Johnson's Russia List #5612 22 December 2001 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Note from David Johnson: DJ: I'm headed north with family for holiday gatherings in both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. Laptop computer is in tow so we'll see what happens with JRL. Happy holidays to you where ever you are! 1. RIA Novosti: RUSSIAN ASTROLOGIST PREDICTS "VERY POSITIVE" EVENTS FOR RUSSIA. 2. AP: Gorbachev Still Feels Bitter. 3. National Journal: Guide to the Web: Russian Web Sites. 4. St. Petersburg Times editorial: Yes, We Do Need All of Our Children. 5. Branko Milanovic: Re: 5608-Shlapentokh/Putin. 6. The Russia Journal: Alexander Golts, Challenging times for U.S.-Russia relations. In the wake of the ABM withdrawal, Putin has his work cut out. 7. The Russia Journal: Dmitry Pinsker, Russia’s elections still a farce. 8. Wall Street Journal: Jeanne Whalen, As a Strapped Russia Looks to Diamonds To Raise Funds, Is Democracy at Risk? 9. gazeta.ru: Former PM Kiriyenko Answers Questions of Gazeta.Ru Readers. 10. Reuters: Stalin honoured with flowers and songs in Georgia. 11. RIA Novosti: RUSSIANS HAVE 4 MILLION QUESTIONS TO ASK PRESIDENT. 12. RFE/RL: Kathleen Knox, Russia/U.S.: Does U.S. Withdrawal From ABM Set A Historic Precedent? 13. UPI: FBI focusing on portable nuke threat.] ******* #1 RUSSIAN ASTROLOGIST PREDICTS "VERY POSITIVE" EVENTS FOR RUSSIA MOSCOW, December 21, 2001. /from a RIA Novosti correspondent/--Pavel Globa, one of Russia's most prominent astrologists, predicts that the coming year will be very successful for Russia. "The political and economic developments will be very positive for the country's development," and 2002 will be pave the way for "crucial changes" which will take place in the next years, he said at a press conference on Friday. The astrologist predicts that "no crises will be expected" in the economy, and "reforms will be gradually continued." As for politics, Russia will "acquire the status of a superpower," the astrologist claims. According to him, Vladimir Putin's policy "will be aimed at the maintenance of justice and legitimacy in the country." ******* #2 Gorbachev Still Feels Bitter December 21, 2001 By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV MOSCOW (AP) - Mikhail Gorbachev, still bitter about his resignation as Soviet president a decade ago, said Friday he has not spoken to his rival and successor Boris Yeltsin since. The former Soviet president shared angry memories of his Christmas Day 1991 resignation at a news conference Friday. His departure brought an end to the Soviet Union. But Gorbachev strongly praised Yeltsin's hand-picked successor President Vladimir Putin, saying Putin was committed to revive Russia and make it an equal partner of the West. Recalling his resignation, Gorbachev accused Yeltsin of ruining the Soviet Union out of personal ambition. On Dec. 8, 1991, Yeltsin and former presidents Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine and Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus announced the Soviet Union defunct, creating a new, loose alliance called the Commonwealth of Independent States. Nine other ex-Soviet republics joined the alliance later in December, leaving Gorbachev without a job. ``I was shocked by the treacherous behavior of those people, who cut the country in pieces in order to settle accounts and establish themselves as czars,'' Gorbachev said. He said he couldn't disavow the republican leaders' action because of fear that would push the country toward chaos. ``I couldn't choose the path that might have led to rift and civil war in a nation brimming with nuclear weapons,'' Gorbachev said. His voice trembling with contempt, Gorbachev said Yeltsin and his lieutenants settled themselves in his office hours after his televised resignation speech, breaking a promise to give him five days to pack. ``They gathered in my office and drank a bottle of whisky for their ``victory,'' Gorbachev said. ``I have never spoken to Yeltsin again.'' Gorbachev had warmer words for Putin, saying in his performance in nearly two years in office proved that Russia chose the right president. Yeltsin named Putin acting president when Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned Dec. 31, 1999. Three months later, Putin won the presidential election by an overwhelming margin. ``He has done more than I expected, he has achieved a greater stability and order,'' Gorbachev said. ``He conducts reforms in Russia's interests, but also takes a responsible stance in foreign policy. His action since Sept. 11 shows that he has become a mature statesman.'' He also cautioned that the West should treat Russia as an equal. ``It's hard, if possible at all, to ensure security in Europe and elsewhere without Russia,'' the former Soviet president said. ``Russia doesn't need to join NATO, but it's very important that it take part in its decision-making,'' Gorbachev said, adding that the alliance must give Russia some veto power. Putin has brought Russia into the U.S.-led international coalition in the war against terror and pushed for closer relations with NATO. NATO and Russia are expected to work out a new framework of relations early next year. Gorbachev criticized President Bush's decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in order to build a national missile defense, saying it damaged the foundation of nuclear arms control. ``What the United States has done will remain on its conscience and they will bear responsibility for that,'' Gorbachev said. He also pointed at the botched, 10-year Soviet war in Afghanistan as a lesson for the Western coalition to leave it to the Afghans themselves to govern their country. Gorbachev ended the war in 1989. ``If they go there and try to substitute for the Afghans, they will fail,'' he said. ****** #3 National Journal December 8, 2001 www.nationaljournal.com Guide to the Web WEB SITES: Russian Web Sites By James Kitfield Best of the Top Sites * www.strana.ru * www.csis.org * www.carnegie.ru * www.cdi.org Sites Worth a Look: * www.moscowtimes.ru * www.russiajournal.com * www.europeaninternet.com/russia * www.rferl.org * www.itar-tass.com Recommended by Andrew Kuchins Director, Russian and Eurasian Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace * www.strana.ru "I find the official Russian government Web site strana.ru to be the most interesting, because it gives you insight into what the Putin government is thinking and how they want to spin things. When I see how [the site] plays issues like human rights, civil society, and freedom of the press, it can also curdle my blood at times." Russia Sites * www.strana.ru Internet travelers need go no further than this attractive Web site of the Russian government to realize just how fully Moscow officialdom has taken to heart the importance of the Web. The site is chockablock with interesting photos and graphics, as well as meaty articles and announcements presented in very accessible fashion. Just don't forget that the message is a slick packaging of official Russian government spin. * www.itar-tass.com Not as glitzy or visually appealing as strana.ru, this Web site of the Information Telegraph Agency of Russia-ITAR-Tass, the successor of the Soviet Tass news agency-is nevertheless a rich source of news and information. ITAR-Tass is a massive operation with 74 bureaus and offices inside Russia and the newly independent states, and 65 foreign bureaus. Other Sites * www.csis.org Run by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, the site for the Program on New Approaches to Russian Security-PONARS-is short on glitz and long on analysis and research. PONARS (which can be found under the site's Russia/Eurasia program) is composed of 55 scholars worldwide who analyze Russian and Eurasian security issues. The site features an archive of PONARS publications, working papers, and policy memos, as well as contact information for associated analysts. * www.carnegie.ru Ever since the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace established the Carnegie Moscow Center in 1993, this independent think tank has served as an important bridge between U.S. and Russian scholars studying Russia's post-Communist evolution. Full texts of the center's publications are offered over the Web. This site is short on graphics and current news, and long on in-depth research. * www.cdi.org David Johnson of the Center for Defense Information, in Washington, has become something of a legend among Russophiles for Johnson's Russia List, a daily compendium of all manner of news items and informed commentary on Russia. The list is e-mailed free (though donations are gratefully accepted) to interested subscribers in the media, academia, and the policy-making community. This Web site also offers the more formal CDI Russia Weekly, a weekly collection, also edited by Johnson, of articles from many sources. * www.rferl.org Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's site offers useful sections on Russia and the newly independent states on its periphery. The Web site reflects the philosophy of the broadcasts: It offers useful summaries of current news, delivered in a straightforward style without a lot of editorializing or commentary. As Joe Friday memorably said: Just the facts, ma'am. * www.moscowtimes.ru This is the hometown newspaper for English-speaking expatriates and business types living or working in Moscow. Attractive and voluminous, it features lots of photographs and eye-catching graphics. There is a helpful "Guide to Russia" for the recently arrived, and "The Beat" offers helpful tips for exploring Moscow after dark. Don't leave your hotel without it. * www.europeaninternet.com/russia Click on the "Russia Today" part of this for-a-fee European Web site, and you'll find one of the most meticulously archived of all of the English-language sites on Russia. The news section focuses on issues concerning Russia and the European Union, and the site is tailored to the European businessperson. Slick and savvy, with a European flair. * www.russiajournal.com Geared toward the international, English-speaking businessman or -woman, The Russia Journal offers a smooth site with lots of graphics, photos, and interactive sections laid out in an eye-pleasing format. There are sections for international and domestic news, stock market graphs, and currency valuation charts. ****** #4 St. Petersburg Times December 21, 2001 Editorial Yes, We Do Need All of Our Children AS the well-heeled were streaming out of the packed concert of Moscow violinist Vladimir Spivakov at the Philharmonic Hall on Wednesday, they were greeted by a distressing and all too common sight. A small throng of street children - shivering in threadbare coats - gathered around on the square outside the hall, begging for spare change. Some music-lovers reached into the pockets of their fur coats and came up with a little money - just as likely to be used to buy glue for sniffing as for food - while others ignored the outstretched hands and hurried to their cars. In the end, the concert crowd dispersed into the snowy evening - and only the children remained on Arts Square. Although St. Petersburg is, of course, far from being an affluent city, it does suffer from something of a split personality. On the one hand, it is making tremendous strides toward recapturing some of its previous glory. The summertime White Nights Festival and winter's Arts Square Festival not only demonstrate the best the city has to offer, but also pay tribute to humanity's finest aspirations. On the other hand, there are the neglected street children, abandoned by their own parents and growing up in a misery that no one should ever know. On Page 4 of today's issue, The St. Petersburg Times presents a glimpse of that misery and introduces some of the people who are grappling with this problem. Such people, however, are few. As one activist put it: "Neither the authorities nor society realize the scale of the problem; nor do they know what should be done about it." According to the only research available locally, the scale of the problem in St. Petersburg is about 16,000 children. Living in attics and basements. Doing drugs. Begging on the streets. Committing petty crimes. Falling victim to pimps. Growing up cynical, illiterate and angry. Obviously, it is a problem that does not admit of easy solutions. It is organically tied to the problems of the children's parents -despair, economic dislocation, alcoholism. It is tied to the poor state of city schools and the nearly complete lack of sensible after-school programs for children and teenagers. On city streets not far from the Philharmonic Hall, the administration has begun putting up posters promoting the young generation. "We are all different," runs the slogan over the smiling faces of local teens, "But our country needs us all." That's not the picture that one gets reading our report today. The children we spoke to certainly don't have the impression that the country, the city or even their own parents need them. ******* #5 Subject: Re: 5608-Shlapentokh/Putin Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 12:48:45 From: bmilanovic@worldbank.org (Branko Milanovic) I found Vladimir Shlapentokh's piece on Putin and "anti-Americanism" of Russian elites most interesting. Although I have not been in Russia for several years, I tend to be quite persuaded by Vladimir's description of the feelings among the elite and the "people." Yet, I would suggest a somewhat different interpretations of the facts. While Vladimir considers the elites' reaction to the recent events to be grounded in some knee-jerk "anti-Americanism" and yearning for a great power status, it can be, I think, much more easily explained by arguing that it represents rather a "normalization" or "Europeanization" of the Russian elite's opinion. In other words, their current opinions are no longer influenced by the former USSR-USA rivalry, nor by the unreasonable (and unrequited) Russian euphoria after the fall of Communism. They are much more sober and in line with general feelings in Europe, particularly in the continental Western Europe. I think that Vladimir found his counterparts' opinions very strange and unusual precisely because he came to St. Petersburg or Moscow straight from the US. Had he spent some time in Western Europe (say, Paris or Italy and even London) he would have found his Russian colleagues' views not unusual at all but rather fully in keeping with the elites' opinions in the continental Europe. And that opinion, as the recent results of the Pew world wide poll show. is that (1) the US policies are viewed by most of the world as arrongant and unilateral (recent examples are too numerous to quote), (2) that the US official reaction, driven by popular sentiment, is often viewed as disproportional (as for example where curtailments of civil liberties are explained by a terrorist threat which in turn is likened to the threat posed to liberty by Hitler and Japan in the early 1940's--a view ludicrously at odds with reality), and (3) that Tocqueville's statements regarding the danger which populism poses for liberty might have never been more pertinent. The American problem, if I dare say so, is that the combination of often simplistic media coverage and population who are too busy making their own living to follow international affairs, produces a huge populistic wave which engulfs everything before itself, makes government follow the polls blindly, and allied to a huge imperial power, produces tectonic changes in many places of the world. I would thus see the description of the Russian elite's view as a very good sign--showing that they are sober analysts, rather than blind nationalists, or at the other extreme, unthinking cheerleaders. Best, Branko Milanovic Development Research Group World Bank, 1818 H Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 tel: 1-202-473-6968 fax: 1-202-522-1153 Email: bmilanovic@worldbank.org See the updated Website: http://www.worldbank.org/research/transition/ ****** #6 The Russia Journal December 21-27, 2001 Challenging times for U.S.-Russia relations In the wake of the ABM withdrawal, Putin has his work cut out By ALEXANDER GOLTS President Vladimir Putin’s reaction to the United States’ withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has apparently turned out to be more significant than the U.S. decision itself. Everyone has become familiar with the arguments put forward by Russia and the United States as they’ve debated the treaty’s future over the last two years. The United States says the 1972 treaty is a Cold War relic and that the mutually assured destruction principle makes no sense in today’s world. Moscow, meanwhile, has always held that the treaty is "the cornerstone of the international security system" and has threatened to withdraw from a dozen arms-control agreements if the Americans liquidate the ABM Treaty. The United States assured Moscow that its new missile-defense system would be able to intercept only isolated missiles, while the Russians insisted the American plans posed a serious security threat and said they would make an "adequate response" using "asymmetrical measures." In announcing the United States’ withdrawal from the treaty, President George Bush simply repeated the usual American explanations. But in his TV address, Putin bid farewell to everything Moscow had made the foundation of its negotiating position all this time. Putin said that Bush’s decision "wouldn’t create a threat to national security." This is the truth. Even supposing that Moscow and Washington still need mutually assured destruction guarantees as they did 30 years ago, it’s enough for Russia to have a 1,500-strong arsenal of warheads to overcome U.S. missile defenses. Even if the Americans successfully deploy their planned system, it will only be able to intercept a maximum of 30-50 warheads. So, the "retaliation measures" Moscow has threatened the Americans with all this time have proved quite unnecessary. Putin’s decision not to try frightening the Americans is a rational one. Even if the Russian military has unique technology enabling Moscow to overcome America’s missile defenses, it obviously doesn’t have and won’t have the money to make use of it. Lack of financing has already brought to a halt the program to replace Russian heavy missiles at the end of their service lives with new Topol-M missiles. Russia could choose to install multiple warheads on these missiles, but rather than being motivated by a wish to overcome American missile defenses, this would simply be a cheaper way for Moscow to maintain its nuclear arsenal at 1,500 warheads. Putin called the American decision a mistake, and this is an apt description. There’s no guarantee that the United States isn’t opening Pandora’s box by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. From a military point of view, the American missile-defense plans would deal a blow primarily to China. China has approximately the number of nuclear warheads that the American system could ideally intercept. For China, this means the risk of losing an important policy instrument, and this could incite China to try increasing its nuclear arsenal. But this would be a problem more for the United States than for Russia. The problems Moscow will have to deal with are of a psychological rather than military-strategic nature. By backing away from confrontation with the United States over the ABM Treaty, Putin is giving up the status of a country that not only had the power to destroy the United States, the most powerful nation in the world, but forced the Americans to agree with this. This was the political significance of the ABM Treaty, and most of the Russian elite was convinced that this status, inherited from the Soviet Union, made Moscow and Washington equal at the negotiating table, no matter what the issue being discussed. Putin’s calm reaction to Bush’s decision ends these illusions. This is a rational approach, but it gives rise to a number of serious problems. For a start, there’s the question of how to maintain the Russian-American partnership. Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said two years ago that strategic-arms relations form the foundation of Russian-American relations. But now there is less and less of a foundation to work on. The United States has pulled out of the ABM Treaty. True, in exchange, Washington has announced plans to make a threefold cut to its nuclear arsenal. This greatly benefits Russia, which is seeing its own nuclear arsenal decline through rapid aging, not through political decisions. But the U.S. administration is very cool on the idea of signing a treaty with Russia like the START-1 or START-2 treaties, setting not only maximum thresholds for nuclear arms, but also verification procedures. This means there won’t be regular consultations on the treaty’s enforcement, inspections to check that it is being observed and debates on how to count warheads and what to do about the potential for re-installing them on missiles – that is to say, there won’t be all that forms the system of bilateral ties. The operations in Afghanistan will, to some extent, serve to maintain and develop Russian-American relations, but this situation could change if Washington decides to continue its anti-terrorist operations in a country that Moscow has some particular ties with. Finding a positive agenda for U.S.-Russian relations will thus become the main challenge for Russian diplomacy. Another major challenge for Putin will be finding the people who can help form this agenda. (The writer is a correspondent for Yezhenedelny Zhurnal.) ****** #7 The Russia Journal December 21-27, 2001 Russia’s elections still a farce By DMITRY PINSKER Elections without choice. Elections in which ordinary citizens participate only for form’s sake. Elections in which the outcome is known in advance because all the main players have made prior agreements on who gets what role in the campaign and who gets what share of the spoils afterwards. Elections like these not only make a mockery of the democratic process, they also undermine the fundamental institution of political parties by reducing the political debates and battles for voters’ support to a series of behind-the-scenes deals. Shortly before the Moscow City Duma elections, four large groupings that mistakenly call themselves parties – Unity (Yedinstvo), Fatherland (Otechestvo), Union of Right Forces (SPS) and Yabloko – signed an agreement and divided up 35 Moscow electoral districts between them. This is an example of blatant absurdity, and no amount of demagogic talk about the positive experience of a civilized fight and the optimization of effort can hide this fact. Just whose interests are being optimized here – those of party officials? And what should a voter do if he traditionally votes for the right, and the leaders of his preferred party are asking him to give his vote to people at the other end of the political spectrum? It was one thing for SPS and Yabloko to unite forces in single-seat districts in the last elections; they are ideologically close, after all, and if it weren’t for their leaders’ personal ambitions, would long since have formed a single coalition. But what do the right-wing liberals have in common with the "party of power," an association of conformist bureaucrats? Only unanimous support for President Vladimir Putin. But until now, Yabloko hadn’t shown any desire to form a coalition with Kremlin-friendly parties. Two years ago, the right was ready to challenge Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov and put up its own candidate – SPS’s Sergei Kiriyenko – against him in elections. But Luzhkov at that time actively opposed the Kremlin, and Kiriyenko’s participation in the election was part of a broad anti-Luzhkov campaign. SPS was backed in its bid by the Presidential Administration, while Boris Berezovsky drew up and financed the attack plan. But now Luzhkov has become a partner if not a friend, and quarreling with him means running into conflict with at least part of the Kremlin team. By making peace, on the other hand, the right wins a few image points and gets access to Moscow’s impressive financial resources. With such a prize at hand, there’s no point worrying about trifles such as the fact that the candidates on the combined list were supplied by Luzhkov from among deputies in the previous Duma he knows to be personally loyal to him. Once everything was divided up and the roles had been distributed, the election campaign could begin. "Now the time has come to ask the opinion of the people, so as to elect a truly worthy candidate." This phrase came last week from Yakutia Interior Minister Semyon Nazarov and was spoken in reference to elections in Yakutia. Nazarov’s phrase aptly captures all that has been going on in Moscow and Yakutia with the deals done and candidates dropping out of the race. Indeed, it sums up all the regional election campaigns of the last year. What would we do without people like Nazarov? It is just such provincial officials, when they start thinking aloud, who often capture the real essence of what the authorities are up to. In a situation like this, the only hope is that voters turn out to be less stupid and naive than the spin doctors expect. After almost 15 years of electoral democracy, voters have learned to put their finger on the authorities’ real intentions. What’s more, a number of election campaigns last year showed that voters don’t want to be seen as a mindless herd or be relegated to the role of extras. They either take their places in the "spectators’ gallery" in front of their TV sets, "vote with their feet" and simply don’t show up at the polling booths, or vote against all candidates. The first case of voters ignoring elections this year was in Tula, and then in Nizhny Novgorod, where an amazingly low voter turnout enabled Communist candidate Gennady Khodyrev to become governor. Finally, voters made a poor showing in Moscow and in the Moscow Oblast last weekend in elections for the city and oblast Dumas. Both in Moscow and the oblast, voter turnout was between 26-29 percent, and in many districts made a suspicious-looking jump to get over the 25-percent mark at the last moment (voter turnout of under 25 percent invalidates the election). Voters in Primorye last spring took the protest-vote approach. Angered by the federal authorities’ arbitrary removal of former Vladivostok Mayor Viktor Cherepkov from the race for governor, the electorate voted against all candidates on the list. In the end, this virtual candidate came in a close second to eventual winner Sergei Darkin. Regional elections in Yakutia on Sunday are likely to follow one of the above scenarios. Even in as remote a place as Yakutia, usually calm and apolitical voters are no doubt sick of the mudslinging wars, revelations of "black PR," Kremlin tussles with regional leaders, endless court hearings and, finally, having all the leading candidates quit the race, while Alrosa head Vyacheslav Shtyrov was reinstated as a candidate and proclaimed current President Mikhail Nikolayev’s successor. Practice shows that in such circumstances, even the most politically active voters end up losing all will to go vote at the appointed time and place. And that’s not to speak of the passive majority, who feel nauseous at the very mention of elections. This group is convinced that they will be cheated and that the authorities will " do what they think necessary." In this case, anyway, it looks as though they’re not far from the truth. ******* #8 Wall Street Journal December 21, 2001 As a Strapped Russia Looks to Diamonds To Raise Funds, Is Democracy at Risk? By JEANNE WHALEN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MOSCOW -- Democracy is on the run in Russia's richest diamond-mining region, where the Kremlin is vying to put its men in charge of the country's most precious nonliquid assets. Tightening control over Russia's diamond revenue has become even more important as falling oil prices undermine federal budget targets for next year. And so the state has been waging a thinly veiled war for victory in this Sunday's presidential race in Yakutia, the glacial Siberian republic known for its big jewels. The theater surrounding the vote shows Moscow is sacrificing democracy as it strengthens its control of regional riches lost in the Boris Yeltsin years. Many human-rights activists condemn the meddling, although some analysts say regional corruption is so high, Moscow doesn't have much choice but to interfere. Back in the early 1990s, Mr. Yeltsin feared that the nationalism that helped shatter the Soviet Union would spread to Russia's ethnically diverse regions, so he placated several far-flung provinces with broad powers. The republic of Yakutia, dominated by deer-herders and fishermen, received its own presidency, constitution and the right to its own native language. Local authorities also won control of Alrosa, the giant diamond-mining monopoly that controls annual output second only to Botswana's. Vladimir Putin has devoted his presidency to revoking powers like these, believing that some of Russia's regions have grown drunk on independence. Lately, his focus has settled on Yakutia's frigid diamond mines. Earlier this year, Moscow said it intended to raise its stake in Alrosa to 51% from 32%, and to boost its control over Alrosa's $1.7 billion (1.89 billion euros) in annual sales. Showing that the Kremlin meant business, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin flew to Yakutia's capital this week to sign a new five-year diamond trading agreement with De Beers. Russian media and analysts say the Kremlin also has conducted a bare-knuckles campaign to oust local president Mikhail Nikolayev and put its own ally in charge. "The election campaign ending Sunday has been record-breaking in its number of lawsuits and volume of dirty PR," newspaper Vremya Novostei wrote this week. On Thursday, a Kremlin spokeswoman denied that the Kremlin is meddling. "We do not intrude in any elections," she said. "This is up to the will of the people in any particular region." But political analysts say signs of federal pressure have been mounting since early this year. The Audit Chamber, a parliamentary watchdog group that oversees government spending, has alleged a host of financial shenanigans in the republic, accusing the local government of collecting four times too much diamond-mine "rent" from Alrosa, and of misspending federal funds sent to clean up a disastrous flood this summer. The region denied any foul play. After several recent meetings with Mr. Putin in Moscow, Mr. Nikolayev withdrew his candidacy last week and threw his support behind the Kremlin's favorite, Vyacheslav Shtyrov, head of Alrosa. In a televised award ceremony, Mr. Putin tacitly anointed Mr. Shtyrov by pinning a medal on him and thanking him for his help in cleaning up the flood. Russian media say Mr. Putin wants to move Mr. Shtyrov out of the diamond company and put an ally from his home city of St. Petersburg in charge. The Russian president has appointed many St. Petersburgers to top government and corporate posts in the past year, including at gas monopoly OAO Gazprom. Human-rights activists have deplored what they say is widespread Kremlin meddling in regional elections. Yuri Korgonyuk of the Indem think tank in Moscow agreed that Sunday's vote in Yakutia can't be called democracy, but added that he didn't disapprove of Moscow's interference. "Nikolayev's leaving is a necessary thing because the level of corruption in Yakutia was outrageous even for a regional republic," he said. "Democracy works well where there is civil society, but where clans form the basis of society ... any election will end in the victory of the clans, no matter how corrupt they are." ******* #9 gazeta.ru December 21, 2001 Former PM Kiriyenko Answers Questions of Gazeta.Ru Readers Sergei Kiriyenko’s name became known nation-wide, when in April 1998 he became the youngest prime-minister in Russian history. He was forced to leave the post in the aftermath of the August 1998 economy collapse. In December 1998 his name hit the headlines again, when he established the all-Russian rightist political movement Novaya Sila (New Force), that later entered the Union of the Rightist Forces (SPS). In February 1999 he was a candidate Moscow mayor elections. Naturally, he lost the race to Luzhkov, having scored second-highest vote. In August 1999 Sergei Kiriyenko together with Boris Nemtsov and Irina Khakamada formed a pre-election bloc of the Union of Rightist Forces and became the lower house deputy in December. In May 2000 Vladimir Putin invited him to take the post of the presidential envoy to the Volga federal district. On Thursday, December 20 Sergei Kiriyenko answered the questions of Gazeta.Ru readers. Being an envoy to the Volga district is not an easy task. What kind of relationship do you have with leadership of ethnic republics, such as Tatarstan, Bashkortostan? //Galina (Moscow) A good relationship. I consider myself lucky. All the 15 regions (that are part of the Volga federal district) are headed by competent, balanced leaders. Of course, they maintain their interests, and this is absolutely normal, for if our positions coincided, someone of us would not be needed. Everyone must have his sphere of responsibility. National security, defence, social benefits, judicial system – all that is under the jurisdiction of the federal authority, and we are not going to give this away to anyone. Tremendous tasks regional leaders are facing include development of cities, regions. That is their concern. What is the situation with the construction of the plant for elimination of chemical weapons in the settlement of Gorny, the Saratov Region. Do you plan to visit the Saratov Region? Is that true that you are in tense relationship with (the governor of Saratov Region ) Ayatskov? Thank you, in advance. // Igor (Engels) The construction of the plant goes on. By May the construction and assembly works will have been completed. We hope to finalize the start-up and adjustment operations in August and then to proceed to commission. This year we have managed to earmark enough funds, and next year we will have sufficient amounts coming on time. I visited Saratov four times in the past year. I try to visit all regions evenly so that nobody feels hurt. I will certainly visit (Saratov) this spring. I maintain good working relations with Ayatskov, there is mutual understanding between us. Dear Mr.Kiriyenko! Many observers draw parallels between the latest events in Argentina and the situation in Russia in 1998. What is your forecast in that regard, given your personal experience? Does that imply that defaults are natural, and will recur in future? // Yelena, Moscow These situations are similar. You ask, whether defaults are a rule. They are a rule if somebody lives beyond one’s means. It is important to repay your debts. Anybody – a company, a region or a country can run bankrupt. Defaults will recur there and then, where and when people will forget about possibility to live within one’s means. Luckily, this is not a threat for Russia today. What is your forecast of Russian economic development for the next half year? // Svetlana (England) The growth will continue. I think that its rate may prove lower, and primarily because of the low oil prices. I think that despite of all measures aimed to maintain them, we will not have as high price next year, as we had last year. Besides, there is such factor as the global economic recession in the aftermath of September 11. It affects us somewhat less as we are less integrated in the world economy, but the influence exists. Could the low oil prices entail the new default in Russia? // Roman Menkin (St.Petersburg) No, I think, that is not possible. Russia defaulted not because of the low oil prices, but owing to the fact that we had low prices and low state revenues, and at the same time we spent more than we earned thus we were living on credit. Today Russia not only stopped to live on credit, but also uses part of revenues for repayment of old debts. This is the reason why the change in oil prices is important for Russia, yet it cannot lead to any crises or defaults by itself. Any crisis or default always is the result of one’s own policy. What is your estimate of Boris Berezovsky’s capability to affect the outcome of the next presidential elections in Russia? // Lyudmila (Latvia). His capability is zero. In my opinion, he simply fails to understand that times have changed and that the country has changed. This is the most important – oligarchs, acting separately or together, are no longer able to dictate their will to the nation. That has happened (oligarchs have lost their influence), and, what is especially important, that has happened without serious disasters and bloodshed. We realize that several years ago the influence of key oligarchs in the country was absolute, they had an opportunity to govern the country. This is no longer so, but not all of them have reconciled to that. They will have to. Dear Mr.Kiriyenko, what is your standpoint concerning the situation surrounding the NTV and the TV6? In your opinion, is there a real threat to the freedom of speech in Russia? What is the situation with the freedom of speech in your federal district? Eugene (Brooklyn, New York) What is your attitude to the pending closure of the TV6 television company? // Vitsyn, Sergei (Moscow) I do not possess the whole of the information, but the situation with the NTV was more clear for me. There are two key freedoms – the freedom of speech and the freedom of of property. What should never be done is to make somebody choose between those two freedoms: one cannot ask a child whom he loves more, his mom or his dad. But there is never a freedom of speech, if there is no freedom of property, and vice versa. I consider it very important to secure both. Therefore, when a question emerges, if a certain media outlet, by the virtue of it being a media outlet, could refuse to repay debt, take credits and not to repay? The answer is no, since the liability to repay debts must be uniformly applied to the media outlet and to the bank. As for the TV6, it is good, that there is a company that is independent and expresses its own opinion. The more there are such companies, the better. What is your attitude towards sects? Media reports many times alleged you belonged to Scientology sect? Could you please confirm or refute the allegation? // Alexei, Moscow Fortunately, journalists have long since ceased to ask me about that. I have never ever belonged to any sect. Is Putin’s here for a long time?// Gennady (Brooklyn, NY) Western media often accuse Putin of adherenceto the Soviet-era (as the Americans perceive that – rigidly anti-liberal) methods of running the country. In your opinion, to what extent Putin is the “Soviet” type of a president? And what is the level of this fact’s positive or negative influence on Russia? // Maria Z (St.Petersburg, currently in the US). Dear Mr.Kiriyenko, are you able to somehow influence the president so that he does not give in to provocative proposals to extend the constitutional term of presidency? Does Russia really has to follow the example of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and others, or, instead will follow France that, on the contrary, reduced the presidential term from 7 to 5 years. I would like to hope that the young Russian democracy will not fall that low in the eyes of the West. // Marat Salikov (St.Louis, Missouri, USA) I do not know what of all that Putin has done may be perceived as anti-liberal measures. The income tax is now the lowest existing – 13%; his strive to make Russia the member of the WTO, of the united Europe; joint cooperation with NATO in combating terrorism. I am convinced, that Putin will stay on his post till the end of this term, and for one more presidential term. It seems to me that accusing Putin of old and Soviet-era methods is no longer relevant. In September-October (this year), as a chairman of the Chemical Weapons Commission, I visited practically all G7 countries. As a rule, I frequently encountered such situation in public opinion that people considered Russia has happened to be half a step ahead – in its understanding of problems, of necessary actions and, by the way, the president’s personal position contributed a lot to the improvement of Russia’s image in the world. Once a high-ranking official of one of the NATO states during the discussion of chemical disarmament programme told me: “Please ask president Putin, so that he tells Bush, because Bush listens to him, that in relations with Europe one should act so and so…” I said: “Do you realize what you are talking about? You ask a member of Security Council of Russia to exert influence on the US so that they would listen better to their partner in NATO!” That’s fantastic! (As for the proposal to extend the presidential term), the president has already given his answer. I know his opinion on the matter. He has many times expressed it before. On December 12, Constitution Day he publicly stated, that as long as he remains the president, the Constitution would not be amended, and the term of presidency provision would remain unchanged. This position deserves respect. Thank you for answering our readers’ questions. Good-bye // Gazeta.Ru Good-bye. ******* #10 Stalin honoured with flowers and songs in Georgia By Margarita Antidze GORI, Georgia, Dec 21 (Reuters) - Hundreds of Georgians loyal to the memory of Soviet leader Josef Stalin marched through his home town of Gori on Friday, carrying flowers and tattered portraits to mark the 122nd anniversary of his birth. A group of mainly elderly supporters gathered outside the museum dedicated to the Georgian-born dictator, before taking wreathes to a giant bronze statue of Stalin -- one of the few left standing after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. War veterans laden with medals sang songs and recited poems in honour of the Communist leader who sent millions to their deaths in Siberian labour camps during the political purges of the 1930s. Stalin, who ruled the Soviet Union from Lenin's death in 1924 to his own death in 1953, was born Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili in the small town of Gori, about 60 km (40 miles) from the Georgian capital Tbilisi, on December 21, 1879. Despite the horrors of Stalin's regime, denounced in 1956 by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, some die-hard Communists remain nostalgic for his iron rule, and credit him with defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. "We died in the war for him and his name was the last word we said," 89-year-old war veteran Georgy Malazonia said. Children wearing red scarves reminiscent of the Komsomol Communist youth league were given a day off school to attend the traditional ceremony. While the personality cult surrounding Stalin evaporated in most of Georgia and other Soviet republics after his death, Gori remains firm in its support of its most famous son. Panteleimon Giorgadze, the leader of Georgia's small Communist Party, used the anniversary to accuse President Eduard Shevardnadze's government of turning Georgia into a beggar. "We will call you to go to Tbilisi soon, and with the population of Tbilisi, we will take power into our own hands," Giorgadze told the crowd. Small and mountainous Georgia was spoilt by generous subsidies from Moscow during the Soviet period and life for many has deteriorated since independence in 1991. Daily power cuts throughout the winter months make life miserable for most Georgians, while the elderly say they can barely afford to eat on pensions of just 14 lari ($7) per month. Vakhtang Goguadze, leader of the left-wing Patriotic Union, said Georgia should restore its good relations with Russia, adding the country should join its northern neighbour. "It's our destiny to be with Russia," he said. In Moscow, supporters of the Russian Communist party laid wreathes by Stalin's grave in the Kremlin wall. "Against the background of the ignorance and vulgarity that is overwhelming our country, against the background of the mediocrity that is looting and destroying a 1,000-year-old power, the historical figure of Stalin seems even more significant," Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying. ******* #11 RUSSIANS HAVE 4 MILLION QUESTIONS TO ASK PRESIDENT MOSCOW, DECEMBER 21 /From RIA Novosti's Yelizaveta Sviridova/ - Russians may put in an estimated 4 million questions by the time President Vladimir Putin speaks live on television on Monday, December 24, press office of the RTR state television announced Friday. The head of state is expected to speak live on two major Russian television networks - the RTR and the ORT public television - at noon Moscow time. RTR spokespeople said the questions are coming in by telephone and online. On December 19 -- the day the Kremlin press office announced the President's appearance - switchboard operators received 13,946 calls. Another 74,083 calls were placed the following day. By mid-Friday, RTR had received over 23 thousand calls. The RTR press office predicted the calls might reach a peak on Sunday. ORT sources said the network had set up a telephone center at the Ostankino television center, which can receive 240 phone calls simultaneously. The network spokespeople said sampling and sociological analysis of the input was underway. They said the Efficient Policy Fund was doing the job. By now, mobile television stations have been set up in 10 cities of Russia for the head of state's live broadcast. Online questions to the President are received in the building of VGTRK - the establishment that runs the RTR. They are then forwarded to the presidential administration along with the phoned questions. RTR sources said all the ground cable lines run by the Communications Ministry and two satellite channels will be used for the broadcast. RTR news anchor Sergei Brilev and ORT's Yekaterina Andreyeva will be announcing the Russians' questions to the President. ******* #12 Russia/U.S.: Does U.S. Withdrawal From ABM Set A Historic Precedent? By Kathleen Knox The U.S. recently told Russia it was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in six months' time in order to pursue a national missile-defense system. The decision to pull out of a major international accord was billed as the first of its kind. But is it such a rare event? Prague, 21 December 2001 (RFE/RL) -- "The end of an era." "Tearing up the treaty." "Burying the Cold War." Those were some of the headlines used in U.S. and European papers last week to describe U.S. President George W. Bush's decision to pull out of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, announced on 13 December. The treaty, signed by former U.S. President Richard Nixon and then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, barred both sides from developing national missile-defense shields. The idea was that the resulting threat of "mutually assured destruction," or MAD, would prevent nuclear war. Russia called it a cornerstone of global stability. Bush said it was a Cold War relic that prevented the U.S. from developing a missile-defense system to protect it from new potential threats -- so-called "rogue states" like Iraq and North Korea who are suspected of trying to develop nuclear capabilities. Bush's move -- though long-anticipated -- was seen as nothing less than historic. Although it is not a technical violation of the treaty, which requires only that signatories give six months' notice before withdrawing, the U.S. decision calls into question whether treaties and other international accords are largely symbolic agreements that it is not necessary to strictly uphold. Trevor Findlay heads VERTIC, an international non-governmental organization that observes the negotiation, monitoring, and implementation of international agreements. Of the U.S. decision to withdraw from the 1972 treaty, he said, "The ABM case is extremely rare, and of course it's quite rare that such an important country should withdraw from an agreement." Findlay says the only other similar example his organization knows of in the post-World War II arms-control era is North Korea. In the mid-1990s -- amid suspicion it was producing nuclear weapons -- Pyongyang said it was withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which had gone into effect in 1970. Nicholas Sims, an expert on international treaties at the London School of Economics, picks up the story. He says the North Korean government, which retracted its withdrawal notice one day before it was due to abandon the treaty, has existed in a kind of technical gray area ever since. "This was back in 1994 and one day before the three months' notice [of withdrawal from the treaty] was due to expire, [North Korea] announced that they [were] suspending the implementation of their notice of withdrawal," Sims says. "So ever since June 1994 they've occupied this rather unusual position where they regard themselves as not fully bound by the non-proliferation treaty on nuclear weapons, but everybody else regards them as still bound because they haven't yet implemented that notice of withdrawal." Washington's decision to pull out of the ABM Treaty does have some historical precedents. In 1798, the U.S. pulled out of a 20-year alliance and commercial treaty with France. And in the 1840s, Congress gave President James K. Polk authority to withdraw from an 1827 treaty with Great Britain regarding the northwestern state of Oregon. In those cases, the president sought congressional approval before abandoning the treaties. But the U.S. Constitution offers only vague guidelines on whether the president must consult with Congress before abandoning a treaty. In the case of the ABM Treaty, Bush warned members of Congress of his intention, but acted unilaterally in choosing to withdraw. Some members of Congress have indicated that they may challenge Bush's decision in the new year. Some experts say the ABM is not the first treaty in recent history that the U.S. has abandoned, and cite then-President Jimmy Carter's move in 1979 to end the 1954 U.S.-Taiwan joint defense treaty. But Sims says that could not technically be considered a withdrawal: "That was just a consequence of the recognition of the People's Republic of China, and hence the 'de-recognition' of the so-called Republic of China in Taiwan. So I don't think that's fully a withdrawal from a bilateral treaty." The U.S. has been close to pulling out of the ABM Treaty on at least one other occasion. Ronald Reagan -- who pursued his own strategic defensive initiative, dubbed "Star Wars," during his presidency in the 1980s -- also appeared to be looking for a way out of ABM. The Reagan administration issued what it called a "broad interpretation" of the ABM Treaty. This stretched it to accommodate tests that it would probably have barred under a more conventional reading. In the end, the "Star Wars" program was shelved when research failed to show it was viable. While it's unusual for a country to pull out completely from an international treaty, Findlay of VERTIC says countries often find "wiggle room" to maneuver. "It's much more common for states to remain parties [to agreements] but not comply fully with their obligations," Findlay says. "It's such an extreme step to take, to withdraw from an agreement, that states normally find ways around the problem." One prominent example of this approach is Iraq, which is still party to the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention but is believed to have developed germ-warfare programs. Iraq has also refused to readmit UN weapons inspectors to prove it is not developing chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Critics point to this lack of effective verification as one of the flaws of such sweeping international treaties. Just because a country signs up does not mean it is meeting its obligations. ****** #13 FBI focusing on portable nuke threat By Nicholas Horrock Senior White House Correspondent WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 (UPI) -- The leading congressional expert on Russia's small portable nuclear weapons told United Press International that the FBI has stepped up its investigation of whether al Qaida or other terrorist groups have acquired these deadly devices from Russian stockpiles. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., chairman of the Research and Development Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that he was briefed by the FBI late last week and that the investigation of whether terrorist groups have weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear devices, is now a top priority at the bureau after years of indifference. "Now they're looking at everything and following up on every lead," Weldon said. It was Weldon, through his R&D subcommittee, who produced over past three years some of the most exhaustive and startling information about the Russian stockpile of weapons that could be an advantage to Osama bin Laden, his al Qaida network or other terrorist groups. "The question is whether or not bin Laden has had access to nuclear material," Weldon said. "I think it is better than a 50-50 chance that he does." "Do I think he has a small atomic demolition munitions, which were built by the Soviets in the Cold War? Probably doubtful," Weldon said. But he added that after Sept. 11 the FBI could not avoid running every lead to ground. In 1997, Weldon brought former Russian security chief Gen. Alexander Lebed before his committee. Lebed testified that perhaps 100 small nuclear devices were missing from inventories under his control. Lebed said the devices were a "perfect terrorist weapon," made to look like suitcases, "and could be detonated by one person with less than 30 minutes of preparation," according to committee documents. The Russian government immediately tried to discredit Lebed's testimony, but Weldon's committee brought a prominent Russian weapons scientist, Aleksey Yablokov, before the committee in 1998 who reported that he knew the Russians produced small nuclear weapons for combat use. Yablokov was vilified when he returned to Moscow as a "traitor" for his testimony. Yablokov sued one major Russian magazine over this vilification, Weldon said, and won a 30,000-ruble judgment against the publication. Perhaps the most startling testimony came from a defector from the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU, who testified in 1998 that the Russians secretly pre-positioned weapons, including small nuclear devices, in the U.S. and other countries around the world to be used for sabotage by its agents in time of war. This witness said it was his job while working undercover in Washington from 1988 to 1992 as a correspondent for the Russian news agency Tass to locate places where these weapons could be hidden both around Washington and in other parts of the country. Weldon has described the weapons in this testimony as "small nuclear weapons that can fit into a knapsack or a briefcase or suitcase and are designed to be delivered and detonated by one or two people." He created a mock-up of one in a suitcase form that he uses in speeches and Congressional hearings based on descriptions from Russian sources. He keeps the mock-up in his office. A Federation of American Scientists compilation, titled Soviet Weapons, notes that there is very little information in the public venue about the size and destructive power of the small weapons. The U.S. backpack nuke weighs 163 pounds and can be carried by one or two men. One Russian naval arms compilation talks about small portable nuclear weapons weighing from 59 pounds to 154 pounds. The yield, too, is hard to pin down. One former American scientist who worked at the Department of Energy labs said that the "Davy Crocket," which was the small bomb later converted to special operations, had a one-kiloton explosive power and would level the Capitol Building and everything in a half mile radius. It also would spread radioactive waste across a wide area of Washington. The bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. (Each kiloton has an explosive power equal to 1,000 tons of TNT.) The GRU witness, who testified using a pseudonym, Col. Stanislaw Lunez, said that even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russians continued to frame war plans against a range of Western nations including the U.S. "According to Soviet military plans, very well advanced, maybe a few months, maybe a few weeks, of course, a few hours before real war would be placed against his country (the U.S.), Russian Special Operations Forces need to come here and pick up weapons systems, because they will fly here as tourists, businessmen. "According to their tasking, in a few hours they need to physically destroy, eliminate American military chains of command, President, Supreme Commander in Chief, Vice President, Speaker of the House, military commanders, especially to cut the head from the American military chain of command," Lunev said. He said that the Russians had a plan to sabotage industrial, communications and power targets as well. Weldon said later the FBI discredited Lunev, saying that he exaggerated things, but another federal agency that Weldon declined to identify protects Lunev in an undisclosed location in the U.S. He said Lunev's credentials as a ranking GRU spy assigned to the U.S. have never been questioned. Later Vasily Mitrokhin, a KGB official, disclosed in his best-selling book "The Sword and the Shield" that the Soviets had secreted weapons and explosives near NATO facilities throughout Europe for use in a war. Weldon said that Belgian officials located and dug up some caches near NATO's headquarters The backpack nukes are part of some 12,000 tactical nuclear weapons that the Russians possessed in 1991 when they agreed to a unilateral arms reduction with the first Bush Administration. The Russians were to destroy 2,000 warheads a year from 1991, which would suggest there is only a handful left. The U.S. destroyed the bulk of its weapons, but Weldon said that there is no evidence that the Russians have conducted such a program. "That's part of the problem. I've continually called for a treaty with Russian and really a worldwide effort to ban or to limit tactical nukes," Weldon said. "There has been no effort and we have had no success in getting Russia to decrease their tactical nukes. They feel they act as a buffer for Europe; the proximity of European countries. We just don't know whether they have total control of their atomic munitions." ********