Three years ago this August the Russian economy blew up, sank and seemed as unsalvagable as the Kursk submarine. Economists and money-men told us it would be the best part of a decade before Russia would find its feet, yet here we are with a vital, pruned down, but effervescent economy. This week the cautious Lex column of the Financial Times recommends it as a place to start to invest again: "Its twin surpluses [current account and budget] and lack of need to issue debt bolster resistance to Argentinean flu.
The fall was overrated. It was not quite so dramatic as the statistics then suggested. "Almost by 50 percent," as was said at the time, was a wild overstatement reflecting the padding in the old Soviet economy, which three years ago was still producing what nobody wanted to buy. The subsequent decline in the production of what had become useless goods was in fact a welcome shakeout. So too was the demise of much of the old time barter economy, an inefficient but long held practice. At the other end of the scale, official statistics were not measuring the much more robust black economy that managed to survive better than the official economy.
Strobe Talbot, President Bill Clinton's point man on Russia once decried the effect of Western imposed belt tightening and the application of economic rigor in return for International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans as a kind of shock therapy that contained "too much shock and not enough therapy." Yet after the collapse of the Soviet Union it was necessary to take the fast track to price liberalization and privatisation. Those in the Soviet sphere who took their medicine most -- Poland is the prime example -- have moved the fastest. Under Yeltsin there was too much corrupt state therapy in the form of subsidies to the country's elite. The crash performed a useful service in that it cut the financial wealth and political power of the corrupt oligarchic tycoons and the regional governors. The problems that still exist in this new era of resurgent economic growth -- 8 percent last year, 4 percent this -- excessive state intervention, corruption, high tax rates, lingering inflation -- all require more shock and less therapy.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The sinking of the Kursk and the fire that consumed the Moscow television tower convinced many on-lookers that Russia's infrastructure was coming apart at the seems. The opposite in fact was true.
While the old Soviet Union had a notoriously bad record on infrastructure improvement, things have gone into reverse in recent years. Thanks to privatisation and free market competition there has been an incredible expansion not just in telecommunications but also in the improvement of airports, airlines and ports. There has been a widespread building room. The great laggards in maintenance and investment remain the remnants of the old economy -- such as Gazprom, the state owned pipeline natural gas monopoly.
Indeed, despite capital flight, Russia has today a higher investment rate than the US. It has no great need for foreign capital, albeit it does need foreign expertise and stronger, safer and more honest legal and law enforcement system if it is to attract back that flight capital and to make its newfound economic growth sustainable.
Flight capital runs at an estimated US$20 billion a year, which is a useful statistic when putting western aid into perspective. In terms of disbursements Russia has been receiving only about US$200 million a year from the US and US$150 million from Europe. (This does not include the more self-interested American food aid and finance for denuclearisation). As for the US$15 billion in stabilization credits drawn from the IMF and US$12 billion from the World Bank, Russia has to pay it back. Indeed western financial help to Russia since the end of the Cold War is peanuts compared with its savings on reduced military expenditure, which in the US was why the enormous budget deficit was wiped out so effortlessly.
At minimal cost western aid has contributed a lot -- it helped make rapid privatisation possible and encouraged profound changes in Russian thinking. The only pity was that it didn't start earlier -- President George Bush senior sat on his hands while in early 1992 Russia had a government under Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar that was not only the most serious of all Russian governments about economic reform but was clean and idealistic.
Perhaps under President Vladimir Putin Russia is edging back to ta more pristine time, even if the corruption and misplaced economic power that have mushroomed are tremendous hurdles to overcome.
Putin has set in motion a series of prudent policies for the long-term rather than using Russia's current oil windfall for a spending spree. Income tax reform is at last producing government revenues. Better relations with the Dumas, the Russian parliament, is enabling a rush of structural reform legislation onto the statute book.
"August is a risky time to be positive about Russia," concludes the Financial Times. This is true if you are a small western investor. But for the Russians themselves and indeed for well-informed, shrewd, western investors this must be a time of hope. Russia, at last, could be going somewhere.
Jonathan Power is a freelance columnist based in London.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing