The shorthand report of Vladislav Surkov’s speech before the Center of Party Studies and Cadre Training of United Russia attracted political experts. The deputy chief of the presidential administration clearly outlined the rivals of the party in the next general elections and urged United Russia to strive for political domination in the country within the next 10 years. Strana.ru asked the leading experts comment on the prospects of the United Russia Party.
Ivan Fedyakin, expert of the Center for Current Politics in Russia:
- To start with, I would like to note an important moment that the speech took place on February 7 but was published recently. This has a special meaning because we have to consider the background against which it is promulgated. The background is the approaching general and parliament elections in 2007-2008, and on the other hand – the talks of the probable successor of Vladimir Putin. It is even possible that the decision on who the successor will be can be made earlier than planned. Against this background, the speech of the presidential administration’s deputy chief Vladislav Surkov was published.
Traditionally, Vladislav Surkov is running parties, particularly United Russia and all its ideological issues too. In his speech, he voiced an integral ideological concept of the party. It is known that the ‘party of the power’ had problems with own ideology because it was trying to unite the biggest possible share of electorate. Now Surkov has come out with a clear ideological concept of Unit. In the first place, he juxtaposed this party to its political rivals. Surkov has practically positioned United Russia as a force that on the one hand has to be against isolationism, return to the Soviet Union and respective rhetoric. He noted that the United Russia Party should have nothing in common with fascists, those, who use nationalistic slogans in their interests. On the other hand, he said that it was necessary to prevent a revenge on oligarchs, because this, according to him, can lead to the immediate loss of Russia’s sovereignty and democracy.
The ‘salt boom’ in February that racketed in the central Russia merely out of nothing was so irrational that it can be explained only by the mysterious Russian soul.
However, the source of the panic in the Russian consumer market should be looked for in another place. Some people that are good judges of the Ukrainian policy remind us of the complex situation that our neighbors are in ahead of the election to the Supreme Rada. Regular Russians fell prey to the interior problems of the Ukrainian politics.
Currently the political shape of Ukraine for the nearest several years is being determined. In such situation, any remedies are good. The ‘Russian factor’ can play a key role in the final distribution of votes; that is why the entire complex of the uneasy relations between our states has become one of the most important elements of the election struggle and pre-election political PR.
The speech of V. Surkov at the meeting with the United Russia Party’s representatives is commented by Alexander Shatilov, head of the analytical department of the Center for Current Politics in Russia.
- What main theses of the speech could you point out?
- The main theses voiced by Vladislav Surkov at the meeting with United Russia had been worded earlier by him or other figures close to him. Today, the themes that were brought up, rigid and unambiguous definitions show that the elite group that Vladislav Surkov represents is trying to introduce an ideological platform for its activities and pose a strategy for the nearest future, when the election battle will be over and the ‘successor’ project will enter the final phase. Surkov represents the interests of the so-called ‘liberals’ clan; that is why he is trying to draw an intellectual platform for the activities of his fellow officials. The main goal of the ongoing reforms, according to Surkov, is the establishment of sovereign democracy. This means an attempt to create a conservative symbiosis, a regime when Russia, on the one hand, does not refuse from the liberal heritage and democracy principles, but on the other, makes democracy more controllable by the state.
Apparatus wars in the Cabinet of Ministers become more aggravated, but Mikhail Fradkov keeps his position.
There is no agreement among Russian ministers. Last weeks German Gref and Alexey Kudrin criticized their head Mikhail Fradkov. Moreover, the Prime Minister was ill and then resignation of three assistants of the head of the government took place. Within the elite discussions again started concerning probability of his resignation. However, in all appearance, in the near future there will be no serious political changes in the Cabinet of Ministers. In opinion of observers, a “successor” will have to change Fradkov, and the presidential elections will be held only in two years.
The illness of Prime Minister provoked new powerful wave of rumours about his resignation. According to various versions, two weeks ago Mikhail Fradkov did not come to work and could not hold a meeting of the government because of diabetes or cold. First vice-Premier Dmitry Medvedev, considered as one of the main candidates for both “successors” and the position of Prime Minister, held the meeting instead of him.
The ground for resignation seems to be ready. Just take into consideration permanent quarrels and conflicts between Fradkov and his “liberal” subordinates – head of the Ministry of economic development German Gref and Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin. They often and demonstratively criticize the government. Initially Gref showed public disregard of idea of GDP doubling by 2010, and Fradkov publicly made him rewrite the program of social-economic development. Tempers ran high again, when the governmental apparatus offered to reduce VAT by 13%. In this situation Kudrin did not keep silence… As a result the idea of VAT reduction was included in the governmental middle-term program by 2008, and then Gref and Kudrin, being abroad, again told what they thought about their head.
Alexander Shatilov, head of the analytical department of the Center for Current Politics:
Besides a number of economic interests, the gas conflict undoubtedly had a political component. Both foreign policy component and domestic one. Especially it concerns Russia.
On the one hand, there was an attempt to use energy means as a probable instrument of pressure on the post-Soviet space. In this respect it is significant that in some time Vladimir Putin designated energy policy of Russia and its activization as a priority in the near perspective.
On the other hand, during the “gas war” some representatives of the Russian elite also tried to show power with respect to the neighbors and thus increase their political capital. In particular, it concerns the group of so called “siloviki”, who tries to use that confrontation for increasing influence within the country.
In my opinion, the gas conflict seriously damaged both Ukrainian and Russian reputation, particularly in the eye of the international community.
On the one hand, the West is hardly interested in the Russian-Ukrainian confrontation. Europe needs bought energy resources. Correspondently, irregularity of deliveries causes negative reaction towards both Russia (which used this means of pressure upon Ukraine untimely) and the “orange republic” (which shamelessly takes away European gas). Therefore in international aspect both sides lost.
The President broke all the records. His press conference was lasting for 3 hours 26 minutes. Director of the Center for Current Politics in Russia Konstantin Simonov is giving an interview to the broadcasting station “Mayak”.
- Konstantin Vasilievich, in your opinion, is there the main topic you would like to discuss? Simonov: There was a wide range of issues. Perhaps, it was good that there were no sensations, because we live in a normal, boring, civilized country, at last.
- A wonderful message has been sent to our pager: “:I am always proud of our Motherland, Russia. But today I am proud of our President as well”, Valentina Ivanovna wrote. That is the result of audience perception of the press conference. In your opinion, to what degree was this conference directed to the outside-audience, foreign and Russian mass media?
Simonov: I think that traditionally President’s speeches have both internal and external parts. Therefore I would not say that only foreign policy or domestic issues prevailed. It is quite reasonable when a leader of the state speaks about the agenda on both foreign and domestic policy. We see the list of main issues discussed. That was economic policy, tax policy, political future of the country, parliamentary republic and the future of the President. That is the President dealt with rather wide range of domestic policy issues. So we have a lot to think about.
But on the other hand, much attention was paid to foreign policy concerning Ukraine, to which the President returned twice, Georgia, upcoming summit, Uzbekistan, even Cyprus, and the President told about the Cyprian direction of our foreign policy. In total, he managed to broach a rather wide range of issues for 3,5 hours. I would not divide toughly whether it was for foreign or domestic audience.
- As for me, it was unexpected that when Putin evaluated the former epoch, Yeltsin’s epoch and Yeltsin’s figure, he said the most important (and as there was no listing) was that the country was got freedom. And then he returned to this notion “freedom” answering other questions, saying that freedom is a condition for development of the country. Why? I realize it is a deliberate emphasis. Why there was need to tell about it today, in you opinion?
Simonov: There are a lot of discussions relating worsening of situation with human rights and freedom. And we know that it causes lots of critical comments, especially in western mass media. Therefore I think it is reasonable that the Russian President returned to this topic. I’d like to mention again that it is impossible to think of Russia in the terms of the authoritarian state. There are many myths about Russia, as it was in the former times. Now new myths are created. I think it is reasonable that the President told about it.
But I’d like to return to the topic of succession and the future, about what we have just told. In fact, the President did not say anything new. Well, he said he did not regard himself as a businessman. But he did not say about his possible occupation, notwithstanding this topic was raised time and again: he was asked about the name of his successor and his possible return to St.-Petersburg. But the President does not answer what he will do in the perspective.
Though in fact several moments have been cleared up. It is not only the situation with Gazprom. I’d like to mention the phrase of the President that it is early to transit to the parliamentary model, when the party appoints the prime minister possessing lots of powers. Do you remember that there were many speculations about Putin’s preparations from the president regime to the parliamentary one, he wants to become prime minister and so on. I hope this topic has been closed. We remember that before in September the topic of “the third term” has been exhausted. Today he did not lack about it, but I hope that the only reason was lots of discussions at the end of the last year. Therefore there are possibilities for considerations on the future of the President: whether he will head a political party, what his future will be like. Therefore I believe there are questions unanswered today. But perhaps it is not bad.
Interview of the Director General of the Center for Current Politics in Russia Konstantin Simonov to a reporter of the Russian Office of Islamic Republic of Iran.
- How can you comment on the situation around the Iran nuclear program?
Simonov: I believe that the situation around Iran has not yet clear out. That is why in the nearest time the issue or the so-called ‘Iran file’ will be discussed in the UN Security Council. And despite the meeting in London, it is hard to see how this will all end. Especially considering that UN, particularly the Security Council is not guaranteeing the international right anymore, the main role here will be played by the Iran’s point of view on how the situation around Iran should develop. I think that the main question here is whether the countries that do not want an armed conflict in Iran manage to convince the United States that such a serious and dramatic decision is unproductive. That is why I believe that the important thing is the unity between the four countries of the Security Council aimed at persuading the US to abandon such scenario. However, there is also the US that might act in defiance of the international right, which happened during the Iran conflict. The US position is becoming more rigid. Of course, the US interests in this region and the willingness to stoke up a conflict with Iran are very well known.
2006 will pass under the badge of continuing preparation of two main political clans for the presidential elections. This means they will keep on accumulating resources necessary for victory in the struggle for presidential position. It inevitably makes new notorious amalgamations and acquisitions in oil and gas complex more probable. It cannot be excluded that “silovye” companies will seek to get closer to each other. In this context, amalgamation of Rosneft and Surgutneftegaz does not look fantastical. Rosneft will increase its capitalization and Surgutneftegaz’s owners will become minority shareholders in the state company planning to pass IPO next year.
For the Russian “siloviki” controlling Rosneft, IPO procedure (introduction to the market of company’s shares that have been sold neither at the stock market nor the OTC market) pursues two aims. Economic aim is to get possibilities to pay off the credit of $7.5 bln., given by western banks for buying 10.74% of Gazprom’s shares, due to placement of minority shareholding at the exchange. Rosneft has to pay off the debts of Rosneftegaz, on the books of which there are shares of the oil company and gas monopoly. For the whole last year Rosnegtegaz was paying off to Gazprom. The first tranche of 16,2 bln. rub. had being paid by July 23, the third one – 166,37 bln. rub. will have been transferred by December 25. In total Gazprom will get 180.93 bln. rub. of the sum of the transaction. (22, 57 bln. will be divided as an additional profits tax). Thus, the state proceeds transferring Gazprom under control of the state, which is a condition of liberalization of its shares in the eye of the West.
Yesterday vice-premier of the government Dmitry Medvedev paid a visit to the United Russia Party in order to explain to the party administration what the national projects are and how they should be introduced to the electors. Medvedev became the second official after the deputy chief of the presidential administration Vladislav Surkov to carry out the educational seminar for the United Russia. According to experts, Medvedev-official is turning into Medvedev-politician.
The office of the central executive CMTE of United Russia that held the 'seminar in the framework of the party studies for the federal category audience of the first stage' was attended by the top party officials, State Duma deputies, senators – around 80 people in all. "The seminar stipulates not some sort of directives but a discussion, - explained chief of the central executive CMTE Andrei Vorobiev. – At first, the main speaker will take 10-15 minutes for his report, then follow questions and answers." Medvedev was accompanied by Education and Science Minister Andrei Fursenko and Minister for the Regional Development Vladimir Yakovlev, as well as Vladislav Surkov, who also taught the United Russia members last year. He told of the political reform and the increase of the political parties' role.
The fuel crisis in Ukraine led to the government fault
The gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine wound up on January 4 2006: Gazprom and 'Naftogaz of Ukraine' signed a five years contract. At the press conference, chiefs of the companies Aleksei Miller and Aleksei Ivchenko claimed they were satisfied with the decision that they reached.
Official Moscow believes that the signed contract can be considered successful. Each party got what it wanted: Russia – the right to sell the blue fuel to Ukraine at $230 a thousand cubic meters, Ukraine – the opportunity to receive continuous energy carrier. The most important result, as emphasized by the negotiating sides, the parties managed to move on to the transparent, market system of commercial cooperation.
According to the former rules, as a fine for providing its territory for the Russian pipe to Europe, Ukraine collected 15-17% of the entire running gas. If such system preserved, considering the new prices ($230), the transit tariffs would increase almost three and a half times for Gazprom. However, according to the new contract, they increased only 1.5 times – from $1.09 to $1.6. And will stay on this level for the next five years. The price of the Russian gas for Ukraine will be changing respectively to the market conditions. Today it is $230, while Ukraine calculated that it should be $95.
