In so doing, it will significantly increase its export potential and reap the benefits of the increased investor confidence in sectors such as financial services, telecoms and energy. A free trade area is indeed an agreed possible objective of our bilateral agreement with Russia. However, Russia first needs to integrate into the world economy through WTO membership, to restructure its economy further and to establish strong domestic rules that will trigger the development of broad, competitive manufacturing and services sectors. The EU is ready to play its full part hand-in-hand with Russia in delivering on the ambitious task it has set itself and in building an ever closer relationship. Pascal Lamy, EU Trade Commissioner, Chris Patten, EU External Affairs Commissioner ******* #10 Russian officials probe rights abuses in Chechnya December 17, 2001 By Clara Ferreira-Marques MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian officials in separatist Chechnya said Monday they had opened an investigation into reports that troops had engaged in looting and "tactless behavior" during a five-day operation to track down guerrillas. The probe, a rare acknowledgment of wrongdoing in Russia's 2-year-old military drive against the separatists, concerned the latest of its "sweep operations" in the town of Argun. "During an initial inquiry, we have established instances of looting and tactless behavior by Russian servicemen," Argun prosecutor Rostislav Timshin told Interfax news agency. Argun, a few miles east of Chechnya's largely flattened regional capital Grozny, has been the theater of frequent clashes between Chechen fighters and Russian troops. Sergei Babkin, local head of the FSB domestic intelligence service, said some alleged wrongdoers had been identified. "If the facts are confirmed, the culprits will be punished," Babkin told Itar-Tass news agency but added that residents' complaints often proved to be exaggerated. Kommersant daily quoted Babkin as saying 20 people had been killed and 60 detained during the house-to-house searches, which the newspaper said were aimed at rooting out Khattab, a top rebel commander of Arab origin. There were no reports of Russian casualties. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who masterminded the second post-Soviet military drive into Chechnya in 1999, three years after the region was granted de facto independence, told the Financial Times newspaper 20 Russian servicemen had been charged with rights violations. "The judiciary is operating in Chechnya," Putin said in an interview published Monday. "Our law enforcement agencies are fighting not only terrorists and separatists but also the military who commit crimes." He added the military operation had been scaled down. "What is happening there is the rehabilitation of peaceful life," he said. WEST MUTES CRITICISM Human rights groups repeatedly accuse Russian forces of excesses in Chechnya, a mainly Muslim region in southern Russia. Residents say troops remove young men from homes of suspected rebel sympathizers during "sweep operations" and beat them. Officials deny systematic rights violations, vow to punish culprits and accuse rebels of being funded by a "terrorist international," including Saudi-born millionaire Osama bin Laden, accused by Washington of being behind the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on the United States. Moscow says its troops have established control over Chechnya despite rebel raids. Russian media report that life is returning to normal under a pro-Moscow regional administration. Western criticism of the Russian military operation, already muted in the past year, has died away since Russia offered its full support to the U.S. operation against Afghanistan, with a number of governments saying Moscow is also fighting terrorism. In Moscow, Putin met Muslim clergy to mark the feast of Eid al-Fitr closing the fasting month of Ramadan. "Your duty before Muslims has not been easy, given economic difficulties, and so it is even more valued," Putin said. He posthumously bestowed a top military honor on a teen-ager from Chechnya who died trying to fend off gunmen who also killed his policeman father. ******* #11 From: "Julie Shaw" Subject: can you add to JRL? Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 ANDERS ĂSLUND FINDS RADICAL REFORM RESULTS IN BETTER ECONOMIES, BETTER DEMOCRACIES Post-Soviet Economies Expert Says Shock Therapy Works Former Soviet bloc countries that underwent radical, early reform have produced more dynamic market economies and political democracies compared to those in which autocrats held onto power and reform remained sluggish, writes Anders Ă…slund, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in a new policy brief, "Building Capitalism: Lessons of the Postcommunist Experience," now available online at: http://www.ceip.org/files/publications/Anders_Capitalism.asp The 21 countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe pursued three starkly different policy paths, leading them to different fates, Ă…slund writes. Radical reformers who really wanted democracies and dynamic market economies, such as the Central European countries of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, and the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, succeeded in their goals. Gradual reformers, including Bulgaria, Romania, and most former Soviet republics, only achieved semidemocratic, semiprivatized societies with limited growth. Nonreformers, notably Belarus, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, maintained firm dictatorships with state-controlled economies and dominant public ownership. Shock therapy works, Ăslund writes, because "financial crises can enforce stringency on both governments and enterprises" and "shocks have broken up rent-seeking societies by discrediting crony capitalism and its advocates." The results, he finds, have been a more rigorous fiscal regime, further liberalization, and privatization. In cases such as Bulgaria, Poland, and Russia, "not one but two severe shocks seem a common prerequisite for successful market reform," he notes, given the depth of communist distortions of both the economy and minds. Based on these findings, Ăslund concludes that "it is virtually always preferable to undertake the most radical and earliest economic reform that is possible." Ăslund also debunks some widely held beliefs. He explains why official statistics have exaggerated the collapse of output in the region, why privatization is actually good for growth and democracy, and challenges the idea that a country in transition needs a strong ruler. Anders Ăslund, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment and an expert on post-Soviet economies, has authored six books and edited nine. His most recent book is "Building Capitalism: The Transformation of the Former Soviet Bloc," which can be ordered from Cambridge University Press by calling 1-800-872-7423. ******* #12 www.nationalreview.com December 17, 2001 The Key to Russian Stability It's not the ABM Treaty. By Nikolas K. Gvosdev, executive editor, The National Interest Does the U. S. announcement of its intent to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty herald a dramatic shift in the global strategic balance of power, raising the specter of a new nuclear arms race? Such sentiments, expressed by some Western commentators, are reinforced by the reaction from the Russian side. Dmitry Rogozin, the chair of the international-relations committee of the Duma, declared that Russia will use the six-month notification period "to plan its response and subsequent steps," which may include a reevaluation of Russia's arms-control commitments under the START accords. "We believe that offensive and defensive tools of nuclear deterrence must be linked. If the ABM Treaty ceases to exist, Russia will have a free hand in nuclear planning," he declared. Rhetoric, however, cannot mask reality. In August, the former head of Russian military intelligence, General Fedor Ladygin, candidly admitted that, for the foreseeable future, Russia's nuclear capacity will continue to erode "due to the shortage of financial resources for ... maintenance and renewal." Viktor Litovkin, a political commentator, was even blunter in his assessments. "The country has no money. Not even enough to replace the decrepit, hazardous, strategic missiles with the new single-warhead 'Topol' missiles." Vladimir Putin himself castigated the old Soviet-era defense complex in a November speech, saying it is "archaic" and unable to "meet modern military and political challenges." This is why, in November, the Russian Security Council considered a draft document outlining how the Russian defense industry can be modernized. Putin is well aware that Russia's national security depends upon Russia's growing integration into the global economic system as a full-fledged member. By gaining access to world markets, Russia can obtain the funds and investment needed to conduct "technical and technological modernization" in a timely and efficient manner. Through an aggressive campaign of state-directed investment in things like the construction of a new nation-wide fiber-optic network and broadband transmission stations (in part relying upon tax revenues generated by increased oil and gas exports), Putin hopes that by 2010 Russia will have a highly developed information and communications infrastructure at its disposal. This would facilitate the revival of an industrial sector that is both a manufacturer and a consumer of domestically produced high technology products, including communications equipment and imaging systems, which could be marketed to the civilian sector but also utilized in upgrading Russia's defense capabilities. Putin's calculations may be misguided; after all, during the 1970s, Venezuela and Mexico both drastically overestimated the impact of oil revenues in funding ambitious development programs. However, Russia is expected to achieve an eight-percent growth rate this year, and the country seems poised for extensive economic recovery over the next several years. U. S. policymakers should seriously consider whether it is in American national interests to have, in a decade, a prosperous Russia that feels compelled to invest in the research and development of things like glide- and maneuverable-reentry vehicles capable of evading interception by any of the proposed missile-defense systems that could be deployed by the United States. (Actually, plans for such a system have already been drawn up, but lack of funds has prevented any serious efforts at development — something that the Chinese are reportedly interested in remedying). This is why it is in U. S. interests to take Putin up on his offer to start fresh negotiations to define a new framework for Russian-American strategic relations (and it may not be a bad idea to include the other principal nuclear powers of the world in that process). While the current frail condition of Russia may lead some to conclude that the U. S. should act unilaterally, taking Russian interests into account — over such contentious issues as the second round of NATO expansion — is a policy which could pay significant dividends for the United States several years down the road. Washington should seriously consider the advice proffered, however unintentionally, by the Chinese magazine Liaowang this past August, when it noted that "Economic interests are the key bargaining chips for the U. S. and Russia to reach a compromise." Increasingly, Russia's future prosperity lies in its integration with the Western alliance. Sixty-seven percent of its exports will be consumed in European Union countries by 2005. Russia, now the world's second largest producer of oil, needs Western expertise and capital to fully tap and exploit its energy reserves; in turn, Russia could emerge as a viable alternative to the Middle East as the principal supplier of energy to Europe. Russia has not had this degree of economic integration with the rest of Europe since before the Bolshevik Revolution. After World War II, the United States rejected the so-called "pastoralization" plans for Germany and Japan — leaving these two rivals in a permanently weakened and subordinated position. Instead, the reconstruction of the industrial and technological base of these two countries — and their integration into the world market — helped to stabilize Central Europe and East Asia. Moscow's current weakness should not blind us to the potential that an economically resuscitated and technologically modernized Russia could play — for good or ill — across the Eurasian landmass. ******* #13 US Department of State 17 December 2001 Text: U.S. Ambassador on New U.S.-Russia Relationship, Media Freedom (Dec. 17: Amb. Alexander Vershbow at Moscow State University) (3170) Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic choice "to link Russia's future to the community of free, democratic nations" has created a "dynamic in which we can seriously begin to think about the United States and Russia not just as partners, but as allies in meeting the challenges of the 21st century," U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow told students and faculty at the Moscow State University School of Journalism December 17. "In short," he said, "we now have an opportunity to put the last vestiges of Cold War thinking behind us." In his address, Vershbow discussed not only the new U.S.-Russia relationship but also the importance of a free, independent and financially healthy media sector to any democracy. In Russia, he said, until the media have the "independence that comes from a solid financial footing," journalists will not be able to do their jobs well and "the public interest will be sacrificed to the economic or political interests of individuals in a position to make the media do their bidding." Regarding President Bush's December 13 decision to withdraw the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed with the former Soviet Union, Vershbow said there is "a good basis to find a common approach to missile defense for the long term," despite short-term disagreement over the treaty. He added that this kind of disagreement should not cause a crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. "As we continue to develop, test and deploy a missile defense system against rogue state threats, we will proceed in close consultation with allies and friends, and in complete transparency with partners like Russia," he said. "We are, in fact, interested in cooperating with Russia on the development of missile defense. President Putin has acknowledged that new threats are emerging, and he has even proposed that NATO and Russia look for ways to cooperate in defending against tactical ballistic missiles. We are convinced that by reducing offensive nuclear weapons while developing missile defenses in a cooperative way, we can make the world a safer place." Vershbow also discussed the evolving relationship between NATO and Russia, the potential for increased U.S. economic investment in Russia, and the new "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue," an initiative that fosters U.S.-Russian private sector cooperation on improving the conditions necessary for Russian media to flourish as a business. Following is the text of the ambassador's remarks as prepared for delivery: (begin text) THE NEW U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP AND THE ROLE OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation Moscow State University School of Journalism December 17, 2001 It is a pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. This is my first opportunity to speak to Russia's future journalists and it's one that I have been looking forward to. I have already talked to many of your professional colleagues working in television, radio and the print media, and I just finished an interview with your magazine "Zhurnalist." I know that speaking to an audience of several hundred aspiring journalists is a challenge, but I'm ready for it. I would like to tell you a little bit about myself and then describe what I believe has been a remarkable transformation in U.S.-Russian relations over the past several months. I will make this as brief as possible because I want to reserve time for your questions. I wouldn't think of addressing journalists without allowing plenty of time for questions. Moreover, I want to hear what concerns you have about U.S.-Russian relations. I studied Russian and Soviet Affairs in the early 1970s and first served here in Moscow as a diplomat from 1979 to 1981, during the height of the Cold War. As I look around this audience today, I think that I can safely say that for most of you, the Cold War is only a dim memory. Your generation may be less burdened than mine by the prejudices and habits of the past. That's a good thing. Over the past ten years, we have seen the military confrontation between the United States and Russia decline dramatically and we have expanded our cooperation in many areas. But we have not been fully successful in overcoming the habits of thought inherited from the past. We haven't yet managed to create new ones that are more appropriate for the "post-post Cold War" period, as some commentators have described the new era, for lack of a better term. We diplomats play only a relatively modest role in influencing the way people think about relations between Russia and the United States. You journalists play a larger role. Together the press on the one hand and government officials on the other have a very significant effect in shaping public perceptions. We both are sometimes burdened with old ways of thinking. We should not allow such thinking to foreclose possibilities that are there to be seized. When you journalists and we government officials interact, there is also the risk that we become too cautious and you not cautious enough. That is something we should both avoid as we practice our respective crafts. This will not be a problem if we seek to do our jobs well, because we both serve -- or should serve -- the same master: the public interest. Any government official who tries to avoid or mislead the press is derelict in the performance of his or her duties. That is not to say that we must share everything with the press. The public interest is sometimes best served by keeping aspects of the business of government and business between governments confidential, just as we as individuals have a right to keep aspects of our private life confidential. The real challenge for government officials and journalists is to find a balance in the relationship that serves the public interest. It is easier to define this balance by what it is not than by what it is. As I said earlier, it is not we deceiving you. Neither is it you serving any master other than your obligation to report the facts, make the public interest the object of your commentary, and never obscure the dividing line between reporting and commentary. I sincerely believe that your work as journalists will help shape Russia's future in a fundamental way. Russia's efforts to join the club of market democracies will not succeed without a vigilant and independent media that holds leaders, politicians, businessmen and other officials -- at every level -- accountable for their actions. If you don't practice your profession ethically, your country runs the risk of allowing private interests to hijack the public's right to a democratic society and a market economy that provide justice and opportunity for all. If American journalists don't do the same, we run a similar risk in the United States. I would like to turn now to some observations about U.S.-Russian relations, which have undergone a remarkable transformation this year. I will have more to say about media issues in the context of our relationship. U.S.-Russian relations got back on an upward trajectory with the first Bush-Putin meetings in Ljubljana in June and Genoa in July. These led to intensive consultations on strategic issues and a series of high-level visits aimed at expanding our economic and trade relationship. The tragic events of September 11 accelerated these positive trends. President Putin was the first foreign leader to call President Bush after the terrorist attacks to offer condolences. He unequivocally committed Russia to the goals of the anti-terror coalition. This wasn't just words. On September 24, President Putin offered valuable assistance to the coalition in a remarkable speech. This assistance -- including the use of Russian airspace and bases in Central Asia, joint diplomatic efforts, and the sharing of sensitive intelligence information -- has been both generous and crucial. In doing all this, President Putin made a strategic choice -- not only to help us fight a common enemy, but to link Russia's future to the community of free, democratic nations. This decision had a dramatic effect on the Bush Administration and the American public. Russia's strategic choice made clear that our two countries, together with other Western democracies, were now operating on the basis of shared interests and shared values, and not on the basis of tactical necessity alone. It created a dynamic in which we can seriously begin to think about the United States and Russia not just as partners, but as allies in meeting the challenges of the 21st century. In short, we now have an opportunity to put the last vestiges of Cold War thinking behind us. I do not mean to suggest there aren't still a number of issues where our countries continue to differ, such as missile defense, or relations with Iraq and Iran. We are addressing these frankly, but without allowing them to overshadow our common interests. Let me focus for a moment on the strategic relationship. One of the most important accomplishments of last month's summit in Washington and Crawford was the agreement by our two leaders to carry out dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces. President Bush announced that the United States will reduce to a level of between 1700 and 2200 warheads over the next decade (down from over 7000 today). President Putin indicated that Russia would make comparable reductions, and last week he confirmed that Russia will cut its forces to virtually the same level as President Bush announced, to between 1500 and 2200 warheads. This is a truly historic achievement, one that was secured without years of negotiations between giant delegations in Geneva. It's another sign that we're moving beyond Cold War thinking. What's the next step? One week ago, President Putin and Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov met with Secretary of State Colin Powell here in Moscow. They set the goal of formalizing an arrangement on the reduction of strategic weapons by the time of President Bush's visit to Russia in the middle of next year. This will involve developing a document that codifies the two sides' commitments to the lower levels, with measures for verification and transparency. The result should help assure both nations that the mutual commitment to cut nuclear arsenals will endure beyond the term in office of either President. As far as missile defense is concerned, as you all know, President Bush last Thursday announced our intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972. President Bush made this decision because, in his view, the ABM Treaty embodies a Cold War relationship of hostility and suspicion that no longer exists. More importantly, the President decided that the Treaty is no longer consistent with America's national interests. This is because it prohibits us from testing and developing effective, but limited missile defenses to counter the threat posed by the spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We know that Russia disagrees with this decision, but we do not believe it should cause a crisis in our relations. First of all, I want to emphasize that we are not developing a system that would in any way undermine the deterrent capability of Russia's nuclear forces. Our goal is to develop the ability to protect the United States, our allies and our deployed forces from the smaller threats that rogue states could pose if they obtain missiles capable of delivering nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Our leaders have an obligation to protect the American people from weapons of mass destruction that could fall into the hands of individuals as evil as Osama bin Laden. As we continue to develop, test and deploy a missile defense system against rogue state threats, we will proceed in close consultation with allies and friends, and in complete transparency with partners like Russia. We are, in fact, interested in cooperating with Russia on the development of missile defense. President Putin has acknowledged that new threats are emerging, and he has even proposed that NATO and Russia look for ways to cooperate in defending against tactical ballistic missiles. We are convinced that by reducing offensive nuclear weapons while developing missile defenses in a cooperative way, we can make the world a safer place. In short, I think there is a good basis to find a common approach to missile defense for the long term, despite our short-term disagreement over the ABM Treaty. At their Summit last month, both our Presidents made clear their determination to develop a new strategic framework for the long term, one that is more in keeping with our new relationship and takes account of the changes in the strategic situation since the ABM Treaty was signed 29 years ago. A new framework should enable our two countries to meet future threats together. The threats posed by international terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are as real for Russia as they are for the United States. Russia's relations with NATO should reflect this new strategic relationship as well. NATO-Russia cooperation has yielded only modest results since the signing of the NATO-Russia Founding Act four years ago. Our common task is to devise new mechanisms for cooperation, coordinated action and joint decisions that can integrate Russia more closely in NATO's work, while respecting NATO's and Russia's prerogatives to act alone if necessary. The idea discussed between Presidents Bush and Putin last month, and now endorsed by NATO and Russian Foreign Ministers ten days ago, is quite simple: to create a new forum in which NATO's 19 members and Russia work together as a group of 20 equal partners on issues where our shared interests make it sensible to do so. These might include counter-terrorism, non-proliferation, or responding to a future regional conflict. We hope this new mechanism will be in place by next spring. For it to work, Russian diplomacy will need to acquire the spirit of flexibility and compromise that is essential to reaching a consensus among nations with different security perspectives and priorities. This is the way NATO works, but it has not always been a hallmark of Russia's approach to NATO up till now. In addition to these security issues, we must continue to find ways to expand our dynamic economic relationship and promote Russia's full integration into the world economy. We are working to accelerate Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization, based on the standard conditions other countries have followed. President Bush has pledged to work with the Congress to graduate Russia from the provisions of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a prerequisite to extending unconditional or permanent normal trade relations to Russia. U.S. investors are coming to Russia, thanks to the strong economic recovery of the past two years and the impressive package of reform legislation enacted by the Duma. U.S. Commerce Secretary Don Evans led a successful trade development mission here in October, with the heads of 14 U.S. companies. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was here two weeks ago to celebrate the inauguration of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium's new oil export route. This multi-billion dollar project is the largest foreign investment in Russia to date. In addition, a consortium led by ExxonMobil recently announced firm plans to invest $12 billion [$12,000 million] in its oil and gas project in Sakhalin -- a project that will create as many as 10,000 new jobs. U.S. investment here is good for Russia and good for the United States. Common economic interests will create the basis of a cooperative relationship across a broad spectrum of issues, a relationship that will allow us to work together to resolve not just today's problems but those that we will face in the new century. It's another way to put Cold War thinking behind us. Cooperation between the private sectors of our two countries -- facilitated by our two governments -- applies to the media as well. At the conclusion of their recent meetings in Washington, Presidents Bush and Putin endorsed the initiative of Russian and American media executives, journalists and independent organizations to convene a "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue" aimed at improving the conditions necessary for media to flourish as a business in Russia. The logic of this initiative -- to borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson -- is self-evident. Until the media here have the independence that comes from a solid financial footing, you won't be able to do your jobs well and the public interest will be sacrificed to the economic or political interests of individuals in a position to make the media do their bidding. The mechanics of this "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue" are being worked out now. It is intended to expand contacts between experts and executives in the United States and Russia to look at areas where current laws, regulations, practices, and infrastructure constraints impede the growth of media as a business here in Russia. On the American side, the Newspaper Association of America and the National Association of Broadcasters have offered to steer the Dialogue. On the Russian side, the successful NGO Internews has already stepped forward and we expect other participants to join them. As I mentioned earlier, the logic of the "Media Entrepreneurship Dialogue" is to look at ways to create conditions in which the media can pursue the public interest unrestrained by other interests. Private individuals are not the only party in a position to undermine the independence and standards of the press when media are not self-sustaining economically. Governments can do so as well, either actively by using public money as patronage to enlist the media in the service of political objectives or indirectly by neglecting to create a legal framework that supports media independence. This of course leads me directly to the case of TV-6. I realize that this is a complicated case in which private interests and the public interest are intertwined in a way that is not easily unraveled. There is ample reason, however, to proceed with caution. The test that public officials must apply in this case is the same one that you as future journalists must rely upon: Will the action taken serve the public interest? Or will a struggle between rival oligarchs end up removing from the air a group of highly professional and independent telejournalists? My government is unequivocally committed to the principle that a free press is fundamental to a democratic society. Let me turn again to Thomas Jefferson who said: "Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." These words first spoken two hundred years ago are no less true today. Let me end on that note, because these words of Jefferson underscore the important burden of public trust placed in you, Russia's future journalists. I want to thank you for this opportunity to do my job as a diplomat committed to improving relations between Russia and the United States. Now it is time for you do your job as journalists. Questions please. *******