Between Wednesday and Friday next week, NATO will hold its biggest summit ever in Bucharest, the capital of its new member, Romania. Incredibly, NATO has invited its fiercest critic, Russian President Vladimir Putin, to attend. For the first time since 2002, he will. His presence is an embarrassment to NATO, but an even greater disgrace for Russia.
The two biggest issues in Bucharest will be whether to invite Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to join NATO, and whether to offer applications to Ukraine and Georgia to start so-called "membership action plans." These questions should be decided by NATO's members, not outsiders.
In February last year, Putin, in an anti-Western tirade delivered in Munich, declared: "I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust."
So Putin's views about NATO are clear. He will scandalize the summit by seeking to intimidate the representatives of former Soviet republics in the room.
Such an aggressive attitude benefits a country's foreign policy only up to a point -- one that Putin passed long ago. Initially, he acted as an able diplomat and accommodator, but since his Munich speech, Putin has begun uniting the West against Russia.
In his speech on May 9 last year commemorating Russia's victory in World War II, Putin compared the US with Nazi Germany: "We have a duty to remember that the causes of any war lie above all in the mistakes and miscalculations of peacetime, and that these causes have their roots in an ideology of confrontation and extremism. It is all the more important that we remember this today, because these threats are not becoming fewer, but are only transforming and changing their appearance. These new threats, just as under the Third Reich, show the same contempt for human life and the same aspiration to establish an exclusive dictate over the world."
Serious politicians do not speak like that. These are the rants of Putin's few remaining friends -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Belarussian President Alyaksandr Lukashenka. At home, awareness is rising that Putin is damaging Russia's interests by insulting and intimidating everybody. He is isolating his country among the world's pariahs -- worse yet, he has achieved little.
When Putin became president in 2000, he named accession to the WTO as his foreign policy priority. He failed, because he gave in to petty protectionist interests, imposing a timber embargo against Finland and Sweden, a fish embargo against Norway, and various agricultural embargoes against Lithuania, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and others.
Russia's foreign policy is focused on the interests of its state-dominated corporations, notably Gazprom, which has concluded agreements with many foreign countries and companies for monopolistic deliveries. But a Gazprom pipeline typically costs three times as much per kilometer as a similar Western pipeline, because of "leakage" (kickbacks and waste). The primary purpose of Russia's foreign policy seems to be to tap Russia's state companies for the benefit of Kremlin officials.
But customers do not trust suppliers who cut deliveries, raise prices unpredictably, expropriate competitors, and allow production to decrease in the way Gazprom and Russia's other state companies have done. As a result, Russia's gas exports to Europe have started declining.
Putin's foreign policy is also evidently intended to whip up populist chauvinism. Beating up on foreigners may boost his authoritarian rule, but this, too, has a price. Not only the US and Europe, but all former Soviet republics feel alienated by Putin's aggressive tactics. Many are seeking to shield themselves from Russia's capricious embargoes -- for example, by seeking alternative energy supplies.
Russia has improved its relations with China under Putin, but at the cost of acceding to China's demands for two big disputed islands over which the two countries fought in 1969. Putin's apparent aim was to secure financing for Rosneft's purchase of the Yugansk oil field, which was part of the Yukos confiscation. Yet China, too, is wary of Putin, and has been sending warm signals to leaders of former Soviet republics, such as Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko.
Russia's nationalists are also outraged by Putin's foreign policy, because it has alienated former Soviet republics and weakened Russia's military. The nationalist Council for National Strategy published a devastating report on the decay of Russia's military under Putin. Russian military procurement, it claims, has plummeted. For example, only three new military aircraft have been purchased since 2000.
True, armaments costs have risen sharply, but only because Putin's KGB friends, who monopolize the production of weapons, have stolen inordinate amounts. Yet, despite this spending shortfall, Putin seems obsessed with making pointless and provocative gestures, such as resuming long-range nuclear bomber flights off the US coast.
In the early 1990s, many Westerners and Russians wanted Russia to become a full-fledged member of both the EU and NATO, on the condition that Russia became a full-fledged democracy. Unfortunately, the West never made that offer and Russian democracy went astray.
Anders Aslund is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS