Johnson's Russia List #7157 28 April 2003 davidjohnson@erols.com A CDI Project www.cdi.org [Contents: 1. Rosbalt: 69% of Russians Say They Profess a Religion. 2. Rosbalt: Education in Russia Needs USD 1.5 Billion by 2004 to Avert Degradation. 3. New York Times editorial: The Road to St. Petersburg. 4. Interfax: U.S. spy submarine detected near Kamchatka. 5. Reuters: Soyuz relieves stranded U.S.-Russian space crew. 6. Los Angeles Times: David Holley, Russia to Beef Up Tajikistan Presence. Putin says the military forces will help preserve stability and stop drug and terror activities. 7. Atlanta Journal and Constitution: Nadzeya Dziskavets, Democracy's arrival, when too swift, brings chaos. 8. Luba Schwartzman: TV1 Review. 9. Michele Berdy: SARS. 10. Rossiiskie Vesti: Igor Dmitriev, ORDERED INTO THE WEST. The merger of the oil giants: YUKOS and Sibneft. 11. Sobesednik: Vladlen Maximov, THE OLIGARCHS WILL VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS. A look at where the political parties are getting their campaign funding. 12. Rossiiskie Vesti: Alexei Sergeev, THE ART OF TIGHTROPE-WALKING. An overview of the current state of the Yabloko party. 13. gazeta.ru: Russians unhappy with their generals. 14. Rosbalt: US Ambassador on Russian Oil Contracts with Iraq. 15. Wall Street Journal: Geoffrey Smith, Russian Oil Majors Are Getting It Right at Last. 16. The Sunday Times (UK) book review: Simon Sebag Montefiore, History: Stalin's Last Crime by Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov. 17. Los Angeles Times book review: Lesley Chamberlain, Dark side of the moon. (re Gulag, A History by Anne Applebaum) 18. Moscow Times: Alla Startseva, Blueprint to Liquidate UES by 2006 Approved. 19. NG Dipkuryer: IRAQI WAR DIDN'T AFFECT RUSSIA'S WORLD STATUS. Moscow must regard critically the U.S. attempts to establish global superiority by force. (interview with Alexei PUSHKOV)] ******** #1 Rosbalt April 28, 2003 69% of Russians Say They Profess a Religion MOSCOW, April 26. In recent years the number of Russians who consider themselves religious believers and the number of Russians who consider themselves Orthodox has increased. According to a recent survey by the Public Opinion fund , this year 69% of respondents said that they profess a religion. Moreover, 59% of those questioned identified themselves as Orthodox, 8% Muslim and 2% other religions. 30% of those questioned did not consider themselves religious. In 1997 the same index had 62% professing a religion and 38% not professing a religion. In addition, the survey showed that 65% of Russians consider Easter a 'special holiday.' 83% of those questioned said they plan to celebrate Easter somehow or other. However, only 16% of those questions intended on celebrating the holiday in church. At the same time, 42% of respondents said they planned to celebrate Easter with their family around the table, 36% planned to consecrate Easter cake and eggs, and 32% planned to visit a cemetery. Lent was observed by 9% of Russians this year compared to 6% in 2000 and 8% in 2002. 1500 respondents participated in the surveys which were held across Russia on August 9, 1997 and April 19, 2003. ******** #2 Rosbalt April 28, 2003 Education in Russia Needs USD 1.5 Billion by 2004 to Avert Degradation MOSCOW, April 26. In 2004 education will require an additional USD 1.5 billion including USD 871 million for the transition to a branch system of work pay, according to Yabloko Party State Duma Deputy Alexander Shishlov at a session of the State Duma committee for education and science on Friday. Shishlov said that the government's conducting of work for optimization of budget expenses 'must not be looked at as an instrument for economizing expenses on education.' He also said that budget expenses on education must be increased, because 'the continuation of the present level of pay for teachers and financing of expenses in the development of material bases for schools and institutions of higher education will inevitably lead to the degradation of the entire system of education.' The committee and the Ministry of Education prepared a joint proposal for a top-priority budget with political importance. Particularly the proposal calls for the increase in pay for teachers, increase in expenses on acquisition of learning equipment and on the development of an information base for education, and also on repairs for dormitories. ******* #3 New York Times April 27, 2003 Editorial The Road to St. Petersburg While the Bush administration has decided to punish France for its opposition to the war in Iraq, it seems inclined to forgive Russia its transgressions. We would favor mending fences with France as well, but at least the White House understands the importance of repairing relations with the Kremlin so the two nations can work together on common problems. To that end, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, recently traveled to Moscow, and President Bush still plans to visit President Vladimir Putin's hometown of St. Petersburg this spring for its 300th anniversary. We hope the meeting will not be another symbolic embrace, but an earnest attempt to turn the good chemistry of the Bush-Putin relationship into an enduring partnership between the two nations. The reason is not only that magnanimity in victory is wise, nor even the vast leftover arsenal of Soviet nuclear missiles. The fact is that we need Russia's help on a variety of critical issues. The war on terrorism, on nuclear proliferation, on the illicit trade in arms or drugs - all these require intense international cooperation. Russia, more than many countries, is critical as an ally. Few countries have as much relevant real estate in the war on terrorism as Russia, whose endless border winds through some of the most explosive regions on two continents. No country has as many arms, technology or experts to proliferate. The Soviet Union had advanced programs in biological and chemical weapons, and Russians know how to combat them. Unfortunately, the relationship has been largely one-sided - in Washington's favor - since Mr. Bush famously declared that he had looked into Mr. Putin's soul and found a partner to be trusted. Mr. Putin offered considerable help in Afghanistan, and he swallowed NATO expansion and the scuttling of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty. But he has received little in return beyond Washington's misguided decision to go mute on Russia's brutal war in Chechnya. That puts Mr. Putin in a vulnerable position. He still presides over a governing bureaucracy heavily laced with cold warriors who resent American power, and they have wasted no time in accusing him of kowtowing to Washington. This, in fact, is shaping up as the dominant battle in parliamentary elections later this year, and it is one reason Mr. Putin sided so publicly with France and Germany against the American war in Iraq. A helping hand now from Washington, despite Mr. Putin's stand on Iraq, would go a long way toward demonstrating to his electorate that his opening to the West is not a humiliating failure, and it would encourage him to stay the course in his next term. Giving Russia a serious stake in postwar Iraq, for example, would do much to help. The benefits might extend well beyond retaining Mr. Putin as a soul mate. An anxious world is looking for signs that the United States is not the arrogant and vindictive superpower so many fear. Supporting Mr. Putin would also show that the United States is serious about helping emerging democracies. It wasn't that long ago, after all, that Russia pulled down its own statues. ******* #4 U.S. spy submarine detected near Kamchatka VLADIVOSTOK. April 28 (Interfax) - An American spy submarine has been detected near the Kamchatka Peninsula coast in Russia's Far East. The headquarters of the Russian Northeastern Forces told Interfax early on Monday that a Los Angeles class submarine had been following the Northeastern Forces' exercises when it was detected in the Avachinsky Bay on Sunday. After detecting the sub, Russian naval ships and aircraft forced it from Russian territorial waters. The command post exercises of the Northeastern Forces, which were designed to sum up the winter training cycle, involved 15 surface ships and submarines, 10 support ships, 20 aircraft, over 10,000 servicemen and some 5,000 civilian specialists. Commander of the Russian Pacific Fleet Adm. Viktor Fyodorov was in charge of the exercises. ******* #5 Soyuz relieves stranded U.S.-Russian space crew By Richard Balmforth MOSCOW, April 28 (Reuters) - An American astronaut and a Russian cosmonaut boarded a space station 410 km (250 miles) above earth on Monday, relieving a three-man crew forced to stay an extra two months in space by the U.S. Columbia tragedy. Russian commander Yuri Malenchenko and U.S. flight engineer Edward Lu were greeted with hugs by their three space comrades -- two Americans and one Russian -- after crawling through a hatch into the orbiting station from their Soyuz capsule. "Everything is fine. The craft has docked with the station. The crew are feeling fine," a Russian mission control official told Reuters by telephone from a control centre outside Moscow shortly after docking. The Soyuz TMA-2, which took them to the International Space Station after blasting off from Baikonur in Kazakhstan on Saturday, was the first manned space craft launched since the U.S. Columbia shuttle broke up on re-entry on February 1. The tragedy, in which seven astronauts were killed, led to the grounding of the U.S. shuttle fleet and forced the three-man crew to extend their projected return date by about two months. Until U.S. space authorities have made a final decision on the future of the shuttle programme, the Russian Soyuz is the principal life-line now for the $95 billion, 16-nation station. After briefing the incoming crew, U.S. astronauts Ken Bowersox and Donald Pettit and Russia's Nikolai Budarin are due to return to earth on May 4 on a back-up Soyuz -- the first time U.S. astronauts have come home on a Russian vessel. TV showed the five together giving a thumbs-up sign for success shortly after Malenchenko, 41, and Lu, 39, had boarded. The pair will stay on the station until October. Beyond the official euphoria over the successful docking, Russian officials made no secret of their persistent concern for the long-term financial future of the ISS if no extra funds are forthcoming from the United States. "If a concrete programme of future financing is not undertaken in the near future, Russia will run up against huge problems in fulfilling the ISS programme," Yuri Semyonov, head of RKK Energia, the company responsible for building the Soyuz capsules, told reporters. Crews have been reduced to two from three members in the wake of the Columbia disaster, restricting the scale of scientific experiments that can be conducted on the ISS. Space officials said the schedule of work planned for Malenchenko and Lu would include medical and biological experiments and monitoring of the earth's climate. The pair also brought birthday gifts for Pettit who turned 48 on April 20 and Budarin who will be 50 on Tuesday. ******* #6 Los Angeles Times April 28, 2003 Russia to Beef Up Tajikistan Presence Putin says the military forces will help preserve stability and stop drug and terror activities. By David Holley, Times Staff Writer MOSCOW — Russia will boost its military presence in the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan to stem the flow of terrorism and drugs from neighboring Afghanistan and promote stability in the region, President Vladimir V. Putin said Sunday while visiting the former Soviet republic. "A truly peaceful and stable Afghanistan is still a very long way away," Putin said in televised remarks to officers of a Russian motorized infantry division based in Tajikistan. "Moreover, our special services, including those from the Defense Ministry, have recently reported the Taliban and Al Qaeda significantly stepping up their activities and rebuilding their networks. It is up to the anti-terrorist international coalition to improve and intensify its efforts." Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, an American presence has grown in Central Asia with Putin's acquiescence. U.S. forces have used Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to support operations in Afghanistan, where more than 11,000 U.S. and allied troops are searching for remnants of the ousted Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. But Moscow still sees the region as its own sphere of influence. Russia currently has an estimated 10,000 to 14,000 troops in Tajikistan who help guard the country's long and porous border with Afghanistan. Putin and Tajik President Emamali Rakhmonov ordered officials to prepare an agreement for signing by the end of May on building a new main base for Russian forces in the country and defining their legal status, Russian news agencies reported from Dushanbe, the Tajik capital. Russia's military presence helped former Communist boss Rakhmonov hang on to power through a 1992-97 civil war, which was ended through a power-sharing deal with militant Islamic opponents. Moscow has also recently announced plans to build up its military presence in Kyrgyzstan. Putin's aim is to solidify the status quo in Central Asia, not to try to throw the U.S. out, said Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Moscow branch of the Washington-based Center for Defense Information. "It has already become clear to policymakers at the Kremlin that Russia will not be able to control the entire Central Asian region solely on its own," Safranchuk said. "Today, the responsibility for maintaining security and stability in Central Asia is shared between Russia and the U.S. And since Russia has traditionally dominated in Tajikistan, this will become Russia's zone of responsibility." Putin was in Tajikistan on a three-day visit for meetings of the Eurasian Economic Community interstate council and the Collective Security Treaty Council, bodies aimed at rebuilding links between the former Soviet states. Kazakhstan's President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, chairman of the economic council, said its meeting included discussions of stepped-up cooperation to fight drug trafficking. In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov told reporters Sunday that Russia wants to see tougher measures to fight increased drug production in Afghanistan, including incentives to discourage opium poppy farming. Opium and heroin from Afghanistan often are smuggled across Tajikistan and on to Russia and Western Europe. Partly as a result, drug addiction is growing rapidly in Russia. Trubnikov also said the general effectiveness of coalition forces in Afghanistan is "so far not very high." Putin also met in Dushanbe with Supreme Mufti Amonulla Nematzade, the leader of Tajikistan's Muslims. Putin stressed that because millions of Russian citizens are Muslim, "this gives us the right to view Russia as part of the Muslim world to some extent." Putin's comments reflected an effort to prevent Russia's role in Tajikistan, and in the international anti-terrorist coalition, from being seen in terms of religious conflict, Safranchuk said. Alexei V. Kuznetsov of The Times' Moscow Bureau contributed to this report. ******* #7 Atlanta Journal and Constitution April 28, 2003 Democracy's arrival, when too swift, brings chaos By Nadzeya Dziskavets Nadzeya Dziskavets, a Russian native, is a writer living in Atlanta. Autocracy, with its cagelike structure and lack of personal freedoms, is bad, right? Democracy, filled with rights and freedoms, is good, right? Maybe. I think about what happened when another autocratic regime was overthrown. More than 10 years ago, Russia became a democratic society. Just like today in Iraq, it all happened too suddenly. Initially, the air was filled with hopes and bewilderment. New faces on television promised a bright future, filled with freedoms and possibilities. But after the first excitement and triumph, after all monuments of removed leaders came down, after the dust had settled, people were left with more questions than answers. Instead of a happy ever after, there was a mess, which no one really knew how to clean up. At first, most people did not know what to do with their newfound freedoms. Older people were too old to change, so they continued to live quietly and passively. Most of them never got to use their rights, because they never got to understand them. Young people found great advantage in new possibilities, which initially were so endless that the country was engrossed with chaos. Many old laws didn't apply to the new situations, and new laws were not written yet. The country's legal system became one huge loophole, and many enjoyed jumping through it. Those with old political connections became commercial mafia. They used their connections to buy products for the price dictated by government-enforced social programs, and later sold these goods for a free-market price. They made so much money that they didn't know what to do with it. Those who before were called hooligans and were under the community's watchful eye for their lawlessness now got a chance to let out their aggression. They became criminal mafia. Robbery, homicide and violence splashed out on the streets like worms out of an opened can. Those who didn't have connections or aggression stole. Over years, huge plants were stripped down to bare walls, piece by piece. One morning a whole street could wake up with no lights because someone stole all the cables. Everything that could be sold or used became quarry. Those who were good, honest, hardworking people felt like ducks that paddle hard but can't get anywhere. Hopes and excitement diminished quickly. Freedom from censorship brought information that changed people forever. Imported movies, hip-hop and rap music, and advertisements carried one strong message: You are what you have. A longtime deprived public started consuming, but what they got wasn't exactly the best. For a while, the market was overwhelmed with old groceries, Salvation Army clothing, overpriced electronics and blue jeans. Russia became a great dump for American enterprise. That was the greatest American victory. After several years of this, more and more people started looking back at those predemocratic days with nostalgia. Many of those who didn't manage to adapt to a new life found a joy in talking about the old one. The lesson that can be learned from Russia's dramatic political transformation is that when regime change happens so suddenly, the core foundation of people's lives is shattered. The citizens are told that everything they once believed in is a lie, and this is why now they live in denial. Good ideals and values often get thrown away along with bad ones. In Russia, such values as hard, honest work and sense of community were rejected by many, along with unmasked political ideals. It will take an enormous time for the country to find its face and for people to find their place in it. So, maybe democracy is ultimately better than autocracy, but new converts, like those in Russia and now in Iraq, may not see its virtue just yet. Some things, when broken, create a lot of dust. Will this dust ever settle? ******* #8 TV1 Review www.1tv.ru Compiled by Luba Schwartzman (luba_sch@hotmail.com) Research Analyst, Center for Defense Information, Moscow office WEEKEND HIGHLIGHTS, Saturday, April 26, 2003 - Russian President Vladimir Putin is in on a three-day visit to Tajikistan. He will meet with the Tajik leadership, sign a number of joint agreements, participate in the summit of the Eurasian Economic Community, attend a session of the Collective Security Council and visit the 201st division of the Russian Armed Forces. Putin emphasized the importance of economic cooperation, including cooperation in the energy sphere and oversight of Tajik citizens who travel to Russia to work. Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov noted the importance of the fight against the drug trade and cooperation between the security services. - The North Caucasus Internal Forces Institute held its 97th graduation ceremony. Most of the 174 young lieutenants will be deployed to Chechnya in a month. - The North Pole-32 scientific research station begins operations on a drifting ice floe, currently 150 kilometers away from the North Pole. Researchers return to the Arctic after a 12-year break. - Activists of the youth section of the United Russia Party organized "subbotniks" (Saturdays of community service) throughout Russia. - Azerbaijani President Geidar Aliev fainted while giving a speech at a military institute. - Russian cosmonaut Yuri Malenchenko and his American colleague Edward Lu are on their way to the International Space Station, where they will spend 185 days. Russian Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov attended the launch at the Baikanur Cosmodrome and conveyed greetings from President Putin to the crew. - Many commemorated the 17th anniversary of the tragedy at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. The catastrophe has left its mark on huge territories. Some people are still living in contaminated regions. Sunday, April 27, 2003 - The Intergovernmental Council of the Eurasian Economic Community met in Dushanbe. Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbaev has been reelected Chairman of the Council. The Council made decisions to conduct joint efforts against drug traffickers, to grant observer status to Armenia and to cooperate in taking steps towards entry into the World Trade Organization. - President Putin visited the 201st motorized artillery division of the Russian Armed Forces, deployed in Tajikistan. Putin declared that Russia plans to increase its military presence in Central Asia. Putin noted that the 201st division promotes stability in Tajikistan. - Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov visited the Okno fiber- optic complex near Nureka. The complex can search out objects in space at a distance of up to 40,000 kilometers. - Over 100 children from the Makhachkala special home for the hearing impaired are traveling to sanatoriums in Kislovodsk and Zheleznovodsk for rehabilitation. - Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia attended the Russian Orthodox Easter service at Moscow's Christ the Savior Cathedral. - The "Easter through the Eyes of Children" exhibit opened in Khabarovsk. - Special security measures have been introduced at the Russian- Chinese border. All border guards wear masks and gloves to avoid contamination with severe acute respiratory syndrome. - Renowned Russian children's surgeon Leonid Roshal celebrates his 70th birthday. - Fidel Castro first visited the USSR 40 years ago today. - Over 100 settlements have been flooded in the Volgograd Oblast. - A lion and lioness escaped from their cage in the Moscow suburb circus in Sergiev Posad and attacked their trainer. He died before police officers reached the scene. ******* #9 From: Michele BerdySubject: SARS Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 In response to a query about SARS in Russia, I was at a meeting with the head of WHO in Russia on late Friday afternoon and the answer is: at present there are no registered cases of SARS in Russia.š Given the long border with China, the influx of legal and illegal aliens from China and their work in markets, Russian tourism to Asia (although it has nearly come to a standstill right now) and other factors, it's clear that Russia is at risk. šBut as far as I can tell, there is close collaboration between the Ministry of Health and WHO and other international agencies, the ministry issued clear instructions to medical facilities on diagnosing and treating SARS as well as information for the public.š The media is covering SARS extensively and rather sensationally, so it's hard to judge from that, but it looks like the public health authorities are quarantining everyone who might have come in contact with the virus (like a group of schoolchildren who just came back from Peking).š Michele A. Berdy Chief of Party Healthy Russia 2020 125993 Moscow Gazetny per. 5, IEPP, offices 351-368 (7-095) 933-5854 ******** #10 Rossiiskie Vesti April 24, 2003 ORDERED INTO THE WEST The merger of the oil giants: YUKOS and Sibneft Author: Igor Dmitriev [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] THE MERGER OF YUKOS AND SIBNEFT WILL HAVE A GREAT IMPACT ON POLITICS AS WELL AS THE ECONOMY. YUKOS CHIEF EXECUTIVE MIKHAIL KHODORKOVSKY MAKES NO SECRET OF HIS POLITICAL PREFERENCES. IT'S HARD TO SAY WHETHER KHODORKOVSKY'S PRO-AMERICAN STANCE IS DUE TO HIS WISH TO EXPORT OIL TO THE US, OR VICE VERSA. The merger of YUKOS and Sibneft announced on April 23 will have a great impact on politics as well as the economy. YUKOS chief executive Mikhail Khodorkovsky, considered to be Russia's richest citizen, will de facto become its leading oligarch - and he doesn't conceal his political interests. Until now, the title of "deal of the century" was held by the alliance between the Tyumen Oil Company (TNK) and British Petroleum, as a result of which the Alfa Group headed by Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven gained the backing of the money and prestige of the British oil giant. Those involved in BP include Baroness Thatcher, which is some indication of the corporation's significance. However, the YUKOS- Sibneft union has the potential to surpass the TNK-BP deal. In terms of direct participation in politics, no other oligarch can compare with Khodorkovsky's degree of political openness. He says he has given his political preferences to the Union of Right Forces and Yabloko, and is prepared to spend his own money on funding those parties. According to some reports, a senior YUKOS executive named Sergei Muravlenko is sponsoring the Communist Party - with the approval of his boss, of course. The United Russia party is conspicuously absent from this list of campaign donations. Khodorkovsky recently confirmed his political preferences by participating in an inter-party conference organized by the Union of Right Forces. Moreover, he harshly criticized Russia's foreign policy, saying it was overly-reliant on a "special friendship" with Europe, to the detriment of relations with the United States. It's hard to say whether Khodorkovsky's pro-American stance is due to his wish to export oil to the US, or vice versa. But the fact remains that Khodorkovsky has led the lobby effort for the planned oil pipeline from Western Siberia to Murmansk, where a terminal for oil tankers is being built. Russian law places the state in charge of oil pipelines. However, Transneft can't cope with a project of this magnitude; so the oligarchs, led by Khodorkovsky and Vagit Alekperov (LUKoil), offered their services. But Prime Minister Mikhail Kasianov stood firm: there would be no private oil pipelines in Russia. After being rejected by the government, the oil companies turned to the parliament, receiving immediate support from a conference organized by the relevant Federation Council committee. So the situation moved forward to its logical conclusion. The government reconciled itself to the situation, and Kasianov approved work on plans for the pipeline. By a curious coincidence, this happened just before the abovementioned "deal of the century" was signed. (Translated by Gregory Malutin) ******** #11 Sobesednik April 23, 2003 THE OLIGARCHS WILL VOTE WITH THEIR DOLLARS A look at where the political parties are getting their campaign funding Author: Vladlen Maximov [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] MIKHAIL KHODORKOVSKY, WHOM FORBES MAGAZINE HAS NAMED THE RICHEST PERSON IN RUSSIA, IS DONATING TO THE COMMUNIST PARTY, THE UNION OF RIGHT FORCES, AND YABLOKO. THE UNITED RUSSIA PARTY WILL GET ASSISTANCE FROM REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS, STATE ENTERPRISES, AND THE DEFENSE SECTOR. Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov appealed to all of us for money last week, money for the PR battle against United Russia: "Success in the elections will depend on media and advertising resources, so we have decided to appeal to all citizens, asking them to donate to the Communist Party." Specialists estimate that the total sum spent on the forthcoming election campaign will actually be around $2-3 billion. And it's rather hard to believe that ordinary citizens will provide anything out of their own pockets. However, there are some generous people in this world. The first of these is Mikhail Khodorkovsky, whom Forbes magazine has named the richest person in Russia. The strategic agreement with the YUKOS oil company could bring in at least $70 million for the Communist Party. Moreover, Khodorkovsky has promised to help out with personnel. During the election period, the Communist Party staff will be enhanced by a team of professionals headed by the leader of one of the YUKOS company's analytical divisions: Alexei Kondaurov, a former KGB major-general, who is predicted to become chairman of the People's Patriotic Union of Russia executive committee. The present chairman, Gennady Semigin, has been the target of open obstruction from the PPUR leadership for his "unnatural" ties with both the Kremlin and Boris Berezovsky. It turns out that Khodorkovsky is a man of broad views. Besides donating to the Communist Party, he has also promised $5-7 million to the Union of Right Forces and $11 million to Yabloko. The Union of Right Forces knows how to treat its sponsors, taking care not to let any of them acquire a "controlling interest". Sources say that besides the money from Khodorkovsky, the party is also accepting donations from Interros chief Vladimir Potanin, Alfa-Group owner Mikhail Fridman, and Anatoly Chubais. Of course, being a sponsor is more difficult for Chubais; since Russian Joint Energy Systems is a state-controlled company, he cannot spend money freely. However, it appears that United Russia won't have any problems with state funding. Some political consultants estimate the campaign budget of this pro-Kremlin party at up to $1 billion. Of course, this does not take the form of a vast pile of dollar bills in United Russia's basement: it's a matter of total assistance provided by regional governments, state enterprises, and the defense sector - whether this assistance is voluntary or enforced. Yabloko went through some hard time financially when Vladimir Gusinsky left Russia, so Khodorkovsky's help has been welcomed there. Moreover, Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky can count on some money from Legprombank. Everyone's talking about Yabloko also getting some support from its German colleages in the Ebert-Nauman Foundation - but that's supposed to be a big secret! The idea of parties being funded by foreigners - especially Germans - carries undesirable connotations in Russia: one can almost hear the wheels of the sealed train carriage that once brought Lenin back from abroad. (Translated By Gregory Malutin) ******* #12 Rossiiskie Vesti April 24, 2003 THE ART OF TIGHTROPE-WALKING An overview of the current state of the Yabloko party Author: Alexei Sergeev [from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html] YABLOKO IS CONSIDERED TO BE AMONG THE FIVE POLITICAL PARTIES WITH A REAL CHANCE OF OVERCOMING THE 5% ENTRY BARRIER FOR IN THE DUMA ELECTIONS THIS COMING DECEMBER. ITS MAIN ASSETS ARE ITS PRINCIPLED IMAGE, ITS LOYAL VOTERS, AND ITS EXPERIENCED DUMA FACTION. HOWEVER, YABLOKO ALSO HAS SEVERAL WEAKNESSES. Yabloko is considered to be among the five political parties with a real chance of overcoming the 5% entry barrier for in the Duma elections this coming December. Despite this, the party's relatively low voter support rating is forcing its leaders to play a delicate political game in the hope of finding a balance between Yabloko's traditional opposition image and the Kremlin's support. The presidential administration may be considering the option of using Yabloko as its main partner on the liberal flank, as it did with the Union of Right Forces (URF) in 1999. Yabloko's notorious habit of taking a stand on principles is viewed as its key asset, creating a favorable image for the party among its voters. Yabloko has consistently voted against government proposals on sensitive issues such as electricity sector reforms or housing and utilities reforms. Yabloko considers these reforms to be contrary to the interests of most Russian citizens. However, such a stand threatens to undermine the partnership with the Kremlin which Yabloko has worked so hard to bring about. According to its new formula, Yabloko is not opposed to the current regime as such - only to its drive to create an "authoritarian bureaucratic" system. Yabloko has also declared that it supports President Putin on foreign policy and security, but disagrees with the Kasianov Cabinet's economic policies. The problem is that voters may see this position as vague and contradictory. Yabloko's second asset is the fact that it has intelligent, loyal voters. However, many pollsters find it hard to determine who the "Yabloko voters" are. In our view, this is because there are two kinds of people who vote Yabloko. The first group is made up of liberals who care about civil rights, the big-city intelligentsia, and small business owners. The second group consists of state sector workers, mostly women: doctors and teachers in regional capitals and medium- sized cities. The latter group is more numerous, but scattered all across Russia. The liberal Yabloko voters are concentrated in Moscow and St. Petersburg. And Yabloko finds itself constantly forced to maneuver between the two groups. Yabloko has developed a new "social-liberal" policy platform expressly for this purpose. In the interests of the former group of voters, it proposes to cut taxes, make a transition to a professional military, and protect free speech. For the second group, it offers housing and utilities reforms, as well as an alternative to the Chubais plan for electricity sector reforms. Yabloko's third asset is considered to be its experienced, professional Duma faction. Its ratio of bills signed into law per faction member is 1.5:1 - higher than that of any other faction. However, as deputy faction leader Sergei Ivanenko admits, Yabloko's proposals on key issues are not finding any support among the Duma's centrist majority. Hence, the party's lobbying capacities are somewhat limited. Yabloko's main drawback is undoubtedly its organizational weakness. Although Yabloko now has 35,000 members, that is still an order of magnitude below the membership numbers of the Communist Party and United Russia. Very few of Yabloko's branches have any real influence on regional politics, apart from those in St. Petersburg and a handful of regions. Nearly 500 Yabloko members hold elected office in regional and municipal legislatures across Russia, but only the St. Petersburg legislature has a Yabloko faction. Ten mayors of Russian cities are Yabloko members - but the largest of those cities is Arzamas, with a population of 180,000. This situation could change radically if Yabloko succeeds in forming an alliance with Governor Yuri Trutnev of the Perm region. He has recently started openly supporting the party. Another significant drawback is Yabloko's weak financial position. The financial crisis which the party experienced in 2000-01 ended when it started receiving funding from the YUKOS oil company, headed by Mikhail Khodorkovsky. However, some rivals have appeared in this field. YUKOS has agreed to donate much more money to the Communist Party than it does to Yabloko. Khodorkovsky has his own people in some other parties as well. One might say that Yabloko's results in the next election depend not so much on the Kremlin's support, but on the extent to which the party succeeds in finding a balance between the interests of its voter groups, overcoming its organizational weakness, and diversifying its funding sources. (Translated by Andrei Ryabochkin) ******* #13 gazeta.ru April 28, 2003 Russians unhappy with their generals The vast majority of Muscovites are convinced that professionals must man the Russian army, and not conscripts. Such is the outcome of an opinion poll conducted by the All-Russian Centre for Public Opinion Studies (VTsIOM), held in the Russian capital as the government was deciding between the two plans for the transition to a contract-based system of recruitment – the one submitted by the Defence Ministry or an alternative drafted by the liberal Union of Rightist Forces. As Gazeta.Ru reported last week, the government endorsed the military reform plan devised by the General Staff of the Defence Ministry. Initially, the Ministry’s plan envisaged a large-scale transition of the armed forces to a contract-based principle of recruitment to be completed after 2010. An alternative plan proposed by the SPS (Union of Rightist Forces) called for a far more radical solution to the problem. The liberals suggested that the transition to a military completely manned by professional soldiers should be completed within three years, and called for a reduction in the term of conscription from 2 years to 6 months, which the conscripts would spend at training centres. As a result of the debate the government endorsed the Defence Ministry’s plan, but agreed to accept some of the liberals’ proposals. Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov conceded that the term of compulsory military service might be reduced from 2 years to 12 months as early as 2008, provided that by that time all permanent readiness units are fully manned by professionals. Muscovites who took part in the VTsIOM poll on military reform were almost unanimous in the belief that Russia needs a fully professional army. 86 per cent of the respondents said that professionals, serving on a contract, must make up the armed forces. 9 per cent of respondents disagreed, while 5 per cent remained undecided. One of the reasons for such unanimity lies in the hope that contract-based recruitment will automatically solve the problem of bullying in the army. Bullying was named as the main problem of the Russian army by 32 per cent of the respondents. Many (29 per cent) said that bullying posed a serious problem, although there are many other difficulties as well. And only a few respondents do not consider bullying a problem. 5 per cent said that bullying was not a serious problem, 1 per cent believed there is no such problem in the Russian army at all, and 2 per cent were undecided. It is common knowledge that the General Staff and the head of the Defence Ministry himself have nothing against a professional army, though ordinary citizens, unlike the generals, insist that the reforms need to be implemented as soon as possible. 63 per cent of respondents said they should be launched immediately, and another 24 per cent said they could wait, but no longer than 2-3 years. In the opinion of 5 per cent of the respondents, reforms must begin in the next 5-10 years. Another 8 per cent failed to set a deadline. One-third of the respondents were sure they knew who opposes a faster transition to a professional army: 33 per cent believe that the generals are slowing down the process of military reform. However, while most respondents back the SPS plan in terms of its timing (the SPS plans calls for a faster transition to the contract service), in terms of financing they side with the generals. The Defence Ministry has said the reforms would cost 135 billion roubles, while the liberal politicians called for cuts to both the army and its costs, which would mean, in their opinion, decent salaries for contract officers, allowing them to rent apartments themselves and not waiting years for residential space to be built by the Defence Ministry. The General Staff’s plan envisages capital investments in the army (for the construction of barracks, the purchase and repair of military equipment, etc.), which, the SPS claims can only be done after the transition to a professional army is completed. On this point their proposals found little support among the general population. When asked what must be done for the army first and foremost, 36 per cent backed an increase of the military budget. In the opinion of those Muscovites polled, this is more important than the reform itself: only 26 per cent named abolishing conscription as a top priority task. Rather unsurprisingly, the government is placed second after the military on the list of those who, in the opinion of VTsIOM’s respondents, are applying the brakes to the reform plan. 25 per cent spoke of the cabinet’s resistance. Another 6 per cent maintain that none other than Vladimir Putin himself is slowing the military reforms. Whether those respondents are right will become clearer after June 1 when the final army reform plan is to be submitted to the head of state. ******* #14 Rosbalt April 28, 2003 US Ambassador on Russian Oil Contracts with Iraq MOSCOW, April 25. US Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow did not rule out that Russian oil contracts with Iraq, signed before the military operations, could remain valid. He voiced this opinion in a live interview with Mayak radio. According to the Ambassador, a decision should be made on each contract separately. He stressed that these decisions would be up to the new Iraqi government to be formed in the next few days and not Washington. At the same time, Vershbow believes it is too early to raise the issue of compensations for losses of Russian oil companies in Iraq. Vershbow announced that the US Administration welcomed Russia's participation in the development and restoration of the Iraqi economy. He also confirmed the USA was going to spend from $50m to $100m for the restoration of the Iraqi economy. ******* #15 Wall Street Journal April 28, 2003 Russian Oil Majors Are Getting It Right at Last By GEOFFREY T. SMITH Mr. Smith is Russia bureau chief for Dow Jones Newswires. Moscow Last week's announced takeover of Russian oil giant Sibneft by its competitor, Yukos, is less remarkable for the value it will create than for what it says about the value that has already been created. More than anything, it proves it is possible for entrepreneurs in Russia , as in any other country, to reap the just rewards of focused, profit-oriented management and of consistent, fair treatment of investors who offer to share risk. Other, less forward-looking, Russian managers should take heed of that truth. What the deal means for the future of Russian business, of Russia in general, and of the global oil sector, is still anybody's guess. At any rate it will depend on the as yet incalculable inclinations of Russian President Vladimir Putin and his successors. It makes more sense to start by looking at the deal as an illustration of what has, and what has not, been achieved in Russia since the financial crisis of 1998. The last time these two companies talked about a merger, neither was flush with cash. Five years later, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Roman Abramovich, Yukos's and Sibneft's largest shareholders, have created a $35 billion company. For all the help they have had from high crude prices, for all their rough treatment of competitors, creditors and, sometimes, shareholders on the way, this is still a colossal achievement. Nobody could pretend that YukosSibneft's reserve base would be afforded a market value of $35 billion had it been in the hands of Gazprom's or Sberbank's management. Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Abramovich have made such a runaway success of applying the basic tenets of capitalism that it is painful to consider the gulf between their companies and the rest of Russian business. Bill Browder, chief executive of Hermitage Capital Management, says these two men are almost entirely responsible for the explosive growth in the Russian stock market over the last couple of years. Strip Yukos and Sibneft out, and the 61% returns of the RTS index over the last three years would drop to just 13%, as the nearby chart shows. Mr. Khodorkovsky, who has worked hard to create public trust, is unlikely now to risk a scandal by trying to buy out Sibneft's minority shareholders at bargain-basement prices. The reputational damage of such a step, while Yukos is preparing to list in New York, would cost far more than the $450 million difference between the price Mr. Abramovich got and the minimum price minority shareholders are due under Russian law. In fact, since Yukos will probably buy out Sibneft's minorities with stock rather than cash, it may work out cheaper in the long run to be excessively generous to Sibneft minorities, as such a demonstration of good faith could be rewarded by a higher valuation at the NYSE listing. The best Russian entrepreneurs have not only realized that honesty pays, they now know down to the last cent how much it pays. So much for the state of Russian capitalism. What about the logic of the deal? The most obvious point is that it will have next to no effect on the operational efficiency of their businesses. In that sense, it's not the kind of deal that lives up to the firms' past record of value creation. The two companies are already so lean that it is difficult to see where they are going to cut costs or raise revenues on a per-barrel basis. Equally, both already have credible strategies for the domestic refined-products market, an issue that will grow in parallel with the Russian consumer spending power, and the number of cars demanding high-quality gasoline on Russian roads. Both firms export a high proportion of their output, even if the shortcomings of the pipeline system currently force them to use railcars and barges, taking a big bite out of their profit margins. So it isn't as if this deal rescues either from the fate of having to dump crude on the domestic market at prices as low as $4 a barrel. But bulking up does offer greater financial strength and so cheaper borrowing costs and bigger cash flows with which to fund the huge costs of developing new fields in virgin regions such as Eastern Siberia, or new export pipelines to Murmansk and to Daqing in China. On their own, such advantages can hardly have been decisive in persuading Mr. Abramovich and his associates to give up control of Sibneft. The rationale for the deal is rather to be found in issues of market valuation and lobbying. For all of their efforts, neither Yukos nor Sibneft had quite succeeded in widening their investor base far beyond risk-friendly punters and more or less esoteric emerging-market funds. Sometimes if the Moscow wind was blowing in the right direction, you could imagine management pouting at the injustice of it all: "Look at us! We're busting our guts to become BP, and they still say we're only worth $3 per barrel of reserves!" It is going to be much more difficult for mainstream investors to ignore a company of YukosSibneft's combined scale. It is the world's fourth-largest oil company by reserves, its sixth-largest by production. It is expected to grow twice as fast as any of its bigger rivals over the next five years. It will have eye-popping cash flows and a dividend payout in the region of a quarter of net profits (one imagines Mr. Abramovich's blocking stake will see to the last item). But more than anything else, all the expectations of an international oil major buying into Russia will now be priced into YukosSibneft alone. Both Yukos and Sibneft were publicly for sale at the right price. Neither Lukoil nor Surgutneftegaz, the remaining independent Russian majors, is. Mr. Khodorkovsky has put himself in a unique seller's position vis-a-vis ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Royal Dutch/Shell and TotalFinaElf, which certainly won't do his amour-propre any harm. Whether YukosSibneft would -- or could -- be sold, is a more difficult question. The lobbying power attached to $15 billion in annual revenues might count for a lot. However, Mr. Putin, having consented to the creation of a national champion, is likely to want it to stay national. And from national champion to value destroyer is seldom a big leap, hard as it is to imagine Mr. Khodorkovsky and Sibneft CEO Eugene Shvidler in that role. Moreover, once YukosSibneft has started to flex its muscles, it may no longer feel it needs a partner. There are already noises of the company making acquisitions abroad, which suggest a certain change in perception of its place in the world. After years of dreaming only of the final pay-off from a supermajor, that really would signal a revolution. ******* #16 The Sunday Times (UK) April 27, 2003 book review April 27, 2003 Review: History: Stalin's Last Crime by Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov SIMON SEBAG MONTEFIORE STALIN’S LAST CRIME The Doctors’ Plot by Jonathan Brent and Vladimir Naumov J Murray £20 pp399 “Nothing impressed me so much as the doctor story,” wrote Winston Churchill to President Eisenhower just after Stalin’s death in 1953. He was right to be fascinated. The so-called “doctor’s plot” of early 1953, in which the Kremlin’s mainly Jewish doctors (the “murderers in white coats”) were accused of killing some of Stalin’s lieutenants and planning to kill the dictator himself, is a macabre conspiracy that touched a raw nerve. A killer doctor is one of our deepest fears; a Jewish killer doctor in Stalinist, anti-semitic Russia would have seemed especially alarming. But the doctors’ plot is more than a source of fearful fascination. It is, to paraphrase Churchill on Russia itself, a mystery wrapped in an enigma. Were some of Stalin’s lieutenants really murdered by doctors — and, if so, were the doctors acting on Stalin’s orders? Was it part of Stalin’s plans against his own henchmen and against Russia’s Jews? Was the plot in fact orchestrated by Khrushchev or Beria against Stalin himself, and did they murder Stalin before he used the doctors’ plot to kill them? The distinguished authors of this book — Vladimir Naumov, a specialist on Stalin’s anti-Jewish plots, and Jonathan Brent, the publisher behind outstanding books on Bolshevism’s newly opened archives — have had access to hitherto unseen documents that confirm that it was Stalin himself who was the plot’s puppet-master. The story begins with the death of Stalin’s ailing, out-of-favour, heir apparent, Zhdanov. Were his doctors ordered to murder him by Stalin? It has been known for some time that Kremlin doctors misdiagnosed Zhdanov, ignoring a junior colleague, Dr Timashuk (who diagnosed a heart attack), and letting him exercise. The authors have had access to the doctors’ investigation of Zhdanov’s death, which led to Timashuk’s dismissal. Timashuk then denounced the Kremlin doctors to Stalin and the authors have found definite evidence that Stalin knew of this but did not react. Naumov and Brent hold, indeed, that Stalin encouraged Zhdanov’s mistreatment, although this is their least convincing argument. It is more likely that Stalin simply left Zhdanov’s treatment to the most eminent doctors (who were, like so many Soviet officials, incompetent) and that Zhdanov died naturally. Meanwhile, distrusting the doctors, Stalin filed away the information for later use in his anti- semitic designs. The authors explain that his anti-semitism was a political mechanism aimed, via Israel, at Russia’s greatest enemy, America. As always in Bolshevik demonology, the enemy outside was reflected by an enemy inside — the Jews. Three years after Zhdanov’s death, Stalin finally made his move. Acting on the suspicions surrounding Zhdanov’s demise, he sacked Abakumov, the chief of the MGB (the ministry of state security) and replaced him with a drab party official, Ignatiev, and a deputy, Ryumin, whom he nicknamed “the Pygmy”. Exploding into terrifying rages, Stalin drove Ignatiev and Ryumin to arrest the Kremlin doctors and torture them until they confessed to killing Zhdanov and planning to murder Stalin as part of a Zionist-American cabal. “Beat them, beat them, beat them with death blows,” he is said to have railed. He even had his own personal physician arrested. The book’s outstanding achievement is to show how Stalin planned to enmesh the “killer doctors” with Abakumov, the fallen MGB boss; with the victims of a huge leadership purge, the Leningrad Case of 1949; and with a planned attack on Politburo veterans such as Molotov, who, because he was married to a Jewess, was especially vulnerable.When he was ready, Stalin sacked Ryumin, berated Ignatiev so viciously that he had a heart attack and then, in December 1952, unveiled the doctors’ plot to his henchmen. He told them that all Russian Jews were potential American agents; then, in early 1953, he launched an anti-semitic media campaign. Was Stalin planning a mass deportation of Jews? The authors have found a memo outlining the creation of new camps that might have been for Jews. It was then that Stalin was felled by the stroke that killed him on March 5. Was he murdered? There is no proof, though the authors suggest that warfarin, secreted in his wine by Beria, could have induced the stroke. Equally, he had had minor strokes before and suffered from acute arteriosclerosis. The authors offer one last tantalising titbit: on the day he died, Stalin suffered a stomach haemorrhage, details of which were excised from his medical record. Was this the result of poison or the collapse of a sick old man? Khrushchev and Beria knew more than they let on. This complicated, scholarly and fascinating book, the best so far on the doctors’ plot, casts a beam of light on to this world of mirrors and shadows, but it does not illuminate it completely. Stalin’s rule remains tangled and unfathomable: the book may be a treasure trove for specialists, but for general readers it could seem impenetrable. However, the authors really understand the Stalinist mindset: in particular, they catch the degenerate sleaziness of the whole Stalinist project, summed up by Stalin’s instructions to Ignatiev to torture the doctors, and his chilling comment that then “you and I will decide what is true and what isn’t”. Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar will be published this summer. Stalin’s Last Crime is available at the Books Direct price of £16 plus £1.95 p&p on 0870 165 8585 ******* #17 Los Angeles Times April 27, 2003 book review Dark side of the moon By Lesley Chamberlain Gulag, A History. Anne Applebaum, Doubleday: 680 pp., $35 There can hardly be a greater task in 20th century world history than to understand the Holocaust and the Gulag. Why did these related extermination projects happen, and how did similar phenomena occur in other parts of communist Europe in the early 1950s and in Cambodia in the 1970s? We need to realize how the shock of the inhuman has probably had a more detrimental effect on Western culture and thought than any of the more common accounts of postmodernism. At the same time, if we are to resist using the word "evil" carelessly and want to preserve what remains of a good modernity, we must differentiate between the Nazi horror and what happened to Russia under Joseph Stalin. To understand the lower depths of the Russian experience is partly to understand the power and attraction of communism in that country over 75 years. Every culture has its own ideals and its own way with depravity. Anne Applebaum has spent the last several years researching and writing this first comprehensive history. "Gulag: A History" is a model of patient, readable scholarship. Lucid, painstakingly detailed, never sensational, it should have a place on every educated reader's shelves. The gulag, named by Nobel Prize-winning author and dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, was the vast network of labor camps ranged across the bleakest parts of the Soviet Union. Although they functioned in one form or another roughly from the end of V.I. Lenin's end until the beginning of Mikhail Gorbachev's, Stalin's name will forever be attached to the lethal years 1929 to 1953. During 1937 to 1938 and 1942 to 1943, the time of Stalin's ideological purges and Russia's worst war years, the political police recorded nearly 1,800,000 camp inmates, and these figures still don't reflect the huge turnover of prisoners. In the year of Stalin's death, 1953, the camps were at their largest and most terrible, with thousands of political deportees from Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other communist satellites swelling their numbers. Many memoirs tell the stories of Stalin's arbitrary victims, people in the wrong country at the wrong time. Often, the foreign victims were people who had traveled to Russia to help realize the communist political ideal they cherished. Red Army officers who had been German prisoners of war were treated with gross injustice in the postwar camps, as, inevitably, were Russians who had fought with Adolf Hitler against Stalin. By the 1970s, the number of political prisoners had dwindled to about 20,000. But the gulag lasted right up to the end of the Soviet Union in 1991 and went on being relatively unknown, and unprotested, in the West. (In the winter of 1979, when U.S.-Soviet relations were at a nadir and I was a foreign correspondent in Moscow, what bothered visiting American congressmen was not the gulag but the issue of Jewish refuseniks' not getting exit visas to Israel. Applebaum, an American journalist and scholar, has explicitly written her history to overcome that ignorance. It is not the case, as those who see communism as the equivalent of or worse than Nazism have argued, that Leonid Brezhnev's Russia was Stalinist. Under communism, people slept more easily in their beds and led happier lives. Nevertheless, as Russia came under intense pressure from the West to live up to its human rights agreements, political prisoners were still tortured. Poet Joseph Brodsky, who later won the Nobel Prize for literature, lived to deliver his testimony. Dissident Anatoly Marchenko did not. Three years after Gorbachev's general pardon for all political prisoners in 1986, an event that received surprisingly little attention in the foreign press, the KGB sent 2,000 people to psychiatric hospitals (psykhushki). Political arrests still happened in 1989. Then, finally, Russia became a free country. Since then a minority of historians and interested individuals have been combing the archives, trying to recover the past and creating the opportunity to mourn. The Russians evidently have difficulty coming to terms with the past. This disappoints Applebaum, but we should remember that the Germans spent 50 years mastering their own dark history. Germany was pointed in the right direction by its occupier-liberators, but the Russians have liberated themselves. So perhaps we should be patient. Because of the pervasive ignorance of the gulag, the positions of Europe and America in the Cold War need reexamining. America's under-awareness of the gulag had to do with geographical distance but also with the reduction of the Soviet phenomenon to an unqualified political evil, which discouraged sympathy for mass injustice. At the same time, educated Americans imagined the fate of the Jews under Nazism so vividly that it became part of the domestic heritage. From the mid-1970s to the present, the Holocaust was the crime against humanity. There was no moral energy left over for the Russian tragedy. Ignorance in the outside world about the gulag persisted through the Cold War despite landmark accounts by writer-victims. Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" even appeared in Russia in a short period of political opportunity in 1962, followed by his foreign-published novels "Cancer Ward," "The First Circle" and his infinitely distressing memoir, "The Gulag Archipelago." In "To Build a Castle -- My Life as a Dissenter" (1978), Vladimir Bukovsky wrote of his torment at the mercy of politically motivated psychiatrists. Varlam Shalamov's "Kolyma Tales" (1994) described daily life in Russia's most notorious corrective hellhole inside the Arctic Circle. Applebaum, though, is not motivated only by Western ignorance. She deplores the fact that the crimes of Stalin should for so long have been minimized by the left in the West. It's true that the difficulty of the elderly Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir to accept what Solzhenitsyn wrote, after their long years of communist sympathizing, sticks in one's gullet. For Applebaum, it is not just an American preoccupation with the Holocaust and a readiness to dismiss Russia as the evil empire but also the ardent desire of the intellectual left for socialism to work in Russia that have resulted in a lasting imbalance in East-West understanding. The first idea of the concentration camp, one learns, came to Russia from British practice in the Boer War and from German practice in southwest Africa. The name came from a Spanish practice of rounding up peasants to stop local insurgencies in Cuba in 1895. In Russia, it attached itself to the long czarist tradition of Siberian exile. Liberal-minded aristocrats, who staged a botched insurrection in 1825, became the first famous victims of the system (later to be followed by novelist Feodor Dostoevsky, who was sentenced to corrective labor for socialist agitation and wrote about it in "From the House of the Dead"). In the 19th and 20th centuries, almost as many Siberia-bound prisoners died on the ill-supplied journey as succumbed to prison or camp conditions. For those merely exiled, arriving in Siberia was almost a reprieve. Nevertheless, to understand the gulag and its czarist antecedents, one has to grasp that this brutal way of dealing with political prisoners and criminals had a much broader function in society than merely a penal one. For the country at large, the system had obvious social and economic benefits: Exiles created villages, took culture to huge empty areas that few Russians would settle willingly and created wealth by providing labor for expanding industries in mineral-rich areas. The British pursued such a penal-economic policy in Australia and Tasmania in the 19th century; only the Russians carried the practice on into the later 20th century. Today's major industrial cities of Noril'sk, Vorkuta, Kolyma and Magadan, were camps originally built by prisoners and run by ex-prisoners. The gulag regimes became so cruel from about 1937 on that they were known as meat grinders.This was the watershed, Applebaum records, "the year that the Soviet camps ... transformed themselves from indifferently managed prisons in which people died by accident into genuinely deadly camps where prisoners were deliberately worked to death, or actually murdered, in far larger number than they had been in the past." On this record of human degradation, the gulag bears comparison with Auschwitz. What makes the phenomenon different overall, however, is how and why it came about. Everyone knows that Soviet economics were disastrous. But it is not widely known that the gulag was a version of that mind-boggling economic and organizational inefficiency, creatively accounted for by absurd inventions of political conspiracy. The early camps in the 1920s, with their theaters, fountains and parks, were in some ways more like collective farms than prisons. Designed more for political re-education than for punishment, they were meant to function as self-sufficient economic units, though they never did. But always, as the political climate worsened, the ideological and practical justification for the camps remained economic. The hundreds of thousands of arrests in the 1930s were based on quotas for the expertise required to man the growing "Camp-Industrial Complexes": so many engineers here and lumberjacks there, doctors, metalworkers and so on. To mobilize mass productivity, to transfer manpower from one end of the country to another, was to build socialism and serve the motherland. The planners saw it this way and so did the majority of the population. Applebaum suggests that these Soviet thought processes, with the gulag at their center, were genuine on the part of both officialdom and people and that what went wrong -- and where evil entered -- was always in inefficient practice. This embattled, distorted, outrageous genuineness is why in Russia not only a shallow reluctance to confront the past but also real moral ambivalence surrounds the gulag disaster. When Solzhenitsyn first published "Ivan Denisovich," former inmates leaped to the camps' partial defense. Applebaum is in a slightly difficult position with this material, which, though it does not condone mass murder through the semi-willingness of many Russians, makes the gulag more intelligible than the Holocaust. If she wanted to add to that sad intelligibility, she could have said that Russian culture, under Christian influence, attaches the highest value to suffering as the means to the highest understanding of the human condition. "We suffer, therefore we are," is how American scholar Daniel Rancour-Laferriere formulated an attitude no student of Russia's fate in the 20th century can ignore. The true horror of the gulag lay in the way Russia's culture and social-political organization could not constrain the growth of an inhuman fantasy. Human prisoners were treated as units of labor. By bizarrely misapplied logic, the camps ran into trouble with their central controllers because they had production goals they couldn't meet because their inmates kept falling sick and dying. The gulag phenomenon was almost literally demented, as if Russia's brain had been invaded by a demon seed. In a central section of her fine and judicious survey, Applebaum considers the nature of life in the camps; the cold, the hunger, the outrageous overcrowding and hence the continuous hunger, insanitation and sickness. Professional criminals tyrannized over the weaker political inmates. The prisoners, subject to the whims of guards and brigade leaders risen from their own number, suffered further appalling physical and mental punishments. The temptation in many men and women, not least the major figures who survived to write their memoirs, was to collaborate to save their lives. Bodies were broken; souls were destroyed. The most harrowing stories, a few now embedded in Russian literature, are of prisoners who tried to return to normal life after their release. After World War II, the most severe conditions prevailed in so-called special camps, newly created for those hundreds of thousands of deportees from Eastern Europe and for the Red Army officers stranded there and accused of treason. Occasionally Westerners also turned up in the camps, including two American airmen who crashed over Ukraine in 1949 and were arrested by the Red Army. Postwar camp inmates wore striped uniforms with numbers and had bars on their windows. The specialness of these relatively late measures suggests an eerie borrowing from the Nazis, as if the Soviets were not to be outdone by the wartime Germans even in regimes of cruelty. Still, and once again against the Holocaust example, the Soviet camps were not driven by ethnic vengeance. Gulag guards did not consider themselves a superior race to their victims. And, still using a conservative figure, at least 2 million died in the camps from their inception to their end. For this reviewer, the pride and self-belief that Soviet ideology generated, the willingness to make sacrifices for the collective good, has constantly to be kept in mind when judging the gulag. Applebaum might fear too many potential excuses lurking in the realms of psychology and ideology, but in fact they are lethal for the culture in which they make the gulag intelligible: One has only to think of the traditional Russian neglect of the individual or the Marxist ideological desire to strip men and women of their inner, potentially private, life. The "confessions" extracted by torture in the 1930s were designed to exterminate the inner man. The political authorities wanted to master the spheres of motive and of action, which they could not do except by destroying the person as such. Without making this point, Applebaum speaks of the right of every man and woman to lead his or her own life. Evil is not morally complex, but the nature of the society that sustained the gulag was. The difficulty of embracing absurdity alongside tragedy may be yet another reason why we lag so far behind in our understanding of this terrible aspect of the 20th century and why, happily, no Hollywood director has yet attempted the impossible. Applebaum's "Gulag" is a work of history that does its own moral good. It says who were the victims and what happened to them. It persists in asking over and over why the West remains distanced from Russian history. Is it naiveté? How did it happen that Henry Wallace, the U.S. vice president when he visited Kolyma in May 1944, didn't know he was visiting a prison? Is it ignorance? Applebaum suggests that for the Russians to invade Chechnya after Stalin had inflicted mass deportations and exile on the Chechens was as great a crime as if postwar Germany had invaded western Poland, and yet still few of us realize the seriousness of Soviet and post-Soviet crime. But I want to end by returning to the vexed Auschwitz comparison. The Nazi death camps and Stalin's labor camps meted out the final solution to unwanted masses. Both phenomena were the extreme negative outcome of a mania in the 1930s for collective solutions to mass living and working. Both were tragedies of humanity, and each was a tragedy of its particular nation. There will be interpretations of both and illuminating parallels for years to come. But in the end, their histories will be best kept separate, for who can compare pain as the subject feels it? No historian, no onlooker, no book reader. As a writer-prisoner told Applebaum, as he cast a skeptical eye over the growing pile of files, statistics and books, the only person who can know was someone who was there. Lesley Chamberlain, who worked for Reuters in Moscow in 1978 and 1979, is the author of several books, including "In the Communist Mirror," "Volga Volga: A Journey Down the Great River" and "In a Place Like That." She is working on a study of Russian philosophy, "The Good Man in Russia." ******* #18 Moscow Times April 28, 2003 Blueprint to Liquidate UES by 2006 Approved By Alla Startseva Staff Writer The government commission in charge of reforming the national electricity sector has approved a long-awaited plan on how to carve up Unified Energy Systems and sees 2006 as the year the monopoly will cease to exist. "We approved the plan without any serious disputes and will present it [to the Cabinet by Wednesday]," Deputy Economic Development and Trade Minister Andrei Sharonov said after the commission, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Viktor Khristenko, met in the White House late Thursday. "We are oriented on 2006 as the year when all restructuring procedures will be completed and UES liquidated," Sharonov said. The plan sets the schedule for the legal and corporate steps needed to overhaul the industry by spinning off UES's generation and distribution arms, but keeping the transmission grid under state control. The commission approved the plan in its first meeting since President Vladimir Putin signed into law the raft of bills needed for the breakup. However, Sharonov said that under the commission's plan another 51 bills and documents must be passed or issued before the reform can be fully implemented. The list includes regulations for the electricity market in the transitional period, regulations for the wholesale market, a decree creating wholesale generation companies, a law on heating supply and selecting the board of directors for ATS, the wholesale market administrator. He said the commission had considered and generally agreed with UES management's own plans for splitting up the company, known as the "5+5" plan, which has been criticized by minority shareholders. "Most of the time [we spent discussing 5+5] concerned how the two plans correspond to each other and whether or not we needed a document that describes the reform not only in legal terms, as the government's reform plan is, but simply in words," he said. Sharonov said it was decided that either the commission or the government should issue a document that describes the restructuring process until 2005 "in a concise form." This document, he said, should become "a bridge" between the two plans." "The implementation of 5+5 is impossible without the government's reform plan, and the government's plan is not complete without corporate actions by UES," Sharonov said. Although the commission agrees in principle with 5+5, "there is some kind of complication" because it is a corporate document, but it deals with wider issues concerning the sector, he said without elaborating. The commission is preparing its official response to 5+5, which it will give to the government directors on the UES board ahead of the May 23 meeting during which they will vote on it. Sharonov said that by the end of May, the commission would consider the long-awaited decree on the exact makeup of generation companies, or gencos, that will consist of large plants currently run by UES. He said the decree was submitted to the government last year and the commission sees "no reasons to change it." UES's 5+5 plan will determine the sequence of creating the 10 gencos and all the technical details, while the government will determine which assets will belong to each genco. After Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov signs off on the commission's plan, the first order of business will be choosing the ATS board, Sharonov said. "After that, the next step might be the decree on gencos." ******** #19 NG Dipkuryer No. 7 April 2003 [translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only] IRAQI WAR DIDN'T AFFECT RUSSIA'S WORLD STATUS Moscow must regard critically the U.S. attempts to establish global superiority by force Dmitry SUSLOV Right after an unexpectedly quick conclusion of the war in Iraq, heated discussions about whether President Putin made the right choice by not supporting the United States and the "Coalition of the willing" swept Russian political and social circles. Many experts insist that Moscow underestimated the American military potential and, on the contrary, overestimated the protest potential of the "third world" countries, therefore burying the possibility of future partnership with the mightiest country in the world. Alexei PUSHKOV, an author and the host of the analytical TV program "Postcriptum", provides a commentary on the Russian position and the consequences of Putin's choice. Question: What are, in your opinion, the consequences of the Iraqi war for Russia? What has Moscow gained as a result of its stand and what it has lost? Answer: By not interfering in Iraqi war, Russia hasn't gained anything, but hasn't lost anything, either. We basically remained where we had stood before the start of the war. The Americans were not surprised by the Russian position. The blitz-visit of Condoleezza Rice to Moscow proved the fact that we hadn't lost. It clearly showed that the United States was not interested in acting against the will of the rest of the world, despite its arrogant rhetoric. On the contrary, the Americans are interested in maintaining normal relations with the world's leading countries. Therefore, they are not going to quarrel with Russia, unless we start opposing them on all fronts. More to it, Russia has gained a little ground in psychological terms. Today, the attitudes against the actions of Bush administration are on the rise throughout the world. And Russia carefully positioned itself as the country that opposes the policy conducted by Washington administration, rather than the country swept by anti-Americanism. The United States, on the contrary, has lost its aura as the world's moral leader. Russia hasn't lost also because it didn't have anything to lose in its relations with the USA. Russia is the largest Eurasian country, which borders in one way or another with six key strategic regions. We often underestimate our role in Eurasia. And the American strength in the region, on the contrary, has been exaggerated. If the United States wants to be a world leader, let it be the leader worthy of respect, the center of stability, instead of the center of instability. I'm sure that all world countries, including Russia, would support the United States as the center of global stability. America that acts on its own, pursuing only its own interests is never going to be in anyone's favor. Question: Nevertheless, many experts claim that by opposing the war in Iraq Russia lost its chance to solidify the partner relations with the USA, which developed after the 11 September, and also deprived itself of all possible dividends it could have gained had it supported the Americans, including the participation in the exploration of Iraqi oil fields, the payment of Iraqi debt, etc. Answer: We could have won only in two cases. First, if Moscow managed to prevent the start of military action in Iraq. However, such scenario was unrealistic from the very beginning because Washington was not interested in disarming Iraq, but rather in toppling Saddam Hussein's regime. Condoleezza Rice and Richard Cheney had openly announced this goal back in August last year. Could Russia somehow win in this situation? It could, only on one condition - if Saddam Hussein voluntarily agreed to resign. It's not a coincidence that Yevgeni Primakov went to Baghdad and tried to convince Saddam to go. However, with Saddam Hussein such a possibility was basically non-existent. Second, if Russia attacked Iraq together with the Americans and the British. In that case, Russia would have been entitled for its share in the spoils of war - the exploration of the oil deposits, the contracts on rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure, etc. Nevertheless, such scenario was out of the question, as well, for the following reasons: we haven't finished our own war in Chechnya; Russian army is not capable of conducting large-scale operations far away from the Russian territory; 80 percent of Russian citizens would have been against this war; and, finally, Saddam Hussein simply didn't pose any threat to Russia. No other variant could bring any gains to Russia. Passive support of the United States (without direct involvement in combat operations) wouldn't change anything. Washington would have simply taken it for granted. Besides, it would have been an outstanding victory of American diplomacy. Those 34 countries that expressed their political support of the United States and Great Britain won't get anything in Iraq. Passive support deserves passive gratitude. Russia has been passively supporting the United States for the last 12 years - we put forward a token opposition to the expansion of NATO, l supported the Americans, in the long run, during their actions in Yugoslavia. What did we get in return? The NATO expansion. Unlike Poland, we didn't get the Soviet debt written off. The Americans do whatever pleases them in relations with Russia. Sometimes our interests coincide, for instance, in case of the disarmament of North Korea. However, those are rare cases. In general, the USA doesn't bother to take our interests into account. According to the American logic, the United States is the only superpower, which entitles it to pursue only its own interests. Question: Russia's victory or defeat should be considered from a strategic viewpoint in the first place - whether Russia is still allowed to participate in making and adopting crucial decisions on the global level. The United States is undoubtedly the center where those decisions are made, that's why even before 11 September the "breakthrough to the West" devised by Mr. Putin had been focused on that country. Does the war in Iraq mark the turning point in this policy? Is it possible that Russia lost everything it had gained ever since the Ljubljana summit in the summer of 2001? Answer: I don't believe that Mr. Putin has drastically revised his policy. It was more of a sharpening of the outlines of his policy with regard to the changes (unfortunately very insignificant) that occurred during the period of closer partnership with the USA after 11 September. After all, Mr. Putin emphasized the Russian support of the United States in the fight against international terrorism, and not in the wars against sovereign states without substantial reasons. A preventive war against a potential threat is an arbitrary act. If we followed this logic, Russia would have had a legitimate right to wage wars on the Turkish or Georgian soil. However, the Americans stated from the very beginning that we didn't have the right to do so. Some people in Russia think that after 11 September Mr. Putin offered an unconditional support to the United States in all its actions. It's not true, and the recent events clearly showed that. Furthermore, we haven't seen any significant dividends from our partnership with the USA, so far. The Americans have been gladly accepting the exhibits of our favorable attitude, but haven't made any significant steps in our direction, except purely symbolic ones. I'm talking about the friendly atmosphere during summits in Crowford and Moscow or about the so-called "group of twenty" with NATO. Who have ever heard about the "group of twenty" after it had been created? Don't even try to find out about it because in reality "the group of twenty" is a symbolic prize for the actual strategic change - the second wave of NATO expansion. Ever since 11 September, the United States hasn't made a single step that would have satisfied some of the Russian interests. In short, the Americans need Russia only when it agrees with them on all accounts. And when it shows its own interests or expresses its own concerns, they never respond in any sensible way. And Mr. Putin has finally realized that after more than two years of coping with such attitudes. He has also realized that the Russian influence on the Bush administration, so highly advertised recently, in reality is very much exaggerated. Russia doesn't have more influence on the USA than, let say, Germany or France. The United States considers itself a self-sufficient state and doesn't need anybody's advice. Had Mr. Putin agreed with Washington, he wouldn't have gained anything on the American front, but would have certainly lost on any other front. On the other hand, Russia has no intentions to confront the United States on a broad front and intentionally try to worsen the relations with the Americans. Moreover, the Americans are not interested in the deterioration of the relations with Russia either - they need our support in relation to Iran, China, North Korea, and other issues. It's not to their advantage to lose a partner like Russia. Question: Since U.S. interests are always global and tightly intertwined with the interests of the rest of the world, there will be always some countries that will certainly agree with American actions, no matter what they may be. More to it, the phenomenon of the only global superpower is such that the only way to interfere with its decisions is by transforming them "from within" like Great Britain did, and not by trying to block them "from the outside". Is there a danger that by making attempts to block American decisions, which failed anyway, Russia might completely exclude itself from the process of global decision-making? Answer: The concept of "influence from within" is the position adopted by the British, a part of the German political elite and a smaller fraction of the French political elite, and certainly by the majority of smaller European countries. However, not every country could act according to this concept. Great Britain is, indeed, capable of influencing the United States. Germany, though, has fewer chances to do so; its influence is mostly tactical. France has even fewer chances. In general, it's very hard to influence such administration as the present Bush administration. During the Clinton administration, there were more opportunities to do so because his strategy of a more cautious approach to building up the U.S. hegemony called for cooperation and coordination with other countries. Bush is conducting his own policy and extends the offer to join him only to those who fully agree with him. Clinton's option is certainly the best for the peaceful cause. That's why your argument is more justified in relation to the Clinton administration, but it's rather inappropriate in relation to the present Washington administration. Iraqi crisis clearly showed that the "influence from within", as a friend of the United States, doesn't work when it comes to dealing with people like Bush and Rumsfeld. Let's talk about isolation. What's the point for us to be at the same table with the USA? To be forced to always vote "yes"? But what are we gaining from that? The right to be a voluntary province of the United States. So what? Do you really think that the Americans would offer us a new "Marshall plan" in return? And inundate Russia with investments? Inject our economy with new technologies? Push us into a post-industrial era? No. The Americans don't have any reason to help Russia become a mighty superpower, the way they did with Europe in order to create a counterbalance for the former Soviet Union. Russia is too big for the United States to treat it the same way it treats Luxemburg or even France. The major goal of the American foreign policy after the Cold War was formulated by Paul Wolfovitz back in 1992 - to prevent the rise of other great powers in Eurasia and, in this way, ensure the American dominance. It inevitably means that the Americans intend to keep Russia in a relatively weak state. In the long run, Russia would be able to make decisions together with the United States and influence those decisions only in one case - if it doesn't give Washington full freedom of actions today. The United States is the country that has been brought up on the cult of force. And Russia simply doesn't have any other choice but to try and constrain the forceful model of establishing the American supremacy. ******* Web page for CDI Russia Weekly: http://www.cdi.org/russia Archive for Johnson's Russia List: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson With support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation A project of the Center for Defense Information (CDI) 1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington DC 20036