June 13, 2007 (the date of publication in Russian)
Konstantin Cheremnykh
AGAINST A "LAME DUCK" BACKGROUND
The words of truth shake the world in St. Petersburg
TRIBUTE FROM AN ENEMY
The political role and international implications of the two recent events, in which Russia's President Vladimir Putin found, or rather placed himself in the focus of global attention – the G-8 summit in Heiligendamm and the XI International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg – was interpreted by experts and media observers from polar different viewpoints. Some of the aspects would anyway arouse ambiguous interpretation. Is Russia really opening itself, as Putin declared at the Forum, or this intention is mere masquerade? Is Putin going to "appoint" a presidential successor, or intending to use some constitutional leverage to run for the third term? Is his proposal to the United States to use the radar facility in Gabala, Azerbaijan, a strategic concession, damaging Russia's security, or just a political gesture?
Vedomosti Daily presented two polar views on its June 14 issue’s editorial page. Expert and political technologist Stanislav Belkovsky, whose views are sometimes original but always rest upon ironical skepticism on any Kremlin's policy, interprets the major result of both political events from the only standpoint of the oncoming presidential elections. This time, his traditional irony is disguised with solemn seriousness: he expresses hearty but too obviously insincere enthusiasm over the fact that at both international forums, Vladimir Putin behaved as a "pragmatic businessman" and not as a power-seeker, grasping the "throne" by any possible means. The author insists that all the G-8 leaders "have become convinced that Mr.Putin is really going to leave, but gallantly and proudly, as a true democratic leader – like George W.Bush or Tony Blair, and not like a kleptocrat of the type of Mobutu and Marcos".
In his turn, Prof. Vyacheslav Inozemtsev, chief editor of Free Word magazine, insists on the opposite. Using convincing arguments, he reminds that Tony Blair was perceived and treated by the G-8 partners as a leaving figure, while Putin was not at all – moreover, receiving an informal invitation to the next G-8 summit (Russian presidential elections are scheduled for March). Thus, the excessively discussed subject of the third term, as this author believes, is just erased from the political agenda. This author believes that for the international business community, seriously influencing top political decision making, stability in Russia is prior to values of formal democracy.
This conclusion is substantiated with the fact that neither George W. Bush nor Nicolas Sarkozy would raise the evergreen subject of human rights in Russia, "while Tony Blair, who tried to link this issue with British investments, was "called down by his own corporate bosses".
This curious reference indicates a really essential contrast between Putin and two of the "true democratic leaders" – who are going to leave their posts with not more glory and pride than Ferdinando Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko. One more author, whose judgments are too radical, and lexicon too colloquial for the respectable Vedomosti – Yulia Latynina, a permanent guest from the human right-obsessed Radio Echo of Moscow, and poet of gangsters and a passionate hater of
"Chekists", admitted in her recent radio talk that "times have changed [in Russia]: now, power is primary, and ownership is secondary". This tribute from a sworn enemy was more precious than any flattery in loyal media.
In the same radio talk, Mrs. Latynina characterized Putin's proposal of ABM deployment in Gabala, Azerbaijan, as a "sophisticated and really clever game", "a game of a sovereign". This judgment, expressed with sincere hatred, looks much more adequate and precise than the insinuations of Mr. Belkovsky, parasiting today on the hapless presidential bid of ex-Central Bank Chairman Victor Gerashchenko.
THE SECOND SEANCE OF PSYCHOTHERAPY
In Western press, both in respectable daily newspapers and on websites of leftist anti-war protesters, the G-8 summit in Heiligendamm is described as Putin's new triumph and George W. Bush's new disgrace – although the non-scheduled stomach ache, affecting POTUS on June 7 evening, could be caused not only with Putin's surprise proposal but also with the phone call from Robert Gates who was desperately trying to convince his Joint Chief of Staff to agree for a confirmation hearing in the Congress for a new term. Putin's success was not at all interpreted as a military strategic concession "in exchange for guarantees of personal security", as Stanislav Belkovsky would like his readers (and himself) to believe. It was described as a sober, timely and witty political move, invented, from the very beginning, as the logical continuation of the earlier demonstration of military force; as a thesis, designed as a logical and indispensable counter-game to Bush's attempt – also earlier invented, rather not by him but by his advisors – to present himself as a benefactor of Europe, as opposed to the militant Russian leader.
What Putin efficiently made could be compared with a seance of psychotherapy for the whole European community – with the exception for the Polish, Czech and Baltic volunteers of ABM-planting, actually of making themselves a target for the supposed "rogue states". As a matter of fact, the eagerness of lackeys (how else could one characterize the Czech defense minister, literally performing a song glorifying the long-expected Mr. Radar?) to serve as a target exposed their belief that these rogue states are not so really dangerous as the Anglo-American media propagandist machine is featuring them. Still, the prospect of return to a Cold War-time confrontation
of Washington and Moscow on the European continent was unpleasant not only for the environment-obsessed EU functionaries.
The XI International Economic Forum served as the second séance of psychotherapy, the client now represented by top figures of the international corporate community. Nine thousand delegates, including a solid array of names frequenting Davos – thus making the parallel real, and not ironical; the amount of signed agreements, exceeding $13 billion; finally, presence of all the twelve presidents of CIS countries – for the first time ever in one place – all this was not just impressing but highly and undoubtedly symptomatic.
The Forum’s scale and composition, as well as its impressing business result – as compared with similar annual events before – definitely identified Russia as a land of hope for investors – most significantly, both from the West and the East. Peter I 's prophecy, expressed in Alexander Pushkin's verses: "All the flags will be guests to us" – visibly came true. The picture of promising future
of Russia's economy, admitted by ex-World Bank's President James Wolfenssohn, was echoed by a lot of participants from a multitude of nations, including China (whose government's representatives signed deals for a total amount of $1 billion.).
This "second seance of psychotherapy" was designed months before, and timed with perfection of a Swiss watch: it had to take place exactly on June 9-10, not a single day earlier or later.
This precise plan included a deliberate downgrading of the earlier traditional Russian Economic Forum in London: this year, following an unofficial but clear hint from Kremlin, top Russian business figures ignored his event. The precaution had perfect sense, as exactly at that time (February-March), a property debate broke out around the vast oil and gas area in Irkutsk Region, from where energy resources was supposed to be exported to China and Japan.
The affected side, a joint venture of British Petroleum and Russia's TNK, was accused by the Natural Resource Ministry's supervision authority of violating the major conditions of the contract. In crude words, TNK-BP was completely sabotaging exploration, and extracting a thrice smaller amount than that considered by the contract. Fearing of the contract’s breakup, the British co-owners launched an intense campaign in mass media, which is easily visible from a multitude of Putin-smearing articles in The Economist, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. Still, not all the British papers were involved in the Siberian appetites of BP. The Independent's author Miles Kington published a caustic "dialogue" of himself with an official from the Foreign Office, who urged him to "cooperate" by mounting all kinds of smear upon Russia's leadership, along with Gazprom, the supposed contender for Kovykta.
Despite the whole hullabaloo, BP President David Woodward surfaced at the St. Petersburg Forum. Only after the event was over, Russian media revealed BP's second interest. TNK-BP's representatives appeared to have been invited, weeks ago, to drill gas in Turkmenistan, being present (along with Lukoil's leadership) at the same meeting of presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan on May 12, which annihilated the Washington-steered International Energy Summit in Krakow, Poland!
Tony Blair's instruction to ignore Russia, made public in Heiligendamm, was similarly ignored by the top management of Shell. Threats and warnings of major US papers did not prevent David O'Railley, president of Chevron, from arriving to St.Petersburg as well. Chevron's boss was too much interested to directly negotiate both with Vladimir Putin and Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev. After all, he would like to increase of oil shipments along the Tenghiz-Novorossiysk pipeline (Caspian Oilpipe Consortium). You are welcome, he was told, but only after the construction of the Burgas-Alexandrupolis (Bulgaria-Greece) oil pipeline, connecting the Black Sea with the Adriatic and bypassing Bosphorus.
These negotiations had to take place on this day, not earlier or later – as on the next day, June 10, George W.Bush was to arrive in Bulgaria.
Wishing to reach similar clarity on the Kovykta debate, British journalists directly addressed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev – the very person who was recently regarded as Putin's most probable successor, but was not granted a major role at the Forum. However, the idea to address him, and not anyone else, had one more perfect substantiation, as Mr. Medvedev, as an appointee of the Government, also chairs Gazprom's board.
The Vice Premier's answer: "Yes, Gazprom is interested in this deposit, but we need an administrative decision" – revealed two truths: firstly, that the supposed successor behaves as a humble executive functionary of the Government, and secondly, that in Russia – unlike Britain and the United States – the President says the final word on top business solutions. Thus, thirdly, with a successor or alone, Putin is no "lame duck" like Blair or Bush.
Arriving in St. Petersburg, the top figures of British corporations shook not only the authority of the leaving Tony Blair but also the authority of most respectable editors. These gentlemen will have to collectively gobble their hats, according to the tradition. This unpleasant occupation is quite untimely, as the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, logically continuing Russia's agenda at the G-8 event, logically preceded the Vienna conference on the notorious CFE Treaty – the subject much hyped in British press days before.
The issue of the CFE Treaty, raised by Moscow in April, had served as the political substantiation for boosting the US deployment of ABM facilities in Eastern Europe. In Bulgaria and Albania, George W. Bush, however, admitted that Putin's Azerbaijan alternative was "logical". Meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had just declared the opposite – as well as the Polish leadership, most embarrassed with Bush's shift.
The prospects of the discussion of ABM deployment in the US Congress do not promise an easy solution, at least in its monetary aspect. Necessary military expertise is rather likely to complicate than to simplify the choice between the two options of deployment – one in the heart of Europe, another on the Caspian shore. In fact, a single phrase, pronounced by Vladimir Putin in Heiligendamm, has initiated a lengthy "volleyball game", options flying to and fro over the Black Sea. European leaders, quite recently terrified with the prospect of becoming an involuntary target, have now got a span of time for making their choice.
Russia's demonstration of military force, made on the eve of the G-8 meeting, was interpreted as Moscow's intention to "split Europe". Today, the line of the split is drawn not between nations but between White House's agency of influence in the European community, and the rest of European politicians, thinkers, and voters. This challenge is a real moment of truth.
FROM THE ATLANTIC TO TIBET
Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev has already shaken the world, refusing to arrive in Krakow and thus burying the whole long- discussed project of gas delivery along the Caspian bottom and then across six other nations, bizarrely dubbed Nabucco. Speaking in St. Petersburg, he revived the project of Rivers’ Diverse – the bold design of using water from Siberian rivers for irrigation of Central Asia, proposed in the USSR in 1984 and then buried by Mikhail Gorbachov's allochtonic disease of environmentalism.
That was not the only "information bomb" exploded by Nazarbayev. His second sensational proposal was to establish a EU-CIS Coordination Forum. For strategists like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington or Paul Goble, this is more than heresy – that is evidence of a scathing demise of their geopolitical designs. First of all, CIS – represented by all of its leaders, each of them having their vital interest in cooperation with Russia, and through Russia – with corporations from both the West and the East, was alive. Secondly, the proposed framework wipes the contradictions between Russia and Europe, off the table.
Most importantly, one of the few Western countries represented by a Prime Minister, was Norway – the country which is a NATO member, a country with a common border with Russia, and at the same time, a nation which does not have any historical, territorial or economic grudges against Moscow. At the same time, Norway is a country which is wisely reluctant to sign the Energy Charter – one of the major obstacles for Russia-EU economic partnership. At the same time, Norway is a country whose oil and gas corporation, Statoil, is state-dominated. This enables the government to easily find common language with Russia's Gazprom and Rosneft, with China's CNOC, and with oil corporations of Gulf states. Weeks before the summit, Norway's Premier Jens Stoltenberg visited Russia along with the top management of Statoil, signing major agreements on extraction in Russia. That was one more "preliminary measure", chosen by Russia's leadership on the eve of the Forum.
In his keynote speech, Vladimir Putin spoke of his nation as a natural bridge between the Western and Eastern parts of the continent, and introduced the leaders of "new producing nations", as the CIS countries of Central Asia were introduced. A few analysts who intoned that China was “playing behind the scenes of Heiligerdamm", were right. In an interval of hours between the G-8 meeting and the St. Petersburg Forum, Vladimir Putin negotiated with China's President Hu Jingtao. In St. Petersburg, China was not "behind", but in the center of the scene. The meeting of CIS leaders, officially informal, involved a perfectly official meeting of the Business Council of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where China, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan reached accord on construction of a new trans-Asiatic railway link.
In his speech, the Russian leader made further breathtaking statements. While his own ministers were busy discussing routine procedures of Russia's entry in the WTO, Putin claimed that this body, as well as a lot of other international institutes, is "outdated". This conclusion was derived from the dramatic changes taking place in the whole world since the time of foundation of WTO and IMF:
"The world is changing, literally, before our eyes. A number of countries, which once seemed to be haplessly backward, are becoming the most intensively developing economies of the world. Fifty years ago, 60% of the gross global product was provided by the states which then established the G-7. Today, on the contrary, 60% of the gross global product is produced outside those countries. New economies are boldly overtaking niches of production as well as services, including also high tech areas. At the same time, the imbalance in the development of the global economy as such is increasing; the gap between well-to-do and poor countries is becoming greater and greater. I am convinced that these problems can't be solved just by general words over "just distribution" of resources and investments. In the interests of stable development, we need a new architecture of global economic relations, based upon confidence and mutually favorable integration. Beyond competition, we have to seek common, interrelated interests".
Putin repeatedly emphasized that the current system of global finance and trade does not correspond with the needs of the time. "The existing international institutions are unable to regulate the global markets. Today, protectionism is often practiced exactly by those economies which once founded the World Trade Organization. Most of the state-governed resources of business support is concentrated in this narrow group of nations. Meanwhile, in the interests of stimulation of trade and investments, it would make perfect sense to establish regional Euro-Asiatic institutions of free trade.
"Institutions, once established in the interests for a shallow number of players, are looking archaic and non-democratic today", Putin said. "These institutions don't consider the new distribution of the global potential. No wonder that their decisions, made by old methods, are unworkable. This is especially obvious on the example of the WTO diplomacy in the framework of the Doha round, which has actually come into a deadlock.
"The present financial system, tied with one or two global currencies, does not reflect the current and strategic needs of world economy, and fluctuations of rates negatively affect financial reserves of particular countries, as well as particular branches of economy. The only response to this challenge is to set up several financial centers, and increase the number of reserve currencies. Those may include the Russian ruble, which has practically become a convertible currency after a number of restrictions were lifted. It would be expedient to introduce ruble accounts in exports of commodities from Russia – naturally, in those cases when it is favorable both for producers and consumers", Putin said.
This "heresy" was listened with great attentions and applause, and perceived by the audience's majority as a breath of clean air in the choky atmosphere of the hapless "political correctness". Putin was telling the truth which was clear for a lot of politicians and businessmen but permanently wiped under the table – the truth, similarly clear for the healthy minds of the antiglobalist community; the truth, breaking the borders of understanding between old and new industrial nations; the truth, inspiring the generation of European and American industrialists which had been ignored for over two decades. Now, they are back to the scene, and fascinated with a breathtaking prospect of productive development of industries, infrastructure and trade across the whole expanse broader than any EU strategist could imagine – from the Atlantic to Tibet and Chukotka.
The delight had a hue of envy: Putin was saying what other G-8 leaders would not dare to say. Still, some influentials did dare to admit the obvious reality. John Lipsky, Deputy Executive Director of the IMF, stated that "the major risk for Russia is instability of global economy". The only conclusion, derivable from this confession, is that the global economic system needs to undergo an urgent change, in which countries of Asia are to play a most indispensable role.
Meanwhile, George W. Bush was lame-ducking before the Pope, trying to explain the reasons for the invasion in Iraq and the aftermath of bloodshed, justified by nothing but pure ideological considerations, and favoring a selected array of war-interested corporations. His only "constructive" idea was the ideology-based independence of Kosovo – in fact, one of the time-bombs laid under Europe by the previous US administration.
In Heiligerdamm, Vladimir Putin fairly warned the US President of the implication of new independence of an unrecognized state, reminding him of similar ambitions of an array of post-Soviet territories. In particular, this meant that by promotion of Kosovo's independence, Washington questions the integrity of Georgia, the most heavily US-patronized country of the Soviet succession.
This emphasis was directly associated with the debate around the CFE Treaty, which was artificially pegged to OSCE's Istanbul agreements signed in 1999. NATO's officials had to admit in Vienna that Russia has unilaterally fulfilled most of its obligations on withdrawal of its military bases from Georgia's territory. The six conditions of further participation in the CFE Treaty were put on the Vienna conference's table immediately after the summit. On June 12, they sounded much more different than five days before. Putin's message at the G-8 meeting and the following St. Petersburg Forum featured Russia, at the face of the whole global community, not as a side in a new Cold War, and not, "on the contrary", as a mere "investment-attractive country", but as the domain of the world’s strategic thinking.
Each of the involved nations and leaders are up to their own conclusions. The prospect of a EU-CIS, and potentially EU-SCO partnership, a design of peace and concord of economies, beliefs and cultures, is far more attractive for a vast majority of the global community than the prospect of new "democracy"-planting and "colored revolution"-mongering, which has already shaken Lebanon and now irradiating in Palestine. The "statue of Democracy", opened by a desperate lame duck in order to "snub China", may soon appear not more than a tomb of faulty strategies and untidy remedies of the outdated global world order.
Number of shows: 1674
ENG 
