March 4, 2010 by Carol Vipperman
Twenty-five years ago this month, Gorbachev assumed the top leadership post in the Soviet Politburo. I had not remembered this date, but was reminded while reading an interesting article in Russian Life (an excellent magazine) about Perestroika. It was a first-hand report by Tamara Eidelman, a teacher in Moscow and the magazine’s history editor, of the changes and the impact it had on the Soviet people. What struck me the most was that the people heard on television that the Soviet “economy was not as wonderful” as they had been pretending. Gorbachev talked about the economy and the role of scientific and technical progress to the citizens of the Soviet Union. She writes that he believed that “we needed to ‘accelerate,’ that computers and robots would lead the country out of crisis.” Reflecting on the last twenty-five years, she was nostalgic about that marvelous spring of 1985. She writes, “It truly seemed possible to change everything for the better without any blood or horror. We just needed more computers.”
Although this was both a very interesting and personal account of that dramatic time in the Soviet Union, Russian people are now hearing (again) from their leaders that modernization” and “innovation” is essential to Russia’s future. Of course innovation is critical to all economies and finding ways to achieve innovation is the trick. Today, Prime Minister Putin spearheaded a new commission on innovation to “enforce its modernization agenda” and is prepared to “assign 1.1 trillion rubles [$36.8 billion], or more than 10 percent of the federal budget, for fundamental and applied sciences, higher education, high-tech medicine and specialized federal programs.” This investment is needed and signals, perhaps, a real commitment to innovation.
But not all agree. In an opinion piece in The Moscow Times, Modernization by Gosplan, Vladislav Inozemtsev cites the flaws in the approach to innovation. He highlights that the “fundamental problem in Russia’s approach to modernization is that it doesn’t seem to understand – or at least it blatantly ignores – the fact that you can’t have a centrally planned innovative economy.” He states that there is only one path – “that is the path of industrial revival based on Western technologies, the rapid liberalization of the economy in combination with gradual political reforms and a fundamental rapprochement with Europe and the U.S.”
Whether or not you agree with his assessment it is very clear that modernization is essential for Russia’s economic future and involving Western technologies and partners would be good for everyone. It would provide more business opportunities and scientific collaborations hopefully creating more jobs. Twenty-five years from now, when we look back at this important time for modernization, we hope that we won’t think as Tamara Eidelman did, that “we just needed more computers.”
Posted in Business | Tagged Gorbachev, modernization, Putin | Leave a Comment »
February 19, 2010 by Carol Vipperman
I have been remiss about posting since our 20th anniversary last year, so I am making a commitment to do so more frequently. I hope that all of you who read our blog will remind me if we slip a little.
As for many 2009 was a busy year, but for us, following our anniversary celebration with Vladimir Pozner, we found it a tremendous launching point for the future. Twenty years is an accomplishment, one that we are very proud of, and we received so many wonderful comments from people around the world congratulating us. But no one person or organization can rest on its laurels, so with the start of 2010 we are exploring new ideas, projects and issues that can assist in advancing our bilateral relationship. I will be writing more about these in other posts.
One new aspect for FRAEC is that we are upping our visibility through a live journal blog in Russian and English, a YouTube Channel- FRAEC1, that we will add more videos, and we are now on Facebook, so check out all of these and let us know what you think.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged 2010, US-Russia Relations | Leave a Comment »
October 3, 2009 by Carol Vipperman
On my way back to Seattle from Sakhalin I read an article in the St. Petersburg Times entitled “The Country Russia Loves to Hate” by Vladimir Ryzhkov, a former Duma deputy and now a host of a political talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio. He cites a poll recently conducted by the Levada Center indicating that only 2.1 percent of all Russians consider the United States a friend and 45.4 percent see the United States as Russia’s enemy. In the article, Ryzhkov claims that this negative feeling is growing, despite the change in leadership in the U.S.
You can only imagine my dismay having just participated in our bilateral forum, the Russian American Pacific Partnership (RAPP), just days before. There the mood was upbeat and many talked about the “new opportunities” for our two countries due to the “reset of the relationship”. Granted we were at a meeting with people who had “shared interests”, but to read the results of this poll was discouraging. Even Ryzhkov was surprised by the findings. According to the Levada Center study, “Russian respondents were positive that the United States is to blame for the main problems in the world today.”
The article highlights another study conducted in June that indicated that, “85 percent of Russians, as well as their friends and relatives, have never been to the United States” and an 95 percent of respondents said that they “never had any form of contact with an American, or only a brief encounter.”
At our RAPP breakout session on Community Development: Public-Private Cooperation, the importance of exchanges was discussed at length. Over the years many Russians from business, academia, science, government, nongovernment and youth organizations have traveled to the U.S. on U.S. government funded exchange programs. These exchanges help build understanding and further cooperative efforts, a worthwhile investment in my opinion. However, at the meeting it was noted that the number of U.S. youth coming to Russia has decreased. There was a strong call for more funded programs to bring young American students to Russia.
This call for more engagement through exchanges, to bring more Russians in contact with Americans, is an important tool to help improve our mutual understanding and image. Clearly we have some work to do if these polls are indicative of the larger impression by Russians of the United States.
Posted in US-Russia Relations | Leave a Comment »
October 1, 2009 by Carol Vipperman
Russian Foreign Deputy Minister Ryabkov and Deputy Ex-Plenipotentiary Representative Levintal
“Spark and exploit” new opportunities was one of the messages at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Russian American Pacific Partnership (RAPP) held on Sakhalin Island this week. U.S. and Russian federal leaders listened to the issues in our trans-pacific relationship. Just less than one month away from the first meeting of the Presidential Bilateral Commission Co-chairs, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, RAPP participants seized the opportunity to give their recommendations and perspectives.
At the opening plenary, Sakhalin Governor Alexander Khoroshavin captured the mood of the past 15 years by stating that in the ‘90’s we were optimistic then disillusioned and now the meeting’s theme, “ A Meeting of Shared Interests”, captures the new possibilities we face. Russian Foreign Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov, fresh from the G-20 and United Nations meetings, cited the uniqueness of the Russian Far East (RFE) region and RAPP. Interregional cooperation, according to Ryabkov, is becoming more important in Russia’s strategy. Improving small and medium-sized business and alternative energy cooperation is a priority that he asked RAPP to address. Alexander Levintal, Deputy Ex-plenipotentiary Representative of the President of Russia in the Far Eastern Federal District, highlighted the importance of developing the “intellectual economy” in the RFE and that RAPP is a “permanent player” in the region. Matthias Mitman, Economic Minister Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, echoed the call for building prosperity through the intellectual economy and stated that the Pacific Basin is acknowledged as the “most dynamic region in the world”.
In a discussion on the priorities of the new Presidential commission, the federal representatives responded to questions from the participants. When asked as to how this new commission is different from the previous Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, the response was: “more proactive and results driven” and “less bureaucratic”. The Business Development and Economic Relations Working Group, co-chaired by Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and Minister of Economic Development Elvira Nabiullina, has on its current agenda 10 items including a placeholder for the recommendations from this RAPP meeting.
In the afternoon 19 presentations were delivered by key U.S. and Russian leaders on Oil and Gas, Technologies, Russian Priority Development projects, Community Development and Transportation providing the basis for discussion in the breakout sessions the next day. Over 25 recommendations emerged from the breakout sessions focused on Expanding Trans-Pacific Bilateral Trade, Opportunities through Applied Technologies and Community Development and Public-Private Cooperation. The report with these recommendations will be forwarded to the Bilateral Commission and will be made available to the public soon.
This was a special time for this meeting. Not just because of the newly formed Presidential Bilateral Forum, which gave new energy and excitement to the work of those attending RAPP, but also because the closing day was on September 29th. Just 15 years ago on that day, President Boris Yeltsin announced in Seattle that he wanted to “create a new relationship” between the US West Coast and the Russian Far East. No one then understood how important that proclamation would be for our trans-pacific relationship. We have come a long way since then and there is more to come.
Posted in Business, US-Russia Relations, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
July 7, 2009 by Carol Vipperman
Much has been written in the press about the Obama-Medvedev summit this week in Moscow. By now people are analyzing the results, whether or not much was accomplished and whether the Russian people really care about Obama’s visit to Russia.
It is noteworthy that this is the first summit in 7 years and that there was progress on the reduction of nuclear weapons and expanded economic ties. Monday, both Presidents announced the formation of a U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission with working groups that are reminiscent of the former Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission. For those of us in Washington State, we have two locals leading two of the working groups: US Department of Commerce Gary Locke on Business Development and Economic Relations and Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, on the Drug Trafficking Working Group.
FRAEC’s Director of the Russian American Pacific Partnership, Derek Norberg, is in Moscow and attended the Business Summit on Tuesday, July 7th. He gives a more “up close and personal” perspective of what has happened, especially during the business summit itself. He reports that “there does seem a desire to ensure that a positive tone is maintained, even at the expense of addressing the serious issues that are well known to both sides. It is probably an appropriate approach, with US-Russian relations having fallen to such a low level; the re-set deserves a soft start before the real work begins. ” To read his full report, please click here.
Posted in Business, US-Russia Relations | Leave a Comment »
June 11, 2009 by Carol Vipperman
Russia surprised the U.S. and Europe with its decision to withdraw from WTO accession on Thursday to form a three county customs bloc with Belarus and Kazakhstan. Just last week at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, E.U. and Russian leaders were commenting that WTO accession could be possible by the end of the year. Currently Russia is the only major economy outside the 153-member WTO.
This turnaround is being characterized by some as a “ploy” or negotiating tactic, as the Government of Russia has been “frustrated” by the slow process. Sixteen years is a long time. There are key stumbling blocks, namely multilateral issues such as Siberian over-flight fees and gas prices. Also current members, Ukraine and Georgia, have not given their support. President Medvedev, quoted in an article in Forbes, said: ‘there are simply too many jacks in the box in the WTO negotiations’. This does suggest that the Russian government is looking for a quicker process.
Many in the business community, who have advocated for Russia’s inclusion in WTO, are surprised and concerned; they do not see any advantages for Russia to withdraw their application. Some speculate that this move is a result of the impact WTO might have on the Russian economy; that during a difficult economic period, jobs would be at stake. When asked at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum whether or not WTO would hurt Russian businesses, Anatoly Chubais, Rusnano Chairman, was quoted as saying that “80 percent of Russian companies would welcome the accession.” Not all at the forum agreed.
Regardless, most agree that this is complicated and will take time to sort through the implications. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan will hold talks next week in Geneva, so more is to unfold.
Posted in Business | Leave a Comment »
June 5, 2009 by Carol Vipperman
I look for the “not so obvious” stories of what is happening in Russia when I surf the news. Two articles caught my eye recently: “Economic crisis sabotages Russia’s efforts to halt falling population” and “Troubled Kids as Good Publicity”. They may not seem related, but I saw connections.
The first story highlights a recent U.N. study, “National Human Development Report, Russian Federation, 2008: Russia Facing Demographic Challenges”. This report asserts that Russia’s “demographic challenges – including short life expectancy and a shrinking population – must be faced to maintain Russia’s economic and social security.” It lists a number of very important policies and actions that the government and the Russian people must address to stem this serious problem ranging from improved healthy lifestyles, adopting life long education, addressing the pension system, employing youth and aging populations and international migration.
The other story comes on the heels of the celebration of International Children’s Day in Russia on June 1st. People took to the streets across Russia to attract attention to the problems that children face in Russia. There are videos on You Tube of some of the celebrations, but the article focuses on two aspects: the efforts by the Government of Russia to draw attention to the importance of having more children (something the U.N. report addresses) and how one television channel used the opportunity to highlight a charity event sponsored by the channel and airing footage of the President giving awards to spouses raising families with up to 16 children. The author of the article was very critical of the station, basically saying that it was “airing propaganda” and questioned whether promoting a positive image of Russian children would help combat the children’s problems in the country.
So how do I see these as related? It is clear from the U.N. report with its “Address to Readers” by E. Nabiullina, Minister for Economic Development of the Russian Federation, that the Government of Russia considers the falling population as “one of the most acute problems facing Russia”. Encouraging births is one part of the strategy – hence the recognition of families having more babies, but there is much more that needs to be done. It requires that the government and the Russian people recognize the importance of designing and implementing a strategy, as the U.N. report suggests, that harnesses three components: political will, economic resources and appropriate knowledge. And I would add that it means utilizing the many resources available in local communities to assist in improving healthy lifestyles, educating youth and the elder population as well as increasing the awareness and support of people and companies to the importance of charitable giving. Perhaps the television station erred in the direction of being overly positive, however, raising awareness of how everyone can help by supporting charities is important.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
May 27, 2009 by Carol Vipperman
Recently President Medvedev presented the country’s budget to the Duma. Normally the Finance Minister presents budget, so some believe that the President, by being the messenger, wanted to highlight the priority he places on this budget. Russia, as the rest of the world, has been negatively affected by this financial crisis. Higher oil prices and healthy reserves helped Russia grow its economy and its middle class over the last decade, but unfortunately as he acknowledges in his opening remarks, the country and the economy face a difficult situation.
In his remarks he outlines ten principle budget tasks ranging from fulfilling the country’s social spending commitments and making them more targeted (an item he believes the regional authorities should have greater influence) to finding optimum means to support the country’s manufacturing and industrial sectors and finance system, as well as encouraging entrepreneurial activity, promote research and development through tax incentives and an economically justified tax burden. Throughout his list there were calls for modernization and the use of technology to streamline government.
His final priority was of interst – the need to “start working on putting in place a barrier-free environment for people with disabilities and to ratify the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities“. This has been long overdue so I applaud the President for calling this to the attention of the country.
Two years ago during our bilateral Russian American Pacific Partnership (RAPP) meeting, I met a woman who was an advocate for people with disabilities. She herself was disabled and specifically came to our meeting to present her case at RAPP’s transportation sector. She called for prioritizing the needs of people with disabilities and was so convincing that the transportation sector included a recommendation to the Russian government in its sector report. “Access for the physically impaired: Access for people with disabilities living in Russia is extremely difficult. There are few, if any accommodations to allow them to travel with or without assistance. Providing access to travel through airports, on aircraft, on motor coaches, and on trains is critical. All people need to travel in order to get education, medical treatment and develop their personal potential outside their homes. It is imperative that transportation and infrastructure upgrades and developments address accessibility for all people, both able bodied and those with physical limitations.”
Clearly she must be celebrating this budget priority, along with the many other Russian citizens with disabilities that deserve a barrier-free environment.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
Twenty-five years ago this month, Gorbachev assumed the top leadership post in the Soviet Politburo. I had not remembered this date, but was reminded while reading an interesting article in Russian Life (an excellent magazine) about Perestroika. It was a first-hand report by Tamara Eidelman, a teacher in Moscow and the magazine’s history editor, of the changes and the impact it had on the Soviet people. What struck me the most was that the people heard on television that the Soviet “economy was not as wonderful” as they had been pretending. Gorbachev talked about the economy and the role of scientific and technical progress to the citizens of the Soviet Union. She writes that he believed that “we needed to ‘accelerate,’ that computers and robots would lead the country out of crisis.” Reflecting on the last twenty-five years, she was nostalgic about that marvelous spring of 1985. She writes, “It truly seemed possible to change everything for the better without any blood or horror. We just needed more computers.”
