TMCnet News
West wary as the Russian Bear growls again(The Scotsman Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)COME Monday, Russia takes over from the UK the presidency of the G8 group of leading industrial nations. If you thought Tony Blair's presidency of the G8 was problematic, just wait till you see Vladimir Putin in the hot seat. In theory, the G8 represents the major free-market democracies. But for the first six months of 2006, the grouping will be under the titular leadership of a government which this week dismissed its chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, for saying that Russia was no longer politically free but run by state corporations in their own interests. If Illarionov is correct about the de-democratisation of Russia, the question arises: is Vladimir Putin really fit to chair the G8? Mr Illarionov's departure coincided with an ominous warning to neighbouring Ukraine from Russia's defence minister and deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov. Russia has just decided unilaterally to impose a fivefold increase in the price of gas exported to Ukraine. The Ukrainians have mused about retaliating by upping what they charge Moscow for basing Russia's Black Sea fleet in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol. Mr Ivanov helpfully pointed out that the agreement on the fleet was part of a treaty that also included Russian recognition of the Ukrainian border. Tampering with the treaty, the defence minister threatened, could be "fatal" (ie we will start to claim big chunks of Ukraine). For good measure, the Kremlin is also threatening to cut off all gas supplies to Ukraine by the end of this week. All this capped a month in which Russia tested a new long-range missile system, took steps to restrict the activities of foreign NGOs on its soil, and continued to give diplomatic cover to the illegal Iranian nuclear programme. Moscow has systematically blocked European Union moves to report Iran to the UN Security Council for violation of its treaty obligations not to develop nuclear weapons technology. Is Russia returning to its totalitarian past? Certainly, Putin has taken the country in a more authoritarian direction by reducing regional autonomy and expanding the powers of the presidency. That could be explained as an understandable reaction to the near anarchy of the Yeltsin years and the need to curb the power of the "oligarchs", the Mafioso robber barons who stole most of Russia's economy after the fall of communism. On the down side, however, Moscow has systematically restricted the freedom of the media and been cavalier with property rights when re-nationalising the energy companies. Mr Putin, a former KGB spy, has created no serious political party or heir apparent. If he decides to scrap the present constitutional barriers stopping him running again for the Russian presidency in 2008, then we are in trouble. Of course, it is possible to argue that a country such as Russia, with its sprawling land mass and economic underdevelopment, requires a strong state to maintain security and mobilise capital investment. If Putin works, why not keep him? Russia may have expanded state control of its lucrative oil industry, but there is no sign that it has turned its back on capitalism or that it wants a return to anything like communism. We should also put Russia's new missiles and gunboat diplomacy into some kind of perspective. Russia is now a medium-scale economy, not a superpower. Last year, Moscow could only afford to spend dollars 19 billion on its military. Britain managed dollars 47 billion, while the United States spent a massive dollars 445 billion. In 2003, the Russian military could afford just 14 new tanks and five upgraded fighter-bombers. THE real danger to the West from Russia would be if it fails economically, and that does not seem to be on the cards. The country has seen seven straight years of high growth, based on record oil prices. There is now even something of a consumer boom. And yet I have a nagging doubt. Russia's economy is still too dependent on oil and gas exports and fragile because of that. If Putin fails to create real democratic institutions, there remains an ever-present threat of either political instability or a further lapse into dictatorship. Russia remains an unreformed empire whose diverse regions could still fragment, because they have no reason to be together, except for the will of the man who sits in the Kremlin. And the growing confluence of political and economic power in Russia is a sure recipe for arrogance - as seen in the bullying of Ukraine. I see problems, but I don't see solutions. However, one fact which must not be forgotten in this debate is that, regardless, the next G8 summit is going to happen in St Petersburg in July, and that Vladimir Putin will chair it. In which case, the pragmatic thing is to use the G8 to put pressure on Putin - carrot and stick - to draw back from the logic of his current anti-democratic course of action. There is a feeling among some G8 leaders (especially the French) that Tony Blair hijacked the Gleneagles summit for a utopian political agenda that ignored real world economic problems such as the surge in oil prices. For that reason, the St Petersburg meeting is slated to focus on practical issues such as global energy security rather than curing world poverty overnight. Since Russia is a key oil and gas exporter, there is something to be said for having Mr Putin in the chair. That's a good position to ensure that Russia is committed to safeguarding Europe's gas supplies, taking a more sensible stance on Iran, and moving back towards the democratic camp. The Russian Bear is definitely growling again, but it has a lot fewer teeth than it once did. So far, Mr Putin is responding to national self-interest rather than ideology. Provided the West is alert to the dangers and the possibilities, it can use the G8 summit to keep Russia inside the tent. |