In response to "Tobin Charges," March 12.
Editor,
The recent arrest of FBI agent Robert Phillip Hanssen and talk of the emerging spy war could do more harm than just damaging U.S.-Russian bilateral relations. The fallout and paranoia associated with the recent spy scandals threaten to damage relations at the grassroots level, as well.
The February arrest of American Fulbright scholar John Tobin on drug charges was followed by a brief statement by a regional FSB spokesman that Tobin was perhaps a "spy in training." The FSB later retracted the statement, saying that charges of espionage that had been bandied about would not be leveled against Tobin. Nevertheless, the damage may have already been done. To suggest that the State Department trains scholars as spies and then knowingly sends them under the "cover" of the Fulbright Program is ludicrous.
I must first confess that I am biased. I was a Fulbright scholar in Moscow during the 1999-2000 academic year. Under the Fulbright program, the U.S. government sends several thousand young scholars and professors overseas each year. Also, every year several thousand foreign scholars are invited to the United States to study or to teach. Between 40 and 45 Russians are invited to the United States annually.
The program not only allows scholars to exchange scholarly information, but it also serves as an important cultural exchange program. Russian and American scholars have the opportunity to live for up to two years abroad. These people not only have the opportunity to learn about the people and culture of the nation in which they live, but they become vital emissaries of their own culture to that foreign country and of the foreign country's culture when the return home.
The fact is — unlike many foreign businessmen, diplomats and even journalists in Russia — most young scholars come to Russia by choice. They come because they have a sincere interest in Russian culture, Russian history, the Russian people and in Russia itself. These are the sort of people who will go home and become advocates of better relations with Russia. The assessments that scholars living in Russia take home will be based less on polemics and ideology than on even-handed evaluations based on the experiences they accumulated while living in Russia — frequently in Russian homes.
The fact that Tobin was briefly tagged a spy means that foreign scholars doing research in Russia may very well find their access to expertise and open-source material restricted. Interviews with experts may be denied for fear of guilt by association. And this is only a mild-case scenario.
In a worst-case scenario foreign scholars could be harassed and detained by law enforcement agencies in Russia with little or no cause. They are at the whims of the still undefined Russian legal system. When the Russian government begins targeting scholars and accusing them of being spies, it might just be attacking the best source for good press on Russia in the West.
Jody Ferguson
Washington
I Was Misquoted
In response to "Chubais Brushes Off Critics, Woos Europeans," March 5.
Editor,
Unfortunately, I was misquoted in your article. I did not say, as you wrote: "The energy system restructure proposals of Anatoly Chubais that have been announced at today's meeting should create the conditions to attract investments." And it is also quite incorrect to write that "the EC's Wright threw his full weight behind Chubais plan … "
What I actually said was that "the presentation of Mr. Chubais was interesting and potential EU investors would look at the restructuring plan depending on the extent to which it could open up possibilities to invest in the electricity sector."
I did not comment on whether the EC supports the restructuring plan or not because this is an internal matter for Russia.
Richard Wright
Head of Delegation of the European Commission in Russia
Debt Brings Discipline
In response to "Break the Debt Circle," a comment by Anatol Lieven and Celeste Wallander that appeared in the printed version on March 15.
Editor,
Lieven and Wallander propose that if Russia forgives the money owed to it by Ukraine, Georgia and some of its other neighbors, the West should forgive the $48 billion Russia owes us.
This would be a serious mistake. As long as Russia's neighbors sense that they can continue to use Russia's natural gas and oil without having to pay, they will not feel it is necessary to find alternative energy sources or to conserve.
The same goes for the Russians. It is true that most of the $48 billion is Soviet-era debt, but last year Russia's hard-currency reserves hit almost $30 billion and their trade surplus was close to $50 billion. If they are able to avoid paying their bills now when they can afford it, they will assume that they will always be able to get away with it, and avoid addressing their tax collection and capital flight problems.
In the long run, treating the Russians as we would a third-world country is not the way to encourage the reforms we and some of their more realistic leaders seek.
Marshall Goldman
Wellesley College
Cambridge, Massachusetts
The Bamiyan Buddhas
In response to "Who Really Destroyed the Statues?" an editorial, March 13.
Editor,
I want to commend this editorial, which looks with penetrating insight into the real causes behind the Taliban's destruction of the priceless statues of the Buddhas in Bamiyan. All of the articles I have read on this topic have expressed outrage at this heinous act, but have not attempted to explore what really caused the Taliban to finally take such a terrible step.
I think that the fact the entire world community has been deeply touched by what has been regarded as an act of senseless destruction of one of the world's greatest cultural treasures (even though many of us have never even seen the statues and may never do so) is in itself symptomatic of some kind of universal connection felt by all of us to our spiritual heritage, regardless of what religion we may follow. As such, the actions of the Taliban, however condemnable they may appear to be on the surface, have played an important role in making us aware of our essential oneness, despite visible differences in race, culture, religion, political systems, etc. I hope that the anger and helpless vulnerability felt by the international community against the forces of destruction in Afghanistan, will truly raise our consciousness and lead us to look into how the world as a whole (and especially superpower politics during the Cold War) contributed to the Taliban's horrible act. Ultimately, all of us, especially governments that have imposed UN sanctions on Afghanistan, need to acknowledge their responsibility in prompting the Taliban to act in the cold, heartless manner that it did.
The fact that yours is the only article I came across that raises these issues shows that the world's politicians still have a long way to go before they attain this level of consciousness. Once again, I thank you and wish you success in your courageous and much-needed efforts to report on events like this by moving away from surface facts and making readers aware of the underlying realities that have led to the current situation.
Lipika Chatterjee
San Antonio, Texas
Editor,
I found your editorial thought-provoking. It sought to give an alternative view without being too emotional. It is refreshing. Keep up the good work!
Zulhairi Zainal
Singapore
Editor,
I just found your editorial to be excellent. You make a very good point that the world community — and the Cold War powers in particular — helped create the current conditions in Afghanistan. After a country's infrastructure and institutions are destroyed and the population is then punished with ostracism and sanctions, why should we be surprised when the leaders do things that we think are improper? Keep up the great journalism.
George Schnurle
San Jose, California
Petersburg Renewal
In response to "St. Petersburg's Property Puzzle," March 12.
Editor,
St. Petersburg is suffering the same problems of transition that many large cities around the world suffered in the '60's, '70s and '80s. Unfortunately, it is trying to replicate the same strategies of "urban renewal" that had a very mixed track record elsewhere.
At the heart of any housing renewal lies the willingness and ability of local residents to bear the costs of construction, reconstruction and maintenance. No matter how projects are initially financed — by banks, large or small investors or the state — residents over time must pay back the loans or cover the rents. Or, alternatively, residents must use their own capital to make improvements themselves.
Therefore, to regenerate housing in a deteriorating area, three complementary reforms are necessary. First, infrastructural investments that will support investments in individual buildings and housing units must be undertaken. St. Petersburg is doing this through its World Bank projects.
Second, legal and regulatory systems must be created that do not obstruct productive investment. If residents or new investors cannot gain secure rights (ownership or solid long-term leases) to land and buildings, they will not sink capital into improvements or new construction, and no one will lend them money to do so. Further, if it takes many years, considerable bribes and complicated reviews to secure building permits, then only the largest developers will initiate new projects.
This is a key unresolved problem in St. Petersburg. Despite lengthy and much-debated regulatory "reforms," urban-development procedures there have not been changed. There are still no standard procedures for permit application and review. In every case — even the smallest jobs — city agencies expect to negotiate a "deal" and to build in many layers of review so that fees can be spread as widely as possible.
Third, since the success of housing investment ultimately rests on the future flow of income, creating well-paid jobs will improve the residents' ability to carry housing costs. Thus a clear vision of the direction of the entire urban economy is needed. What will the economy of St. Petersburg look like in 20 years? Will it follow the pattern of many large cities that made the transition from obsolete industry to new forms of high-technology production and sophisticated services? Or will it lose the competition with other urban regions and remain stuck with a low-wage, low-productivity industrial base?
St. Petersburg has attempted in a limited way to give some answers through its strategic-planning effort. Unfortunately, that process also fell short. It was concerned almost completely with the regeneration of the city's traditional bases — defense-related industry, the seaport and tourism — and with transport and heavy infrastructure support. It almost completely ignored the potential of the service sectors and the opportunities and problems posed by telecommunications, air transport and information flow. Moreover, it was silent on the key question of the relation of St. Petersburg to Moscow — how policies of centralization or regionalization will block or create opportunities for St. Petersburg.
As in all Russian cities, the most striking visual evidence of the housing dilemma can be seen by taking a short ride outside the city. Over the last 10 years, Russians have invested billions of rubles in their dachas and suburban plots. This represents real capital that was not borrowed from foreigners and that Russians chose not to send to Cyprus. Why were they willing to invest in this type of housing, but not in their urban apartments? The answer lies in the structure of the city administrative and legal system. The rights to the dacha plot are secure in ownership or inheritable possession. Suburban authorities set fewer restrictions on allowed improvements and let families with modest incomes construct houses incrementally.
In the center, city officials are not interested in this kind of accumulation of small, citizen-generated investment. They keep hoping that big investors will come along. So far, however, the big guys are not convinced that St. Petersburg has a clear future. Thus it is likely that the city's urban-renewal woes will continue.
Bill Valletta
Attorney/urban planner
Fond Gradostroitelnii Reformi
Moscow
First One Way ...
Editor,
As an American, I wonder why The Moscow Times has so many anti-American articles in it. Most Americans I know wish only the best for the people of Russia. I do not understand why your paper runs so many articles that are anti-American.
Russia is a great country with a great people, and most Americans recognize that. I only hope that the people of Russia realize that we Americans, on the whole, are not anti-Russian and that we pray for the health of your country.
Randy Willis
Dallas, Texas
… and Then the Other
Editor,
From time to time I read your newspaper wondering, why don't you change your style of presentation? Are you not bored with picking on President Vladimir Putin? Why are you always against Russia and Russians?
I sometimes recommend that my students read The Moscow Times as a source of native English and for some bits of wisdom and news. However, I have to caution them against The Moscow Times' political escapades and blunt criticism of Russia's administration.
We Russians are not saints, and we must extricate ourselves from the plight we inherited and recently engineered. But why must you fuel discontent among the few Russians who read your paper? Leave that to The Washington Post and the like.
We do have some good news and I expect you to, at least, consider it before you publish your stern advice to our president.
Eugene Leonenko
Moscow
A Different Perspective
In response to "Kokh Met By Official Scrutiny on U.S. Visit," March 14.
Editor,
This was an excellent article on the arrogance and lunacy of some of our "elected leaders" here in the United States.
It is beyond me to figure why they think they should have any input in private commercial matters in Russia. I can assure you that not all Americans are as closed-minded as some of our representatives in Congress.
After a friend forwarded me this article, I browsed your web site and found it interesting. I wish you great success in your venture, since a free press is the basis for a free and self-determining republic. Oksana Yablokova is a very good writer, articulate and informative, providing a Russian perspective that Americans do not often get to read. Thank you for this.
Michael Heit
Elmo, Montana
