Requiem

Нет, и не под чуждым небосводом,
И не под защитой чуждых крыл, -
Я была тогда с моим народом,
Там, где мой народ, к несчастью, был.

Анна Ахматова

For today's victims:

Not under foreign skies protection 
Or saving wings of alien birth – 
I was then there – with whole my nation –
There, where my nation, alas! was. 

A. Achmatova

Seriously, again

http://www.livejournal.ru/themes/id/24493

Apparently, a third court case could be initiated against former oligarch turned into Russia's scapegoat Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Cultural colonisation much?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/world/europe/24georgia.html?hp

This is an article about the English-teaching programmes developed in Georgia, with the clear intention of getting rid of anything Russian. Language included.

http://www.economist.com/node/17961912?story_id=17961912&fsrc=nlw|hig|01-20-2011|editors_highlights

I love how in this Rosneft is the bad boy and BP the reliable and trustworthy company. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/world/europe/17russia.html

Interesting article by the NY Times on heroin addition and HIV in today's Russia.

Seriously Part 2

The unholy alliance as already started a debate about the serious consequences it could have on the environment...After all we are still talking about BP...Italian newspaper La Repubblica offers interesting observations on the issue:

http://www.repubblica.it/ambiente/2011/01/16/news/bp_russia-11298341/index.html?ref=search

The target of the joint venture is the Kara Sea, part of the Arctic Ocean north of Siberia. There should start explorations to identify the natural gas and oil potential of the region and start their extraction. Many fear that a eco-disaster might take place. Interesting is also that, following the deal, Rosneft has become the strongest shareholder in BP. We shall see if a big Gulf of Mexico-style drama is going to happen soon.

Seriously

http://www.vedomosti.ru/companies/news/1188811/rosneft_i_vr_sozdayut_strategicheskij_alyans

Russian government-owned company Rosneft and BP: that is what I call an unholy alliance

Don't look back in anger

The New York Times publishes this interesting piece on ethnic tensions in Russia:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/europe/16russia.html?ref=world

The occasion is the Orthodox Christian tradition of commemorating the dead after 40 days. The victim to commemorate is Yegor Sviridov, a Spartak Moscow supporter killed during a mass brawl between football fans and internal migrants from the North Caucasus in north Moscow. Since that day ethnically motivated episodes of intolerance have conspicuously increased to the extent that the police had to intervene repeatedly  to disperse football hooligans and nationalists protesting against the presence of the immigrant community in Russia. The worrying aspect is that, while those episodes of violence are often enacted by the most radical part of the population, many common citizens share their views.  “Animals have taken over this neighbourhood,” one woman says. “Mourners complained that ethnic Caucasians, who flowed into the city after the collapse of the Soviet Union, had monopolized the job market and increased the crime rate,” the NYT reporter adds. This all too clearly reminds me of the ethnic campaign against the Roma community in Italy. It is always too easy to find a scapegoat when the situation is grim. And the outsiders are of course the preferred target.

Alpha Females: Europe’s Power Players

http://runninginheels.co.uk/articles/european-female-politicians/

http://runninginheels.co.uk/articles/russia-europe/

What is Med up to?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/world/europe/12russia.html?_r=1&ref=world
http://en.rian.ru/video/20101109/161258359.html

So, apparently Medvedev has all of a sudden decided that attacks on journalists are horrible crimes and must be investigated. During a meeting with Rossiskaya Gazeta's journalists he expressed his concern for the situation and  praised the role of journalists in discovering and deliverying to the public the truth:

http://news.kremlin.ru/video/601

My guess is that since a video showing Kommersant journalist Oleg Kashin being beaten up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T96NFuxZ8Mo) has reached the internet and the wider audience, Med and his buddies want to show that they are actually taking care of this all situation before anyone starts saying that it's all the government's fault.

Here is a video on Baikalsk, a town built in Soviet times and now struggle to survive because of financial pressure and environmental protests:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/11/08/world/europe/1248069280321/troubles-on-russia-s-lake-baikal.html?ref=world

Everything and the opposite of everything

Now that Luzhkov is gone, analysts have started doing what they are meant to be good at: analysing. Unfortunately, as I have already said, to analyse the Russian political situation great divination skills are recquired. You can see it by yourself. This is what the Moscow Times says:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/news-analysis-medvedev-shows-hes-his-own-man/417584.html

In other words, this would be another bold move by the Medvedev to take distance from Putin.

But this is what the New York Times believes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/world/europe/29moscow.html?ref=world

Meaning that Medvedev hasn't acquired independence from Putin at all, and the evidence would be in the fact that he took him so long to fire him (that would mean that he had to take time to seek for Putin's approval)

So, what is the truth? I am siding with the New York Times, since if Medvedev did not trust Luzhkov (as he said to justify his dismissal) and was free to do whatever I wanted he would have probably fired him much earlier.

The beekeeper Part 4

http://rian.ru/photolents/20100928/280046720.html

A real showman.

At the end of the day this is not much worse:

http://malarablog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/berlusconi_corna.jpg?w=264&h=200

The beekeeper Part 3

Crisis averted for Putin & co. Medvedev has just fired the Luzhkov aka the beekeeper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/28/russian-president-sacks-moscow-mayor

The move is due, according to the Kremlin, to the loss of trust towards the mayor of Moscow by the President.

The beekeeper Part 2

OK, I was expecting him to announce his resignation and what does he do instead? Mr Luzhkov leaves the UNESCO conference taking place in Moscow to avoid the press:

http://rian.ru/politics/20100927/279681398.html

The beekeeper

Strange things are happening. Those rumours about a split between president Medvedev and prime minister Putin, about a rivalry between the holders of the two most influential political positions of Russia, seem to be acquiring some foundation. And this is all due to Yuri Luzhkov, mayor of Moscow. He is quite a controversial figure, and anything that concerns him can’t help but being a controversy. Quick facts to know about him: he has been mayor of Moscow since 1992, is married to Russia’s richest woman Elena Baturina, his birthday is on the 21st of September and he is a passionate beekeeper.

All these facts (yes, even his beekeeping activity) are at centre of the wide debate that is inflaming the Russian political scene quite recently.

It all started when Medvedev decided to stop the building of a motorway that would have cut across the forest of Khimki (see below). Luzhkov didn’t like the move and wrote an article published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, in which he criticised the way the president was handling the question and called for Putin to return to the presidency. The events that followed are the ‘strange things that are happening’. First, Putin, who has always been quite close to Luzhkov, has been surprisingly silent about the entire issue. Second, soon after the article was published, government-controlled television channels started airing materials that were highly critical of the mayor of Moscow. The criticism, in particular, was directed towards Luzhkov’s role in building his wife’s empire (by many seen as the results of corruption and illegal activities) and towards the way in which he handled the crisis that hit the whole of Russia this summer, when fires spread across the forests of the country and a wide cloud of smog covered Moscow. Apparently the mayor refused to return from his holiday and denied the existence of a ‘crisis’. Finally Luzhkov returned to Moscow but, according to ‘The Cap Affair’, a film broadcast by NTV TV channel, it was only because it was very concerned about his hives. Meanwhile people from inside and outside the Kremlin started talking about a possible dismissal of Luzhkov as mayor of Moscow (Medvedev has the power to do that since Putin’s introduced a reform according to which regional governors are not elected but appointed by the president). People gathered on the streets calling for Luzhkov’s resignation before the end of his mandate, to expire in June 2011.

Now, in Russia it is quite common to expect the government-controlled TV channels to broadcast programmes that support the government and its decisions. It is also true that according to Western observers the real power is still in Putin’s hands. We know that Putin supports Luzhkov and Medvedev doesn’t. Yet, the same government-controlled TV channels that should obsequiously support Putin seem to be backing Medvedev. The possibilities are two: either Putin has decided to stop supporting Luzhkov, whose shady behaviour and background are now very difficult to justify, or the split between Medvedev and Putin is something real, and it is expanding its effect, with people taking sides for one or the other in parliament as well as on TV channels. It is very difficult to say which one is closer to the truth, but this is a clear example of how much is unknown about Russian politics abroad.

People usually tend to imagine Russia as an authoritarian regime ruled by a single person, namely Putin, master of the house and able puppeteer, manoeuvring all the political system. Forbes’s writer Dmitry Sidorov, however, reminds us that the picture is much more complicated. In his article ‘The Russia Holding, Inc.’ Sidorov compares the system that rules Russia today to a holding company, of which the ‘Medvedev Limited’ and ‘Luzhkov Limited Liability Partners’ are parts involved in a business dispute. You can find the article here:

http://blogs.forbes.com/dmitrysidorov/2010/09/22/the-russia-holding-inc/

The question is: who has the power in Russia today? Sidorov seems to side with those that believe Putin is in full control. Others claim that Putin and Medvedev are just the face of a group of former K.G.B. and military officers, the Siloviki, that have being clinging to power since 2000. Others see Medvedev as the creature escaping from his master’s control. The problem is that they don’t have much evidence. Russian politics is a murky business, after all. But maybe tomorrow will give us a new piece to complete this puzzle. According to Russian newspaper Kommersant Luzhkov is expected to resign by the end of next week. Will he?

Medvedev super rock star

Following the wide support received by the campaign to save Khimki forest, Mr Medvedev has decided to intervene freezing the building of the motorway that would have destroyed a major part of the forest. Here you can find a video posted on the president's blog, in which he explains his decision:

http://blog.kremlin.ru/post/101

The funniest part is that the decision was taken during the visit of U2 leader Bono in Russia. It seems that the rock star played a very important role in pushing Medveded towards the freezing of the plans of destruction of Khimki. It is funny, and it is sad. It seems to me that the government is not pro or against the destruction of the forest (although probably single members are), but is simply unable to take quick and effective decisions to the benefit of the population.Too difficult and too risky, when you are likely to go against the big business's interest. It is easier to wait for the next rock star to come. Maybe Medvedev can help. Apparently he is a big Deep Purple fan.

A little story that shouldn't be so little

When I was in Moscow I spent many days in the area of Khimki, a green spot in the north of town. I would go there to study, because of  their newspapers' archive, and more than once ended up being completely mesmerised by the beauty of the place. What I did not know is that Khimki forest was destined to be destroyed in the process of building a motorway that would join Moscow and St. Petersburg. This is all very sad. On the (mildly) bright side many people have started their own personal fight against the destruction of the forest, and started a ecologist movement in its defense. This makes me believe that maybe the Russian society is not as alienated as it seems. Certainly this will not change things, since bureaucracy, militia and shady business interests are all still strong obstacles to change. Just today I got in touch with a representative of the Ekooborona, the group in defense of Khimki forest, and found out that the leader of the group, Evgenia Chirikova, is currently held by the police. He sent me the video of her (illegal) arrest and it is simply terrifying.
Russian TV seems to be completely ignoring the issue, and the mainstream newspapers do not make a much bigger effort. The story has hardly reached countries outside of Russia. I personally support the cause of the people involved in the fight for the protection of an area endowed with a special and irreplaceable natural patrimony.
This is the link to the Ekooborona website (in Russian):
http://www.ecmo.ru/

And here is an article in English written by Evgenia Chirikova:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/yevgenia-chirikova/battle-for-khimki-forest

Africa: the rights and wrongs of foreign aid

Many concur that it is time for Africa to ‘make poverty history’. With this goal in mind in 2000 world leaders from 189 nations have signed the United Nations Millennium Declaration and drew a list of Millennium Development Goals, trying to define strategies to support and assist African countries in their battle against poverty. For many years rich countries have been supporting the least developed areas of the world, but this time it is different. People are frustrated and worried. Fifty years of foreign aid to Africa do not seem to have produced the dramatic growth that was expected.There are many differentiated aid programmes in place directed towards Africa. Many of them are administered by the United Nations, others are the result of bilateral and multilateral agreements with various political entities, such as those financed by the European Union and managed through the European Development Fund. Other schemes are supported by private donations.Thanks to these schemes some positive results have been obtained. A to Z Textile Mills is a Tanzanian factory supported by Japanese company Sumimoto Chemical that manufactures mosquito nets and provides an example of how a well-calibrated type of foreign assistance can be highly beneficial to Africa. The nets are bought by the Tanzanian government and various non-governmental agencies that use them for their anti-malaria campaigns. The USAID Trade Hub programmes assist local entrepreneurs in their business taking advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, thanks to which African products are imported by America duty- and quota-free. Since 2005 thanks to these programmes exports to the US have risen for a value of $60 million.It is fair to say, however, that foreign aid is not working as efficiently as it should and the positive examples listed above are not enough The real per-capita income of Africa is lower than it used to be in the 1970s, and over 350 million people live on less than a dollar a day. People are becoming increasingly sceptical about the chances that foreign aid has in positively influencing development in African countries. Those who are confident in Africa’s own growing capability, like the director of Inter Region Economic Network James Shikwati, claim that foreign aid makes people too reliant on subsidies and unable to produce growth. If we look at the issue from a different perspective, however, we realize that the problem is not in the nature of foreign aid. Everything depends on the way foreign aid is used. Foreign aid corrupts its validity when people take advantage of it in the wrong way.Sometimes the misuse is operated by the donors. There is a difference between providing money, services and products that only act as a palliative to people’s life conditions and providing skills and instruments that people can use to produce their own means of subsistence. Foreign direct investments work in this sense better than money injections. Building a factory able to manufacture products that can then be sold produces employment and enriches the country. But even in those cases biggest attention should be paid to the calculation of risks and consequences. Many times money was wasted on projects that were not carefully thought through. The Norwegian International Development Agency (NORAD), for example, failed miserably when it invested in a frozen fish factory in Northern Kenya, only to discover there was not enough energy available to power it. As Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo reminds us in her book Dead Aid, care should also be put in schemes that comprise free provision of food and other products to the population. This apparently good way to support people in need could put the local producers out of business, as it has happened with the US Food for Peace programme. Financial aid should also be handled with extreme care. When great sums of money enter African countries the currency is likely to raise its value against others, leading to a higher risk of inflation. This happened in Uganda in 2005, when the government was obliged to issue bonds for $700 million.Foreign aid should be protected from the misuse by receiving countries too. In Africa governments are often in the hands of corrupt politicians ready to pocket aid that has to go though central government. Malawi's former President Bakili Muluzi was charged with embezzling aid money worth $12 million. The president of Zaire Sese Seko Mobutu built a fortune of almost $10 billion using the same techniques. Corrupt politicians decrease the chances of a country to establish a transparent and functioning system working to provide better conditions for its citizens. This problem can only be tackled through the formation of a new generation of well prepared, peaceful and good willing politicians, an efficient civil service and a society politically and socially involved. This is obviously very demanding in both time and efforts, but is what Africa needs to escape misery. Well administered aid in the form of education and social campaigns can be extremely helpful in speeding up the process. It might sound idealistic and a too-far-away goal, but fixing this kind of priorities is the first step for their realisation. As the philosopher and political economist Francis Fukuyama states in his article Out of Africa? it is important to ‘focus on the real core of the problem, which is the region's level of political development.’Africa is poor. Its climate, its geographical position and history have probably all played a part in it. At the same time Africa has a huge potential: resources, land and enormous dormant energy richness (i.e. solar). Why does Africa stay poor? It is certainly not because of foreign aid. It is the misuse of foreign aid and the lack of solid bases for the countries to take maximum advantage out of it that has so far precluded them from growing and developing.