Glamour instead of policy

Last week was marked by the state visit of Nicholas Sarkozy and his wife to the UK. This visit was widely reported by national newspapers and sparked much buzz about a new era in Anglo-French relations.
Mr. Sarkozy delivered a speech about virtues of British people and referred to our Parliament as historical ancestor to other democratic institutes. He heaped praise on British resolve during WW2 and wanted to look like an Anglophile. In fact, he is one. Gordon Brown didn't lag behind and promised a new "Entente formidable" with French. Carla Bruni tried to look like First Lady should look like and to put her rather frivolous past behind. Many journalists and members of public were fascinated by her glamour and now she enjoys some kind of admiration by British public.
Yet it seems like another example of emotion taking over sensible analysis. Should we actually scrutinise what Mr. Sarkozy has done in France over the last year and what he offers to his partners both here and in the US, we would be surprised. Because for all his talk during the election season about new France and the greatest reforms in our generation, he abstained from realisation of his programme. Having encountered the powerful resistance of France's almighty unions, he clearly prefers not to make any decisive moves. His dithering though has had a negative impact on his poll ratings because now he is criticised from both sides of political spectrum. For left wing he is dangerous liberal reformist and for right wing he is ditherer not fulfilling his promises.
As for his talk about bigger NATO involvement of France it is noteworthy that he wants it on French conditions. As it was noted by American experts Sarkozy wants France to have voice in NATO decision process. This may lead to possible rifts and arguments within NATO when France would act versus plans of Britain and the US. Also France wants by its involvement in NATO to be the main pillar of European defence forces and to influence European defence policy. And here we come to another important point. Mr. Sarkozy is very fond of European Union and he wants to further the integration during his spell as President of the EU Council. He denied his own voters a vote on the Lisbon treaty and it seems he will do his utmost to write his name in history of the EU. He has some Napoleonic ambitions and his policies may lead to conflict with other EU members. Angela Merkel was already angered by Sarkozy's proposal of "Mediterranean Union" and this might be just the first sign of Paris falling out with major European powers.
While Carla wooed British public, her husband tried to woo his Anglo-Saxon partners. But we should understand the true reasons of his policy and to follow his actual deeds. For it seems there were many right words but no right deeds. With his promises not fulfilled, his slumping ratings and looming financial crisis, his private life being opened to public doesn't add much gravitas to his person. Yet people were more interested here in wardrobe of Sarkozy's wife than in his policies just as people across the pond are more inclined to hear lofty rhetoric than analyse sensible reform proposals. As for me, I prefer Obama's speeches to glamour of Carla Bruni. At least, they have some political meaning.
In this time of emotions and mood running the world we should use our brains to make our future. We should be cautious and consider all options. Therefore we shouldn't' be deceived by Sarkozy's apparent addiction to Anglo-Saxons for he is trying to push his own agenda - so we should guard our interests. As for Mr. Sarkozy, it would be better for him if he tried to refrain from posturing and restrain his ambitions and actually do the reforms he promised. For if even leaders don't keep their promises, how on earth can people trust politicians again?

Race matters

Last Tuesday Democratic front-runner Barack Obama delivered a brilliant speech on race issue. It was the first time when he addressed this issue in such an eloquent, insightful and personal manner. I am not a supporter of Obama nor do I think he will make a good president but the words were so professionally chosen that one just couldn't disagree with his message.
At first I read his speech in full and after that I watched it on YouTube.

Yes, his oratory skills somehow struck even me, non-American. And it is absolutely clear why so many people consider him the best candidate in their lifetime. He perfectly mastered the words to make his point understandable and at the same time to inspire the people he addressed to.
But there is something that you will see only after scrupulous analysis of what he actually said. He properly described black anger and white resentment, he properly underscored remaining inequalities. But he still didn't say substance. The most certain policy-oriented passage that I have found was:

Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

Here he wants to talk about deeds but still he refers to uncertain ladders of opportunity that obviously represent an absolute good but don't transform to detailed policy proposals.
Another point of his speech that struck me in his choice of words was:

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life.

This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag.

We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

Do you notice what "we" want in his opinion? "We" want to talk about this, talk about that - but what about doing this or that?
We don't want to talk, we want to do. If Mr. Obama doesn't understand it, then he isn't the person who we need as President of the United States. His rhetoric can not save us from a looming economic crisis. Now we need not words but deeds, policy proposals, contingency plans and strategic vision.
All generations want change. Americans are tired of Washington politics and Mr. Obama represents novelty in American politics. But speeches and words can't steer country from the dangerous situation with two wars and an economic crisis at hand. Mr. Obama is right when he talks about unity of black and white middle-class and working people in face of mighty corporations and credit crunch. But this unity should express itself in form of policy blueprints and reform proposals and not in form of fanatic rallying around one man who hadn't yet proved his political efficiency.
Mr. Obama considers his campaign as change but if this is all the change he offers voters should turn away from him and turn to more reasonable candidates. We want change but we will not accept as change inexperienced President running the world's leading economic and military power. Mr. Obama didn't repudiate his pastor who in his sermons said "God Damn America" and even compared Rev. Wright with his grandmother. Thus he supports the man who hates America and while he explicitly rejected Wright's views he still didn't answer the question why he hadn't challenged his minister on these issues before.
And here we come to the conclusion. Race issue is very complicated and Mr. Obama showed a considerable bravery addressing this issue. But complexity of this theme forced him to use abstract words not leading to any reasonable policy proposals. The analysis of his speech led me to the point that undermines his perceived bravery. What is more admirable: to address a complex issue but do it in a way that doesn't give away any concrete thoughts or not to address this issue at all?
So if you want to see some real change in the way of doing things and not in the way of pronouncing them, turn away from Mr. Obama. He still hasn't proved his ability to conjure reasonable policy proposals and to make them real. Maybe, he is too young for it. But if you want to see an experienced seasoned man in the White House, you should turn to John McCain.

Clinton comeback

So, yes, we are entitled to follow the Democratic race for another couple of months. After Hillary won popular vote both in Ohio and Texas, it seems that we will even be forced to wait till August and the Democratic convention to know who will secure the nomination.
John McCain won in all four states that voted yesterday and was endorsed today by President Bush. Now Mr. McCain can focus on uniting Republicans behind himself t get ready for the final showdown in November. The victory of Mrs. Clinton guaranteed that Democratic candidates will continue fighting each other and thus making life easier for John McCain.
Mr. Obama was heavily criticised by Mrs. Clinton in the past few days. He was pushed to the wall by questions over his dealings with Tony Rezko, a businessman and a donor to his campaign, who is currently under trial over fraud charges. Also a leaked memo on NAFTA spelt bad news for Obama. In this memo a senior Canadian official says that one of the Obama's economic advisers has said to him that Obama's criticism of NAFTA was "just politics". The issue of NAFTA is very important for such states as Ohio where the free-trade agreement is blamed for big job losses. Once more the question was raised about the Obama's campaign: there's real difference between speeches and deeds, isn't it?
So we return to the core issue of this election: can a messianic message and lofty rhetoric substitute experience and substance? Here in the UK people know, for certain, they can't. Inspiration is very important, indeed, I shall say that we really need it (especially, from Gordon Brown because he really likes to figure the details rather than grasp the spirit). But they should go together - inspiration and policy. This mixture - vision and substance, insight and seriousness, rhetoric and policy, words and deeds - is what we need from our politicians in the hectic life of modern world.

Russian presidential election – outside perspectives

Today is the big election day in Russia. Millions of Russians are going to polling booths to cast their vote. While there is almost no doubt that the chosen Putin’s successor Dmitry Medvedev will won the poll, this election still attracts a considerable interest.

The big question is whether Medvedev as President will overthrow his mentor, Putin, and use the constitutional power of presidency to run the country in his own way? By now there are no signs of him conceiving that. He has worked with Putin since the beginning of the 90s when they came across each other in St. Petersburg mayor headquarters. When Putin became Prime Minister of Russia in 1999 he took Mr. Medvedev with him in Moscow. President Putin continued care for Medvedev and made him the chief man behind social reforms in last years, the so-called ‘national projects’ that were met with enthusiasm by Russian society shattered by social anarchy of Yeltsin years. For several years Medvedev along with Sergei Ivanov, Russian former defence minister, was considered as one of possible successors to Putin. A few months ago, the decision was taken and Medvedev was publicly endorsed by Putin to run for President. The ensuing presidential campaign underscored the continuity of Putin’s policy that was shored up by victory of Putin’s United Russia in parliamentary elections in December. The campaign of United Russia was based on notorious ‘Plan of Putin’ that was never seen by the majority of Russian voters but was nonetheless unequivocally supported in the poll. The magic word ‘Putin’ and the perception that he has some kind of plan for Russia’s future worked perfectly. They work today too. On the streets of Russian cities one can see various posters depicting Putin and Medvedev together and suggesting Medvedev’s role more as running mate to Putin than actual candidate for presidency.

Victory for Medvedev seems unquestionable. The opposition candidates are miserable figures comprising old Communist Zyuganov, ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky and Bogdanov, previously unknown liberal politician who was, as many commentators suggest, covertly endorsed by Kremlin to discredit the liberal opposition. Medvedev refused to participate in debates with other candidates and has received more air time than other presidential hopefuls. By constant reporting of Medvedev’s speeches and meetings with voters by state-owned media it sometimes seems that nothing is going on in the country ‘except Medvedev’.

To make victory seem more ‘legitimate’ Kremlin will try to fix the poll stuffing ballot boxes with ballots filled in for Medvedev by personal of polling stations and ordering public-sector workers and dependents (doctors, teachers, students etc.) to vote for him. This will make Medvedev’s lead in final results more formidable and secure.

What should do the West in the aftermath of this sham election? Medvedev’s ties with Putin are very strong and although he made some liberal statements in the past, now he moves along the Putin’s lines. He supported the closure of British Council regional offices saying that these offices are rammed with spies. He was running the state corporation Gazprom and so he is responsible for using energy cut-offs as means of reaching political objectives.

Western politicians, and the Conservative party in particular, should not have false hopes about his liberal inclinations. British government should deal with him and Putin robustly and resolutely making the point of British national interests while understanding Russian interests.

Although Russia undergoes resurrection on the world stage, she still isn’t as strong as she tries to look like. Russian conscript army is inefficient, Russian economy is over-reliant on resources and though Putin has tightened his grip on the country, various social protest movements are emerging that are uneasy about high inflation, low pensions, corrupt bureaucracy and ineffective social policy. Russia depends on the West as much as the West depends on Russia and even more. Russian elite can not more imagine its life without London clubs, Paris shops or Milan fashion. Still this elite along with bureaucracy is the main pillar on which stands Putin’s popularity for these people amassed a huge wealth under Putin’s regime.

Russian rulers understand that Russia’s future lies with Europe – because of that they are still trying to represent Russia as a democracy and do not use the authoritarian Chinese model. It is often said that throughout history Russian leaders were much more pro-European than their own subjects. Putin postures against the UK and the US but this is the residue of the Cold War that is still being waged in minds of many Russians after humiliation of the Yeltsin era and this is the cause why Putin’s confrontational policy is popular. But Russians will understand that the greatest threat to the country will come not from old Europe or the faltering US but from resurgent power of China and anarchy of Muslim world. This means that the West may still forge an alliance with Russia while defending its own interests. Russia may be the British ally in fight with Islamic fundamentalism and may become a reliable source of various resources to diminish British dependency on Islamic world.

The common misconception is that you either love and yield to Russia or hate and wage war with her. But there is the third way – you can deal with Russia to the benefit of both sides. This is what the Conservative Party should do if they form a government after the next election.

Middle East mistranslation

All big media organisations broke today with news of Israeli minister warning Palestinians of looming Holocaust. It was reported by Times (under inflammatory title "Israel threatens to unleash 'holocaust' in Gaza), Daily Telegraph and other news outlets. What did happen was actually this. Matan Vilnai, Israeli deputy defence minister, used the term 'shoah' speaking of consequences of continuing missile attacks on Israel from Gaza. "The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said. This was either mistranslated or misunderstood as a statement of ensuing holocaust for the Palestinians. While the term 'Ha-Shoah' means the Holocaust in modern Hebrew, a shoah has a literal meaning of catastrophe or disaster. The Israeli Government made this point clearly in a statement it issued to mitigate the impact from alleged misunderstanding. It said that Mr Vilnai meant 'disaster' and was not referring to the genocide. However it was too late to stop supporters of Hamas who used Vilnai's words to make their point of the genocide being exercised upon the Palestinians. They compared Israelis with Nazis while deliberately forgetting that it was their stubborn position and interminable war against the Jewish state that led to current sufferings of people in Gaza. From the beginning of the year more than one hundred missiles were fired from Gaza at adjacent Jewish towns like Sderot and Ashkelon. However this has not received much media attention and Hamas statement was reported by major news agencies along with some horrific pictures of Israeli 'atrocities' in Gaza on this week.
Yet this issue deserves putting in wider context. The considerable inclination by Palestinians and their Western supporters to see Israelis as modern Nazis is disturbing. Europe has been a home for the most terrifying genocides in recent history and now many Europeans feel guilty for their countries' involvement in these atrocities. But considering Israelis as Nazis and Israel as an apartheid state makes this guilty less uneasy. This is fostered by Muslim population in Europe that makes its own case for fight with 'racist Zionists'. Unlike the US where Jewish electorate still has a considerable influence over foreign policy, in Europe it is Muslims that stand by their ideas and have a share of votes.
The biggest question is whether we want to be on one side with Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists or with the single democratic state in the Middle East, whether we want to reject our allies and support our bitter enemies? It is whether we want to stand together as the Free World or to bow under barbarism and cruelty (and it refers not only to Islamic but to religious fundamentalism and terrorism altogether). This is the question that needs an urgent answer. And we should hope that self-deprecation wouldn't occupy the minds of our politicians and the answer will be the right one.