On Pr. Putin's victory and what this signifies for the rest of the world

Introduction
Last Sunday Russians voted in general parliamentary elections, in which Pr. Putin achieved a landslide victory. This didn’t surprise anyone; everyone knew that “United Russia”, the party which placed Pr. Putin’s name at the head of its list, was going to win; and everyone knew that this victory would be a great one.

But what was the reaction of the West and of the western media? President Bush avoided offering congratulations to Pr. Putin, expressing his concerns about the results of the poll. The EU expressed its scepticism – if not its doubts – as well. The Western media attributed his victory to a considerable extent to the Russian media, which are said to be linked to the Kremlin. And all of them have joined their reservations with the accusations of the Russian Communist Party, whose leader said that the election had been "the toughest and least democratic" ever held in post-Soviet Russia.


Possible explanation for West's polemic against Pr. Putin and evaluation of it
But why all this polemic? Why does the West appear to be that much concerned? “Because all these accusations are grounded on real facts”, could anyone answer spontaneously. And it is true that the processes followed in the poll could enable a falsification of the results, in case someone wanted to do so.

However, there are a few annoying facts, which raise questions about the real intentions of all these, who say that they are "sceptical", as far as the results of the elections are concerned. For example, what about the first election of Mr. Bush to the Presidency of the USA? Shall we remember what happened with Florida’s results? Did any of the European countries hurry to express any concerns at all? Where was the “democratic sensitivity” of EU? On the other hand, what about Mr. Berlusconi? Owner of TV channels which broadcast on a national network in Italy, he has become twice Prime Minister of his country. Did the US administration express any reservations about the fairness of the results? I believe that these two examples show in a most obvious way that double standards are being used in here. And only this fact should be enough to raise questions about the real cause of the West’s reaction towards Pr. Putin’s victory.

But if the previous are enough to raise questions about the real motives of those whose “democratic strings” have been touched, the following is enough to raise questions about the fairness of the accusations themselves.

Let us examine the result of the elections. It is a fact that “United Russia” won around 64% of the votes. It is true that in the rest of the European countries such results are not very common. However, all opinion polls before 2 December were giving to “United Russia” a rate ranging between 62% and 67%. And in the end, the percentage “United Russia” got was within the aforementioned range. In my opinion, this proves that Pr. Putin neither had a reason to falsify the results, nor did he so. Because someone falsifies the results in order to get a rate higher than what he would normally get. In our case, Pr. Putin didn’t get a higher rate. Hence, I feel that these efforts to raise questions over the results, they simply misfire.


The real reasons of West's polemic against Pr. Putin
So, why this entire attempt to discredit Pr. Putin? Why all this polemic? My answer is straightforward: “Because he is a considerable obstacle to the aspiration of the West to world supremacy and he questions the US hegemony”.

And I am not exaggerating at all, when I am talking like that. Mr. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was very clear: “There is no such thing as the UN. There is only the international community, which can only be lead by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States”. Equally clear was Pr. Putin two months ago: “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.” To those who favour the idea that the use of force can be also legitimate when the decision is taken by either the NATO or the EU, his answer was equally clear: “We have different points of view... The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN.” The opposition between Pr. Putin’s policy and the objectives of the West (and in particular of the USA) is obvious.

That is exactly what bothers the West. Unlike his predecessor, who dragged Russia’s name in the mud, he is determined to follow an independent foreign policy. Because, let’s face it, today’s Russia is not Yeltsin’s faltering state. It has recovered to a considerable extent and it realises that it cannot remain a mere “satellite” of the West. And the credit is all due to Pr. Putin.

He used a low profile in order not to draw the attention of the US, which were dedicated to impose themselves on the rest of the world; and this way he bought time in order to achieve great changes. Aided by the circumstances – the increased need for energy on a global scale – he used the money which started coming into Russia in order to give a fresh impulse to the economy of his country – the very sector which really ensures power; and it seems that he has succeeded. For one more time, Russia is standing on its feet again.

However, this time things are not as they were before. Today’s Russia is not the old communistic USSR, which was trying to impose its ideology onto the others. On the contrary, it has abandoned ideology, imperial and any other great designs, in favour of pragmatism and common sense. And when Pr. Putin states that “it is necessary to make sure that international law has a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms” (a point of view, the moral basis of which cannot be denied) he exposes the US foreign policy. And that’s the problem in here. The war in Iraq has greatly damaged – if not completely ruined – the image of the USA. And what was in the past the advantage of US foreign policy, when US would appear to be the protectors of democracy, freedom and international law (although this is not that much close to the truth), now it has been lost.

And there is more. Europe is realising more and more that is has common interests with Russia. The co-operation between the EU and Russia on the field of energy becomes tight more and more; and this is happening although the economic regression that EU faces lately may raises fears that this may render Europe dependant on Russia as far as the energy supply is concerned. Needless to say that such scenarios are most worrying for the US; because on the one hand a co-operation on the field of energy may lead to a co-operation on the political field; and on the other hand such a co-operation on the field of energy does not serve the objectives of the US at all, which are trying to control the global economy by controlling the energy recourses.

That’s why the West, and especially the USA, is trying to discredit Pr. Putin’s victory, by presenting him as someone who is undemocratic. And this particular accusation has a very particular objective. Because, on the one hand we reserve for ourselves the right to be called “the democratic free world”; and on the other hand we present Pr. Putin as undemocratic – in other words, as being against democracy. Thus, with this sleight, we are trying to present Pr. Putin as a potential threat against the West. And this is just because he does not consent to the will of the West to dominate on all the others.


The message of the Russian ballot
But no matter what the West says, no matter how much it criticises the Russian President, Pr. Putin enjoys the confidence of the vast majority of the Russian people; and in contrast to this, it seems that the Russians do not trust much the rhetoric of the West. And this can be most readily seen in the message the Russian ballot sends. So, let us examine the results of the elections and let us attempt to decipher the message this poll sends.

A first stinking observation is that all the parties which were backed by the West, they have completely failed; none of them got more than 2%. A second observation is that of the four parties which have entered the Duma (i.e. the lower house of the Federal Assembly of Russia) only the Communist Party opposes Pr. Putin. The other three parties, which have won approximately the 80% of the votes, support the policy of the Russian President.

Bearing these in mind, we can see that the Russian people say in a most clear way two simple things: First, they support Pr. Putin’s policy. And this shouldn’t be a surprise, since thanks to his policy Russia has managed to recover to a considerable extent. Second, they do not want the West to interfere in their domestic issues. And this is the price the West pays for its lack of insight, since its policy has never been very friendly towards Russia – even after the Russia’s transition to the free market economy.


The need for a change in West's foreign policy. Suggestions for the future
Based on these facts, I think it would be wise for the West to think again about whether it should continue its efforts to destabilise Pr. Putin. Because the West shouldn’t examine only how to get rid of Pr. Putin, whose policy is an obstacle to its objective; it should also examine what will happen if Pr. Putin is removed. Whom do we prefer on the steer of Russia? Do we prefer the ultra-nationalist Zhirinovsky? Or do we prefer the Communists?

So, what should be done from now on? I guess it would be a good thing, if the West starts to accepting reality and re-adjusting its policy according to it. Russia cannot always have as presidents people like Yeltsin; and Pr. Putin is far from being a “copy” of Pr. Yeltsin. And Russia itself has also changed: it is standing on its feet again. And this requires a re-examination of our policy towards Russia, and our foreign policy in general.

It is obvious that ways of thinking like the one expressed by Ambassador Bolton are not realistic any more. The unipolar model is not practicable any more. Therefore, we have no other choice but accepting the model of a multi-polar world. And we all must do our best in order for this model to work this time.

To this end, I believe that “Old Europe” (about which vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld used to talk with so much disdain) could be proven very useful. Because based on it own experience, it can propose a new way in global politics.

Just look into our history: For centuries the European countries have been fighting each other. Blood has been shed; human lives have been lost; countries have been devastated. And in the end, all of these countries have become weaker. Their pursuit for supremacy has rendered them weaker.

But this is not the case any more. The opposition has given its place to co-operation. The European Economic Community has already been transformed to a Union and it may end up as Confederation – or even a Federation – in the future. And in all these Formations are taking part not only countries who had been allies; they also participate countries like France and Germany, which have been fighting each other for centuries. And all the European countries, in this multi-polar Union, we are all working together, all of us sharing the same vision for a brighter peaceful future. I do not know, but it seems that the “Old Europe” has still enough to teach the rest of the world. What do you think?

Annapolis Conference: a ray of hope or not?

The Annapolis Conference for Middle East is over; and if we are to adopt without any question what Secretary Rice says, we should rejoice and celebrate, for the objective of the talks has been achieved. "The success of this meeting is really in the launch of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians for the establishment of a Palestinian state and therefore a two-state solution," she said. But how close is this statement to reality?

Furthermore, which should be the ultimate end of the U.S policy efforts as far as the Palestine issue is concerned? Should it be merely the creation of a Palestinian state or something more? And how does the Annapolis Conference serve this end? (If it does so).

It is obvious that the final end of the Conference shouldn't be merely the establishment of a Palestinian state. For example, if a Palestinian state is established, which – however – is in conflict with the Israeli state, should we be glad about it? Certainly not! Therefore, U.S. policy's objective should be to ensure a lasting peace, rather than just establishing a state for the Arabs of Palestine. And, as a consequence, the results of the Annapolis Conference should be evaluated in regard to this objective.

It is evident that a lasting peace requires a permanent solution to the Middle East issue. Nevertheless, it is also evident that this solution cannot be a fair one. Hence, we should rather seek for an acceptable solution. And this practically means compromising.

There are 5 main problems, which consist the core of the Middle East issue:

• the borders of the Israeli state
• the refugees
• water
• the status of the city of Jerusalem
• the security of Israel

But, in spite of the fact that these five problems are interwoven with each other, still they can be reduced to two issues: the territorial one, and the issue of Israel's security.

By making this reduction, the pursuit of a settlement becomes easier, since these two issues have a cause-and-effect relation. Arabs' aggression against Israel is the result of the territorial problem, which arose because of the establishment of the Israeli state, and because of the way this state was established. And of course, it will not stop for as long as the territorial issue remains unsolved. Because a war is not a purpose to itself, but a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent (“War is the continuation of politics through other means", von Clausewitz says.) And in this case, the political objective of the Arab hostility is a solution of the territorial issue, which will not be unilaterally dictated by Israel.

Bearing all these in mind, it is hard for me to share Secretary Rice's contentment, about the results of the Annapolis Conference. And I am saying so for two more reasons.

The first reason is related to the people who are to negotiate; I mean Mr. Olmert and Mr. Abbas. Because, even if we assume that they have the will to negotiate (and we shouldn't take for granted that both of them want to do so), still it is doubtful whether they have the power or the legitimation to do so.

Let’s begin with Mr. Olmert, whose position is far from being an envied one. Having become Prime minister by chance, he has been widely criticised since the unfortunate war he launched against Lebanon. His administration’s future is rather obscure, since he is the head of a ramshackle coalition government with the religious Far Right, which will certainly overrule him, if he attempts to make any real step towards a compromise with the Palestinians for the sake of a mutually acceptable solution. And as if these were not enough, it is possible for him to be indicted for scandals, depending on the results of the investigation, which is being run these days. (I guess that while he was in Annapolis, he was more concerned for the investigative report, rather than for the Conference itself.)

But if Mr. Olmert's position is difficult, Mr. Abbas' position is almost despairing. First, in the last Palestinian parliamentary election his party, Fatah, lost to the Islamic resistance movement Hamas (Hamas took 76 out of the 132 seats of the Parliament, whereas Fatah took only 43 of them); then, after forming a government which lacks legitimation, he suffered a second defeat – in the military field this time: he lost control over the Gaza stripe to Hamas. And although the West sees on Mr. Abbas a clement negotiator, his compatriots accuse him of being over-compliant. Which practically means that even if Mr. Abbas comes to the negotiations, and even if these negotiations reach to a final agreement, still this will be of little value; because if the terms of an agreement are not widely accepted (and Hamas has already dismissed the talks, saying that “Palestinians will not be bound by any decisions taken at this week's US-backed Middle East peace conference”), then no lasting peace will be secured.

But it is not only the negotiators that make me being sceptical about sharing Secretary Rice' contentment; It is also the whole process, which is supposed to lead to a final solution of the Palestine issue. I am talking about the so-called "Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East", which – I feel – is lacking common sense.

To be more exact, the Roadmap for Peace comprises three goal-driven phases: Phases II and III are related to the solution of the territorial issue and the establishment of a Palestinian state, whereas Phase I is related to ending the violence and terror, normalising the Palestinian life and building Palestinian Institutions. So far so good.

However, according to the Roadmap for Peace, in Phase I "Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." And although the demand for an end to violence is perfectly logical, it is not logical at all to ask the Palestinians "to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere"; because, as it has already been said, all this violence has a particular reason and a specific aim. By asking the Palestinians to consent to Roadmap’ Phase I, it is as if they are asked to relinquish their own fate to Israel's good will and generosity. They are asked to disarm, and in return they are given the obfuscated hope for an independent state. And, of course, this cannot be acceptable. Not to mention that such an attempt might lead to an intra-Palestinian civil war. For these reasons, the Roadmap for Peace cannot be an acceptable process for the seeking of a permanent solution.

So, as it has been shown, these who were invited to Annapolis Conference in order to represent the implicating parts, they do not have either the room to manoeuvre or the legitimation to negotiate. On the other hand, in this conference the US policy attempted to reactivate the Roadmap for Peace, which cannot be an acceptable basis for the talks. Hence, it is really hard for me to understand where Secretary Rice’s contentment is derived from.

I do not know. Perhaps some of you will think that I remind you of Cassandra. But do not forget: although Cassandra used to prophesise only doom and disaster, still, she was speaking the truth.