"Energy egotism is a road to nowhere"
Peter Morley (Russia Profile Discussion Group)
http://www.russiaprofile.org/cdi/2006/2/28/3330.wbp
http://www.russiaprofile.org/cdi/2006/2/28/3328.wbp
Wall Street Journal
By Vladimir V. Putin
Mr. Putin is president of Russia.
MOSCOW - The establishment of a reliable and comprehensive system of energy security is one of the strategic goals for the G-8 - of which Russia assumed the presidency in January - and the world community as a whole. Today, energy is an engine of social and economic progress. This is why it directly affects the well-being of billions of people around the globe. During the Russian presidency of the G-8, not only will we seek to develop fundamental approaches to meeting current challenges in this field, but also outline our coordinated policy for the long term.
Today, the lack of stability in the hydrocarbon markets poses a real threat to global energy supply. In particular, the gap between supply and demand continues to widen. The apparent increase in energy consumption in Asian countries is caused not only by market fluctuations but also by a host of other factors related to policy and security. In order to stabilize the situation in this field, coordinated activities of the entire world community are needed.
The new policy of the leading countries should be based on the understanding that the globalization of the energy sector makes energy security indivisible. Our common future in the area of energy means common responsibilities, risks and benefits.
In our view, it is especially important to develop a strategy for achieving global energy security. It should be based on a long-term, reliable and environmentally sustainable energy supply at prices affordable to both the exporting countries and the consumers. In addition to reconciling the interests of stakeholders in global energy interaction, we will have to identify practical measures aimed at ensuring sustainable access for the world economy to traditional sources of energy, as well as promoting energy-saving programs and developing alternative energy sources.
A balanced and fair energy supply is undoubtedly a pillar of global security at present and in the years to come. We ought to pass on to the future generations a world energy architecture that would help avoid conflicts and counterproductive competition for energy security. This is why it is essential to find common approaches to creating a solid and long-term energy base for our civilization.
In this connection, Russia calls on the G-8 countries and the international community to focus their efforts on developing innovative technologies.
This could serve as an initial step in creating a technological basis for mankind's energy supply in the future, when the energy potential in its present form is exhausted.
Global energy security will also benefit from an integrated approach to enhancing the energy efficiency of social and economic development. The G-8 made important progress toward elaborating this last year at Gleneagles, including, in particular, the adoption of a Plan of Action aimed at promoting innovation, energy saving and environmental protection. We find it crucially important to engage non-G-8 countries - especially fast-growing and industrializing economies - in G-8 initiatives and, particularly, in implementing the document adopted at Gleneagles.
The way most people see it, energy security has mainly to do with the interests of industrially developed countries. It should be kept in mind, however, that almost two billion people in today's world do not enjoy modern-day energy services, while many lack access even to electricity.
Their access to many benefits and advances of civilization has been virtually blocked.
Needless to say, energy alone would not solve the poverty problem. At the same time, lack of energy resources throughout different regions significantly hinders economic growth, while their unsustainable use may result in an ecological disaster on a global rather than local scale.
Lately, experts have been actively discussing ways of increasing energy use in developing countries through a more intensive development of unconventional energy sources. And this is where assistance rendered by the
G-8 in developing and introducing alternative power facilities becomes so important.
Generally speaking, all of us should recognize and admit that "energy egotism" in a modern and highly interdependent world is a road to nowhere.
Therefore, Russia's attitude toward energy security remains clear and unchanged. It is our strong belief that energy redistribution guided wholly by the priorities of a small group of the most-developed countries does not serve the goals and purposes of global development. We will strive to create an energy security system sensitive to the interests of the whole international community. Basically, all it takes is for mankind to create a balanced potential in order to provide every state with sustainable energy supply, and international cooperation opens all avenues for that. Russia is ready to contribute actively to further progress in this direction.
Financial Times
By Anatol Lieven
Summary prepared by Hayk Sargsyan of CDI
The writer is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington; his latest book is America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (OUP/Harper Collins)
A measure of western hostility to Russia is justified, given both the nature of Russian external policies and the crude, clumsy way in which they are often executed. Unfortunately, this hostility can take on an irrational and hysterical tone absent from western attitudes to China, for example.
In recent years one reason for this particular western attitude has been growing dislike of the semi-authoritarian character of the Putin administration. A good deal of hypocrisy is involved here. The west made no such criticisms of the undemocratic behaviour of the Yeltsin administration and its oligarch backers; and while western observers back pro-western liberal groups in Russia as "democrats", these are in fact supported by a small fraction of the electorate. This is above all because when in power, many of these liberals and their business allies both employed authoritarian measures and displayed open contempt for the interests, culture and even physical survival of the great majority of Russians. By contrast, all reputable opinion polls still show Vladimir Putin enjoys the support of a large majority of Russians. This too is understandable, given the way in which the economy has grown and living standards improved under his presidency.
In certain other countries, a semi-authoritarian approach to state-led capitalist development has worked extremely well. This is true of China today, and of South Korea and Taiwan over the past two generations. Mr. Putin seems to be trying to create a Russian state led by an administrative-security-economic elite roughly along such east Asian lines, and with certain analogies to that of military-dominated Turkey, or even aspects of the French system. But for every historical case where such attempts have worked, there have been two or three where this approach only leads to a new form of economically retrograde kleptocracy, in which the state elites, far from developing the economy, wreck it through a mixture of incompetence and looting.
Compared with other cases where this approach has succeeded, do the Russian state elites of Mr. Putin's vision have enough power over the economy to push through necessary reforms or are they in fact mostly still ruling indirectly through local oligarchies? Are they sufficiently honest to administer great corporations and manage state patronage while keeping their own greed within reasonable bounds? Are they modern and well-educated enough to imitate the east Asians and manage successfully both great corporations and the economy as a whole?
To ask these questions is not to say they have yet been conclusively answered in the negative. There are reasons for pessimism but also for guarded optimism. And before condemning Mr Putin's vision out of hand, we should also acknowledge that there was no doubt where Russia under Boris Yeltsin was headed: towards a permanently ruinous Filipino-style pseudo-democracy ruled by brutal and exploitative oligarchical clans. Mr. Putin may well fail, but it would be hard to argue seriously that the model he is trying to follow is worse than the Filipino one.
eugene...@comcast.net
A few weeks ago, Russia’s Defense Minister, Sergei Ivanov, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal titled “Russia Must Be Strong.” Addressing such hot topics as Russia’s doctrine of pre-emption and the plans for transformation of its military forces, the publication has attracted significant interest around the world. However, not everyone was pleased with the appearance of the WSJ article. Nezavisimaya Gazeta has responded with an article of its own (http://www.ng.ru/politics/2006-01-13/1_specoperation.html) arguing that for a politician of Ivanov’s rank, writing newspaper articles -- even for the respected WSJ – is highly improper and bordering bad taste, to say the least. Explaining why Ivanov wrote the article, NG has provided their readers with the following reason: to promote himself as President Putin’s successor ahead of Dmitry Medvedev.
If NG were to follow its logic, then President Putin’s article in the WSJ on February 28 – given Putin’s even higher rank in the Russia official hierarchy – should have been presented as a new low of impropriety and bad taste. And smart NG readers would have immediately guessed the reason behind Putin’s publication: his intention to stay in the Kremlin beyond 2008. Fortunately, common sense has prevailed in the NG editorial rooms, and the corresponding NG publication has just closely narrated Putin’s text.
What does Putin’s article actually say? Not much. Subtracting mandatory references to the responsibility of industrial nations vis-à-vis developing countries, the rest of Putin’s article could be summarized in a single punch line: “Global energy security” is “indivisible.” Translation: global energy security cannot be achieved without Russia. And if one realizes that the adjective “global” was chosen just for the occasion of the upcoming G8 summit, then the real message of Putin’s article is this: the world security cannot be achieved without Russia.
In one of my previous posts on this panel, I hailed the virtue of political symbolism. Now, it’s the turn of the virtue of political PR. Putin’s article is so important because it’s a rare occasion when the pillars of Russia’s policies are presented to the Western audience not by multiple critics of the “Putin regime” and not by its much less numerous “guarded” supporters as Anatol Lieven, but by a public Russian politician, the top one in this particular case. I repeat: not by a wizard from the American Enterprise, Hoover Institution, Heritage Foundation, CEIP, CFR, CDI, State, CIA, you name it – but by a Russian.
Obviously, such a hard currency as Putin cannot be used too often. The burden of explaining the curves and twists of the Russian political course to the rest of the world should fall on the shoulders of the people who constitute the above-mentioned “Putin regime”: members of his administration, ministers of his cabinet, and the officials of “his” United Russia party.
Saying it differently: the truth about Russia cannot be understood without Russians.
Regards to everyone,
Eugene Ivanov