RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly
Vol. 6, No. 11, 25 May 2006
A Weekly Review of News and Analysis of Russian Domestic Politics
**************************************** ********************
HEADLINES
* CAN REFERENDUMS RESOLVE FROZEN CIS CONFLICTS?
* HOW DOES MOSCOW VIEW FROZEN CIS CONFLICTS?
* CHECHEN PREMIER SEEKS TO TRANSFORM HIS IMAGE
* AMNESTY REPORT NOTES CONTINUED RIGHTS ABUSES IN CIS
* GUAM — A REGIONAL GROUPING COMES OF AGE
* SIGNS OF DISCORD AS FOREIGN MINISTER MEETS WITH EU
LAWMAKERS
* TACKLING RUSSIA’S DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS
* RUSSIA’S ‘MISS POSITIVE’ PUTS PUBLIC FACE ON
BATTLE WITH HIV/AIDS
* GAY PARADE A TEST OF TOLERANCE IN RUSSIA
******************************************* *****************
CAN REFERENDUMS RESOLVE FROZEN CIS CONFLICTS? On May 21, the tiny
Balkan republic of Montenegro voted to dissolve its union with Serbia
and become an independent state. This peaceful act of
self-determination has potential significance for separatism-minded
regions elsewhere. In the former Soviet Union, breakaway territories
in Georgia and Moldova see Montenegro’s quest for independence as
a model for their own aspirations.
PRAGUE, May 24, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Suddenly, everybody wants to
be just like Montenegro.
From Transdniester to South Ossetia to Abkhazia, separatist
regions in the former Soviet Union are rushing to praise the
Montenegrin independence vote — and to hold it up as a model that
they would like to follow.
Sergei Bagapsh, the president of Georgia’s breakaway
Abkhazia region, praised what he called Montenegro’s “civilized”
method of gaining self-determination.
Likewise, Yevgeny Shevchuk — the speaker of separatist
Transdniester’s parliament — told RFE/RL’s Romania-Moldova
Service that people there have the right to hold a similar vote — if
not for independence, then at least for autonomy:
“If we are going to proceed according to the principles of
human rights and create conditions for a better life on the dignified
level of Europeans in the 21st century, then we need to go down this
path,” Shevchuk said. “We have a historic opportunity.”
But there are big differences between Montenegro and these
post-Soviet separatist regions.
Montenegro’s leadership enjoys wide legitimacy and the
republic is considered a good international citizen.
Moreover, Montenegro’s independence referendum was held
with clear rules under the watchful eye of the European Union and
with Serbia’s acquiescence. There were no serious fears of
violence.
By contrast, the threat of unrest is never far off in
Abkhazia or South Ossetia, whose relations with the Georgian
government in Tbilisi are often openly hostile. Transdniester,
likewise, has poor ties with Chisinau. And all three regions are
widely viewed as lawless safe havens for smugglers and
organized-crime groups.
All three are also strongly supported by Russia, which has
been accused of exploiting the conflicts to maintain leverage in its
relations with pro-Western Georgia and Moldova.
Georgia is working hard to bring Abkhazia and South Ossetia
back into its fold and resents what it sees as Russian meddling on
its territory.
In an interview with RFE/RL’s Georgian Service, Irakli
Menagarishvili, a former Georgian foreign minister and currently the
head of the country’s Center for Strategic Studies, warned the
international community against applying the Montenegrin model to
trouble spots in the former USSR.
“Drawing parallels here is not only unacceptable, but also
dangerous,” Menagarishvili said. “Cases like these have their
specific historical, political, and other dimensions. Hence each of
them has to be considered and solved separately. Any attempt at
generalization or universalization is, to repeat once again, not only
unacceptable, but also dangerous.”
One breakaway region in the former Soviet Union where an
independence referendum proved problematic was the ethnic-Armenian
enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.
Many in Nagorno-Karabakh feel that residents of the region
were punished for voting for independence in 1991 — paying with
their lives in the war that ensued.
So, with all these differences, can Montenegro’s smooth
transition nevertheless serve as a model for resolving any of the
stubborn frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union?
Karel De Gucht, the OSCE’s chairman in office, thinks it
can — but only if all sides agree in advance to respect the result.
“You can only have that kind of referendum if all parties
agree about the referendum and agree about the outcome of the
referendum,” de Gucht said. “That is why the proposal of the
international community by Ambassador [Miroslav] Lajcak — that you
should have at least 55 percent of the people voting in favor [in
Montenegro] — was an important element, because it was also accepted
by all parties concerned. A referendum where first of all the
organization of, and, second, the result, the outcome, are not
guaranteed beforehand can also be very divisive. So it can be a
solution, provided that everybody agrees to accept the result.”
Likewise, Alexander Rahr, an expert on Russia and the former
Soviet Union at the German Council of Foreign Relations, said holding
a referendum is the fairest and most democratic way to resolve such
issues.
But for independence votes to work, they must be held under
free, fair, and open conditions — circumstances that are
conspicuously absent in Transdniester, Abkhazia, and South
Ossetia.Moreover, Rahr pointed out that Russia might try to
manipulate the results of referendums in the pro-Moscow regions.
“In Montenegro, a referendum could be held in a real
democratic way under the supervision of Western democratic
institutions,” Rahr said. “That may not be the case in Abkhazia,
South Ossetia, or Transdniester, where there is a fear these results
could be forged and controlled by Russia.”
For its part, Russia will likely be careful about pushing the
Montenegro model too far.
Citing Montenegro as a Western-endorsed precedent may suit
the Kremlin’s needs in Georgia and Moldova’s separatist
regions.
But Moscow would be unlikely to endorse such a scenario on
its own territory — most notably, in Chechnya. (Brian Whitmore)
HOW DOES MOSCOW VIEW FROZEN CIS CONFLICTS? Russia appears to support
the May 21 Montenegrin independence referendum as a potential model
for resolving some separatist conflicts in its own neighborhood —
namely, the regions that enjoy Moscow’s support in their pursuit
of independence from Moldova and Georgia. But its own separatist
conflicts are a different matter — particularly in Chechnya, where
no Montenegro-style referendum is likely. RFE/RL Moscow correspondent
Claire Bigg asked Yevgeny Volk, the director of the Heritage
Foundation think tank in Moscow, whether Russia has a double standard
on the issue of separatist conflicts.
RFE/RL: The Russian Foreign Ministry said on May 23 it
respected Montenegro’s vote to seek independence from Serbia.
Abkhazia and Transdniester, two breakaway regions backed by Russia,
have also hailed the historic poll as an inspiring model. Will Russia
be tempted to apply the Montenegrin experience to Moscow-friendly
frozen conflict regions?
Yevgeny Volk: Tbilisi will certainly not allow referendums to
be held in Abkhazia or in South Ossetia, and the international
community will, of course, be on the Georgian government’s side.
If Russia tries to push for referendums, it will end up being
isolated and neither the OSCE nor the UN will support its efforts. It
is a very unlikely option because it represents a direct path to
armed conflict.
RFE/RL: Despite welcoming Montenegro’s independence vote
and urging the nation to engage in a “constructive, good-willed, and
wide-ranging dialogue” with Serbia, Russia is very unlikely to
sanction a similar referendum in Chechnya. Does this amount to a
double standard?
Volk: Russia supports referendums where it is advantageous,
where it advances its own interests — but in no circumstances inside
the country, where such referendums could yield the most unexpected
results, even despite massive control and manipulation of public
opinion.
RFE/RL: Is a similar referendum possible at all in Chechnya,
and would it enjoy Western support like Montenegro’s independence
vote?
Volk: Today, the issue of a referendum in Chechnya is purely
hypothetical, so in this context it is too early to talk about the
West’s stance. Chechnya is now under total Russian control. In my
opinion, even if such a referendum took place in Chechnya, its
results would be known in advance since free and fair elections
cannot be expected there. (Claire Bigg)
CHECHEN PREMIER SEEKS TO TRANSFORM HIS IMAGE. When Ramzan Kadyrov was
named in early March to the post of Chechen prime minister, he
publicly vowed to relinquish that post if he failed to bring about a
radical improvement in living conditions within three months. With
that deadline now imminent, the Chechen Ministry for Nationality
Policy, Press, and Information has reportedly commissioned a
public-opinion poll. All conceivable responses to the seven questions
posed confirm that life in Chechnya has improved since Kadyrov
assumed full control of the government.
Kadyrov has indeed set about transforming the war-scarred
face of the republic and, just as crucially, winning the hearts and
minds of a generation that can barely remember a time when Chechnya
was not at war. The “International Herald Tribune” on May 4 carried
on its front page pictures of reconstruction in Grozny, commenting
that the extent of the rebuilding would have been “unthinkable” just
a year ago. Highways are being resurfaced, the electricity grid
repaired, and new cafes and shops have opened. And the rebuilding is
not confined to the capital: it extends to the towns of Argun and
Gudermes.
Those visible signs of urban renewal have reportedly had a
major psychological impact and earned Kadyrov the grudging respect of
at least some of Grozny’s residents. In a May 3 interview,
Tatyana Lokshina, a Russian human rights activist who recently
visited Grozny, told “Caucasus Times” that this constitutes a major
shift in public attitudes and perception, given that one year ago “no
one had a good word to say about” Kadyrov.
The Chechen government’s public opinion poll seeks to
quantify that public approval: the questions include “To whom does
Chechnya owe the restoration now under way: to the federal center,
the republic head, or the prime minister?” according to “Kommersant.”
Chechen Republic head Alu Alkhanov has publicly slammed that
initiative, adding that Kadyrov has denied any knowledge of who
initiated it, RIA Novosti reported on May 18.
Moreover, Kadyrov’s leadership style is perceived as
almost as important as what he has accomplished, insofar as he is
coming to embody the sort of tough leader whom Chechens respect: a
man who gives orders, and whose orders are promptly carried out. At
the same time, as Lokshina notes, Kadyrov is still feared so
intensively that virtually no one is prepared to utter a word of
criticism of him or the several thousand armed men under his command.
Kadyrov’s orders are not confined to rebuilding. He is
also establishing a kind of moral discipline that is in keeping with
traditional Chechen values, imposing restrictions on the sale of
alcohol, cracking down on drug addiction, banning gambling, and
encouraging women to dress modestly, including covering their heads.
At the same time, as noted above, Kadyrov has launched a
charm offensive, tirelessly visiting schools, building sites, and
hospitals — and ensuring that the local media give extensive
coverage to such activities. And he reinforces that impression of
personal concern for individuals by handing out material benefits —
including wads of dollar bills. Where Kadyrov’s seemingly
bottomless funds derive from is a matter for speculation: part from
Moscow, part from the proceeds of stolen oil, and part from a system
that requires all state-sector employees to surrender a given
percentage of their salaries, and owners of businesses a cut of their
profits, according to Lokshina.
There are, however, grounds for suspecting Kadyrov’s
ultimate objective is not simply to improve the lives of the
republic’s population. According to Lokshina, Kadyrov is working
intensively on improving his personal image, which has been badly
tarnished not only by persistent rumors of his personal involvement
in torture but also by his inability to express himself articulately
in Russian. Lokshina said that Kadyrov has engaged a team of
experienced image-makers whose efforts are already bearing fruit, to
the point that “today’s Kadyrov is no longer a dilettante in the
realm of political populism but a full-fledged professional.”
Many observers infer from Kadyrov’s activities and
statements in recent months that he has every intention of succeeding
Alkhanov as republic head, and that he is convinced that Moscow
supports that scenario. Even before Alkhanov’s election in
September 2004 to succeed Kadyrov’s father Akhmad-hadji, who was
killed by a terrorist bomb two years ago, commentators suggested that
Alkhanov was intended solely as an interim figure and that he would
step down as soon as Ramzan Kadyrov reached the age of 30 — the
minimum age for election as republic head. Kadyrov will turn 30 on
October 5.
The Chechen parliament, whose members are overwhelmingly
loyal to Kadyrov, recently passed two laws that pave the way for
amending the republic’s constitution to expedite the replacement
of Alkhanov, “Vremya novostei” reported on May 12. That legislation
outlines the procedure for the creation of a Constitutional Court and
Constitutional Assembly that will amend the republic’s existing
constitution to remove the stipulation that the republic head is
universally elected.
The rivalry and tensions between Alkhanov and Kadyrov erupted
into violence last month when bodyguards for the two men reportedly
exchanged shots after Alkhanov sought to exclude Kadyrov from a
meeting in Grozny with visiting Audit Chamber head Sergei Stepashin.
Russian President Vladimir Putin summoned the two men to Moscow on
May 5 and warned Kadyrov not to seek to undermine Alkhanov, the daily
“Kommersant” reported on May 6 without naming its sources.
Meanwhile, Alkhanov has reportedly also set about recruiting
allies who could be counted on to support him in an anticipated
showdown with Kadyrov. Those figures are said to include the
commanders of the East and West battalions of the Russian Interior
Ministry’s 42nd division, Sulim Yamadaev and Said-Magomed Kakiev,
and former Grozny Mayor Beslan Gantamirov, who as Chechen deputy
prime minister had several spectacular public disagreements with
Akhmed-hadji Kadyrov. Yamadaev hates Kadyrov, whom he suspects of
being responsible for the death of his brother, according to an
analysis posted on chechenpress.org on May 1. A “Wall Street Journal”
commentary last year cited reports that Gantamirov was then based at
the Russian North Caucasus military headquarters in Mozdok, and that
he was being kept “in reserve” as a possible successor to Kadyrov.
Assuming those reports of a tentative anti-Ramzan alliance
are true, it is inconceivable that Alkhanov would have set about
forging it without Putin’s approval. And if Putin has approved
such an alliance, that suggests that at the least he has finally come
to realize that Kadyrov poses a potential threat, even if he has not
yet decided whether or how to set about removing that threat. (Liz
Fuller)
AMNESTY REPORT NOTES CONTINUED RIGHTS ABUSES IN CIS. Amnesty
International today released its annual report on the global state of
human rights. The report’s findings were mixed regarding CIS
states — a catalogue of continuing abuses with some progress. Russia
was lambasted for a rise in racially motivated killings. Belarus and
Azerbaijan both received criticism for cracking down on opposition
activists and politicians. And Ukraine and Georgia — countries that
have improved their democratic credentials since their colored
revolutions — were chastised for their records on police torture.
PRAGUE, May 23, 2006 (RFE/RL) — As Lamzar Samba, a student
from Senegal, was leaving a popular St. Petersburg nightclub in
April, he was killed by a gunshot to the neck.
Russian police on May 22 detained five suspects over the
killing. A sixth suspect was killed last week by police while
allegedly resisting arrest.
The attack on the student was one of a spate of racially
motivated attacks in Russia in recent weeks. Rights watchers say such
attacks are on the rise.
Amnesty International’s annual report notes that in 2005
in Russia there were at least 28 killings and 365 assaults motivated
by racial hatred. Foreigners and Russian citizens from Chechnya and
elsewhere in the North Caucasus have been the main targets.
Irene Khan, Amnesty’s secretary-general, says there have
been many other disturbing signs in Russia over the past year.
“We have seen the Russian government introducing restrictions
against NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], clamping down on human
rights defenders and journalists,” Khan said. “We have seen the
Russian government totally ignore and refuse to take action against
its own security forces in Chechnya, who have committed human rights
abuses.”
Amnesty’s Irene Khan (AI/Dannenmiller)Russia’s
apparent backsliding on human rights has caused many observers to
question the country’s tenure as chair of the Council of
Europe’s Committee of Ministers and presidency of the Group of
Eight (G-8) leading industrialized nations.
Judit Arenas, a senior spokeswoman for Amnesty, says Russia
has taken some positive steps. She cites President Vladimir
Putin’s recognition of racism as a problem during his recent
address to the nation.
But she adds that Russia should do more and should set a
leading example on the international stage.
“Russia actually blocked major resolutions at the UN Security
Council on Darfur,” Arenas said. “It’s got a major problem on its
doorstep in Chechnya, which has not been resolved. There are other
issues in the Caucasus and it has to lead by example and actually
clearly demonstrate that if it wants to be a global player [then] it
must actually abide by the rules of the game.”
The Amnesty report criticizes Belarus and Azerbaijan for
their violent crackdowns on opposition activists and journalists. In
Armenia, despite commitments made to the Council of Europe,
conscientious objectors to military service still remain in jail.
But what of Ukraine and Georgia, two countries that have
improved their democratic records since their recent “colored
revolutions”?
The Amnesty report criticizes both countries for reports of
torture and ill treatment by law-enforcement officers.
Amnesty highlights reports that Georgian police have placed
plastic bags over detainees’ heads and beaten prisoners with gun
butts.
Georgian police responding to a prison riot in Tbilisi in
March (InterPressNews)However, the report points out that in both
Ukraine and Georgia, senior officials have begun to address the
issue.
In Ukraine, the new government after the 2004 Orange
Revolution changed legislation to allow state officials to be charged
with torture.
And in Georgia, several high-ranking politicians have pledged
to fight police abuse. There has also been more extensive monitoring
of detention facilities.
Arenas says Georgia has been willing to listen to
recommendations and implement legal amendments.
“The problem has actually been that that message has actually
not translated down to the level of law-enforcement officials, who
are the ones who continue to torture and ill-treat people,” Arenas
added.
The report notes that police in Georgia continue to cover up
crimes and detainees are often afraid to file a complaint for fear of
reprisals. (Luke Allnutt)
GUAM — A REGIONAL GROUPING COMES OF AGE. GUAM — a regional grouping
of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova — always seemed like
just another talking shop. This was especially true in a region with
what some might consider an excess of regional groupings, like the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and
others. After Uzbekistan left the body in 2002, many commentators
questioned whether GUAM even had a future. But the recent advent to
power in Georgia and Ukraine of openly pro-Western leaders breathed
new life into the grouping. And with countries threatening to leave
the CIS, GUAM has set its sights much higher.
PRAGUE, May 24, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Surrounded by a bevy of wine
glasses and photographers this week in Kyiv, Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili enjoyed a glass of one of his country’s
biggest exports.
The wine festival in the Ukrainian capital was a clear show
of solidarity, after Russia recently banned Georgian wine in a move
many think is political.
That spirit of bonhomie also seemed evident in the more
serious business of politics. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko,
who was elected the first-time secretary-general of GUAM, spoke
enthusiastically of the region’s prospects.
“I am firmly convinced that our region has great potential
and that it will become one of the most promising regions in modern
Europe. This concerns not only energy or transport projects but also
security projects, I’m sure,” Yushchenko said.
The presidents of the four GUAM countries adopted a new
charter, rules of procedure, and financial regulations. And
crucially, the leaders also expressed their desire for increased
cooperation with NATO and the European Union.
They also gave the organization a new name. GUAM will now be
known as the Organization for Democracy and Economic
Development-GUAM.
This apparent reawakening is likely to irritate Russia. From
the outset, Moscow has reacted to GUAM with mistrust and hostility,
perceiving it as a secret weapon with which the United States, a GUAM
funder, planned to emasculate the CIS.
Whatever the cause, the CIS — which rose from the ashes of
the Soviet Union in 1991 — seems to be in trouble.
In recent weeks, President Saakashvili has repeatedly hinted
at possibility of his country withdrawing from the CIS.
In Ukraine and Moldova, senior politicians have alluded to
the possibility of leaving the CIS. Of the four GUAM countries, only
Azerbaijan has ruled out leaving the body.
The presidents of the GUAM countries in Kyiv, May 23
Aleksandre Rondeli, the president of the Georgian Foundation for
Strategic and International Studies in Tbilisi, thinks that
GUAM’s transformation is part of the disintegration of the CIS.
“GUAM in the beginning was created mostly as a certain kind
of resistance toward Russian security policy. But now it’s
developing into a serious, full-fledged international organization,
but with an economic basis,” Rondeli says.
Indeed, at the Kyiv meeting, economic cooperation was high on
the agenda.
Since its inception, the presidents of the GUAM member states
have consistently stressed the anticipated benefits of economic
cooperation. That means, in the first instance, the construction of
export pipelines for Caspian oil and gas that bypass Russian
territory. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil-export pipeline is to be
formally inaugurated next month and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas
pipeline will go into operation this fall.
The presidents of the GUAM countries at the summit on May 23
Much of the renewed cooperation will now be concentrated on reducing
dependence on Russian oil and gas. Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova are
all reliant on Russia for gas supplies. But Azerbaijan could replace
Russia as Georgia’s supplier when gas from its Shah-Deniz field
starts flowing through Georgia in the next few months.
At the May 23 summit, the presidents took another bold step,
announcing that they had signed a protocol on creating a free-trade
zone and a customs union.
Georgian President Saakashvili, speaking to RFE/RL’s
Georgian Service, stressed that the renewed interest in the alliance
was for self-protection: “It is very important that, at a time of
real economic sanctions against Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, at a
time of new obstacles and embargoes, we have agreed to introduce a
free-trade regime among our countries, because it offers concrete
benefits to all [GUAM member] countries, all citizens, all
producers.”
But is this likely to amount to much?
Katinka Barysch, chief economist at the London-based Center
for European Reform, says that since the breakup of the Soviet Union
there have been numerous attempts to create political and economic
cooperation. She says that most of these initiatives have been only
mildly successful as trade between countries has not increased.
“My impression is that the policymakers in the former Soviet
Union have a very statist and traditional view of international
relations. The state is supreme over markets and there is a clear
distinction between high politics and low politics,” Barysch says.
“And high politics is big presidents getting together and
signing deals, and that very often includes economic deals, but this
isn’t really something that’s driven from the ground up,
that’s driven by the business sector. The motivation behind that
seems to be political.”
Konstantin Kosachyov, the head of the Duma’s foreign
affairs committee, has no doubt that the motivation for GUAM is
political. In an interview with RFE/RL’s Russian Service,
Kosachyov said he couldn’t see what the countries had in common:
“I find it extremely hard to imagine that something actually
unites these countries, in particular slogans on democratic elections
and adherence to the idea of progress. And that explains Russia’s
reaction — we find it strange to see an alliance formed not on a
positive but on a negative note; not for something, but against
something.”
Besides, there could be tensions within the grouping itself.
Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova have unequivocally pro-Western and
pro-NATO orientations, whereas oil-rich Azerbaijan has taken a more
ambivalent position.
Speaking after the summit, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
was keen to stress how the organization wasn’t about
confrontation. “It is not aimed against anybody,” he said. “We
didn’t gather here to make friends in order to oppose someone
else.” (RFE/RL’s Liz Fuller, Luke Allnutt, Claire Bigg, and the
Russian, Ukrainian, and Georgian services contributed to this story.)
SIGNS OF DISCORD AS FOREIGN MINISTER MEETS WITH EU LAWMAKERS.
BRUSSELS, May 18, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov today met with the foreign affairs committee of the European
Parliament in Strasbourg.
The meeting — which took place behind closed doors —
provided EU lawmakers with a rare opportunity to quiz the Russian
minister on a range of questions important to EU-Russian relations
and current international issues. At least one participant at the
meeting suggested there are a number of issues on which the two sides
do not agree.
The fact that the meeting was held behind closed doors —
something that is unusual for the European Parliament — indicates
the two sides were keen to avoid publicizing their differences.
After the morning’s question-and-answer session, Lavrov
gave a brief overview of what he had talked about: “I also shared our
views and answered questions regarding developments in Russia,
regarding our assessment of the situation in countries located close
to both Russia and the European Union, our position on the Middle
East problem, on the Iranian nuclear issue, and answered many
questions about human rights, about our relations with the Baltic
states.”
Lavrov said the meeting also considered the longer-term
future of the EU-Russia relationship after their current Partnership
and Cooperation Agreement runs out in 2007.
Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European Parliament’s foreign
affairs committee, said energy security was also discussed.
An EU source told RFE/RL on condition of anonymity that
Lavrov had assured his audience that energy cooperation with the EU
remains a top priority for Russia, and that both sides are mutually
interdependent.
He did not, however, address outstanding questions between
the EU and Russia on how much market access to grant each other.
The EU source said Lavrov also defended Russian policies on
Moldova and Belarus and rejected criticisms of his country’s rights
record.
On Belarus, Lavrov said the country remains an “ally and a
friend” for Russia, and that dialogue is the only acceptable way of
dealing with Minsk.
His comment came as the European Union is considering whether
to impose an assets freeze on Belarusian President Alyaksandr
Lukashenka and other top officials in response to the country’s
flawed presidential election in March.
Lavrov also said that despite Russian attempts to improve
relations, Moldova has neglected to meet its obligations with regard
to Transdniester. He said Chisinau has broken off dialogue and
demands a solution under which it remains a unitary state.
Lavrov said the EU is displaying “double standards” by siding
with Moldova, and cited the case of Cyprus, where the EU supports a
far looser future arrangement between the two sides.
According to the EU source, Lavrov rejected criticism of the
recent tightening of Russia’s legislation on nongovernmental
organizations. He said Russian requirements for NGO registration are
no stricter than those in a number of EU member states. Lavrov also
noted Russian authorities require far less background information to
register an NGO than their counterparts in the United States.
Lavrov also said that while Moscow subscribes to the notion
of universal human rights, it believes their application depends on
local circumstances and therefore differs from country to country.
The Russian foreign minister brushed off charges that Moscow
remains unwilling to conclude border treaties with two new EU member
states, Estonia and Latvia. He said the two countries had reneged on
an initial agreement not to attach unilateral political declarations
to the treaties — making it impossible for Russia to proceed.
Lavrov also attacked a number of resolutions adopted by the
European Parliament on the situation of the Russian-speaking
minorities in Estonia and Latvia. He said the declarations — which
Russia sees as biased — are based on impartial and outdated
information and fail to tackle such fundamental issues like the
social and political rights of the minorities.
Lavrov also sharply condemned what he said were Latvian
restrictions on the celebrations organized by Red Army veterans to
commemorate the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany on May 9.
Lavrov also spoke out against isolating countries such as
Belarus and Iran. He warned that, if isolated, Iran could turn into
“a new North Korea.” Lavrov did add, however, that Russia does not
support the emergence of new nuclear-capable countries.
TACKLING RUSSIA’S DEMOGRAPHIC CRISIS. PRAGUE, May 19, 2006
(RFE/RL) — Russia’s postcommunist demographic woes have been
well documented. But the implications of the issue have become such a
hot topic of late that President Vladimir Putin made it his highest
priority during his May 10 state-of-the-nation address.
Russia’s population is declining by about 700,000 people
per year, and has dropped from 150 million since the 1992 census to
just over 142 million today.
If left unchecked, demographers estimate that Russia’s
population could fall to fewer than 100 million people by 2050.
Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov — who heads
Russia’s Party of Life, a party whose platform is largely based
on resolving the demographic crisis — this week provided even more
staggering numbers, estimating that Russia might have only 52 million
people by 2080 if urgent measures are not taken.
Fears over potential consequences are wide-ranging — that
the country won’t be able to generate enough young men to fill
the ranks of its military, that the economy will not be able to
sustain itself, and that immigration could drastically alter the
country’s ethnic and religious makeup.
In response to the public’s growing concerns over
population losses, Putin prioritized the steps the state must take to
rectify the problem.
“First a lower death rate; second, and efficient migration
policy; and third, a higher birthrate,” Putin told the nation during
his address.
Russia has a birthrate of about 9.95 per 1,000 people,
compared to about 14 per 1,000 in the United States, and 8.3 per
1,000 in Germany. But the crux of the matter lies in the
country’s death rate. While the United States has a death rate of
8.2 per 1,000 people, and Germany 10.6, Russia posts an alarming
14.65 deaths per 1,000 population.
The only former Soviet states with comparable figures are
fellow Slavic states Ukraine (8.81 births/14.3 deaths per 1,000) and
Belarus (11.1 births/14 deaths). The populations of states in Central
Asia and the Transcaucasus, meanwhile, are booming. Kazakhstan, for
example, is recording 16 births per 1,000 people and a death rate of
9.42 per 1,000, while Turkmenistan boasts a birthrate of 27.6 per
1,000 and a death rate of 8.6 per 1,000.
While many countries manage to make up for demographic
problems by attracting immigrants to buttress their populations,
Russia is posting a deficit in this regard as well. Only about 70,000
immigrants enter Russia per year, while about 100,000 leave the
country.
Following the presidential address, Communist Party of Russia
leader Gennady Zyuganov commented on the urgency of the situation.
“From the point of view of content, [Putin’s address] was
more realistic, more specific,” Zyuganov said. “The main theme is
that the country is losing its population. It has lost 10 million
people in 15 years, of whom 9 million are Russians. The preservation
of the people is such a crying problem that it cannot be avoided.”
Partly due to the very low life expectancy in the country
(67.08 years overall; 60.45 for men, 74.1 years for women), the death
rate particularly hits Russia’s workforce. Specialists have
calculated that the country’s working-age population will decline
by as much as 15 percent between 2005-15.
This, in turn can have a huge impact on the country’s
economic situation, which is a major factor in people’s decisions
to have offspring.
As Putin described it, low incomes, lack of housing, and
doubts about the ability to adequately provide education, medical
care, and even food can deter potential mothers from having children.
“When planning to have a child, a woman is faced with the
choice whether to have a child but lose her job, or not to have a
child,” Putin said during his address. “This is a very difficult
choice. The encouragement of childbirth should include a whole range
of measures of administrative, financial, and social support for
young families.”
As an incentive to increase the birthrate, Putin, ordered
parliament to double child-support payments to 1,500 rubles ($55) per
month and added that women who choose to have a second baby will
receive a one-time payment of 250,000 rubles ($9,200).
Another solution outlined by Putin was to continue attracting
“our fellow countrymen from abroad,” saying it is necessary to
encourage “qualified migrants, people who are educated, and who obey
the law.”
He followed this up by noting that “people coming to settle
in Russia should treat Russian culture and our national traditions
with respect.”
This was an apparent nod to the growing voice of nationalists
in Russia concerned with the declining population of ethnic Russians.
Such concerns have contributed to racism and anti-immigrant passions
in Russia, and have fueled the rising popularity of the “Russia for
Russians” rally cry.
Putin conceded that the measures outlined in his speech were
merely the first steps toward alleviating the demographic crisis, and
that further remedies are on the way.
It is obvious that increasing the birthrate and promoting
immigration is not going to be enough. Huge obstacles will remain,
including:
— The country’s deteriorating health-care system;
— The country’s alcohol dependency. In 2005 some 35,000
Russian citizens died of alcohol-related causes;
— The unchecked spread of HIV/AIDS. By 2006 the number of
registered HIV-positive Russian citizens stood at 350,000, while
estimates of the actual numbers of those infected with the virus run
up to 1.5 million. Most sufferers are young people, the very segment
the country depends on to sustain its future population;
— The country’s tremendous abortion rate. An estimated
1.6 million women had abortions in 2004 year, 20 percent of whom were
under the age of 18. This compares to 1.5 million women who gave
birth, according to Vladimir Kulakov, vice president of the Russian
Academy of Medical Sciences, the “Moscow News” reported on August 23,
2005;
— A high infant-mortality rate. Russia currently records 15
deaths per 1,000 live births. This compares to 6.43 per 1,000 in the
United States, 7.22 per 1,000 in Poland, and just 4.12 deaths per
1,000 live births in Germany. (Roman Kupchinsky)
RUSSIA’S ‘MISS POSITIVE’ PUTS PUBLIC FACE ON BATTLE WITH
HIV/AIDS. MOSCOW, May 20, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Last year, Svetlana
Izambayeva became the first person to hold an unusual Russian title:
Miss Positive. Izambayeva is HIV-positive, and the contest she won
was widely seen as a rare instance of Russia attempting to highlight,
rather than cover up, the country’s growing problem with
HIV/AIDS.
When Izambayeva, a 25-year-old hairdresser, was diagnosed
with HIV in 2002 after a seaside love affair, her first reaction was
disbelief.
“I thought this could not affect me,” she said. “I told
myself: ‘No, this is not true. This is impossible.’ After
coming to my senses, I asked myself for a long time: ‘Why? What
for? How could this happen? This can’t be true.'”
Izambayeva’s reaction was a sign of how low awareness of
HIV/AIDS issues still is in Russia.
At the start of the HIV epidemic in Russia, drug use was
responsible for more than 90 percent of infections. But the virus is
quickly moving into the mainstream population through sexual contact.
A lack of public debate in Russia on HIV/AIDS, however, has
sustained the belief that HIV is confined to marginal groups such as
drug addicts and prostitutes.
Izambayeva, with her newfound fame and her seemingly
inexhaustible enthusiasm, is determined to change that attitude.
Simply showing that a person with HIV can be attractive, she says,
goes a long way in fighting social stigma.
“I think that I’ve destroyed many stereotypes,” she said.
“Before, people in villages, even in the small village where I grew
up, just like me didn’t understand that HIV can affect them and
their family. By showing people that I smile, that I am happy, that I
lead a fully fledged life, I’ve destroyed the stereotype that an
HIV-positive person looks like a tramp lying in dirt, skinny, with
swollen bruises under his eyes.”
Izambayeva was born in 1981 — the year the first AIDS cases
were reported in the United States. Since then, the disease has
spread around the world at frightening speed. Some 40 million people
worldwide are estimated to be infected with HIV, the virus that
causes AIDS, and more than 20 million people have already died due to
AIDS.
Russia has one of the world’s fastest-growing HIV
epidemics. While 330,000 have been officially diagnosed with the
virus, many health experts say well over 1 million people could be
living with HIV in Russia.
But few are willing to talk about their infection. Russian
society is quick to stigmatize HIV sufferers.
When Izambayeva finally mustered the courage to speak openly
about her HIV status, many in her small hometown, some 600 kilometers
east of Moscow, chose to reject her. They refused to shake hands with
her or drink from the same glass. She lost many hairdressing clients.
“Some continued [to come]. But some didn’t even approach
me,” she said. “They stopped talking to me. They started poking their
finger at me and saying: ‘She’ll scratch your head all over.
Don’t go to her.'”
She says her mother at first even tried to isolate her from
her younger brothers for fear she might infect them.
But Izambayeva has no regrets. On the contrary, campaigning
to educate Russians about HIV and AIDS has given new meaning to her
life.
“Thanks to the fact that I started talking about it openly, I
felt there were thousands of HIV-positive people behind me, for whom
I bore responsibility and for whom I can continue to speak,” she
said. “HIV has made my life better. I’ve become more confident. I
live life more fully. One could say that I’ve grown.”
Like thousands of people around the world, Izambayeva will
light candles on May 21 as part of the International AIDS Candlelight
Memorial. The memorial is a grassroots event started in 1983 as a way
to honor AIDS victims — those who have died and those who are living
with the disease. It also aims to educate the public, raise
awareness, and decrease the stigma related to HIV/AIDS.
And for those Russians who have yet to meet Izambayeva, a
dozen cities across the country will mark the day by showing a slide
film telling the story of this unique beauty queen.
GAY PARADE A TEST OF TOLERANCE IN RUSSIA. Plans to hold Russia’s
first-ever gay-rights march have sparked a rare public debate on
homosexuality in Russia. While Moscow authorities and religious
leaders have condemned the initiative, gays and lesbians are
determined to parade down Moscow’s main street on May 27 in
defiance of an official ban. But many gays are split over whether
Russian society is ready for such a colorful defense of homosexuality
at a time when nationalism and intolerance appear to be on the rise.
MOSCOW, May 24, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Aleksandr is still hesitant
about joining the May 27 unsanctioned march, for fear it will end in
violence.
His boyfriend, Vyacheslav, however, has no doubt — he will
stay clear of the parade.
“I think that it must take place, but I won’t go because
the climate will be aggressive,” Vyacheslav said. “I’ll wait
until the danger is over. Even bystanders watching will be hit in the
heat of the moment. Everything will be smashed either by the police
or by skinheads. They will smash everyone, girls and boys alike.”
Efforts to stage an unprecedented gay parade have thrust
Moscow’s discreet homosexual community into the limelight.
Gay activist Nikolai Alekseyev, the driving force behind the
march, says the time has come for homosexuals to step out of the
shadows and lobby for their rights. The parade is planned to fall on
the 13th anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in
Russia.
Not all homosexuals, however, welcome this sudden attention.
Many say a gay parade will only serve to heighten homophobia.
Ultranationalists and Russian Orthodox activists attacked two
Moscow gay nightclubs last month, throwing bottles, rocks, and eggs
at party-goers and chanting homophobic insults.
Stanislav Androsov, the manager of one of the nightclubs that
came under attack, blamed the parade’s organizers.
“This started with public remarks that Moscow needs a gay
parade,” Androsov said. “There are some activists who want to hold a
gay parade, but many are against it because, as we see, Moscow is not
ready for a gay parade. All these attacks against gays started from
this moment.”
News that homosexual activists planned to follow in the
footsteps of their Western counterparts by parading through the city
center has drawn a chorus of angry comments, particularly from
officials and religious leaders.
Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov banned the march, saying it would
“provoke outrage in society.” His spokesman added that any attempt to
flout the ban would be “resolutely quashed.”
The Moscow Patriarchate condemned the parade as a
“glorification of sin.” Russia’s chief rabbi, Berel Lazar, warned
against “homosexual propaganda.” And a top Muslim cleric, Talgat
Tadzhuddin, even called on believers to “bash” gays if they take to
the street on May 27.
Eating sushi in a fashionable Moscow restaurant, Vyacheslav
and Aleksandr say they have learned to ignore such remarks.
Vyacheslav says they reflect widespread ignorance of homosexual
issues.
“Why are people against [the parade]? I believe it’s out
of ignorance,” Vyacheslav said. “Everyone has the same, standard
argument: ‘How can I let my child go to such a parade? He will
become like that.’ But people don’t understand that
homosexuality cannot be inculcated. It is not an infection.”
Before Russia repealed its ban on homosexuality in 1993, gays
were subject to up to five years in prison and lesbians could end up
in grim psychiatric institutions. But the lack of public debate means
homosexuality is still widely perceived as a perversion or a mental
illness.
Twenty-seven-year-old Vyacheslav is lucky — his family has
accepted his relationship with Aleksandr and the beauty salon where
he works as a hairdresser does not object to his being gay.
Nonetheless, he says he will never be seen holding hands with his
boyfriend in public.
The situation is more difficult for Aleksandr, a 32-year-old
manager in a company selling alcohol. He prefers to hide his sexual
orientation from his colleagues, and his parents still refuse to come
to terms with his homosexuality.
He describes society’s attitude toward gays as “dismal,”
particularly in the provinces.
Before moving to Moscow two years ago, Aleksandr and
Vyacheslav lived in Sochi, on the Black Sea. Aleksandr says a
neighbor in the communal flat where they used to live asked a male
relative to beat up Vyacheslav when she found out they were gay.
“She allegedly saw Slavik [Vyacheslav] and me kissing,”
Aleksandr said. “She got her daughter’s friend involved: he
caught Slavik and picked a fight. Then a campaign started, ‘down
with gays’ and stuff like that. Of course, this was said in a
much more offensive way. In the end we had to move out.”
Aleksandr and Vyacheslav say they would like to marry and
raise a child.
But in a country where parliament Deputy Speaker Vladimir
Zhirinovsky has called for the death penalty for homosexuals, they
know it will be many years before they are granted the rights
homosexuals are beginning to enjoy in the West. (Claire Bigg)
******************************************* **************
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.
The “RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly” is prepared
on the basis of a variety of sources. It is distributed every
Wednesday.
Direct comments to [email protected].
For information on reprints, see:
p
Back issues are online at
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress