MOSCOW, May 11 (RIA Novosti) Putin hints at third term/ Europe and Gazprom/ Russian plans to sell rubles to central banks/ Georgia, Ukraine and the CIS/ Kadyrov's campaign against Alkhanov/ Trial by jury after Klebnikov murder case
(RIA Novosti does not accept responsibility for the articles in the press)
Vedomosti, Vremya Novostei
Putin sets new objectives for third presidential term
Experts who analyzed Russian President Vladimir Putin's May 10 state of the nation address said only he could accomplish the ambitious objectives set out in the speech by serving another term in office.
Alexander Dugin, director of the Center for Geopolitical Expertise, said Putin's address included a long-term national-development strategy for decades, and his successor may fail to accomplish its objectives. "The presidential address formulates a policy for the next decade and the people will now demand that Putin implement this strategy of continuity," he said. Political scientist Gleb Pavlovsky said the Russian electorate saw no alternative to Putin.
Political scientist Dmitry Badovsky of the Social Systems Research Institute said the address hinted at a third term for Putin. "The president pointed to the low level of trust in the state authorities and the business community in his address," he said. "But he counterposed himself to the entire political system and let it be understood that he was the only guarantor of its stability."
Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Kremlin-linked Politika Foundation, said Putin had not given up the search for his successor. "The president focused on two priorities: the demographic situation and the defense-industry situation. This proves that either Dmitry Medvedev or Sergei Ivanov should now be considered as his successors," Nikonov told the paper.
Gazeta.ru
Europe unable to kick Gazprom - experts
The Kremlin has been insisting that its energy policy is in no way politicized and corresponds to market rules 100%. Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko almost quoted word for word recent statements by President Vladimir Putin when he spoke about European politicians' lack of objectivity on energy security. The European Union is doubtful and recommends its members to diversify gas supplies. However, experts say, Europe is unable to kick gas giant Gazprom so far.
Analysts side with the Russian authorities in their argument with the EU. "The European Union has made a mistake by calling Gazprom Russia's foreign policy weapon," said analyst Anton Rubtsov from the Ray, Man & Gor Securities brokerage. "True, the monopoly is controlled at the highest level, with the president himself as its chief lobbyist. But this is not politics: the Kremlin focuses on Russia's foreign policy interests, which interweave with the economic interests of Gazprom itself," he said.
"Naturally, there is some politicization, and Russia is pursuing its own political goals, but no more than the European Union is following its own," said Alexei Kormshchikov from the Uralsib financial corporation. "Europe seeks low gas prices and stable gas deliveries and is resorting to political pressure."
Rubtsov agrees with Khristenko, who had criticized a number of countries for blocking Gazprom from their gas distribution networks: "It is unclear why Europe is blocking Gazprom from delivering gas directly to customers. Such efforts run counter to Europeans' previous statements on a free gas market," he said.
Experts are critical of the EU's chances of reducing its dependency on Russian gas. "It has been difficult to find an alternative to Gazprom deliveries," Rubtsov said. "But even if they find one, Russia has markets that need gas. These are America and the Asia-Pacific region. I am sure a number of European countries, primarily Germany, will not refuse Russian gas," the expert said.
Biznes
Russian Finance Ministry to sell rubles to central banks
Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed Wednesday that the ruble become a convertible hard currency from July 1, 2006, rather than in 2007.
Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said several countries would soon accumulate reserve rubles on a par with the U.S. dollar, the euro and the Japanese yen. Analysts partially agreed with Kudrin, but said central banks were unlikely to invest over $50 billion in the ruble in the following few years.
Kudrin said China, the world leader in international reserves [over $875 billion], was a likely client, and that several CIS and European countries would also buy rubles.
Vladimir Pantyushin, senior economist with Renaissance Capital, said China could convert part of its reserves into rubles and invest less in the dollar. Pantyushin said CIS states would also start buying Russian rubles.
Trust Investment Bank economist Yevgeny Nadorshin said European banks would have no reason to buy rubles unless Russian companies' European partners requested them. Vladimir Tikhomirov, an economist with the Uralsib financial corporation, said countries buying Russian raw materials could eventually invest in the ruble. Tikhomirov said the list of prospective clients included Eastern Europe, Germany, Italy, France and, possibly, the United Kingdom.
"Demand for rubles will not exceed $30-50 billion in the next few years because Russia's share in global trade is only 2-3%," Tikhomirov told the paper.
Nadroshin said $10 billion due to be purchased by the European Central Bank was a large sum. Pantyushin said it would take at least five years to enhance trust in the ruble and that Russia could channel more money into the economy, increase the ratio of money supply to the GDP and reduce inflation if this happened.
Moskovsky Komsomolets
Georgia will withdraw from CIS sooner or later
Georgia and Ukraine have announced they may leave the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), but their situations are radically different, Mikhail Aleksandrov, head of the Caucasus department at the Institute of the CIS, told popular daily Moskovsky Komsomolets.
Ukrainians are against withdrawing from the CIS; the eastern parts of the country will not support the idea, which could deepen the social divide.
But Georgia has long positioned itself outside the CIS. Its behavior contradicts the norms and principles sealed in the CIS charter. In fact, nothing will change if Georgia withdraws.
Aleksandrov writes that the issue of Georgia's conduct should be raised at the next CIS summit.
First, the CIS documents stipulate the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. But Georgia supported "color revolutions" in other CIS countries, in particular the revolutions in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and its intervention in the elections in Belarus was particularly flagrant. Georgia adopted political statements in support of the opposition and its officials even raised the issue of military assistance.
Second, Georgia and Ukraine (although Ukraine is acting more cautiously) are creating structures alternative to and rivaling the CIS - GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia and Moldova) and the Democratic Choice Community. In other words, they are trying to implode the CIS.
Third, Georgia is trying to frighten its "neighbors" - the self-proclaimed republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - by threatening to use military force against them. It creates obstacles to peace operations there and demands the withdrawal of peacekeepers, which runs contrary to CIS principles.
And fourth, Georgia has adopted a clear policy of integration in the Euro-Atlantic structures, notably NATO. Unlike the Ukrainian public, Georgians welcome this policy, which will be most probably reaffirmed at a referendum. No country can be a member of both NATO and the CIS, which means that Georgia will have to withdraw from the CIS, sooner or later.
Nezavisimaya Gazeta
Kadyrov uses sociologists to fight Alkhanov
A conflict between Chechen President Alu Alkhanov and his Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov is intensifying.
The Chechen Ministry of the National Policy, the Press and Information has sent to republican officials a form with seven questions, which boil down to one thing: Who is more respected, Alkhanov or Kadyrov?
The poll came as a complete surprise to the presidential team. His press secretary Said-Magomed said it was "an attempt to drive a wedge between the supporters of the president and of the prime minister."
"It can only conditionally be described as a poll, because the project clearly has a political objective," said Alexander Oslon, head of the Public Opinion foundation.
"The poll will not be objective if its results are approved by officials and not independent experts," said Emma Rifert, deputy director of the Institute of Social Marketing, an independent Russian research organization.
"Ramzan is losing a sense of proportion because he is in a hurry," said Alexei Malashenko of the Moscow Carnegie Center. "The republic is in transition, and Moscow has not yet made a final decision. There are the supporters of both the president and the prime minister of Chechnya in the Kremlin. Kadyrov does not have a strategy; he is acting impulsively whenever he thinks he has a chance to topple Alkhanov."
"This struggle, whatever its outcome, is extremely harmful to Chechnya and Moscow," the expert said. "'Chechenization' was launched to attain a degree of unity between the Chechens who support Moscow. As a result, we have created a situation where Alkhanov has become the most consistent supporter of the federal center, whereas power and energy come from Kadyrov."
Novye Izvestia
Klebnikov acquittal raises new jury debate
The debate on the future of trial by jury in Russia was raised to hew heights after a Moscow jury acquitted the accused in the murder case of Paul Klebnikov, the American editor of Forbes Russia, according to popular daily Novye Izvestia.
Statistically, juries acquit over 20% of defendants, a large percentage compared with less than 1% acquitted by professional judges. Experts warn juries often comprised of pensioners or unemployed are sensitive to all kinds of pressure.
Prosecutors and police are firmly against juries.
"Jurors are ordinary people, which means they are not protected against pressure and influences," a special agent at Moscow prosecutor's office said on condition of anonymity, "All you need to do is to approach a juror with a pistol in one hand and a $100 bill in the other and ask them to 'judge as they see morally fit.'"
Defending attorneys dismiss this view.
"I am staunchly in favor of peoples' justice," said Mikhail Barshchevsky, an attorney representing the federal government in the constitutional court. "Juries really give defendants the benefit of the doubt, something professional judges often take no notice of."
"Jurors are guided by their conscience, the lack of which is something of a judge's professional ailment. Judges care little about moral arguments," said Genri Reznik, a prominent lawyer and attorney.
"This does not necessarily mean that jurors are too lenient and emotionally susceptible to attorney's rhetoric. A jury's decision is 95% the result of the cross examination. Emotions won't count if the case for the prosecution is strong enough."
"All arguments against juries do not mean that trial by jury is a bad institution," said Lyudmila Karnuzova, a senior research fellow at the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"The problem lies in the public perception of the legal system. There will be problems with juror bribery and intimidation until people start respecting justice. There is little you can do about this," she said.
