Faced with plummeting oil prices and tax revenues, Russia is seriously considering joining the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), or working with the oil cartel to cut world output. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, speaking at a meeting on socio-economic development of the Urals Federal District, explained what Russia could do to raise world prices.
“I would like to say that we are prepared for this ([joining OPEC]),” Medvedev said. “We must defend ourselves, since this is our revenue base, both from oil and gas. These kinds of defensive measures could be tied to lowering oil production, and participating in the existing suppliers organization, and participating in new organizations, if we can come to an agreement beforehand, so to speak.”
“I believe that we can’t exclude any options for ourselves. Let me say this again – this is an issue of our country’s revenue base, an issue of her development, and we cannot be ruled by any abstract criteria, by recommendations of other international organizations, and so forth. These are our national interests. We will proceed as we see fit,” Medvedev said.
Russia has been flirting with OPEC cooperation, but the latest announcement was particularly strong. While Russia has not previously joined OPEC in cutting production output, a continued period of low oil prices could have devastating consequences for Russia’s federal budget. In November, the budget went into deficit for the first time this year, as oil prices dipped below $40 per barrel. Russia’s 2009 federal budget relies on oil prices arounf $70 per barrel to remain balanced.
The next meeting of OPEC will take place in the Algerian city of Oran on December 17th. Cooperation with Russia is one of the items on the agenda.
The response in the market was visible. Expectations of massive cuts to production by OPEC and Russia sent oil prices higher, closing up several percent to around $45 per barrel.
Sunday, 14 December 2008
President Obama,Russia and US Relations
Even as Barack Obama faces front-page issues like Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, he will still have to find the time and courage to deal with a certain nuclear-armed autocracy that controls much of the world’s oil and gas.
How should Mr. Obama deal with Russia’s official president, Dmitry Medvedev, and Russia’s real leader, Vladimir Putin? The choice is straightforward: Mr. Obama can treat them like fellow democratic leaders or like the would-be dictators that they are. His decision will tell the world a great deal about how seriously he takes his promises of change.
The Kremlin is very eager to be accepted as an equal. It apparently hopes that Mr. Obama will send the signal that democracy in Russia doesn’t matter, that the Kremlin’s crushing of the opposition and free speech is irrelevant, and that annexing pieces of neighboring Georgia is a local issue and not an international one.
Last week Mr. Medvedev was in France to meet with the leaders of Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the current European Union president, tripped over his tongue to ingratiate himself and to present himself as a great peacemaker.
Mr. Sarkozy proudly announced that Russia had “mostly completed” its obligations to resolve the conflict with Georgia. But there is no way to “mostly” accept a dictatorship.
Russia’s ruling elite has close allies among the European nations that Mr. Obama is expected to woo. I am far less concerned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s clownish remarks about Mr. Obama’s “suntan” than about the way he so eagerly rushes to defend the commercial and political interests of Mr. Putin’s clan.
Leaders like Messrs. Berlusconi and Sarkozy have no allegiance to the nation of Russia. Rather, they are defending Mr. Putin as a means to protect their personal and business relationships. Will Mr. Obama’s desire to be the toast of Europe come at the expense of democracy in Russia? Mr. Obama must listen very carefully when European voices defend the Putin regime. Nearly always there is the hiss of gas or the bubbling of oil in the background.
Last weekend Mr. Medvedev was in Washington to continue his new charm offensive. But Mr. Obama must remember that he was selected by over 66 million votes while Mr. Medvedev needed only one — that of his predecessor, Mr. Putin.
There is little doubt the most recent elections in Russia had even less value than those in Venezuela and Iran. Russia’s own “supreme leader” cannot be treated as a true democratic representative if the new U.S. administration wishes to maintain any credibility on matters of human rights and freedom abroad. For a glimpse into Russia’s “democracy,” just look at its idea of a bailout. While Washington is worried about Main Street, in Russia the government wants to rescue the oligarchs — at the expense of the Russian taxpayer.
In Mr. Medvedev’s Nov. 5 speech in Moscow, he assured the mafia running the country that everything is business-as-usual despite the global financial crisis. He also talked about extending the presidential and parliamentary terms of office, even though the next Russian parliamentary elections aren’t until 2011.
The speech sent two signals. First, that the Constitution, praised by Mr. Medvedev as the “cornerstone of law,” can be twisted. This helps pave the way for Mr. Putin’s return to his old Kremlin office, perhaps even before all the furniture has been moved out. Equally important, it says that Messrs. Medvedev and Putin aren’t going anywhere until they are forced to leave.
In a Nov. 7 meeting of senior officials, Mr. Medvedev instructed the interior minister to crush any demonstrators “exploiting the crisis” as extremists and criminals. If the EU has “mostly” ignored bloodshed in Georgia, would they accept it in Russia as well?
The collapsing Russian economy precipitated Mr. Medvedev’s new batch of threats. The vast majority of Russians, who haven’t shared the trough with Mr. Putin’s elites over the past decade, are realizing that they never will. When Mr. Medvedev took office he said that Russia would become a global financial center and that the ruble would become a reserve currency of choice. But with oil nearing $50 a barrel, the charade of a strong and stable Russia is over. The ruble is becoming a reserve currency — in Russia. With so many aspects of life in Russia deteriorating simultaneously, the regime has to squeeze harder to keep control.
Each day decreases the likelihood of a quiet transition of power later on. As John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Such talk about the fall of the Putin regime is not just wishful thinking. Remember all the experts who failed to anticipate the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Do not believe that the damage from a violent fall would be limited to within Russia’s borders. Gazprom and its ilk have many allies in the Western companies and administrations that currently serve as the Kremlin’s enablers. There is also the issue of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal and large, though impoverished, military.
Mr. Medvedev’s posturing about the supposed threat of NATO expansion — and about deploying missiles near the Polish border in response to the U.S. missile shield — are part of his plan to get Western leaders to leave him alone so that he can continue his looting. Mr. Obama must quickly make clear that he will not tolerate this. He cannot repeat his predecessor’s mistake and look into Mr. Putin’s eyes instead of looking at his record.
Mr. Obama’s character is already being tested. He will fail unless he labels the Putin dictatorship correctly from the start. If he does, Mr. Obama might even be able to help bring hope and change to an entirely new constituency: 142 million Russians.
How should Mr. Obama deal with Russia’s official president, Dmitry Medvedev, and Russia’s real leader, Vladimir Putin? The choice is straightforward: Mr. Obama can treat them like fellow democratic leaders or like the would-be dictators that they are. His decision will tell the world a great deal about how seriously he takes his promises of change.
The Kremlin is very eager to be accepted as an equal. It apparently hopes that Mr. Obama will send the signal that democracy in Russia doesn’t matter, that the Kremlin’s crushing of the opposition and free speech is irrelevant, and that annexing pieces of neighboring Georgia is a local issue and not an international one.
Last week Mr. Medvedev was in France to meet with the leaders of Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the current European Union president, tripped over his tongue to ingratiate himself and to present himself as a great peacemaker.
Mr. Sarkozy proudly announced that Russia had “mostly completed” its obligations to resolve the conflict with Georgia. But there is no way to “mostly” accept a dictatorship.
Russia’s ruling elite has close allies among the European nations that Mr. Obama is expected to woo. I am far less concerned by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s clownish remarks about Mr. Obama’s “suntan” than about the way he so eagerly rushes to defend the commercial and political interests of Mr. Putin’s clan.
Leaders like Messrs. Berlusconi and Sarkozy have no allegiance to the nation of Russia. Rather, they are defending Mr. Putin as a means to protect their personal and business relationships. Will Mr. Obama’s desire to be the toast of Europe come at the expense of democracy in Russia? Mr. Obama must listen very carefully when European voices defend the Putin regime. Nearly always there is the hiss of gas or the bubbling of oil in the background.
Last weekend Mr. Medvedev was in Washington to continue his new charm offensive. But Mr. Obama must remember that he was selected by over 66 million votes while Mr. Medvedev needed only one — that of his predecessor, Mr. Putin.
There is little doubt the most recent elections in Russia had even less value than those in Venezuela and Iran. Russia’s own “supreme leader” cannot be treated as a true democratic representative if the new U.S. administration wishes to maintain any credibility on matters of human rights and freedom abroad. For a glimpse into Russia’s “democracy,” just look at its idea of a bailout. While Washington is worried about Main Street, in Russia the government wants to rescue the oligarchs — at the expense of the Russian taxpayer.
In Mr. Medvedev’s Nov. 5 speech in Moscow, he assured the mafia running the country that everything is business-as-usual despite the global financial crisis. He also talked about extending the presidential and parliamentary terms of office, even though the next Russian parliamentary elections aren’t until 2011.
The speech sent two signals. First, that the Constitution, praised by Mr. Medvedev as the “cornerstone of law,” can be twisted. This helps pave the way for Mr. Putin’s return to his old Kremlin office, perhaps even before all the furniture has been moved out. Equally important, it says that Messrs. Medvedev and Putin aren’t going anywhere until they are forced to leave.
In a Nov. 7 meeting of senior officials, Mr. Medvedev instructed the interior minister to crush any demonstrators “exploiting the crisis” as extremists and criminals. If the EU has “mostly” ignored bloodshed in Georgia, would they accept it in Russia as well?
The collapsing Russian economy precipitated Mr. Medvedev’s new batch of threats. The vast majority of Russians, who haven’t shared the trough with Mr. Putin’s elites over the past decade, are realizing that they never will. When Mr. Medvedev took office he said that Russia would become a global financial center and that the ruble would become a reserve currency of choice. But with oil nearing $50 a barrel, the charade of a strong and stable Russia is over. The ruble is becoming a reserve currency — in Russia. With so many aspects of life in Russia deteriorating simultaneously, the regime has to squeeze harder to keep control.
Each day decreases the likelihood of a quiet transition of power later on. As John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Such talk about the fall of the Putin regime is not just wishful thinking. Remember all the experts who failed to anticipate the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Do not believe that the damage from a violent fall would be limited to within Russia’s borders. Gazprom and its ilk have many allies in the Western companies and administrations that currently serve as the Kremlin’s enablers. There is also the issue of Russia’s vast nuclear arsenal and large, though impoverished, military.
Mr. Medvedev’s posturing about the supposed threat of NATO expansion — and about deploying missiles near the Polish border in response to the U.S. missile shield — are part of his plan to get Western leaders to leave him alone so that he can continue his looting. Mr. Obama must quickly make clear that he will not tolerate this. He cannot repeat his predecessor’s mistake and look into Mr. Putin’s eyes instead of looking at his record.
Mr. Obama’s character is already being tested. He will fail unless he labels the Putin dictatorship correctly from the start. If he does, Mr. Obama might even be able to help bring hope and change to an entirely new constituency: 142 million Russians.
Why Putin will regret his pronoucments
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin became yet another high-ranking Russian civil servant to admit that an economic crisis exists in the country. He did this loudly and solemnly at a congress of the party of power. And having promised that there would not be a repeat of the 1998 collapse, he took personal responsibility for the social impact of the crisis, which even such a mighty national leader doesn’t have the power to prevent.
Unlike President Dmitri Medvedev’s statement, which confessed that 2009 would be a hard year for Russians, or the interview with Minister of Economic Development Elvira Nabiullina, which acknowledged the breakdown of the Russian economic model from Putin’s time [in office], Putin’s performance was liberally replayed on national television. Russians will remember precisely two of his excerpts, that a crisis exists, and that there won’t be any social impact. They will be remembered when the numbers at currency exchanges start to traitorously turn to favor the bourgeois and vanishing dollar. They will astonish yet another laid-off employee, when he cannot find a new job, and discovers that the government which promised to help him can do nothing for its citizen. Precisely these words will be quoted, when yet another strategic enterprise, or more importantly, a city’s major employer ceases operations, sending its workers overboard…
One can list such possibilities to remember Vladimir Putin’s words endlessly. Something else is more important: from the simple, popular point of view, these were the most important words of his political career. The public remembers well that Boris Yeltsin promised to lie down across the rails if prices grew, and then didn’t lie down. He promised that there would be no default, and then there was a default. But before these unkept promises, Yeltsin had a large and turbulent political biography under his belt: the anticipation of changes, that amazing air of freedom which today is already difficult to feel in Russia’s twilight (incidentally, the air becomes so thin during crisis years, that it sometimes seems fresh). And for Putin -years of assurances of stability, ending in admitting a crisis. That is why the Russian national memory won’t put President Putin together with stability, the fight with America and a glamorized Rublevka. There will only be Prime Minister Putin, who didn’t protect the country and her residents from a fiasco.
But could he have kept silent about all this? Probably, since no one was making him or his speech-writers speak up. In general, that’s how a public official differs from a televised underling. He tells the people the truth, which is sometimes bitter. Especially since Vladimir Putin doesn’t need to be elected anywhere, anytime soon. Or am I mistaken? But having been created by television, these people only believe their receivers. They believe that if you say that there's no crisis,it won't happen. They believe that if you say a crisis exists, but there won’t be an impact, then there won’t be.
Today’s elite, which had its hand held as it was brought into power, which never had to fight with anyone for it, which confused the government with a corporation and is incapable of a simple analysis of the situation six months ahead, much less of making strategic decisions, believes in an a remarkable manner in the power of the word, not of the action. Of the televised word. Appearing before a carefully arranged audience, that’s precisely why Vladimir Putin delivered what may end up being the most important and sole remembered speech of his future biography.
Unlike President Dmitri Medvedev’s statement, which confessed that 2009 would be a hard year for Russians, or the interview with Minister of Economic Development Elvira Nabiullina, which acknowledged the breakdown of the Russian economic model from Putin’s time [in office], Putin’s performance was liberally replayed on national television. Russians will remember precisely two of his excerpts, that a crisis exists, and that there won’t be any social impact. They will be remembered when the numbers at currency exchanges start to traitorously turn to favor the bourgeois and vanishing dollar. They will astonish yet another laid-off employee, when he cannot find a new job, and discovers that the government which promised to help him can do nothing for its citizen. Precisely these words will be quoted, when yet another strategic enterprise, or more importantly, a city’s major employer ceases operations, sending its workers overboard…
One can list such possibilities to remember Vladimir Putin’s words endlessly. Something else is more important: from the simple, popular point of view, these were the most important words of his political career. The public remembers well that Boris Yeltsin promised to lie down across the rails if prices grew, and then didn’t lie down. He promised that there would be no default, and then there was a default. But before these unkept promises, Yeltsin had a large and turbulent political biography under his belt: the anticipation of changes, that amazing air of freedom which today is already difficult to feel in Russia’s twilight (incidentally, the air becomes so thin during crisis years, that it sometimes seems fresh). And for Putin -years of assurances of stability, ending in admitting a crisis. That is why the Russian national memory won’t put President Putin together with stability, the fight with America and a glamorized Rublevka. There will only be Prime Minister Putin, who didn’t protect the country and her residents from a fiasco.
But could he have kept silent about all this? Probably, since no one was making him or his speech-writers speak up. In general, that’s how a public official differs from a televised underling. He tells the people the truth, which is sometimes bitter. Especially since Vladimir Putin doesn’t need to be elected anywhere, anytime soon. Or am I mistaken? But having been created by television, these people only believe their receivers. They believe that if you say that there's no crisis,it won't happen. They believe that if you say a crisis exists, but there won’t be an impact, then there won’t be.
Today’s elite, which had its hand held as it was brought into power, which never had to fight with anyone for it, which confused the government with a corporation and is incapable of a simple analysis of the situation six months ahead, much less of making strategic decisions, believes in an a remarkable manner in the power of the word, not of the action. Of the televised word. Appearing before a carefully arranged audience, that’s precisely why Vladimir Putin delivered what may end up being the most important and sole remembered speech of his future biography.
Tatars stand up for their Ancestors honour
Residents of the Republic of Tatarstan, upset at a textbook depicting their ancestors as “monsters,” have lost their case before a Moscow city court. The court has decided that the book, titled “A History of the Homeland” and used in 6th and 7th grade classrooms, holds nothing offensive. As the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper reported on June 11th, claimants had charged that it offended their national dignity.
At issue was the chapter on the conquest of what would later become Russia by the Tataro-Mongol Golden Horde, and the description of the famed 14th century Battle ok Kulikovo, where unified Russian forces defeated a Tataro-Mongol army. A historic drawing featured prominently in the text shows the invaders roasting, dismembering and eating Russian soldiers.
“The insult of our national dignity doesn’t just appear in this drawing, but also directly in the text,” Mukhamed Minachev, a representative of the claimants, told the court. “In part, the incredible valor of the Russian warriors is described on pages 87-91 of the textbook, while the Tataro-Mongols are presented as monsters!”
Minachev believes that such a rendition of the battle offends the honor and dignity of present-day Tatars, a primarily Muslim ethnic group that numbers around 6 million across Russia. Furthermore, it may fan the flames of ethnic strife in schools. The claimants had asked that the text be banned, and had asked for compensation for the moral damage they suffered. They promised to appeal and continue their battle in the courts.
The contested schoolbook was first published in 1997. The Moskovsky Komsomolets reached the book’s graphic designer, Nikita Ordinsky. In his words, there was no electronic database of illustrations 11 years ago, as there is now. Images were literally taken from wherever was necessary. Ordinsky could not remember the drawing in question, bus said that it most likely came from a West-European source. He added that is wasn’t a fact that the picture depicts Tataro-Mongols, because Russians were also called Tatars by Western Europeans.
At issue was the chapter on the conquest of what would later become Russia by the Tataro-Mongol Golden Horde, and the description of the famed 14th century Battle ok Kulikovo, where unified Russian forces defeated a Tataro-Mongol army. A historic drawing featured prominently in the text shows the invaders roasting, dismembering and eating Russian soldiers.
“The insult of our national dignity doesn’t just appear in this drawing, but also directly in the text,” Mukhamed Minachev, a representative of the claimants, told the court. “In part, the incredible valor of the Russian warriors is described on pages 87-91 of the textbook, while the Tataro-Mongols are presented as monsters!”
Minachev believes that such a rendition of the battle offends the honor and dignity of present-day Tatars, a primarily Muslim ethnic group that numbers around 6 million across Russia. Furthermore, it may fan the flames of ethnic strife in schools. The claimants had asked that the text be banned, and had asked for compensation for the moral damage they suffered. They promised to appeal and continue their battle in the courts.
The contested schoolbook was first published in 1997. The Moskovsky Komsomolets reached the book’s graphic designer, Nikita Ordinsky. In his words, there was no electronic database of illustrations 11 years ago, as there is now. Images were literally taken from wherever was necessary. Ordinsky could not remember the drawing in question, bus said that it most likely came from a West-European source. He added that is wasn’t a fact that the picture depicts Tataro-Mongols, because Russians were also called Tatars by Western Europeans.
Russian and Children's Rights
Human rights activists are reporting the extreme violation of children’s rights in Moscow and across Russia. Publicly-owned buildings that house state-run daycare centers, kindergartens and educational facilities are being closed by government officials and businesses, with their tenants evicted. They are subsequently rebuilt as offices and banks, or turned into other commercial ventures. Other state-owned buildings, including union houses and hospitals are also at risk. The process, called “raiding,” is more commonly associated with the armed take-overs of business assets by hired security squads . But children’s centers remain at risk.
“The problem of the seizure and closure of children’s educational institutions remains throughout Russia,” said Sergei Komkov, the president of the All-Russian Education Fund. Komkov, an academic in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and a member of the Moscow Writer’s Union, was speaking at a press conference on the dramatic problems faced by day-care centers.
Participants of the conference described methods used to take over properties, from illegally re-zoning the land to literally destroying buildings to make them uninhabitable. Two so-called “raiding plans” are used. Under the first, buildings in prime locations are simply rented to an organization other than the daycare. The new group then demolishes the building and re-develops the land commercially. In the second case, buildings are transferred directly to companies and redesigned into banks and offices.
“When a day care is located in a convenient recreation area, where a large investment project can be built, raiders do everything to demolish it,” Komkov said. “There are very many instances of the direct destruction of day-cares in Moscow.”
Over the past 12 years, some 700 Moscow day-cares have transformed into offices that no longer serve any educational purposes. Meanwhile, the city has a deficit of education centers for children, with some 60 thousand youths who cannot be placed in the existing day-care system. Only 100 new day-cares have been set up to replace those destroyed, and only after a city directive to build new centers passed in 2007.
According to UNESCO, some 2 million 300 thousand school-age children are not receiving an education in Russia. Komkov blamed this in part on the destruction of schools and educational facilities in the country.
Elena Martysheva, the Director of the “Aspects of Education” Center, and an international children’s activist, spoke of the takeover of a children’s center associated with her group in July 2007. In that case, Globex Bank took possession of their building, and would not even let Martysheva in to gather things from her office. The new owners then destroyed the Center’s property. Appeals to the prefecture, the militsiya and the prosecutor general’s office proved fruitless. Law enforcement called the case a “dispute between business entities” and refused to act.
According to Martysheva, the new occupants also gained access to the school’s files and documents, which contained confidential information. By law, only the Center’s employees are allowed to handle such paperwork.
Anatoly Karpov, the Chairman of the Russian Peace Foundation and former world chess champion, commented on Martysheva’s case. He explained that during a change of ownership, a building’s new owners may only enter the premises with a court-order on hand and the militsiya present. Globex did not have either.
Karpov went on to explain what happened next as deliberate acts to make the building uninhabitable. Globex then used the new damage as a pretext to file paperwork saying it was impossible to keep the building for its intended educational use. The children’s center was subsequently demolished.
“The problem of the seizure and closure of children’s educational institutions remains throughout Russia,” said Sergei Komkov, the president of the All-Russian Education Fund. Komkov, an academic in the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and a member of the Moscow Writer’s Union, was speaking at a press conference on the dramatic problems faced by day-care centers.
Participants of the conference described methods used to take over properties, from illegally re-zoning the land to literally destroying buildings to make them uninhabitable. Two so-called “raiding plans” are used. Under the first, buildings in prime locations are simply rented to an organization other than the daycare. The new group then demolishes the building and re-develops the land commercially. In the second case, buildings are transferred directly to companies and redesigned into banks and offices.
“When a day care is located in a convenient recreation area, where a large investment project can be built, raiders do everything to demolish it,” Komkov said. “There are very many instances of the direct destruction of day-cares in Moscow.”
Over the past 12 years, some 700 Moscow day-cares have transformed into offices that no longer serve any educational purposes. Meanwhile, the city has a deficit of education centers for children, with some 60 thousand youths who cannot be placed in the existing day-care system. Only 100 new day-cares have been set up to replace those destroyed, and only after a city directive to build new centers passed in 2007.
According to UNESCO, some 2 million 300 thousand school-age children are not receiving an education in Russia. Komkov blamed this in part on the destruction of schools and educational facilities in the country.
Elena Martysheva, the Director of the “Aspects of Education” Center, and an international children’s activist, spoke of the takeover of a children’s center associated with her group in July 2007. In that case, Globex Bank took possession of their building, and would not even let Martysheva in to gather things from her office. The new owners then destroyed the Center’s property. Appeals to the prefecture, the militsiya and the prosecutor general’s office proved fruitless. Law enforcement called the case a “dispute between business entities” and refused to act.
According to Martysheva, the new occupants also gained access to the school’s files and documents, which contained confidential information. By law, only the Center’s employees are allowed to handle such paperwork.
Anatoly Karpov, the Chairman of the Russian Peace Foundation and former world chess champion, commented on Martysheva’s case. He explained that during a change of ownership, a building’s new owners may only enter the premises with a court-order on hand and the militsiya present. Globex did not have either.
Karpov went on to explain what happened next as deliberate acts to make the building uninhabitable. Globex then used the new damage as a pretext to file paperwork saying it was impossible to keep the building for its intended educational use. The children’s center was subsequently demolished.
Trying to Control Russia's Traffic Cops
Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) has developed new rules for traffic police. As the RBK-Daily business newspaper reports on May 19th, the Ministry apparently wants to regulate how its road officers interact with drivers.
Officers of the State Inspectorate For Traffic Security (STSI), which oversees Russian roads, have an abysmal public image and are notorious for rampant corruption.
The document of new rules contains a number of innovations. For instance, every STSI unit will need to create and maintain a website. On a more direct level, officers will also need to present a form of identification upon stopping motorists.
The new requirements, which could take effect as soon as this summer, would also change the procedure for how road police check drivers for intoxication. Officers will need to have two witnesses present, and will need to use breathalyzers that provide a printout of results.
In an effort to combat corruption, road police will now have the right to use video and audio recording equipment while conducting a stop. In theory, this should prevent officers from taking bribes and keep drivers from starting a provocation with the militsiya. However, using the surveillance equipment will be optional, and the officers will be able to turn their recorders off and on at will.
The protocol also provides guidelines, previously unwritten, for how officers must act in the most common types of interactions with drivers. For instance, drivers pulled over for a moving violation will often tuck money into their documents before handing them to the STSI officer. Under the new rules, the militsiya officer must now immediately return the documents and ask that the driver remove their money.
Experts, however, are skeptical that the new protocol will prove useful. According to Viktor Pokhmelkin, the chairman of the Movement of Russian Motorists, corruption would be better resolved by a federal law, and not an administrative ordinance like the new regulations. “Otherwise, this is just the imitation of a battle with corruption,” he said.
The judicial system seems to lend its weight to Pokhmelkin’s arguments. Court statistics show that law enforcement officials are rarely brought to justice for bribery and corrupt practices, even in cases that seem open and closed.
The chairman of the St. Petersburg regional branch of the Committee for the Protection of Motorist Rights, Aleksandr Kholodov, believes the new protocol is no more than a reminder for militsiya officers. He told the Sobkor®ru news agency that the document simply repeats an earlier administrative order issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA of the RF Order No. 297 from 1999), with a few additions. Kholodov added that the new document has the same content in a different form, and as result does not carry any weight for dealing with corrupt officers. “The protocol does not add any new rights and obligations,” he said. “This is a technical document; it can only establish some kind of internal rules.”
As the RBK-Daily points out, the first federal department to release an administrative order was the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (Minekonomrazvitiya), which started a sort of vogue among Russia’s administrative bodies. Now, every agency seems intent on releasing a new protocol for how its civil servants interact with citizens.
It remains to be seen whether the new rules will have any effect on corruption.
Officers of the State Inspectorate For Traffic Security (STSI), which oversees Russian roads, have an abysmal public image and are notorious for rampant corruption.
The document of new rules contains a number of innovations. For instance, every STSI unit will need to create and maintain a website. On a more direct level, officers will also need to present a form of identification upon stopping motorists.
The new requirements, which could take effect as soon as this summer, would also change the procedure for how road police check drivers for intoxication. Officers will need to have two witnesses present, and will need to use breathalyzers that provide a printout of results.
In an effort to combat corruption, road police will now have the right to use video and audio recording equipment while conducting a stop. In theory, this should prevent officers from taking bribes and keep drivers from starting a provocation with the militsiya. However, using the surveillance equipment will be optional, and the officers will be able to turn their recorders off and on at will.
The protocol also provides guidelines, previously unwritten, for how officers must act in the most common types of interactions with drivers. For instance, drivers pulled over for a moving violation will often tuck money into their documents before handing them to the STSI officer. Under the new rules, the militsiya officer must now immediately return the documents and ask that the driver remove their money.
Experts, however, are skeptical that the new protocol will prove useful. According to Viktor Pokhmelkin, the chairman of the Movement of Russian Motorists, corruption would be better resolved by a federal law, and not an administrative ordinance like the new regulations. “Otherwise, this is just the imitation of a battle with corruption,” he said.
The judicial system seems to lend its weight to Pokhmelkin’s arguments. Court statistics show that law enforcement officials are rarely brought to justice for bribery and corrupt practices, even in cases that seem open and closed.
The chairman of the St. Petersburg regional branch of the Committee for the Protection of Motorist Rights, Aleksandr Kholodov, believes the new protocol is no more than a reminder for militsiya officers. He told the Sobkor®ru news agency that the document simply repeats an earlier administrative order issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA of the RF Order No. 297 from 1999), with a few additions. Kholodov added that the new document has the same content in a different form, and as result does not carry any weight for dealing with corrupt officers. “The protocol does not add any new rights and obligations,” he said. “This is a technical document; it can only establish some kind of internal rules.”
As the RBK-Daily points out, the first federal department to release an administrative order was the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade (Minekonomrazvitiya), which started a sort of vogue among Russia’s administrative bodies. Now, every agency seems intent on releasing a new protocol for how its civil servants interact with citizens.
It remains to be seen whether the new rules will have any effect on corruption.
Nikolai II and Stalin top the list of famous Russians
An ongoing contest sponsored by Russia’s state-run Rossiya television channel has come back online after being temporarily suspended for technical reasons. Titled "Name of Russia: Historical Choice 2008", the competition asks ordinary Russians to vote for the most significant people in national history. So far, tsar Nikolai II stands in the lead, followed closely by Joseph Stalin.
Initially, some 500 politicians, public figures, spiritual leaders, scientists, artists, writers and other notables were put forward as candidates. Votes were then cast for the top 50 names on the contest’s website. So far, over 2.75 million votes have been recorded, although gauging the actual number of participants is difficult, since users may vote multiple times.
Starting in September, the top 12 “finalists” will be reviewed on the Rossiya channel. A final public vote will then take place in December.
An early lead was taken by Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin, with some sources claiming that organized online flash-mobs propelled the communist leaders into the top positions. After two weeks in the lead, Stalin was overtaken by tsar Nikolai II on July 15th, after competing groups staged their own flash-mobs. Musician and actor Vladimir Vysotsky and Peter the Great round off the top five.
The project’s chief executive producer, Alexei Golikov, downplayed the significance of the contest. “This is not a referendum,” he told Interfax, “this is an entertainment project with no political component.”
Still, some groups were anxiously awaiting the results. The St. Petersburg branch of the Communist Party has pledged to appeal to the Moscow Patriarchate and ask the Stalin be canonized, should he take first place in the contest. Sergei Malinkovich, the leader of the branch, spoke with the British Times newspaper:
“If he wins, we will ask the Russian Orthodox Church to consider canonizing Stalin. Lenin was a Communist for the Church, but Stalin was a real national leader. For us, he is like Napoleon is to the French.”
The move may be little more than an empty gesture. Stalin, who ordered the demolition of hundreds of Orthodox churches, is an unlikely choice for canonization by the Church.
–
Initially, some 500 politicians, public figures, spiritual leaders, scientists, artists, writers and other notables were put forward as candidates. Votes were then cast for the top 50 names on the contest’s website. So far, over 2.75 million votes have been recorded, although gauging the actual number of participants is difficult, since users may vote multiple times.
Starting in September, the top 12 “finalists” will be reviewed on the Rossiya channel. A final public vote will then take place in December.
An early lead was taken by Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin, with some sources claiming that organized online flash-mobs propelled the communist leaders into the top positions. After two weeks in the lead, Stalin was overtaken by tsar Nikolai II on July 15th, after competing groups staged their own flash-mobs. Musician and actor Vladimir Vysotsky and Peter the Great round off the top five.
The project’s chief executive producer, Alexei Golikov, downplayed the significance of the contest. “This is not a referendum,” he told Interfax, “this is an entertainment project with no political component.”
Still, some groups were anxiously awaiting the results. The St. Petersburg branch of the Communist Party has pledged to appeal to the Moscow Patriarchate and ask the Stalin be canonized, should he take first place in the contest. Sergei Malinkovich, the leader of the branch, spoke with the British Times newspaper:
“If he wins, we will ask the Russian Orthodox Church to consider canonizing Stalin. Lenin was a Communist for the Church, but Stalin was a real national leader. For us, he is like Napoleon is to the French.”
The move may be little more than an empty gesture. Stalin, who ordered the demolition of hundreds of Orthodox churches, is an unlikely choice for canonization by the Church.
–
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)