By Dawn's Early Light

Schroeder was no Merkel

Merkel's Values Trump Economics

Europe receives 80% of its natural gas supplies from Russia, through the Ukraine, as noted in DEL post "Holding the Russian Energy Bear at Bay".  Germany is currently very dependent on Russian shipments of natural gas via the Ukraine. No wonder that former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder played up his relationship with Russia's Vladimir Putin and played down Putin's anti-democratic ways.  The icing on the cake was "Schroeder's 'Sellout''" in taking a lucrative job at Russian-owned Gazprom after he was defeated narrowly by Ms. Angela Merkel.

All the more pleasing was the Sunday Times Online header "Merkel's harder line on Russia looks set to persist". 

"ANGELA MERKEL, the German Chancellor, showed no sign yesterday of being held captive by the deepening energy relationship between Moscow and Western Europe.

While President Bush was urging a softly, softly approach to human rights criticism of President Putin, Frau Merkel was more forthright about the need for a free press. This G8 summit, it is becoming clear, will take a sharper tone towards the Russians.

In the past, EU participants — and above all Germany — gave Russia an easy ride in recognition of the West’s overwhelming dependence on Soviet oil and gas.

Frau Merkel, a fluent Russian speaker, who lived her first 35 years in communist Germany, has a far more hard-nosed attitude to the Kremlin. Why should energy supplies be allowed to be the defining element of the German-Russian relationship, she recently asked an adviser."

Democratic values and personal freedoms are worth defending for this current German Chancellor.  This type of refreshing focus for a critical player in the European Union goes a long way to explain why the massive rift in US-German relations has healed so quickly.

The US-German position over Iran, Israel and Russia are converging to a large degree.  Trade discussions are emerging with respect to the current failing Doha round of trade talks that should work against some of the French reluctance to see farm subsidies tackled. 

Ms. Merkel took Russia and China to task for their lack of "responsibility" in dealing with rogue nations like Iran.

"We found that there is a lot that we [the United States and Germany] agree on, as regards our common responsibilities, responsibilities that we see for the two of us the world over. And I, for one, think that as regards, for example, Iran, this responsibility ought to be shouldered by more and more countries -- that goes for Russia, that goes for China. It will only be if we act in concert that we will be able to vanquish the tyrants, remove dictatorships and contain those who sponsor terrorism. And Germany would like to give its contribution to that."

Germany, along with the United Kingdom, was successful, from their view, in getting the United States to agree to direct multi-party talks with Iran, something that has not been done since the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis.

Both President George Bush and Chancellor Merkel suggested that it was best to keep their democratic criticisms to Mr. Putin private, that public condemnation would not best achieve the democratic reforms they are seeking in Russia.

The upcoming G-8 summit in St. Petersburg that President Putin is hosting will be fascinating diplomacy to follow between the major powers in attendance.

Holding the Russian Energy Bear at Bay

The WSJ had an encouraging piece last week on Georgia's economic development.  President Mikhail Saakashvili has been taking on autocratic Russian President Vladimir Putin over Europe's growing energy dependence on Russian natural gas supplies through the Ukraine.  Russia's strategy, according to the WSJ, (subscription required) is:

"Gazprom -- the leading vehicle of Kremlin energy influence -- has accelerated a three-pronged strategy. First, it is campaigning to bottle up its control of Central Asian gas resources. Second, it is consolidating and expanding its hold on energy infrastructure among countries that were once part of the Soviet Union. Finally, it is trying to use a deepening war chest to acquire private and privatizing energy assets elsewhere in Europe.

Rising tensions with Moscow reached a crescendo last week when Mr. Putin, before meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Tomsk, Siberia, accused the West of "unfair practices" and agreed with Mr. Miller that it would redirect supplies elsewhere if its European expansion plans were blocked. A senior EU official says Mr. Putin's "pipeline rattling" is in direct response to EU pressure that Russia ratify an International Energy Charter requiring it to open pipeline access to competitors -- much as telecommunications companies share their bandwidth.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said at a Senate hearing recently that energy politics is "warping" international diplomacy, joined the battle in Ankara, Turkey, urging Turkey and Greece to reduce their dependence on Russia by favoring new pipeline plans that rely on Azerbaijan. Vice President Dick Cheney flies to Kazakhstan this week as part of a continued effort to get it and Turkmenistan to join pipeline plans that would reduce Russia's near-complete dominance of Central Asian resources."

Europe's growing dependence on Russian natural gas was brought home to the average European when Russia cut off supplies to Ukraine during the last winter season, demanding steep increases in payments.  According to the Washington Post:

"Europe relies on Russia for about a third of its natural gas supplies. Those supplies arrive via two major pipeline routes constructed in the 1980s over the objections of the Reagan administration. Today the United States realizes that Russian gas will remain vital to Europe, but it is pushing nations to diversify supplies so that Russia cannot exploit Europe's energy dependence for political purposes....

At the same time, however, Russia sells 80 percent of its natural gas to Europe and is worried about European plans to increase gas purchases from Algeria and Libya, as well as about liquefied natural gas from Qatar, which plans to triple its exports."

Mr. Saakashvili is working with Germany's Angela Merkel and other European countries, including Turkey, to bypass the old Soviet system.  In today's Wall Street Journal story "In Russia's Shadow, Georgia's Leader Remakes Nation":

"Mr. Saakashvili, who has strong backing from the U.S., is trying to transform Georgia's economy in a hurry. His aim is to end centuries of Russian domination and to forge new ties with the West. Corruption is down, and tax revenues have at least doubled since 2003, due in part to a new flat tax and improved collection, helping to pay for the government's many projects. The nation's gross domestic product rose 8.5% during the first quarter....

New pipelines that pass through Georgia are coming on line this year, giving Western nations access to oil and gas from the Caspian Sea area, one of the world's few significant new sources of energy outside of the Middle East and Russia. Georgia also is a key plank in the Bush administration's efforts to promote democratic governments in the former Soviet bloc."

The US embassy in Tbilisi supports a 650 person staff.  The United States is very committed to economic and energy reform in Georgia to counter Mr. Putin's impressive efforts in consolidating state control over Russia's energy and using it as a political weapon with Europe, the West and Asia.  To counter this, ahead of the upcoming G-8 summit, the US has been working to support alternative routes that bypass Russia and its reserves of natural gas.  Referring back to the Washington Post article:

"Bryza and more senior U.S. officials have been promoting pipeline routes that would bring gas from fields in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan near the Caspian Sea through Turkey to Europe. One such pipeline, from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, opens Oct. 1. U.S. officials have been saying that reserves in Azerbaijan alone could justify bigger pipelines even if territorial disputes over the Caspian Sea are not resolved. (Missing from the U.S. vision: supplies from Iran, whose natural gas reserves are second to only Russia's.)

Former Soviet Bloc countries are enthusiastic, especially since Russia has boosted prices on gas sold to Moldova and Belarus. Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili said during a recent visit here that he supports a pipeline that would bring gas from the Caspian Sea basin through Azerbaijan and Georgia, then under the Black Sea (to avoid Russia) to Romania and then north to Poland. Building that line would take at least five years."

Germany would be one of the largest beneficators of an alternative route for energy, and Ms. Merkel has met with the Georgian President to discuss these options.  It will be interesting to see if Turkey's desire to provide an alternative route for energy supplies could become an important area of leverage in their often troubled bid to become a member of the European Union.

Regardless, Georgia represents an improved US and European ally in trying to roll back Russian advances in energy control.

Schroeder's "Sellout"

The Washington Post has a hard-hitting editorial today on former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's new job working for the Russian Government.  The editorial is titled "Gerhard Schroeder's Sellout".  "What?" you say.  "Yes", Gerhard Schroeder, champion of Russia, ignorer of Russian democratic suppression, France's tool in its Atlantic spat with America, is going to work for Gazprom, the Russian state-owned oil firm.

"To make the decision even more unpalatable, it turns out that the chief executive of the pipeline consortium is none other than a former East German secret police officer who was friendly with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, back when Mr. Putin was a KGB agent in East Germany. If nothing else, Mr. Schroeder deserves opprobrium for his bad taste.

But the announcement should also raise questions in German voters' minds about the real reasons Mr. Schroeder was so keen to see this pipeline project launched. The pipeline has cost Germany diplomatically by infuriating its Central European and Baltic neighbors. They point out that the Russian government chose to use the sea route rather than run a new pipeline alongside one that already exists on land, despite the far greater expense. The only possible reason for doing so was political: The Baltic Sea pipeline could allow Russia, a country that has made political use of its energy resources, to cut off gas to Central Europe and the Baltic states while still delivering gas to Germany. Many have wondered why Germany chose to go along with this project. Could it have been because the former chancellor realized that he was, in effect, creating his own future place of employment?"

Is it possible that Schroeder's anti-US Iraq position was personally motivated to curry favor with Vladimir Putin?  We may never know.  But the whole story raises a great deal of "what if" questions on a global scale. 

The Economist has many good articles on Gazprom and questions whether it is a company or an extension of the state.  This October 6th, 2005 article, "Russia's Energetic Enigma" explains Gazprom's influence.

"According to the scuttle-butt, Vladimir Putin has a plan for when his second and—as Russia's constitution requires—last presidential term expires in 2008. Rather than changing the constitutional rules or becoming prime minister, Mr Putin may become boss of Gazprom, Russia's state-controlled gas monopoly.

The rumour is as telling as it may turn out to be fanciful. Gazprom is a leviathan. Last week, it agreed to buy most of Sibneft, the country's fifth-biggest oil firm, in what will be the biggest takeover in Russian history. But Gazprom's gas resources are already so big that its new subsidiary barely disturbs the company's profile. Gas will still constitute 90% of its production next year. One Moscow investment bank calculates that for oil to account for half of its output, Gazprom would have to buy the entire Russian oil industry. Last year, Gazprom produced 20% of the world's gas. It has 60% of Russia's gas reserves and 16% of the world's. If it were a country, its oil and gas reserves combined would rank only behind Saudi Arabia's and Iran's."

If I were a German I would be extremely angry and would demand answers.  The Russo-German alliance never made sense from a historical paradigm of Germany's self-interest in Europe.  Gerhard Schroeder's sellout doesn't in itself provide the answer, but it does lead to plenty of questions and adds one more scandal to Germany's post-Cold War history of chancellors.  And Mr. Schroeder's decision could prove far more damaging to the world order than former Chancellor Helmut Kohl's financial scandal.

Social Conservative Wins Polish Election

Warsaw's socially conservative mayor, Lech Kaczynski, came back from a 12% deficit to defeat economic conservative lawmaker Donald Tusk in the Polish presidential runoff.  Mr. Kaczynski will replace two-term, ex-communist President Aleksander Kwasniewski who is term-limited out.

This WSJ Europe (subscription required) article, written before the elections results were announced, relates some of the appeal of Mr. Kaczynski:

"The race has also turned on personalities, with the mild-mannered Mr. Tusk saying he wants to play a unifying role, while the more aggressive Mr. Kaczynski has talked tough about standing up to Russia and Germany and purging former communists from positions of influence. He has also stressed traditional Roman Catholic values such as opposition to gay rights and abortion...

Mr. Kaczynski trailed Mr. Tusk in the first round two weeks ago and lagged in polls immediately afterward, but has been helped by an endorsement from populist anti-European Union candidate Andrzej Lepper, one of those eliminated."

The WSJ goes on to note the different economic philosophies of the two:

"Mr. Tusk, head of the Civic Platform party, wants a 15% flat-tax rate on personal and corporate earnings, while Mr. Kaczynski, from Law and Justice, favors a greater role for the state in the economy. He wants tax cuts, but would maintain a system under which high earners pay more and large families enjoy deductions."

Mr. Kaczynski has defeated Mr. Tusk by a likely 10% or better margin, which is considerable given his prior 12% deficit.  Mr. Kacyznski's campaigning to get the support of voters nervous about Germany and Russia should help in befriending Germany's new Chancellor Angela Merkel.  This may not seem obvious at first, given expressed worries about Germany.  However, Polish nervousness about Germany was heightened by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin.  Ms. Merkel will be friendlier toward Washington than Moscow. 

"Merkel's friendlier attitude toward Washington will set the new transatlantic tone.... Schroeder's departure also means that Russian President Vladimir Putin has lost his closest ally and most voluble apologist in the West."

The Washington Post article (above) goes on to quote outgoing President Aleksander Kwasniewski with some interesting observations on where Polish and German relations will lead.

""The grand coalition should work out to be the best solution for Germany," Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski said in our conversation in Washington last week. "Germany will remain close to Russia but will no longer depend on the very personalized symbols of Schroeder's politics. Germany under Merkel will work to establish the broad framework for a European Union policy toward Russia."

Merkel will make no abrupt changes on Iraq, Kwasniewski predicted. The Polish leader committed troops to the multinational force in Iraq and hopes his successor will keep them there after Kwasniewski leaves office in December. "You have elections and a new government in Iraq after December, and there will be a chance for new steps, perhaps a new United Nations resolution and a new international presence in Iraq," he said. "That is when a Germany that is more open to arguments from the United States could be helpful."

It is important, Kwasniewski continued, that Merkel has personally experienced the transformation of totalitarianism into democracy. Raised in communist East Germany, she tenaciously made her way to the top of the Christian Democratic Union after Germany's reunification.

"She understands the driving force of our times, the move to democracy, because she has lived it," said Kwasniewski, whose career traces the same arc. His successful mediation of the Ukraine crisis last December, as Poland's neighbor teetered on the edge of great bloodshed, has received too little international recognition."

Mr. Kaczynski's ant-communist bent should fit in well with Ms. Merkel's philosophy considering she grew up under communism in Eastern Europe.  This doesn't bode well for Putin's conservative, non-democratic ways.  The net effect of this election and the recent German election is to move Eastern and Central Europe closer to the United States and away from the Russians.  It also means greater support for the US-UK desire to see a stable democracy emerge in Iraq. 

Now if only France was ready for an election.

UPDATE: For a more indepth look at the Polish elections, visit The Beatroot's post.  His commentary comes from a Londoner's perspective living in Warsaw. (October 24, 2005)

Sec. Rice & Russian Arms Sales to China

Jill Dougherty of CNN asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an April 20th interview in Moscow, Russia:

"MS. DOUGHERTY: The United States has expressed some concern about Russian arms sales. Just conventional arms. And at this point, you have Russia selling arms to China. And some have speculated that if tensions were to increase with Taiwan and Taiwan declares independence, China perhaps invades, that these weapons could be a complication, a very complicating factor in that. Is the United States concerned about that, specifically Russian sales to China? Is the United States saying anything about it? What should be done?

SECRETARY RICE: We certainly are concerned about any efforts or any policies that lead to increased Chinese military capability in the Asia Pacific region. And Taiwan is obviously an issue here, because the United States has certain responsibilities under the Taiwan Relations Act to help Taiwan defend itself if it's attacked. We have talked to the Russians about it. We've talked especially about the need to recognize the balance of power issues, the balance of forces issues in the Asia Pacific region. And I might just note that Russia itself, of course, is a Pacific power and should have similar concerns about what could happen to the military balance in the region if Chinese military modernization continues apace."

It is good the issue is being addressed.  However, I don't see much leverage the United States has on Russia regarding arms sells to China.  Arms sales are a great source of attracting hard currency for Russia.  China is a natural client and far more stable than other countries that Russia sells arms to. 

Her visit to Russia is to make progress prior to President Bush's visit to Russia to celebrate with President Vladimir Putin the 60th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War.

Stay Tuned...

Still Hoping for a Marxist Utopia

Eric Hobsbawm, the noted Socialist-Communist historian, has a piece in today's Guardian (hat tip: RealClearPolitics) "The Last of the Utopian Projects". He laments how Perestroika hastened the Soviet decline and brought about an aggressive bid by the US for "global domination".  Let's break down a couple of his key points and address them:

"Did perestroika herald 'the end of history'? The collapse of the experiment initiated by the October Revolution is certainly the end of a history. That experiment will not be repeated, although the hope it represented, at least initially, will remain a permanent part of human aspirations. And the enormous social injustice which gave communism its historic force in the last century is not diminishing in this one. But was it 'the end of history' as Francis Fukuyama proclaimed in 1989, in a phrase that he no doubt regrets?"

Mr. Fukuyama's book "The End of History and the Last Man" (1992) asserts that history is directional and that its endpoint is capitalist liberal democracy.  Mr. Hobsbawm dreams of the Marxists goals being accomplished now by different means, and is no fan of the "capitalist liberal democracy" that Mr. Fukuyama believed in 1992 was nearby.

"He was doubly wrong. In the literal sense of history as something that makes headlines in newspapers and TV news bulletins, history has continued since 1989, if anything in a more dramatic mode than before. The cold war has been followed neither by a new world order, nor by a period of peace, nor by the prospect of a predictable global progress in civilisation such as intelligent western observers had in the mid-19th century, the last period when liberal capitalism - under British auspices in those days - had no doubts about the future of the world."

It is interesting Mr. Hobsbawm's view of the post Cold War period.  Taking the concepts one by one that are in bold:

1. "There is no new world order" - I would suggest that there is indeed a new world order, one that is currently being defined and played out in the diplomatic battles between the US and its former allies in Europe, the US and China in Asia, and by the US and the totalitarian regimes in the Middle East that are resisting democracy.  The new world order is characterized by US hegemony and its pursuit, post 9/11, of Idealistically spreading democracy for a Realist self preservation from foreign threats such as terrorism.
2. "Nor by a period of peace" - Communism didn't prevent the greatest tragic war of the last century.  On the contrary, the Cold War created stability among the core superpowers while proxy battles raged during a 50 year period on the Korean Peninsula, Latin and South America, Afghanistan, South East Asia, in the Middle East and the non-Commonwealth African countries.  By contrast, the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union and failure of Perestroika is characterized by less conflict and more stability with an increasing number of state actors.
3. "Nor by the prospect of a predictable global progress in civilisation" - Interesting choice of words with "predictable".  What about what we do have today in history, a non-predictable "global progress in civilisation" as democracy takes root in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Georgia, Iraq, Palestine, possibly Lebanon and Egypt?  Who would have predicted this progress? Certainly not the Left. This is explored in my earlier post on the Left reconsidering the Iraq invasion in "Could Bush be Right?" 

It is ironic, though not surprising, that Mr. Hobsbawm cannot find "progress" in the democratic movements in the Middle East and former Soviet Union.

"What we have today is a superpower unrealistically aspiring to a permanent world supremacy for which there is no historical precedent, nor probability, given the limitation of its own resources - especially as today all state power is weakened by the impact of non-state economic agents in a global economy beyond the control of any state, and given the visible tendency of the global centre of gravity to shift from the North Atlantic to the zone of south and east Asia."

There was no history for the rise of Communism or its decline, but that did not preclude the ideology of having a major impact on the fate of the world in the 20th century.  We have only two to three centuries of global interaction on an interconnected scale to have "historical precedent".  Looking regionally, it is easy to compare China during its height, Rome at is apex, or Britain at its zenith as being superpowers of their time.

I also would like to argue with his second line of reasoning, that "all state power is weakened by the impact of non-state economic agents in a global economy".  The power of the US government, especially on the federal and state levels, seems to have increased as symbolized in the creating of the Department of Homeland Security, the passage of the Patriot Act, and the rise of immigration as part of the national debate.  It may be true that totalitarian states and some countries in Europe are weakened, but this is not a universal truth. 

With respect to the shift of gravity from the North Atlantic to South East Asia, I would argue that the center of gravity in both cases is the United States.  The attraction and direction of that gravity is pointing more towards Asia as the US chooses to reinforce its alliances with South Korea, Japan (see this DEL post) and Australia to counter North Korean recklessness and Chinese assertiveness.  This is also due in part to the abdication of "hard power" politics from the countries of the European Union and their focus on the only coin remaining, "soft power".  Asia is moving towards greater "hard power" and the center of gravity in global power politics will follow it.

I believe, while Mr. Fukuyama's book was poorly timed, in light of the post Cold War history and the developments in the world post 9/11, that it may prove more durable than Mr. Hobsbawm's ideas expressed above.

Your comments are greatly welcomed and appreciated.

UPDATE: Reader T. Hazelwood has an insightful forum discussion from FrontPage Magazine with a former Eastern bloc intelligence Agent here.  It makes a good link between Communism encouraging Muslim extremism against the United States. (March 15, 2005)

Blog Pool - Can You Find This Post in the WP?

I can't.  Performing a search of the Washington Post on Secretary Rice turns up an article on her love of football.  While an interesting article, it has nothing of her important comments on the lack of Russian democracy.  For a good article that quotes Dr. Rice, I had to travel across the Atlantic to read Britain's The Telegraph:

"Condoleezza Rice, the newly appointed US Secretary of State, last night signaled a hardening of relations with Moscow."

Compare this to the New York Times, which at least covered her visit (though failed to report the substantive quotes from it):

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a top Russian envoy Saturday that Moscow's crackdown on dissent was making Russian-American relations 'more difficult,' a State Department official said. But Ms. Rice also signaled in public that the United States would not try to isolate Russia because of its actions."

The Telegraph gives these key quotes from Dr. Rice:

"It is important that Russia make clear to the world that it is intent on strengthening the rule of law, strengthening the role of the independent judiciary, permitting a free and independent press to flourish. These are all basics of democracy.

Everyone wants Russia to be a prosperous, democratic state that is fully integrated, and there are many signs that Russia has the same vision of the future."

Reading the two publications give an extremely different view of the US approach and rebuke of Russia.  I will wait for the State Department's transcript release (about two days behind usually) to judge for myself which daily is more on the mark.

Putting aside the difference of reporting, Dr. Rice's glowing comments on Poland stand in stark contrast to her comments on Russia:

"I would just highlight that Poland’s role in continuing to promote democracy has helped with the Ukrainians, is helping the Iraqis, is helping the Afghans, is enormously important. It is also clear that as the Palestinian-Israeli process moves forward that we are hopeful that Poland, as a country that has good relations with both parties, will be able to play a constructive role in helping in the capacity of building the new Palestinian state in that area. And we talked about some possibilities there."

Clearly, Poland and Russia have many similarities, being post-communist countries dealing with a change to a global capitalist economy and further integration into Europe.  It is unfortunate that Vladimir Putin is taking Russia in an anti-democratic direction.

Kudos to Dr. Rice for candid talk concerning democracy and publicly advancing the democratic theme of President Bush's second inaugural address.  It is regrettable that better coverage of Dr. Rice's important travel and comments abroad cannot be found domestically in the United States.