|
TV-6 CHANNEL TO LIVE ON
RAISA ZUBOVA, RIA Novosti
A Russian court has ruled to shut down the TV-6 channel. The Russian liberal intelligentsia lashed out at the news claiming the reasons behind the shutdown were purely political ones, that is to do away with the country's sole private TV channel.
Seventy-five percent of TV-6 shares belong to notorious Russian media tycoon Boris Berezovsky, who has been living abroad escaping prosecution for plundering Russian Aeroflot carrier's funds.
After coming to power in late 1999, incumbent President Vladimir Putin made no secret of his plan to launch a crusade against a handful of Kremlin-connected businessmen who had made their fortunes during a radical privatization of the state property under president Boris Yeltsin in 1992-95. It was when some of the oligarchs established their own media outlets through which they tried to exert strong influence on Russian political developments.
Owing billions to Gazprom, the natural gas giant half-owned by the state, another magnate, Vladimir Gusinsky, lost control of the NTV channel, the pearl in his media empire, and a number of printed outlets in the summer of 2001. Having escaped Russian prosecution, he is living abroad too.
The takeover of the NTV television was emotionally tinted among other things because the channel's journalistic staff was a team of gifted professionals, which was a commonly admitted fact. They made an attempt to arrange massive actions of protest against the takeover claiming it was revenge for an unbiased coverage and opposition to government. But in vain.
After NTV was taken over by Gazprom, many of its employees chose to desert the channel and accept Boris Berezovsky's invitation to work for TV-6.
At TV-6, their quiet life did not last long. One of the channel's major shareholders LUKoil Garant, an affiliate of petroleum giant LUKoil, appealed against the broadcasting station demanding its liquidation and claiming it had been unprofitable for several years.
This step of LUKoil is rumoured to be due to the company's business dispute with Boris Berezovsky. The suit was even considered at the Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation which met LUKoil Garant's appeal.
The federal Press Ministry originally allowed TV-6 journalists to broadcast until the tender for TV-6's license took place on March 27. For that, TV-6 was to give up its license, and TV-6 journalists to register limited liability company TV-6 and apply to the Press Ministry for the temporary license. The deal was about to be stricken but Berezovsky stepped in. Being the major TV-6 shareholder, he refused to give up the license... And the national television station was switched off at midnight Monday.
The channel's frequency is now being filled with various programmes agreed on with the Press Ministry. In Moscow, it is used by NTV Plus Sport satellite television. Viewers of Moscow and its environs are happy to have a chance to watch the British football championship, Australia's tennis open and many other sport events free of charge. With the winter Olympics coming up next month, viewers must be particularly pleased. Besides the choice of sport programmes is not that wide on the central channels.
About a quarter of Russians think the TV-6 closure was due to business disputes between the shareholders, according to opinion surveys. Less than 4 percent of the polled residents believe government is thus trying to harness freedom of speech. That is probably why the public remains generally indifferent to journalists and liberal politicians' emotional appeals to take to streets and protect Berezovsky's property.
The government denies that it has plotted the switch-off, and says it would have preferred to have TV-6 journalists on the air on the basis of a temporary license. President Vladimir Putin is known to have said at a Warsaw news conference that the government is eager to back a talented journalistic team of TV-6.
TV-6 journalists will have every chance to win the tender and get the license if they set up their own TV-6 company, find a sponsor, file their broadcasting concept and business plan with the tender commission. March 27 will see an end to the TV-6 scandal.
top
RUSSIA, CZECH REPUBLIC HOLD SIMILAR POSITIONS
RIA Novosti
Moscow and Prague have reported no problems in bilateral relations and the existence of a range of similar tasks at the modern stage of European policy. That may be the summary of a working visit by Czech Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister, Jan Kavan, to the Russian capital.
The Russian side believes that the two countries' relations have a solid base of traditional good-neighbourly ties. For Russia, the Czech Republic is a fraternal country in many respects. Moscow believes that the existence of "some differences on international issues" should not hinder the progress of bilateral relations. Russia is aiming to develop a productive dialogue.
At a meeting with his Czech counterpart, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov stated that Russia was ready and interested in developing extended cooperation with the Czech Republic. Moscow believes that bilateral relations have been showing a positive dynamics and political dialogue is developing.
A visit by Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman to Moscow, to take place in April, confirms this thesis. Naturally, bilateral trade-economic relations will be a priority during that visit. Both sides believe that there are good prospects for mutually advantageous cooperation in this field.
Moscow welcomes the republic's willingness to actively develop trade-economic contacts with Russia. In the course of Jan Kavan's visit the sides discussed the possibility of forming a guarantee fund to contribute to the expansion of Czech exports to Russia. It's worth pointing out that last year the two countries' economic relations improved and the trade turnover reached $2 billion.
Thus, during a visit to the Czech Republic by Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov last autumn, the problem of Russia's debt to the Czech Republic was settled. 10 percent of the remaining debt can be paid as deliveries of Russian technologies to the Czech Republic.
The issue of Russia-NATO cooperation was another priority at Jan Kavan's Moscow negotiations. The Czech Foreign Minister stated that the Czech Republic, "as the host of a NATO summit, to be held in Prague in November, would welcome Russian President Vladimir Putin's participation in the summit." Jan Kavan delivered an invitation to Vladimir Putin from President Vaclav Havel to make an official visit to the Czech Republic and Prague during the NATO summit.
In his turn, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov stated that at his negotiations with Jan Kavan on Russia's cooperation with the European Union and NATO and "other important international issues," Russia's and the Czech Republic's stances were close or coincided. It's very important in the light of the fact that the two sides discussed issues related to the fight against international terrorism, the role of the United Nations in the present-day world and cooperation between Russia and the Czech Republic in the Balkans. According to the Czech side, this may include cooperation in the sphere of the economic restoration in the Balkans, which could involve Yugoslavia, Greece, Russia and the Czech Republic.
However, the fact that there are no serious obstacles between Russia and the Czech Republic which could hinder the development of bilateral political and economic cooperation, and that the two countries have many mutual interests, may be considered the main result of the Czech Minister's Moscow visit.
top
GOVERNMENT TOUGHENS CONTROL OVER ACTIVITY OF NATURAL MONOPOLIES
Marina Shakina, RIA Novosti political analyst
This January the Russian government returned to the matter which seemed to be settled in December 2001 - the raising of the tariffs on the services of the natural monopolies - the gas producers (Gazprom concern), electrical energy producers (RAO Unified Energy Systems) and the Railways Ministry. At that time it was decided that in 2002 the tariffs should not be raised higher than by 35 percent.
However, the monopolies proposed more radical increases - from 50 to 70 percent. Their arguments were rather convincing - the existing tariffs do not cover even the cost price of the services; the equipment is out-of-date and worn out by two thirds. The gas industry has to develop new deposits; the power industry has to put into operation new capacities; the Railways Ministry has to modernise technologies, and so on and so forth. The gas and power industries do not receive payments in full from the consumers of their products. For this reason they do not have money to renew their basic funds; the Railways Ministry, which has to establish low transportation prices for social and economic considerations, constantly incur losses.
However, understanding that the tariffs of the natural monopolies are a thing socially very sensitive, the ministers have limited the appetites of the natural monopolies.
At the beginning of this year, the government once more considered the problem and said that the raising of the tariffs to the 35-percent level would be permitted only in exclusive cases and only on condition of a full transparency of the companies' budgets. In other cases, the increase of the tariffs of the natural monopolies in 2002 will amount to no more than 18-20 percent.
Apparently, there are several reasons for such a step by the Russian government. One of them is the sharp reaction of society to the 20-percent rise in prices for passenger railway tickets in early January. And therefore, the expected 13-percent rise in the cost of freight traffic was immediately blocked by the Prime Minister. Quite possible that a certain role in this was played by President Vladimir Putin who very sensitively reacts to the sentiments in society.
Another reason is that the government experts, who started to thoroughly study the investment programmes of the natural monopolies, have found in them very many too ambitious and costly projects which are not timely at the present moment. For example, the unprofitable budget of the Railways Ministry included the expenditures on the construction of a railway bridge between the Pacific shore of Russia and the Sakhalin Island (Russian Far East).
Apart from that, experts have long been saying that the natural monopolies should give up the activity which does not correspond to their speciality, especially projects which call for great expenditures. After all, it is the consumers who have to pay for all these projects. It is for this reason that at the latest session of the Cabinet Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov called upon the natural monopolies not to lay their problems on consumers' shoulders, but in the first place to decrease their own expenditures.
It is perfectly known that the Gazprom and the RAO Unified Energy Systems spend millions of dollars on the mass media, and the Railways Ministry allocates big sums of money on supporting the Lokomotiv football team. For the sake of justice it should be said that the new head of Gazprom, Alexei Miller, said last year that the concern would sell its mass media. The new Railways Minister, Gennady Fadeyev, has started, on his own initiative, to revise the ministry's investment programme approved by his predecessor Nikolai Aksyonenko who was dismissed.
And one more reason of a macroeconomic character is inflation. In the first month of 2002, according to some experts, the inflation will amount to about two percent, which is impermissibly much. The government has planned that inflation this year should not exceed 18 percent, but in order to keep the prices at a planned level additional efforts should be made.
The opinions of economists on the government's decision to limit even more the rise in the tariffs differ. Some of them think that if the monopolies do not receive such an influx of investment money for which they hoped and which may be objectively necessary, the government in this case will avoid the growth in social tension and in inflation, while the economy, which usually nervously reacts to all sharp actions of natural monopolies, will get rid of an additional load.
But there is also another opinion - from the strategical point of view the decision is not very wise, because it cuts down the roots of the long-waited-for rapid economic growth and will put off its beginning for several years.
However, Russian Minister of Economic Development and Trade Herman Gref, recognising the validity of both points of view, is confident: this decision of the government is optimum, balanced, compromise and for this reason is beneficial. It takes into consideration the interests of both natural monopolies and consumers. And this is a guarantee of a stable, smooth and forward movement of the Russian economy.
top
WASHINGTON'S POLICY OF MILITARISATION IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE
by Georgy ARBATOV, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, honorary director of the USA and Canada Institute, RIA Novosti
The recent decision of US President George Bush to send to Congress a proposal on the largest increase in military expenditure for the last 20 years can do nothing but cause concern. If the bill is approved, an extra $48 billion will be allocated for military needs, and total military expenditure in 2003 will be $380 billion, which is almost 20% of the American budget.
Why is Bush proposing such a significant increase in the level of military expenditure? According to him, the armed forces are the first priority for the administration, which will do its best to maintain their combat capability and will not spare no money for defence. However, high-tech weapons are extremely expensive and may stretch the budget. How will American taxpayers' billions be used? According to Bush, they will be put in increasing American soldiers' salaries, investing into high precision arms, ABM technologies and high-tech equipment for soldiers.
One can draw an evident conclusion based on the bare facts: America is going to spend huge amounts of money on new high-precision weapons, including ABM systems. Another conclusion is also obvious: President Bush is concerned that Congress may refuse to provide funding for NMD systems, therefore he is trying to extort money for new military technologies, some of which will be spent on the NMD plans.
Meanwhile, the anti-terrorist campaign launched by the US following the September 11th terrorist attacks is continuing. This implies that the American military-industrial complex is trying to play on the security concerns of millions of Americans in order to make money.
Something of this kind was seen during Reagan's presidency. The "star wars" project generated in the White House or the Pentagon entailed a rapid leap of militarist aspirations. Military expenditure grew so drastically that the US - a major creditor - turned into a large debtor, but failed to achieve anything. The "star wars" were only a phantom, nobody but the Americans themselves was afraid. Moreover, that conspicuous militarist policy of the US arose strong anti-war sentiments. A number of international anti-war organisations were set up, one of them was "The World's Physicians For the Prevention of Nuclear War" headed by Yevgeny Chazov (USSR) and Bernard Lown (USA).
The current militarist splash is sure to meet strong opposition in the world and the US, too. In the Reagan times the militarist sentiments had some ground (though rather shaky). They were "justified" by the threat from the "Evil Empire" - the USSR - though in reality this threat did not exist. Now, even an average American who does not care much for politics cannot but realise that no clear motivation to deploy NMD or nuclear arms to combat terrorists can be found. It is impossible to combat terrorism by creating new strategic arms, be they offensive or defensive. Totally different measures should be taken.
Therefore Bush's decision to increase military expenditure sharply can be appraised as poorly grounded, as a serious concession to militarist circles, and a throwback to the relic of militarism.
Indeed, the Cold War is over, but unfortunately it still lives on in the minds of many politicians. It was their formative period, and they still think in its terms and try to solve today's tasks by using on yesterday's concepts of the world. The world, however, has changed drastically - a new century and millennium have begun.
The world is facing new threats, which require close co-operation on the part of the leading nations, first of all those possessing nuclear weapons. It is only by joint efforts that they can wage a successful war on terrorism and solve the most dangerous regional conflicts. At the same time, beefing up military muscle and trying to demonstrate American might to the rest of the world will only cause a negative reaction from the countries that do not agree with the unipolar concept of the world order. This way leads towards a new arms race, which the world community and its millions of people do not need.
top
|