Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Asia Publishing Institution Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

31. Black Sea Defense Ministers Forum (Event Summary)

Author:
Victor Bannykh, Victor Gaiciuc, Armen Kirakossian, and David Tevzadze
Publication Date:
05-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
On May 2, the Black Sea Security Program held a public forum at the Kennedy School of Government that featured leading representatives from the governments of Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. This panel was moderated by Graham Allison, chair of the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard.
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Ukraine, Moldova, Eastern Europe, Asia, Armenia, and Georgia

32. Russia Watch No.7, March 2002

Author:
Duncan DeVille, Danielle Lussier, Melissa Carr, David Rekhviashvili, Annaliis Abrego, and John Grennan
Publication Date:
03-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Russian support for U.S. efforts in the war on terrorism has surprised many Western observers. But this was not the only recent surprise from Moscow — Western advocates for the rule of law in Russia also had much to celebrate in the closing months of 2001. Under strong prodding by President Vladimir Putin, the Duma passed several impressive pieces of reform legislation, including an entirely new Criminal Procedure Code, a potentially revolutionary land reform law, new shareholder protections in amendments to the Joint Stock Company Law, and the first post-Soviet Labor Code.
Topic:
Security, Democratization, and Government
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Asia, and Moscow

33. Consequence Management in the 1995 Sarin Attacks on the Japanese Subway System

Author:
Robyn Pangi
Publication Date:
02-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
In the early to mid 1990s, a group known as Aum Shinrikyo amassed, and used against innocent civilians, an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. A large body of literature details the evolution of Aum Shinrikyo, its shocking attacks on a housing complex in Matsumoto and on five subway lines in Tokyo using a chemical weapon, and Japanese society's reaction to the attacks. Not much analysis, however, has been done on the lessons learned about consequence management from the first significant terrorist attacks with weapons of mass destruction to occur in modern times. Recent events in the United States including the dispersal of anthrax spores through the mail and scores of hoaxes alleging use of anthrax have brought the issue of terrorism using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) closer to home. The handling of the Aum Shinrikyo attacks offers the opportunity for policymakers, emergency response personnel, and other relevant professionals to learn about WMD consequence management.
Topic:
National Security, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Asia, Tokyo, and Matsumoto

34. The Prospects for Peace in Chechnya (Event summary)

Author:
Ilias Akhmadov
Publication Date:
02-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Observers of the situation in Chechnya know that the "prospects for peace" that Akhmadov's title refers to are virtually nil, as Russian president Vladimir Putin and Chechen rebel leaders continue to lock horns on how to end the hostilities that broke out in war over two years ago. Akhmadov devoted considerable time in his discussion to the problems confronting Chechnya since the development of a Bush-Putin alliance to combat "Islamic fundamentalism." He also challenged Putin's insistence that the conflicts in Chechnya are domestic and therefore not subject to international monitoring or mediation. Akhmadov opened his talk with the assertion that the destruction he had discussed at the Davis Center in January 2000 had grown more serious, with levels of physical devastation and civilian casualties on the rise and the world community more supportive than ever of armed Russian intervention. To illustrate his point that the Russian Federation is unfairly using the international war on terror to justify actions in Chechnya, Akhmadov said that two days after FBI agents found diskettes containing flying instructions which had belonged to the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the US, Russian FSB agents reported finding similar diskettes belonging to Chechen terrorists in the woods near a pilot-training school. Akhmadov considered the presence of such a school in those woods unlikely. He added that a high casualty rate among Chechen civilians is now officially connected to the search for members of Al Qaeda. Akhmadov reminded the audience of a speech made by Putin on September 24, 2001, in which the Russian president expressed support for the United States' war on terror and urged Chechen rebels to disarm and abandon their separatist fight. Akhmadov's response to that speech was that disarmament could not be a condition for starting peace talks. As for the November meeting between Viktor Kazantsev, Putin's envoy to Chechnya, and Akhmed Zakayev, a prominent representative of Chechnya's rebels, Akhmadov said it "left no room for illusions about their relations, or about the Russian government's position on Chechnya." The talk ended when Zakayev refused to comply with Kazanstev's request that the rebels disarm. Akhmadov addressed allegations of ties between the rebels and Osama bin Laden in the question-and-answer session, restricting himself during his talk to criticism of what he considers unwarranted BBC and CNN reports about the "thousands of Chechens fighting in Afghanistan." While Akhmadov allowed for the possibility that a few Chechens could be fighting for the Taliban, he stressed the unlikelihood that Chechens played a critical role in Taliban efforts and reported that nobody yet had been able to provide any "concrete facts to verify that Chechens are fighting for the Taliban." Putin's affirmations that Chechnya belongs to Russia apparently strike Akhmadov as oxymoronic, as indicated by his remark that "the Russian Federation wants to integrate the territory of Chechnya but not the people." To convey the extent of destruction wrought by the Chechen-Russian conflicts, Akhmadov cited data culled by Russians showing that before the first war in 1994, there were 1 million Chechens; 100,000 people were killed between 1994-6; that casualty figure has been greatly exceeded during the fighting that started in 1999. In addition, 400,000 Chechens have emigrated or become displaced persons. Akhmadov pointedly remarked that "we don't count as refugees, because that only happens during a war . . . What is happening in Chechnya is, according to Russia, 'a small, minor anti-terrorist operation.'"Finally, Akhmadov stated that impartial monitoring groups were needed to observe the conflict. He also asserted that a one-on-one dialogue with Russians was not a realistic solution and that intermediaries were needed to promote discussion between Russian and Chechen leaders. Following his prepared talk, Akhmadov replied to questions from the audience about issues including Chechen rebel fighting in Abkhazia, hostage-taking, and Russian bombing of civilian and industrial areas. In response to a question about Maskhadov's ability to rebuild the war-torn region, Akhmadov said that "neither Maskhadov nor any other Chechen can do anything with Chechnya's meager resources." He also said that the international community should aid Chechnya in future attempts to rebuild the war-torn republic and that visiting Ground Zero in New York had given him the "feeling that I had seen that [kind of devastation] somewhere before, only on a larger scale." Finally, Akhmadov answered an audience member's question about Russian and Chechen military strategy by saying that it was hard forhim to believe that "someone is sitting at a map plotting points . . . We're [Russians and Chechens] just killing each other . . . Russians see us, they kill us, and vice versa. It's a snowball effect."
Topic:
Security, Democratization, and Government
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

35. Assessing Russian Democracy (Event Summary)

Author:
Grigory Yavlinsky
Publication Date:
02-2002
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Mr Yavlinsky began by thanking the Belfer Center for the invitation and said that the main topic of his talk will be to explore the progress of Russian Democratization. According to Mr. Yavlinsky, the process of democratization involves not only creating some set of democratic procedures, like free elections or free press. It is necessary to look behind the formal democratic institutions to ask what people applying and using them have in mind. Only after analyzing such motivations is it possible to understand how essentially democratic and legitimate institutions produce results contrary to their nature. The value of freedom of speech is nonexistent, if people have nothing to say, the freedom of action is needless if people are only willing to march in military ranks. Hence democracy can only work if the society enacting it has some basic democratic values, education, beliefs or moral principles. The democratic institutions and procedures per se are merely tools, able to transform these ideas and beliefs into reality. That is why the benefits of mere democratic procedures are so limited. It is for this reason that the economic base of any democracy is one of its crucial elements, providing for independent individuals as its basic members. In Mr. Yavlinsky's opinion, these facts represent the main challenge for Russian democracy. Russia's small and middle business enterprises are important for its democracy. Mr. Yavlinsky called them a "conditio sine qua non" for any democratic society. Only if the economy of the country can ensure the independent economic behavior of its citizens and only if these citizens have a certain level of democratic education and democratic values, only in this case the democratic procedures can work for the common benefit. From Yavlinsky's point of view the main challenge for the Russian reforms is that the country has to perform an acrobatic act, similar to riding a bicycle, where it must accomplish two operations simultaneously: the Russians have to engage in actions preparing democracy and at the same time practice this democracy with no reference to any previous historic democratic record. After presenting these general thoughts Mr. Yavlinsky moved on to a deeper analysis of the present Russian situation. He assumed that the present political elite consists of people coming from the Soviet administrative system and still thinking in Soviet categories. To achieve their goals they use a democratic cover "quasi democracy," a somewhat modernized version of the famous "Potemkin villages." Just like Stalin's constitution, which was considered to be one the most progressive democratic constitutions, the present formally democratic institutions in Russia do not constitute real democracy. Yavlinsky described the present state of political life in Russia as a controlled or managed democracy. This is a state where the democratic tools are used to achieve any result desirable for the leader of the country. The most recent example of this type of manipulation was a recent proposal drawn up by the parties close to the Russian president. According to this proposal, elections should only be considered valid if voter participation was at least 50 percent and only if one of the candidates was able to achieve more then 50 percent of the votes. In the opinion of Mr. Yavlinsky such a regulation would easily lead to an election deadlock, which would benefit the president. Mr. Yavlinsky underscored the difference between this type of controlled democracy and a totalitarian rule. While the latter destroys all the democratic institutions directly and openly, the main strategy of controlled democracy is not to destroy, but to adjust the institutions to serve the goals of the ruling elite. If any adjustment of institutions is impossible, the government prefers to replace the people controlling these institutions (like replacing the owners of the free TV stations) or substitute these institutions with new, more easily manageable organizations (as happened in the case of the Media Union, which was created to weaken the influence of the Union of Journalists). Speculating on the future of the Russian democracy, Yavlinsky stressed the special and very important role of bureaucracy in implementing this new "vertical of power." However as any bureaucracy, it will lead to more corruption. In order to keep the corruption under control, the government will have to use intense enforcement mechanisms, which might go as far as creating a police state. Of the three core democratic elements — free press, free elections, and an independent judiciary — Mr. Yavlinsky specifically spoke about the press. Yavlinsky said that the situation with the press in today's Russia is certainly not comparable to the situation in the Soviet Union. Everyone can read anything in the press, even the most incredible and slanderous information about most prominent political figures. Restricted is any systematic explanation or critical analysis of the political events. For example, state television stations have a list of people who are not to be shown on the air. The same is true for the list of forbidden topics. Certainly there still are a some newspapers who still cover critical topics (e.g. Obschaya Gazeta and Novaya Gazeta). However, they unfold their activities in a kind of a glass box, their presence is not really essential, and is only useful for the government in order to demonstrate to foreign observers that free press exists. As a result of such media control, the Russian population is subject to the management and manipulation of human choice. According to Mr. Yavlinsky this ability to manipulate and control is actually one of the main results of the last 10 years: it is not hard to manipulate the choice of the Russian public. Just like one could convince it to vote for Yeltsin or vote for a totally unknown newcomer Putin, you can always manipulate the public opinion. In the question and answer section Yavlinsky addressed various issues. In speaking about the best way western countries could assist Russia on its way towards democracy, Yavlinsky rejected any form of financial credits or subsidies. He is convinced that the help must be conducted in a smart way and this means in the first place the west should give up any policy of double standards towards Russia and address Russia as an honest and valuable ally. Regarding Putin's intentions, Yavlinsky mentioned two of them: the intention to make Russia a strong state and to protect his own power. The question is not whether these goals are good or bad, but rather which instruments Putin is prepared to use to implement those goals.
Topic:
Security and Human Rights
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

36. The Role of Bias in Third Party Intervention: Theory and Evidence

Author:
David Carment and Dane Rowlands
Publication Date:
10-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Throughout the 1990s multilateral interventions deviated significantly from their predecessor missions in a number of important ways. For one, the central characteristics of traditional peacekeeping missions - the use of force for self defense only, the interposition of troops after a ceasefire and the maintenance of tactical and strategic impartiality - no longer provided the delimiting boundaries for presumed mission success. Second, intrastate conflicts proved to be decidedly more complex and often more deadly for both the belligerents and peacekeepers as well as ordinary citizens caught in the fray. Third, in order to execute functions such as guaranteeing the safe passage of humanitarian assistance, assisting displaced persons, and stopping the killing of ordinary citizens, peacekeepers often resorted to more forceful measures.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies
Political Geography:
Asia

37. Shusha's Pivotal Role in a Nagorno-Karabagh Settlement

Author:
Elchin Amirbayov
Publication Date:
12-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Peace in Nagorno - Karabagh will demand painful compromises from both Armenia and Azerbaijan. A “winner's peace” — one that only reflects the military gains of one side — will not foster long - term resolution of the conflict. The Shusha region of Nagorno - Karabagh has special symbolic meaning for Azerbaijanis. A key element in obtaining Azerbaijani acceptance of a peace agreement is the return of the Shusha region to Azerbaijani control and the guaranteed right of internally displaced Azerbaijani persons to return to the Shusha region.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Democratization, and Energy Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Asia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

38. A Russian Reporter in Chechnya: One Experience (Event Summary)

Author:
Anna Politkovskaya
Publication Date:
11-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
Anna Politkovskaya, special correspondent for Novaya Gazeta, covers the war in Chechnya, having spent two years on the ground there. In October 2001, she relocated to Vienna due to death threats she had received. Politkovskaya is presently being provided working space by the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Democratization, and Energy Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

39. Transcript of speech at Kennedy School: 'Searching for Security in a Changing World'

Author:
Eduard Shevardnadze
Publication Date:
10-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
As soon as I first learned that I would come to speak at Harvard, I began to prepare my remarks. Therefore, I had practically completed them when the unspeakable events happened. That unprecedented surge of evil may one day come to be regarded as an historical watershed, an infamous hallmark.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Democratization, and Energy Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Asia, and Georgia

40. Caspian Energy (event summary)

Author:
Nurlan Kapparov
Publication Date:
09-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
As a part of its Director's Lunch Series, the Belfer Center invited Nurlan Kapparov, former president of the National Oil Company of the Republic of Kazakhstan (KazakhOil) and former Kazak vice-minister of energy and mineral resources, to give a talk entitled "Caspian Energy." Mr. Kapparov previously represented state interests in TengizChevrOil (a Kazakh-American joint venture) and the Offshore Kazakhstan International Oil Consortium (OKIOC). He was the chairman of the board of directors of National Atomic Company KazAtomProm, as well as the head of Kazakhstan's delegation on delimitation of the Caspian Sea with the Russian Federation. Instead of dealing with the Caspian energy situation as a whole, Mr. Kapparov's talk focused primarily on the oil resources of Kazakhstan. Prior to starting his presentation, Kapparov took the time to stress that Kazakhstan was the first ex-Soviet state to promise practical support for the United States' war on terrorism, offering the country's "strategically vital aerodromes and bases for a potential strike on Afghanistan." Kapparov echoed the words of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev and said that "Kazakhstan is ready to support an action against terrorism with all the means it has at its disposal." Beginning with basic background information on Kazakhstan and the Caspian Sea, Kapparov provided projected extraction figures (both in barrels per day and billions of dollars per year) and potential transportation routes for Kazakh oil. Using the most recent data gathered for Kazakhstan's five major offshore fields (Kashagan, Aktote, Kairan, Kashagan SW, and Kalamkas A), Kapparov indicated that if these fields will be developed with primary depletion recoverable reserves would be approximately 24 billion barrels of oil. If Kazakhstan is able to successfully re-inject gas into the fields — a process that yields more oil — the country's potential recoverable reserves could climb as high as 42 billion barrels from the fields that are included in the OKIOC consortium alone. Kapparov noted that by the year 2020, this oil could bring up to $35 billion per year in income to OKIOC. The total potential oil income could increase Kazakhstan's budget to more than twenty times its current level. Kapparov also showed on the map that Kazakhstan has many other petroleum structures in its sector of the Caspian Sea. He emphasized that Kazakhstan has not yet started the licensing round on other blocks that might have the same reserves as OKIOC. Kapparov acknowledged that the shallow waters that predominate the Kazakh portion of the Caspian Sea place certain constraints on the oil extraction process. The first constraint involves environmental factors, as shallow-water extraction is more complicated than deep-water extraction. Kapparov stressed Kazakhstan's concern for the environment, describing the Caspian as "a unique ecosystem which is the habitat for hundreds of kinds of plants and animals." The second constraint has to do the weather — the Caspian freezes over for four months a year, preventing work during that time. Kapparov subsequently tried to place the importance of Caspian petroleum resources within the overall international context. He described Caspian oil as geopolitically significant, based on the assumption that more active oil production in the region would help to lessen the importance of Persian Gulf producers. This trend would enable countries such as the United States to diversify their sources of oil, providing security in an otherwise unstable field. Kapparov noted that the region's most persistent problem remains the legal status of the Caspian Sea itself. Since the countries surrounding the Caspian have not agreed on each country's jurisdiction over the seabed and its oil and gas reserves, there is still strong regional tension. Iran's recent actions against Azerbaijani-based BP ships working in the southern Caspian are only the most recent examples of this tension. Kapparov articulated the hope that the United States, which is already exerting a strong mediating influence in the region, would play a role in resolving this issue. Kapparov supports demarcation of the Caspian between Iran and former Soviet countries according to the old agreements that were signed between Iran and the USSR. Kapparov is also hoping that Kazakhstan, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan will work together to solve this problem among themselves as soon as possible. Kapparov then talked about the challenges involved in bringing Caspian oil to market. He described the transportation of hydrocarbons as "difficult, geopolitically sensitive, and expensive," which has led to some degree of intrigue regarding the current and proposed routes for transporting oil from the Caspian Sea. From Kazakhstan's perspective, the current pipeline capacity is sufficient, since it is only exporting 2 million barrels of oil a day. However, the country will eventually be exporting up to 7 million barrels a day. Consequently, a strategy of pursuing multiple transportation solutions makes not only sound commercial and strategic sense (since reliance on a single production route or a small group of options leaves a producer such as Kazakhstan open to too many potential constraints). It is, in fact, necessitated by the sheer quantity of the country's remaining reserves. As Kapparov candidly noted, "In Kazakhstan we say 'happiness is multiple pipelines.'" In his conclusion, Kapparov reemphasized the importance of the Caspian region to the world's energy market. Acknowledging that Kazakhstan's fate does depend on the actions of the United States and the other G7 countries, he underscored the fact that Kazakhstan is committed to "developing and implementing domestic policies to continue both our economic growth and the social welfare of our population." During the subsequent question and answer session, Michael Lelyveld of RFE/RL asked why the government of Kazakhstan insisted upon maintaining a monopoly system over the routing of oil. Kapparov replied that this system reduced paperwork, facilitated the transport of oil, and actually increased the overall amount of oil being shipped. Professor Francis Bator of the Kennedy School asked what percentage of the Kazakh national budget is derived solely from oil. Kapparov estimated the current figure to be 40 percent of the budget, but also noted that by 2020 — when oil production should be at full capacity — this number could be as high as 80 to 90 percent if other industries are not developed more extensively. However, Kapparov underscored that Kazakhstan does not want to depend solely on the oil industry. In response to a question about Kazakhstan's plan for dealing with the excess funds derived from its vast petroleum resources, Kapparov said that the country had established a separate oil fund according to the "Norway model" — whereby excess money would be placed in this fund so as not to interfere with the national economy.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, Democratization, and Energy Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia