Tweet
Newsday (New York)
May 15, 2005 Sunday
ALL EDITIONS
ANALYSIS;
Geo-political tide turns in old Soviet republics
BY SEBASTIAN SMITH. SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT; Lena Vozdvizhenskaya in
Moscow contributed to this story.
MOSCOW - When President George W. Bush triumphantly declared Tuesday
that "freedom will be the future of every nation and every people on
Earth," the crowd of 120,000 in Tbilisi, capital of ex-Soviet
Georgia, cheered him in rock concert fashion.
So, too, would have Mikhail Obozov - had he been able to hear the
speech. Obozov, 21, is an engineering student in the Russian city of
St. Petersburg, 1,400 miles north of Tbilisi. He is founder of a
fledgling youth movement dedicated to opposing Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
But there was no point in his switching on the television. Russian
broadcasters are mostly under state control and did not provide live
coverage of Bush's speech describing Georgia and its 2003 "rose
revolution" as a "beacon of liberty."
"Across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the broader Middle East, we
see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young
people," Bush said. "They are demanding their freedom, and they will
have it." Russia's establishment found the speech incendiary. Obozov,
who read it on the Internet, was delighted.
"Maybe our turn will come too," he said. As a leader of the group
"Walking Without Putin," he is on the front line of a democracy
movement taking on entrenched governments throughout the vast former
Soviet Union - a movement that could maintain it's a part of what
Bush calls "the global struggle for freedom."
There have been some spectacular successes.
Georgia's revolution ousted Eduard Shevardnadze, bringing in
charismatic and pro-Western Mikhail Saakashvili, who at 37 is one of
Europe's youngest presidents.
In Ukraine's "orange revolution" in December, youthful crowds forced
a re-run of rigged presidential elections, bringing victory to Viktor
Yushchenko, also a Westward-looking politician. This spring in
Kyrgyzstan, on the border of Russia and China, another dubious vote
count led to the overthrow of the government in what was dubbed the
"tulip" or "yellow" revolution.
The burning question is where next?
In Uzbekistan, Islamic militants briefly took control of a provincial
capital last week, emptying the jail and organizing a rally demanding
the ouster of President Islam Karimov. His forces fired at the
crowds, reportedly killing dozens.
Rainbow revolution?
One theory making the rounds of Tbilisi cafés is that the revolutions
follow the spectrum of the rainbow. It's a wacky idea, but reflects a
widespread sense that the revolts are not haphazard. To date, the
concept even works: Red, orange and yellow revolutions have occurred;
green would be next - perhaps for Uzbekistan.
One method of predicting revolutions - for those who believe the
United States is pulling the strings - is simply to learn the career
plans of Richard Miles, U.S. ambassador to Georgia. When he was the
U.S. representative in Serbia, Miles was widely credited with helping
set up the revolution that deposed Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Many
in Tbilisi believe he was also midwife to the Georgian revolt of
2003. False rumors last year that he would be posted to the
neighboring ex-Soviet state of Armenia caused a flurry of excitement
- and panic.
A sounder guide would be to examine the regional election calendar.
Each revolution so far began with claims of ballot stuffing. So if
votes were counted fairly, the thinking runs, most of the region's
corrupt and unpopular governments would have to go. If the
governments cheated, the masses would take to the streets and force
them out.
By this yardstick, the former Soviet Union will soon be a busy place.
Governments in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have reputations for fiddling with
elections - and all are to hold presidential or parliamentary
elections by 2008. There was not, however, a hint of revolution when
Belarus held what Western observers said were flawed parliamentary
elections last year.
There is no doubt that a shift is under way across what used to be
the heartland of the Soviet empire. But there are big differences in
opinion over what it means.
What Bush is exporting
Bush talks of liberty. Many Russians think the United States wants to
gain control of major new energy sources and, in the aftermath of the
9/11 attacks, tighten its grip on the greater Middle East, including
Afghanistan.
Moscow appears almost mesmerized by what it sees as the United
States' almost unstoppable momentum. A "revolution export service,"
is what the Russian daily Vremya Novostei called Bush last week. What
is sure is that American soft power - aid, trade and diplomatic
maneuvering - can prove far more effective in the battle for regional
influence than what often is perceived as Russian bullying.
In an unusually candid interview with the Russian daily Moskovsky
Komsomolets, Russian ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Yevgeny Shmagin said he
could not compete. In its 15 years of independence, Kyrgyzstan has
accomplished little, he said. "The Americans, who discovered
Kyrgyzstan after September 11, have been pumping in $50 million
annually."
Sergei Markov, a political analyst with links to the Kremlin,
conceded Russia has no strategy. "Following the chaos of the 1990s,
most of Moscow is afraid of change, so they work instead to maintain
the status quo."
He discounted the idea that Bush's real interest is democracy,
pointing out that in Georgia there was far more opposition activity
under Shevardnadze than Saakashvili, who has used his initial
popularity to shut out most opponents.
"Moscow looks on these revolutions as geopolitical, not democratic,"
Markov said, naming Belarus, then Armenia, as next likely for
revolution, "because they are allies of Russia."
Skepticism about U.S. rhetoric on democracy may have some grounds.
For example, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, like
Uzbekistan, all have autocratic, or dictatorial leaders. But
Washington, which needs the countries' oil and natural gas, as well
as the air corridor to Afghanistan, is also keen to see them remain
stable.
Uzbekistan's Karimov government, which stands accused of allowing
horrific torture of its people, agreed in the wake of the Sept. 11
attacks to host a major U.S. airbase.
Few independent observers believe the revolutions are wholly
stage-managed. Fifteen years after the Soviet collapse, popular
frustration with corruption, rigged elections and a stifled media is
real enough. And the revolution phenomenon is not necessarily going
to follow set patterns. Although the Georgian and Ukrainian revolts
almost mirrored each other, the Kyrgyz revolution took many by
surprise and turned out to be part uprising, part palace coup.
One rarely mentioned explanation for the relative ease of the
revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan is that the overthrown
governments refused to use force against mass demonstrations. Other,
harder-minded leaders will not go so quietly.
The White House has branded President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
as the last dictator of Europe, but he shows no sign of bending. "All
these colored revolutions are pure and simple banditry," he says.
When a street protest challenged Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
in 2003, he ordered a brutal police crackdown and the detention of
hundreds of people, including all opposition leaders. It is equally
possible that opposition movements will radicalize. Central Asian
governments such as Uzbekistan fear Islamic parties so much they
often lock up people simply for their beliefs. The ultimate question
mark hangs over Russia, one of the world's chief exporters of oil,
gas and other raw materials and possessor of a huge nuclear arsenal.
Putin not all-powerful
Putin, the KGB veteran who was elected president in 2000, is usually
portrayed as invincible.
True to his vision of "managed democracy," he has brought the media
and the country's clique of super-wealthy business tycoons under
Kremlin control. He has scrapped elections for regional governors and
is instituting rules that will make parliament far less diverse.
But clear limits to Putin's power have appeared.
The rose and orange revolutions were Russian foreign-policy
disasters. A brutal, five-year war in Chechnya drags on, bringing
more, not less of the terrorism it was supposedly meant to stop. If
the price of oil drops from its current heights, the economy will be
in trouble.
And earlier this year when the Kremlin tried to reform the social
benefits system, demonstrations led by pensioners swept the country,
shaking Putin and forcing the authorities into a retreat. Inevitably,
there were murmurs about a "gray revolution."
Putin must step down after his second term ends in 2008, but many
political observers in Russia believe he will handpick a successor or
change the constitution to stay in power.
Dissident Obozov and his outfit, Walking without Putin - named in
mockery of a pro-Putin youth organization called Walking Together -
think that can be prevented. With only about 120 members in St.
Petersburg and Moscow, the movement hardly looks threatening. "So far
we have no office or computer. We meet in cafés and in the street. I
suppose we could use some support," Obozov said.
But the authorities are taking no chances. As soon as Walking without
Putin was launched, another pro-Kremlin youth group called Ours
appeared, describing all Putin opponents as "fascists."
Obozov is undaunted. His activists are young, Internet savvy and
bravely risk police harassment.
He thinks the movement, which was founded in January, could become a
Russian version of the Ukrainian organization Pora, ("It's time"),
which helped lead Ukraine's orange revolution.
Already it is part of a strange, but growing coalition of liberals,
communists and nationalists "all united against the current
authorities," Obozov said. "We would like a change to happen quickly,
but we are ready to gather our forces for 2008."
He does not yet have a color in mind for the revolution. He laughed:
"We're going to need professionals to decide that."
Lena Vozdvizhenskaya in Moscow contributed to this story.
Ripe for revolt?
Repressed civil liberties and stagnant economies are often the
breeding grounds of revolt. That combination is evident in several of
the former Soviet republics. The not-for-profit Freedom House
evaluates the level of liberty enjoyed by each nation, from most
unfree to most free. Rankings are from the report "Freedom in the
World 2005," reflecting status as of the end of 2004.
MOST FREE
BELARUS
Population: 10.3 million
Economy: Has maintained closer ties with Russia than any other former
Soviet republic. Tight controls over currency and private enterprise.
Government: Republic in name,functioning as a dictatorship
TURKMENISTAN
Population: 4.9 million
Economy: Hydrocarbon and natural gas reserves could boost
underdeveloped economy.
Government: Republic in name; authoritarian presidential rule
UZBEKISTAN
Population: 26.4 million
Economy: Largely closed system. Recent measures have increased
government's control over business.
Government: Republic in name, authoritarian presidential rule; strong
Islamic militant presence
NOT FREE
ARMENIA
Population: 3.0 million
Economy: Development was hampered by conflict with neighboring
Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1994.
Government: Republic
AZERBAIJAN
Population: 7.9 million
Economy: Oil production has increased each year since 1997. Conflict
with Armenia has delayed progress.
Government: Republic
KAZAKHSTAN
Population: 15.1 million
Economy: Booming energy sector has led to robust recent development.
Potential exists for explosive growth.
Government: Republic, with near complete presidential power
KYRGYZSTAN
Population: 5.1 million
Economy: Largely agricultural Kyrgyzstan has been progressive in
carrying out market reforms and was the first former Soviet republic
admitted into the WTO.
Government: Anti-government rebellions led to collapse of former
President Askar Akayev's government. Re-establishing order is first
test for provisional government.
RUSSIA
Population: 143.8 million
Economy: A 1998 financial crisis resulted in foreign debt exceeding
90 percent of GDP. Strong oil exports since have helped the recovery.
Questions remain over government's eagerness to reassert control over
some industries.
Government: Federation, recent years have seen recentralization of
presidential power
TAJIKISTAN
Population: 7.0 million
Economy: Poorest nation in central Asia. Economic development was
slowed by five-year civil war that ended in 1997.
Government: Republic
PARTLY FREE
GEORGIA
Population: 4.7 million
Economy: Despite problems, some progress on market reforms has been
made recently. Oil pipelines hold key to any potential long-term
growth.
Government: Republic
MOLDOVA
Population: 4.4 million
Economy: Poorest nation in Europe; economy depends largely on
agriculture.
Government: Republic, first former Soviet state to elect a Communist
president (2001)
UKRAINE
Population: 47.7 million
Economy: Initial attempts at reforms met with government resistance,
but have gained momentum with strong demand, low inflation and
consumer confidence.
Government: Republic; recent election controversy ended with
pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko in power.
FREE
LATVIA
Population: 2.3 million
Economy: Vibrant financial services center; state still holds large
stakes in several industries. Latvia is a member of the WTO and the
EU.
Government: Parliamentary democracy, member of NATO
LITHUANIA
Population: 3.6 million
Economy: Has rebounded from Russian financial crisis of 1998 to
become one of the most robust economies among former Soviet states.
Member of EU and WTO.
Government: Parliamentary democracy, member of NATO
MOST FREE
ESTONIA
Population: 1.3 million
Economy: Member of WTO and European Union. Has transitioned
effectively to market economy.
Government: Parliamentary republic, member of NATO
SOURCES: CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, FREEDOM HOUSE
GRAPHIC: 1) AFP/Getty Images Photo-"Walking Without Putin" youth
members shout anti-Putin slogans during a rally for Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, the jailed founder of Russian oil giant Yukos, in
Moscow last month. 2) AP Photo - Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvili, right, introduces President George W. Bush to the crowd
of supporters in Freedom Square in Tbilisi, Georgia. 2) AFP / Getty
Images Photo - Belarus special forces, below, clash with members of
the Yabloko political movement during rally in Minsk last month. 4)
AFP / Getty Images Photo - Viktor Yushchenko. Newsday Chart/Map by
Linda McKenney - Ripe for revolt? (see end of text). Map-Freedom
House Analysis: Map depicting locations in Soviet republics that are:
1) Most unfree. 2) Not free. 3) Partly free. 4) Free. 6) Most Free
(map not in text database)
May 15, 2005 Sunday
ALL EDITIONS
ANALYSIS;
Geo-political tide turns in old Soviet republics
BY SEBASTIAN SMITH. SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT; Lena Vozdvizhenskaya in
Moscow contributed to this story.
MOSCOW - When President George W. Bush triumphantly declared Tuesday
that "freedom will be the future of every nation and every people on
Earth," the crowd of 120,000 in Tbilisi, capital of ex-Soviet
Georgia, cheered him in rock concert fashion.
So, too, would have Mikhail Obozov - had he been able to hear the
speech. Obozov, 21, is an engineering student in the Russian city of
St. Petersburg, 1,400 miles north of Tbilisi. He is founder of a
fledgling youth movement dedicated to opposing Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
But there was no point in his switching on the television. Russian
broadcasters are mostly under state control and did not provide live
coverage of Bush's speech describing Georgia and its 2003 "rose
revolution" as a "beacon of liberty."
"Across the Caucasus, in Central Asia and the broader Middle East, we
see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young
people," Bush said. "They are demanding their freedom, and they will
have it." Russia's establishment found the speech incendiary. Obozov,
who read it on the Internet, was delighted.
"Maybe our turn will come too," he said. As a leader of the group
"Walking Without Putin," he is on the front line of a democracy
movement taking on entrenched governments throughout the vast former
Soviet Union - a movement that could maintain it's a part of what
Bush calls "the global struggle for freedom."
There have been some spectacular successes.
Georgia's revolution ousted Eduard Shevardnadze, bringing in
charismatic and pro-Western Mikhail Saakashvili, who at 37 is one of
Europe's youngest presidents.
In Ukraine's "orange revolution" in December, youthful crowds forced
a re-run of rigged presidential elections, bringing victory to Viktor
Yushchenko, also a Westward-looking politician. This spring in
Kyrgyzstan, on the border of Russia and China, another dubious vote
count led to the overthrow of the government in what was dubbed the
"tulip" or "yellow" revolution.
The burning question is where next?
In Uzbekistan, Islamic militants briefly took control of a provincial
capital last week, emptying the jail and organizing a rally demanding
the ouster of President Islam Karimov. His forces fired at the
crowds, reportedly killing dozens.
Rainbow revolution?
One theory making the rounds of Tbilisi cafés is that the revolutions
follow the spectrum of the rainbow. It's a wacky idea, but reflects a
widespread sense that the revolts are not haphazard. To date, the
concept even works: Red, orange and yellow revolutions have occurred;
green would be next - perhaps for Uzbekistan.
One method of predicting revolutions - for those who believe the
United States is pulling the strings - is simply to learn the career
plans of Richard Miles, U.S. ambassador to Georgia. When he was the
U.S. representative in Serbia, Miles was widely credited with helping
set up the revolution that deposed Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Many
in Tbilisi believe he was also midwife to the Georgian revolt of
2003. False rumors last year that he would be posted to the
neighboring ex-Soviet state of Armenia caused a flurry of excitement
- and panic.
A sounder guide would be to examine the regional election calendar.
Each revolution so far began with claims of ballot stuffing. So if
votes were counted fairly, the thinking runs, most of the region's
corrupt and unpopular governments would have to go. If the
governments cheated, the masses would take to the streets and force
them out.
By this yardstick, the former Soviet Union will soon be a busy place.
Governments in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have reputations for fiddling with
elections - and all are to hold presidential or parliamentary
elections by 2008. There was not, however, a hint of revolution when
Belarus held what Western observers said were flawed parliamentary
elections last year.
There is no doubt that a shift is under way across what used to be
the heartland of the Soviet empire. But there are big differences in
opinion over what it means.
What Bush is exporting
Bush talks of liberty. Many Russians think the United States wants to
gain control of major new energy sources and, in the aftermath of the
9/11 attacks, tighten its grip on the greater Middle East, including
Afghanistan.
Moscow appears almost mesmerized by what it sees as the United
States' almost unstoppable momentum. A "revolution export service,"
is what the Russian daily Vremya Novostei called Bush last week. What
is sure is that American soft power - aid, trade and diplomatic
maneuvering - can prove far more effective in the battle for regional
influence than what often is perceived as Russian bullying.
In an unusually candid interview with the Russian daily Moskovsky
Komsomolets, Russian ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Yevgeny Shmagin said he
could not compete. In its 15 years of independence, Kyrgyzstan has
accomplished little, he said. "The Americans, who discovered
Kyrgyzstan after September 11, have been pumping in $50 million
annually."
Sergei Markov, a political analyst with links to the Kremlin,
conceded Russia has no strategy. "Following the chaos of the 1990s,
most of Moscow is afraid of change, so they work instead to maintain
the status quo."
He discounted the idea that Bush's real interest is democracy,
pointing out that in Georgia there was far more opposition activity
under Shevardnadze than Saakashvili, who has used his initial
popularity to shut out most opponents.
"Moscow looks on these revolutions as geopolitical, not democratic,"
Markov said, naming Belarus, then Armenia, as next likely for
revolution, "because they are allies of Russia."
Skepticism about U.S. rhetoric on democracy may have some grounds.
For example, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, like
Uzbekistan, all have autocratic, or dictatorial leaders. But
Washington, which needs the countries' oil and natural gas, as well
as the air corridor to Afghanistan, is also keen to see them remain
stable.
Uzbekistan's Karimov government, which stands accused of allowing
horrific torture of its people, agreed in the wake of the Sept. 11
attacks to host a major U.S. airbase.
Few independent observers believe the revolutions are wholly
stage-managed. Fifteen years after the Soviet collapse, popular
frustration with corruption, rigged elections and a stifled media is
real enough. And the revolution phenomenon is not necessarily going
to follow set patterns. Although the Georgian and Ukrainian revolts
almost mirrored each other, the Kyrgyz revolution took many by
surprise and turned out to be part uprising, part palace coup.
One rarely mentioned explanation for the relative ease of the
revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan is that the overthrown
governments refused to use force against mass demonstrations. Other,
harder-minded leaders will not go so quietly.
The White House has branded President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus
as the last dictator of Europe, but he shows no sign of bending. "All
these colored revolutions are pure and simple banditry," he says.
When a street protest challenged Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
in 2003, he ordered a brutal police crackdown and the detention of
hundreds of people, including all opposition leaders. It is equally
possible that opposition movements will radicalize. Central Asian
governments such as Uzbekistan fear Islamic parties so much they
often lock up people simply for their beliefs. The ultimate question
mark hangs over Russia, one of the world's chief exporters of oil,
gas and other raw materials and possessor of a huge nuclear arsenal.
Putin not all-powerful
Putin, the KGB veteran who was elected president in 2000, is usually
portrayed as invincible.
True to his vision of "managed democracy," he has brought the media
and the country's clique of super-wealthy business tycoons under
Kremlin control. He has scrapped elections for regional governors and
is instituting rules that will make parliament far less diverse.
But clear limits to Putin's power have appeared.
The rose and orange revolutions were Russian foreign-policy
disasters. A brutal, five-year war in Chechnya drags on, bringing
more, not less of the terrorism it was supposedly meant to stop. If
the price of oil drops from its current heights, the economy will be
in trouble.
And earlier this year when the Kremlin tried to reform the social
benefits system, demonstrations led by pensioners swept the country,
shaking Putin and forcing the authorities into a retreat. Inevitably,
there were murmurs about a "gray revolution."
Putin must step down after his second term ends in 2008, but many
political observers in Russia believe he will handpick a successor or
change the constitution to stay in power.
Dissident Obozov and his outfit, Walking without Putin - named in
mockery of a pro-Putin youth organization called Walking Together -
think that can be prevented. With only about 120 members in St.
Petersburg and Moscow, the movement hardly looks threatening. "So far
we have no office or computer. We meet in cafés and in the street. I
suppose we could use some support," Obozov said.
But the authorities are taking no chances. As soon as Walking without
Putin was launched, another pro-Kremlin youth group called Ours
appeared, describing all Putin opponents as "fascists."
Obozov is undaunted. His activists are young, Internet savvy and
bravely risk police harassment.
He thinks the movement, which was founded in January, could become a
Russian version of the Ukrainian organization Pora, ("It's time"),
which helped lead Ukraine's orange revolution.
Already it is part of a strange, but growing coalition of liberals,
communists and nationalists "all united against the current
authorities," Obozov said. "We would like a change to happen quickly,
but we are ready to gather our forces for 2008."
He does not yet have a color in mind for the revolution. He laughed:
"We're going to need professionals to decide that."
Lena Vozdvizhenskaya in Moscow contributed to this story.
Ripe for revolt?
Repressed civil liberties and stagnant economies are often the
breeding grounds of revolt. That combination is evident in several of
the former Soviet republics. The not-for-profit Freedom House
evaluates the level of liberty enjoyed by each nation, from most
unfree to most free. Rankings are from the report "Freedom in the
World 2005," reflecting status as of the end of 2004.
MOST FREE
BELARUS
Population: 10.3 million
Economy: Has maintained closer ties with Russia than any other former
Soviet republic. Tight controls over currency and private enterprise.
Government: Republic in name,functioning as a dictatorship
TURKMENISTAN
Population: 4.9 million
Economy: Hydrocarbon and natural gas reserves could boost
underdeveloped economy.
Government: Republic in name; authoritarian presidential rule
UZBEKISTAN
Population: 26.4 million
Economy: Largely closed system. Recent measures have increased
government's control over business.
Government: Republic in name, authoritarian presidential rule; strong
Islamic militant presence
NOT FREE
ARMENIA
Population: 3.0 million
Economy: Development was hampered by conflict with neighboring
Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1994.
Government: Republic
AZERBAIJAN
Population: 7.9 million
Economy: Oil production has increased each year since 1997. Conflict
with Armenia has delayed progress.
Government: Republic
KAZAKHSTAN
Population: 15.1 million
Economy: Booming energy sector has led to robust recent development.
Potential exists for explosive growth.
Government: Republic, with near complete presidential power
KYRGYZSTAN
Population: 5.1 million
Economy: Largely agricultural Kyrgyzstan has been progressive in
carrying out market reforms and was the first former Soviet republic
admitted into the WTO.
Government: Anti-government rebellions led to collapse of former
President Askar Akayev's government. Re-establishing order is first
test for provisional government.
RUSSIA
Population: 143.8 million
Economy: A 1998 financial crisis resulted in foreign debt exceeding
90 percent of GDP. Strong oil exports since have helped the recovery.
Questions remain over government's eagerness to reassert control over
some industries.
Government: Federation, recent years have seen recentralization of
presidential power
TAJIKISTAN
Population: 7.0 million
Economy: Poorest nation in central Asia. Economic development was
slowed by five-year civil war that ended in 1997.
Government: Republic
PARTLY FREE
GEORGIA
Population: 4.7 million
Economy: Despite problems, some progress on market reforms has been
made recently. Oil pipelines hold key to any potential long-term
growth.
Government: Republic
MOLDOVA
Population: 4.4 million
Economy: Poorest nation in Europe; economy depends largely on
agriculture.
Government: Republic, first former Soviet state to elect a Communist
president (2001)
UKRAINE
Population: 47.7 million
Economy: Initial attempts at reforms met with government resistance,
but have gained momentum with strong demand, low inflation and
consumer confidence.
Government: Republic; recent election controversy ended with
pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko in power.
FREE
LATVIA
Population: 2.3 million
Economy: Vibrant financial services center; state still holds large
stakes in several industries. Latvia is a member of the WTO and the
EU.
Government: Parliamentary democracy, member of NATO
LITHUANIA
Population: 3.6 million
Economy: Has rebounded from Russian financial crisis of 1998 to
become one of the most robust economies among former Soviet states.
Member of EU and WTO.
Government: Parliamentary democracy, member of NATO
MOST FREE
ESTONIA
Population: 1.3 million
Economy: Member of WTO and European Union. Has transitioned
effectively to market economy.
Government: Parliamentary republic, member of NATO
SOURCES: CIA WORLD FACTBOOK, FREEDOM HOUSE
GRAPHIC: 1) AFP/Getty Images Photo-"Walking Without Putin" youth
members shout anti-Putin slogans during a rally for Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, the jailed founder of Russian oil giant Yukos, in
Moscow last month. 2) AP Photo - Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvili, right, introduces President George W. Bush to the crowd
of supporters in Freedom Square in Tbilisi, Georgia. 2) AFP / Getty
Images Photo - Belarus special forces, below, clash with members of
the Yabloko political movement during rally in Minsk last month. 4)
AFP / Getty Images Photo - Viktor Yushchenko. Newsday Chart/Map by
Linda McKenney - Ripe for revolt? (see end of text). Map-Freedom
House Analysis: Map depicting locations in Soviet republics that are:
1) Most unfree. 2) Not free. 3) Partly free. 4) Free. 6) Most Free
(map not in text database)