MUNICH
SECURITY CONFERENCE IS REALLY ALL ABOUT WIDESPREAD INSECURITY
This time
around the mid-February Munich Conference virtually cemented the broadening
rupture in the security arrangements that existed between something that
habitually is called the West on one side and Russia/China/Iran on the other.
Within that rupture a growing split between the US and so-called "old
Europe" (France, Germany and Italy) was also prominently pronounced in
Munich. Long-time observers noted that Chancellor Merkel’s speech was one of
her strongest ever. Her frontal attack on the US on trade matters was unusual
in its directness.
 |
| Chancellor Merkel at the Munich Security Conference, February 16th ©Munich Security Conference |
During the
most dangerous and challenging turns of the Cold War like the Berlin Crisis
(1961), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and in 1983 when the US and the USSR
came very close to a full blown nuclear confrontation, there was a system of
agreements, checks and diplomatic structures that not only prevented a hot war
from unfolding, but managed to cut the nuclear arsenals of the US and the Soviet
Union from 40,000 nuclear warheads to 8,000. This system is in shambles for
various geopolitical reasons like the rise of nuclear states as India,
Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and also the rapid and astonishing ascent of
China, but in many ways due to the erratic, bombastic and somewhat neanderthal
policies of Donald Trump. In the very case of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces
Treaty, the past practice of trying to work out differences has, for the US,
been replaced by simply walking out of the arrangement.
One of less
noticeable outcomes of this year’s Munich Conference is that discord between
the US and Old Europe has brought about even more disagreements and disharmony
among Europeans in general.
--o--
KOREA
UPDATE
 |
| Presidents Kim Jong-un and Trump Hanoi, February 27th |
When even
before his summit meeting with Kim Jong-un began President Trump said “I’m in
no rush”, journalists should have started thinking about cancelling their extra
hotel nights in Hanoi. It should have been clear that none of the preparatory
work had been completed that could lead to a deal at the summit in Vietnam.
Kim has dismantled
a nuclear test site and implemented a moratorium on nuclear and ballistic
missile tests. He has received in exchange two meetings with the US President.
Before he will make another concession on de-nuclearisation, he needs something
in return. That would be most likely a softening of the sanctions against his
country. Trump is in no position to offer anything significant as he seems to
have taken an “all-or-nothing” approach: only complete de-nuclearisation would
justify the lifting of sanctions. His political and security establishment
would pillory him even more should he appear to make a concession to North
Korea. Trump’s thoughtless comment about Kim not knowing about the torture of a
US student has already put him in enough trouble already. An incremental
approach to break the current deadlock would need a lot more work by Secretary
of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor Bolton, both at home and in
direct negotiations with North Korea.
That does not look like a priority for them at this time.
Kim wanted
another summit to show that the negotiation process is still alive, but,
despite the dire situation in his country, he too is in no rush. Trump needed a
summit to show that during some hours of the day he still does his job as
President.
In the
absence a pre-negotiated arrangement, the Hanoi Summit turned out as shorter
than expected social event. As for South Korea, it will have to recover from
its disappointment and keep working at its own direct relationship with its
Northern counterpart, without the benefit of a sanction-free environment.
--o--
PUTIN'S PROMISES TO IMPROVE DOMESTIC SITUATION MAY GIVE BOOST TO HIS RATING
For the
first time in years the bulk of Putin's address to the Russian parliament-and,
by extension, to the nation was concentrated on the economy, social welfare,
medical care, the demographic crisis and overall living standards. He informed
the parliament that the economic crisis has been overcome and that the country has
started a long-term modernization program.
 |
| President Putin addressing the Federal Assembly, February 20th ©President of Russia Website |
The main
concern of the liberal opposition in Russia is that the stale bureaucratic
system will not permit any significant changes. According to the Levada center,
an independent sociological institute in Moscow, Putin's rating slightly went down
after the most unpopular pension reform and introduction last year of a goods
and services tax hike.
For the
first time Putin openly stated that poverty rates in Russia are increasing: currently
19 million people stand below the poverty line. He announced a set of measures
to strengthen the social net by increasing welfare payments and subsidies to
mothers with two or more children.
Putin's
most notable comments about the state of international affairs were his
assurances that all Russian military postures are of defensive character and
that Russia is not looking for a conflict with "such global power as the
United states and will not be first to introduce new systems unilaterally, but
also will swiftly retaliate not only against countries where the US is planning
to station their intermediate nuclear weapons, but also against the so-called
"decision making centers".
--o--
UNDERSTANDING VENEZUELA
On the
basis of the majority of North American media reports, it is not always easy to
understand the current crisis in Venezuela. If indeed the reports are right and
so many of Venezuelans are living in abject misery, how is it possible for the
Maduro regime to survive one day longer? The explanation then offered by the
media is that there are probably still elements of Venezuelan society that
support Maduro, including the armed forces and the poorest segments of the
population outside Caracas. They are the ones who have gained under the
Chavez-Maduro regime. In the case of the armed forces the gains include access
to oil profits and allegedly lucrative drug trafficking.
There is as well an understandable temptation to look at the Venezuela problem as a classic ideological and economic conflict between the US and a left-leaning Latin American country. Yet, among the solutions that have been tried by the US with other countries in that same situation elsewhere in the region, measures in the case of Venezuela have been limited to political pressure and economic sanctions. The result has been constant tension between the two countries and a general stalemate. Venezuela is not necessarily too big to be bullied, but it is oil-rich and has over time distanced its military establishment from US counterparts, depriving the US from influence in this area as well as creating an army that could at least cause significant damage in the case of an open conflict.
 |
| President Maduro ©Wikipedia |
There is as well an understandable temptation to look at the Venezuela problem as a classic ideological and economic conflict between the US and a left-leaning Latin American country. Yet, among the solutions that have been tried by the US with other countries in that same situation elsewhere in the region, measures in the case of Venezuela have been limited to political pressure and economic sanctions. The result has been constant tension between the two countries and a general stalemate. Venezuela is not necessarily too big to be bullied, but it is oil-rich and has over time distanced its military establishment from US counterparts, depriving the US from influence in this area as well as creating an army that could at least cause significant damage in the case of an open conflict.
At the
broader international level, it has to be mentioned that Russia and China still
support Maduro as they have a lot to lose in Venezuela. China has a $70 billion
investment, Russia a $17 billion one. Russia by the way has sent some
humanitarian aid to Caracas to substitute for blocked aid from the US.
Despite
what Maduro may have said about the negative impact of US economic sanctions,
it is the lower price of oil on the world market that has more directly led to
the current economic crisis in Venezuela. In simple terms, Maduro and his
government could not manage the loss of revenue without further increasing the
polarization of society and causing a disastrous macro-economic situation
leading to the impoverishment of the urban middle class and the shortage of
essential goods.
Maduro had
a reputation as an efficient manager as a minister, but he is not as charismatic and intelligent as Chavez, his
predecessor, with the ability to find real friends and supporters and maintain
at least a semblance of order and social justice at least in short term as Chavez
managed during his first years in power. Maduro has failed because, among other
shortcomings, he does not have the depth
and political savvy that a left wing leader needs in that part of the world.
 |
| President Guaido ©Wikipedia |
If the
countries (including the US and most of the Lima Group*) that have pushed for
the recognition of Juan Guaido, the president of the National Assembly, as the
real president had an inkling of the highly polarized nature of Venezuelan
society, of the support Maduro still has and of his determination to stay in
power, how could they expect that the recognition of Guaido would not turn into
a major confrontation? It could be argued that, since the status quo is utterly unacceptable any move to change things is
better than doing nothing, and that there is no other option in the playbook. Besides,
for Guaido and his national and international supporters, the only acceptable
solution is Maduro’s departure, one way or another.
Orchestrating
confrontation on the borders of the country over the delivery of US
humanitarian assistance may have looked like a clever idea and a risk worth
taking. After the failure of the humanitarian offer gambit, the main countries
promoting Guaido as president have confirmed that a military intervention is not
an option. Despite the strong statements by Trump and Pompeo, it was fairly
clear in any event that the US had little appetite for a direct military
intervention.
The path of
peaceful political confrontation has not worked. The threat of military confrontation
is no longer credible enough to be effective. Domestic political dialogue is
virtually impossible. International negotiations have no basis on which to
begin. Even the intervention of an international mediator seems impossible as
it is perceived by the Venezuelan opposition as a means of keeping Maduro in
power. The political standoff will continue until one side blinks. As any
incremental economic improvement seems unlikely at this time, the humanitarian crisis
will probably continue until the situation becomes even more disastrous.
*Twelve
countries initially signed the Lima Group declaration: Argentina, Brazil,
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama,
Paraguay and Peru. Guyana and Saint Lucia joined later.
--o--
OF DEMOCRACY IN UKRAINE
The most
important development in the ongoing presidential election campaign is the
unexpected emergence of Vladimir Zelensky as the front-runner in the public
opinion polls. Zelensky is now consistently ahead of President Poroshenko and
former Prime Minister Tymoshenko who are battling for second place.
 |
| Presidential candidate Zelensky (middle) performing with his comedy team in 2018 ©Wikipedia |
As with
other “populist” candidacies around the world, it did not take long for the
political establishment to react by suggesting that a Zelensky victory would be
a disaster for the country and that the electorate was perhaps not sufficiently
well informed to appreciate the nature of the danger.
By
profession Zelensky is an actor. His best role was as an anti-corruption President of Ukraine. His
profession gives him name recognition, but it is the fact that he is not a
professional politician or a senior official that makes him an attractive
candidate. The more apt comparison may not be so much with reactionary reality
show host Donald Trump, but with the Five Star Anti-establishment movement in
Italy. In the Ukrainian context, the fact that he is perceived as outside of
the corrupt system of government is a key factor. The suggestion that he may be
backed up by Ihor Kholomoisky, a well-known oligarch, does not seem to have
affected his reputation. What matters most is that he is a political outsider
and that a sizable number of Ukrainian voters are willing to support him, if
only to express their dissatisfaction with the current political establishment.
Zelensky is
still in the process of fleshing out his political program. He suggested that,
if elected, he would deal with Vladimir Putin directly to resolve the Donbass
crisis. He also has taken the view that he would not support banning cultural
figures from Russian and Ukraine to perform in one another’s country. This may
look un-important, but strikes a different tone than currently prevails in
official government circles. In a country where the Eurovision competition is
still important and where the winner of the Ukrainian national Eurovision competition
will not be allowed to represent her country on account of the fact she
performed in Russia, such things seem to matter.
In any
event, the campaign has already entered a stage where political programs are
overtaken by political maneuvering and attempts to discredit opponents.
A few
examples:
• Arsen Avakov, the current Minister
of the Interior, suggested that President Poroshenko was sitting on a large sum
of government money that he was going to spread generously during the campaign
to bolster his candidacy
• A media source came out with the
story that a company belonging to a close associate of President Poroshenko has
profited from a 2015 operation that involved procuring spare parts from Russia
for Ukrainian military equipment and selling the parts at an inflated price to
the Ministry of Defence.
• The former Chief of Staff of the
Ministry of Defence was formally accused of treason for the role he would have
played in reducing Ukraine’s military preparedness prior to the annexation of
Crimea. Retired Colonel General Zamana had ordered administrative
re-arrangements that are now, five years after the fact, considered as
treasonous. Thus, the failure to react to Russian actions in Crimea can be
blamed on a newly-found traitor, thus absolving past political leaders from
having failed at protecting the country.
• A story was allegedly leaked to the
effect that a European ambassador, after having met with leading candidate
Zelensky offered the following comments: “I thought he was a zero, now I see he
is even less than that”.
The fact that
there are so many candidates can be explained by the very nature of the
political system. It is relatively easy to become a candidate. That is how it
was intended. There are, however, candidates whose only presence on the ballot
seems to serve to divide the vote, thus allowing a better known candidate to
make it to the second round even with relatively modest support. The case of
candidate Yuri Tymoshenko shows, however, less subtlety. By running as a candidate
that has the same family name and initials as former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, he may be able to deprive her of enough votes to keep her from the second
round. The trick is not new.
In the
circumstances, the emergence of a candidate that is not a professional
politician is altogether not surprising.
--o--
THE PUTIN
SYSTEM (FOR KREMLINOLOGISTS)
Vladislav
Surkov, an influential Kremlin insider often described as its éminence grise, has predicted a
“glorious century” for the political system whose chief architect is Vladimir
Putin. Writing in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta
newspaper, Vladislav Surkov boldly declared that the so-called “putinism” has
yet to see its peak. Surkov also predicted that even adversaries would end up
copying his system. He called it "ideology of the future".
Putin’s
system the article claims has “longevity built in”. It would last for decades
because it was native, “organic”, and had already survived several shock tests.
Surkov's overly optimistic assessment for the future of Putin's ideas should
not be dismissed out of hand for the simple reason that Putin and his approach
to Russia, his ideas and implementation of his methods not just come from the
top but have a wide-spread appeal in all sectors of Russian society.
 |
| Vladislav Surkov ©Wikipedia |
Surkov was
responsible for the Kremlin’s domestic strategy during the 2000s. He could be
credited with creating much of Russia’s postmodern, authoritarian model of
government. He called the system “managed democracy”, a term that critics
suggested was only ever half true. Knowing Russia's legendary tendency for
violence and chaos and what the country went through in the 1990's, Surkov's
gravitation towards Thomas Hobbes and his absolute sovereign/Leviathan is more
than understandable. While it is obvious that Russia needs a strong state, it
may not also need a strongman.
In his long
and often rambling article, the new ideologue stayed close to his historical
form. Russia was strong, he argued, only because it had rejected western
notions and democratic institutions. Such institutions only gave an “illusion
of choice”, and were inferior to Russia’s wise leader, who was able to “listen,
understand and see” his people.
“The modern
model of Russian statehood begins on trust and rests on trust,” he claims.
“This is its major distinction to the western model, which cultivates distrust
and criticism. And herein lies its strength.”
Surkov
spared little praise of his boss. In time, Putin’s Russia would be recognized
Russia’s fourth great “model of state-building”, he said – and on a par with
the efforts of Ivan the Great in the 15th century, Peter the Great in the 18th
century, and Vladimir Lenin in the 20th century.
Putin’s
system was also ripe for export, Surkov added. Foreign governments were already
paying close attention, since the Russian “political algorithm” had long
predicted the volatility now seen in western democracies.
Ideology
was important during the Soviet times. An intellectual construct that serves as
the justification for the prevailing political system may still be necessary.
Surkov provides that by crediting Putin for having created a new model of
governance and by expounding the traditional Russian criticism that Western
democracies and their established political parties only provide a semblance of
choice. The election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton could well be one of
the examples he had in mind: the candidate who receives less popular vote gets
elected and then presides over a divided country.
All things
considered, some of Surkov’s criticism of Western democracy may rest on better
ground than his glorification of the Putin system.
--o--
PERSON OF
THE MONTH: MOHAMMAD-JAVAD ZARIF
 |
| Iranian Foreing Minister Zarif at the Munich Security Conference ©Munich Security Conference, February 17th |
He is known
as the international face of the Islamic Republic of Iran that recently marked
40th anniversary of the 1979 revolution. Throughout the years Mr. Zarif has excelled in
putting a more sophisticated and humane spin on often bellicose rhetoric that
comes from the religious leaders in Iran and has been regarded as “Iran’s last
link to the West”.
Born in 1960,
Zarif is an Iranian diplomat and politician and the current minister of foreign
affairs in the Rouhani administration. Zarif has held various significant
diplomatic and cabinet posts since the 1990s. He is also an associate professor
at the University of International Relations, teaching diplomacy and
international law. He was the Permanent Representative of Iran to the United
Nations from 2002 to 2007. Zarif has held other domestic and international
positions as well: senior adviser to the Foreign Minister, Deputy Foreign
Minister in Legal and International affairs.
After the US
withdrew from the nuclear treaty with Iran, Zarif's main task-was not an easy
one. He has done a fair job at maintaining balanced and good relations with the
Europeans who still insist that Iran should honor the deal so as to make it to the
end of the Trump presidency in the hope that a new US administration in 2021
would step away from the current inflexible anti-Iranian line.
At the
Munich Security Conference in mid-February Zarif nevertheless did not mince his
words in calling for the Europeans to do more to save the nuclear deal with his
country. Along with Merkel’s above noted presentation, Zarif’s speech was
regarded as a “highlight” of this high-powered international conference.
Zarif
resigned as Foreign Minister on February 25th, but was back at work
on the 27th, President Rouhani having rejected his resignation. A
credible rumour is that the reason for the short-lived resignation was Zarif’s
displease with his lack of involvement in the very recent visit of Syrian
President Assad to Iran. Resigning and having the resignation rejected allowed
him to protect his role as the key person in charge of foreign affairs.
--o--
BRIEFLY NOTED
RUSSIA
Russian
presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Kremlin is following the
situation involving the detention of a prominent American investment-fund
manager who is accused of large-scale fraud in Russia. Talking to reporters in
Moscow on February 18th, Peskov said that the arrest of Michael Calvey, the head of
the Baring Vostok investment company, has nothing to do with a deterioration in
Russian-U.S relations. «The state of Russia's ties with other countries has no
impact whatsoever on the business activities of foreign investors here,"
Peskov said, adding that Russia has always been interested in creating
"comfortable conditions for foreign investments and that Mr. Calvey is a
serious investor in our economy who has always supported the idea of the
Russian market's attractiveness."
Peskov also
said that Russian President Vladimir Putin had met Calvey many times at
business forums and other gatherings in Russia in the past, but that Calvey's
detention was beyond Putin's competence.
On February
16th, a court in Moscow remanded Calvey in custody until April 13th,
pending trial. Calvey denies any wrongdoing.
Founded in 1994, Baring Vostok is one of the largest private-equity firms in Russia and the former Soviet Union, according to the firm's website. It manages more than $3.7 billion in assets. It is particularly active in the technology sector and owns a stake in the Yandex search engine. Before founding Baring Vostok, Calvey worked for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as well as for Salomon Brothers. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.
Founded in 1994, Baring Vostok is one of the largest private-equity firms in Russia and the former Soviet Union, according to the firm's website. It manages more than $3.7 billion in assets. It is particularly active in the technology sector and owns a stake in the Yandex search engine. Before founding Baring Vostok, Calvey worked for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as well as for Salomon Brothers. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.
BELARUS
Belarus
will always be a reliable partner for the European Union and hopes that this
approach in the bilateral relations will be reciprocal, Belarus President
Alexander Lukashenko said as he met with European Commissioner for Budget and
Human Resources Gunther Oettinger on February 18th.
“I want to
assure you that Belarus always pursues a balanced and well-considered policy in
relations with its neighbors. We believe that neighbors are given to us by God,
we do not choose them. With this in mind, we will always be a reliable partner
for the European Union but of course we want such feelings to be reciprocal,”
Alexander Lukashenko said.
ARMENIA
French
President Emmanuel Macron has declared April 24 as a "national day of
commemoration of the Armenian genocide. «Macron made the announcement on
February 5th at a dinner for the Armenian community in France,
honoring a campaign promise from his 2017 election campaign.
France was
among the first nations to denounce "the murderous hunt of the Armenian
people in the Ottoman Empire," he said at the annual dinner organized by
the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France (CCAF).
France
officially recognized the World War I-era mass slaughter and deportation of up
to 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide in 2001. At least 22
other countries, including Germany, have taken a similar step. Armenia says the
mass killing is one of the first examples of genocide in modern history, pre-dating
the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany against more than 6 million Jews
during World War II.
Turkey
objects, saying that Armenians died in much smaller numbers and because of
civil strife rather than a planned, systemic effort by the Ottoman government
against the Christian minority.
GEORGIA/NORTH MACEDONIA
The Prime Minister
of Georgia, an ex-Soviet republic that aspires to join NATO, has hailed the
Western military alliance’s decision to allow North Macedonia to join.
“We see
that NATO is pursuing an open-door policy and this is the only right response
to the challenge coming from the Russian Federation,” Prime Minister Mamuka
Bakhtadze said in interviews on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference
on February 17th.
On February
12th the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia was officially
renamed the Republic of North Macedonia, under a landmark agreement to
normalize relations with Greece, that also allows Northern Macedonia to enter NATO.
Bakhtadze
made the comments after Skopje signed a protocol on February 6th
that could see North Macedonia become NATO’s 30th member if the move is
ratified by all current members of the alliance.
Moscow has
made explicit its opposition to NATO’s further expansion, especially as regards
to Georgia and Ukraine. Ukraine’s accession to NATO is a key element of President
Poroshenko’s election platform. Most other presidential candidates also generally support
the idea.
TAJIKISTAN
Russian
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has called a Russian military base in Tajikistan
"an important factor for Tajikistan's security. «Speaking to journalists
in Dushanbe on February 5th after talks with Tajik Foreign Minister Sirojiddin
Muhriddin, Lavrov said Moscow is ready to assist Tajikistan in the
modernization of its armed forces and "strengthening the state
border," taking into account, among other things, "existing threats
that continue to be imposed from the territory of Afghanistan."
"I
would like to stress the role of Russia’s 201st Military Base [in Tajikistan],
which is an important factor of Tajikistan’s security," Lavrov said. About
7,000 troops from Russia’s 201st Motor Rifle Division are stationed at three
facilities that are considered part of the Russian base in Tajikistan.
Lavrov, who
started his Central Asian tour on February 4th with a visit to Kyrgyzstan, said
in Bishkek earlier that Moscow is open to talks about setting up a second
Russian military base in Kyrgyzstan if Kyrgyz authorities initiate the issue.
KAZAKHSTAN
At the end
of February, President Nazarbayev appointed a new Council of Ministers and a
new Central Bank Governor. The President’s dissatisfaction with the previous
government’s economic performance seems to have been the main reason for the
re-shuffling of senior ministers and appointing a new Prime Minister in the
person of Askar Mamin who was previously Vice Prime Minister. Perhaps more important
is the appointment of Yerbolat Dossayev, a former businessman, as Central Bank
Governor, as it would signal the intention to tackle the serious problems of
the country’s banking sector.
UZBEKISTAN
Uzbekistan's
Central Bank has announced it is introducing a new 100,000 som banknote as of
February 25th.The bank announced on February 16th that for the first
time the banknote will have a special sign for blind people. The new banknote
will be worth about $12, according to the official exchange rate.
Currently,
the 50,000 som banknote is the largest denomination in Uzbekistan and was
introduced in August 2017. Uzbek economists have said for years that the
introduction of 50,000 and 100,000 som banknotes was necessary to address a
problem with cash payments in a country where an unusually large number of
bills is needed to purchase ordinary items.
THE AUTHORS
Ilya Gerol, former foreign editor of the Citizen in Ottawa, syndicated columnist in Canadian, US and European media specializing in international affairs. His particular area of expertise includes Russia, Eurasian Economic Union, Eastern and Central Europe. Ilya Gerol has written several books, one of them, The Manipulators, had become a textbook on relations of media and society.
During his career in the Canadian Foreign Service, Gilles Breton had three assignments at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow. His first posting there began during the Soviet period, in 1983. His last was from 2008 to 2012 as Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission. He also served as Deputy Director responsible for Canada’s relations with Russia from 2000 to 2008. As an international civil servant, he was Deputy Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights in Warsaw from 1994 to 1997.
Gilles Breton also currently serves as Chairman of the National Board of the Canada-Eurasia-Russia Business Association. The views expressed in this newsletter exclusively reflect the opinion of the authors.
