[image source]
The Nashi pamphlet this page comes from is an old story, but it is a good illustration of the Kremlin's main anti-Kasyanov talking point throughout the 07-08 election cycle - that he would surrender Russia's oil wealth to "the West" and take things back to the bad old days of the 1990s.
Here is a translation of the quotation attributed to Mikhail Kasyanov (under the banner headline, "This is what betrayal looks like"):
Having received the approval of American businessmen to enter the Russian presidential campaign, I have decided to sell Russian oil for three times less than the current market price.And here is the actual quotation which appears to have served as the basis for the misquote above:
In his first interview with foreign media since announcing his candidacy, Mr Kasyanov said he would use the huge surplus from high oil prices to improve pipelines. He said: "Such projects would help lower the price of oil and gas on the market." A "fair price", he said, is $20-$25 a barrel. The price is now $63. "The world needs to think about alternative sources of energy, but use what we have now."As Russian campaign spin goes, this is actually a pretty minor distortion, and no doubt Kasyanov would have been more accommodating, for example, to Western participants in the Sakhalin projects (in fact, one could argue that such accommodation would actually be in Russia's interest, since Western investment and know-how will likely be needed to maximize development of Russia's oil & gas sector). It's worth noting, though, that when Kasyanov was PM, he appeared to at least make a show of driving a hard bargain with Western investors in Russian oil projects.
Nevertheless, it served the Kremlin's interests to portray Kasyanov not only as the corrupt "Misha 2-percent" (a nickname acquired when two percent was enough of an alleged skim to seem offensive; never mind that the only proof of Kasyanov's corruption offered up to the public was a shady dacha privatization involving a sum which the barons of Rosneft and Gazprom would not bend down to pick up off the sidewalk on Tverskaya) but also as an agent of Western corporate interests. Similar nefarious intentions to forfeit Russia's oil wealth were ascribed to Vladimir Ryzhkov (apparently solely on the basis of a meeting with Dick Cheney).
Of course, the myth-making about Russian traitors would be nothing without the creation of a parallel mythology of Western politicos salivating at the prospect of carving Russia up and feasting on the oil wealth. Exhibit A in that book of fairy-tales is the infamous false claim that Madeleine Albright once stated Russia was unworthy of Siberia's oil wealth.
Unlike Zimbabwe, Russia is not a former colony of the West and has never been in danger of losing control of its natural resources. Apparently, Putin & Co. realized that the rhetoric of xenophobia and class hatred travels well to any country.
** For all I know, this may be a valid accusation. My guess, however, is that Mugabe is attempting to spin a more conciliatory stance on the part of the opposition toward the farmers into some sort of treacherous behavior which goes against the interests of the state.
7 comments:
Boo! C'mon Lyndon. First, the pamphlet is written by Nashi, which, as a youth group, is expected to put out more outlandish PR. Second, why isn't this narrative - that the opposition won't firmly defend Russia's interests in the world - acceptable in a modern campaign? We see the same stuff (and worse) here in the U.S. There are already GOP commercials saying that Hamas endorsed Obama. Does this make Bush like Mugabe? You can make the case that Putin has sabotaged the opposition with entrance requirements but campaigning is campaigning. Plus, only 2 percent of Misha cares anyway.
Jesse, sorry my disclaimers were not enough. Of course the post title is a bit over the top and not really meant to be taken seriously (even by blog standards). I do wonder, though, how broad is your definition of "more outlandish PR"? Does it include character assassination and just making shit up (and yes, I know such techniques are used by campaigns in the US, and not only by youth groups)? More importantly, the pamphlet was just the best illustration - the claims about Kasyanov were made so much (and with no chance for him to rebut them) that I'm sure they have become conventional wisdom for that subset of Russians who cares about these things but gets their info from TV.
Second, why isn't this narrative - that the opposition won't firmly defend Russia's interests in the world - acceptable in a modern campaign?
Without a doubt, except that the opposition never really got the opportunity to tell the public about its vision of Russia's interests. Unfortunately, they never really seemed to have a very well-developed vision, except to say that the "bloody regime" is not in Russia's interests.
We see the same stuff (and worse) here in the U.S. There are already GOP commercials saying that Hamas endorsed Obama. Does this make Bush like Mugabe?
I had similar thoughts when I was writing the post. On the other hand, people actually make it onto the ballot in the US, and they have access to the media to hit back, which Kasyanov does not. On the third hand, though, there's probably no way Kasyanov would have received more than 5-10% under current political conditions in Russia, regardless of media access.
Misha's bad rep far predates his falling out with the Kremlin, and was hardly manufactured by the latter. In fact, a few years ago, Piontkovsky was portraying his presence in the government as a black mark against Putin. This was prior to Piontkovsky's pro-Putin period, so around 2000 to mid 2001.
"Mugabe's political opponents seem to have actually made it on the ballot, an indignity which Putin refused to suffer."
Except for that Zyuganov guy.
Misha's bad rep far predates his falling out with the Kremlin, and was hardly manufactured by the latter.
Chris, I'm aware of that (the allegations even seem to go back the days of "Mabetex," though I'm sure you'll agree that your characterization of Novaya Gazeta as "yellow journalism" applies here as well), but while years-old allegations about some people are let lie (Chernomyrdin, to take one example, or Chubais), strangely the allegations about Kasyanov continue to get attention. I'm sure it couldn't possibly be because his political ambitions diverged from Plan Putina. Anyway, there's a difference between allegations of corrupt practices and "treason," don't you think?
I don't think I ever suggested that Kasyanov is squeaky-clean, but the only thing that's been put out there recently is the dacha scandal, and I believe similar machinations have been alleged about Putin during his SPB years. But of course when issues are raised about Putin's past and character (see also VVP's plagiarism), the defense that "everyone does it" becomes acceptable - двойные стандарты на лицо :-)
In any event, I can only reiterate that acquiring the "two-percent" nickname as PM today would only make Kasyanov seem to his fellow ruling elites like a lokh who is not getting enough of the pie.
How does Kasyanov explain the "2%" nickname? Like this:
[02.11.2005 в Самаре Михаила Касьянова спросили] "...о судьбе журналиста, придумавшего тогда еще министру финансов Касьянову прозвище "Миша - два процента".
"Это был не журналист, - объяснил господин Касьянов. - В 1999 году я отказал крупному промышленнику в решении его вопроса на государственном уровне, потом в течение месяца в московских газетах появились эти высказывания".
Источник: Мария-Луиза Тирмастэ. "Я не в оппозиции, я оппонирую властям"// Коммерсантъ", 208,03.11.2005
By the way, anticompromat links to an article that fairly well - if perhaps a bit too optimistically - described Kasyanov's political prospects back at the end of '05, and also to this rather more critical piece.
To return to the question posed by Jesse before, is it really more in Russia's interests to have vital assets non-transparently controlled by political leaders than to have them partially held (not controlled) in a transparent way by multinational corporations?
Except for that Zyuganov guy.
I know, I know, Russia's "real opposition." You are right, of course, except that allowing the KPRF to run doesn't really show much except that the guys in the Kremlin are good at risk assessment. Consider:
- KPRF soaks up protest votes which might otherwise go to an unpredictable party.
- Even so, "Fair Russia" was created in part to draw votes from the KPRF.
- The overriding fear this election cycle was of a "colored revolution" or some other unpredictable outcome, and Dedushka Zyu showed a long time ago that he would not take to the streets - remember his promise in 1996 to put 20 million people in the streets if he lost? He didn't (and in fact one could argue that this speaks well of him).
- There was no danger at all of the KPRF or Zyuganov getting a majority of the vote - this is 100% predictable. If you were to allow Kasyanov (or even Khodor) to run, though, notwithstanding the low ratings he was polling in February, with open media access and the best campaign money could buy, well, things become less predictable - though with the short campaign schedule you're still probably talking about a max potential of maybe 7%.
- The danger of allowing someone like Kasyanov to run and potentially get 5-10% of the vote is that it would provide that person with something of a base in future elections. Zyuganov poses no such future threat.
I am now in non-snarky mode.
"- The overriding fear this election cycle was of a "colored revolution" or some other unpredictable outcome, and Dedushka Zyu showed a long time ago that he would not take to the streets - remember his promise in 1996 to put 20 million people in the streets if he lost? He didn't (and in fact one could argue that this speaks well of him)."
Well that would possibly have resulted in civil war...
"There was no danger at all of the KPRF or Zyuganov getting a majority of the vote - this is 100% predictable."
Same with Kasyanov, or any liberal (in that squishy Russian use of the word "liberal"), as you know of course.
"The danger of allowing someone like Kasyanov to run and potentially get 5-10% of the vote is that it would provide that person with something of a base in future elections. Zyuganov poses no such future threat."
I don't buy it. In fact, if the economy were to slide into recession, it would be the Communists who would benefit.
I think the reason that Kasyanov was not allowed to run (notwithstanding that I doubt he got a million signatures) is that 1) he represents the "Family," or what is left of it and 2) he is perceived as being foreign-backed, which he is (morally, not financially. as far as I know.) and perhaps most 3) he is artificial. His agenda does not have an appeal to Russians, but it does appeal to foreign powers, thus making him look like a foreign agent, whether he actually is one or not.
PS. a friend of mine says he saw Albright make that Siberia statement on Latvian TV.
I think the reason that Kasyanov was not allowed to run (notwithstanding that I doubt he got a million signatures) is that 1) he represents the "Family," or what is left of it
Definitely that was part of the reason, but why should that be an issue? After all, many people still in the upper echelons of power were placed there by the "Family," although perhaps were not within its inner circle.
and 2) he is perceived as being foreign-backed, which he is (morally, not financially. as far as I know.)
Again, I sort of agree, but is this a legitimate reason to keep someone off the ballot? Lots of people around the world support Obama - does that make him "morally" foreign-backed and therefore somehow threatening to more than a fringe minority of right-wingers?
and perhaps most 3) he is artificial. His agenda does not have an appeal to Russians, but it does appeal to foreign powers, thus making him look like a foreign agent, whether he actually is one or not.
Well, here I totally agree with you, especially as regards the artificiality part. All of those reasons you listed, though, are reasons why he would have been cake for the Kremlin to campaign against and probably would have topped out in single digits (perhaps even low single digits, given Bogdanov's "Democratic" alternative); as such, they would seem to me to be reasons why he should have been allowed to run.
As for the signatures, I doubt that was the real reason. Do you really think Bogdanov was able to collect them and Kasyanov was not? On the other hand, perhaps the wealth accumulated from the alleged 2% skim was no match for the "administrative resource" (of which Bogdanov no doubt had the assistance, if they even actually tried to get him the required number of signatures) in the matter of collecting signatures. But who knows.
PS. a friend of mine says he saw Albright make that Siberia statement on Latvian TV.
Any chance of finding out when it was aired and on what show / channel? I would love to find the clip, if it actually exists. Though if it was from the late '90s its unlikely to be on the TV station's website (and if it was on any website, I think it would be on YouTube or RuTube by now for sure).
Post a Comment