Saturday, December 18, 2010

The Moscow Show Trials (Khamovniki District Court) - another attempt.




HOWEVER BELATEDLY.


Open Letter to the Moscow Khamovniki District Court:



There must be some discussion on the outcome of the Yukos chief executives’ trial in Moscow that is soon to be decided, especially since it affects so many of the Khodorkovsky family and friends everywhere, and people like me do not want in the least to override the judicial powers of the Russian state, nor the invisible hand – type commerce that Yukos apparently afforded to its employees and their families, and efforts of that business to change the status quo in the hydrocarbons markets in view of O.P.E.C., and so forth.  What is apparent from reading about these matters, currently being decided in a contest at Khamovnichesky (sp?) / Khamovniki District Court, is that it is clear in a way that the Prosecutor’s office represents one side of the Yeltsin legacy, and the defendant’s apparently another.  People like me know the significance of the Yeltsin years is extremely powerful in its symbolism and subordinates that of the October revolution of 1917 and its aftermath in many ways, though the actual observable truth of this is subject to interpretation, and one is not at present in a place to definitively opine on these items.  With respect to this and the hope and uplifting denouement of the Yeltsin years, I refer you to, for example, the autobiographical portrait of George Shultz; or the co – written tome by Bush and Scowcroft in its portrayal of same, or any similar text on the era.  Yeltsin does deserve great credit, and enshrinement, for his economic reforms and this will become apparent more and more as the years pass.  Also, one can not question, in any way whatsoever the Kremlin’s power to adjudicate, without competitive dramatics, matters such as those being decided in the Yukos executives’ case.

It is possible that if Mikhail Khodorkovsky can be accused of anything, it is for not remembering his upbringing under the Yeltsin regime.  Most Russians can be said to be embittered, or at least not so invigorated by the memory of this time in their history, though there are cogent and complex reasons why Boris Yeltsin as head of state made choices and promoted economic and commercial policies that were intended to benefit everyone; every Russian person.  This should not be forgotten in these court proceedings, neither by the prosecutor, nor by the defendants and their attorney(s.)  People like me who understand a little about business know the Yukos business affairs were conducted by executives, well meaning, and very well – advised, and they performed their duties to stakeholders in excellent fashion, probably even with respect to taxation compliance and other regulatory measures – though that might not be the determination of the courts.  

In my reading about this case, it is important to understand the successes of many businesses are a mystery to most people, and that of Yukos was no exception to this axiom.  The success and overall assurances provided by government regulators and how they facilitate a healthy commercial environment is also something few people understand, either.  With this in mind, and as the judicial opinions are expressed in the outcome of the statutory charges currently being tried, and where the laws are clear and well – defined, and where this adjudication does have application to Russian society as a whole, including the ‘perspective of the world’ to paraphrase the great sociologist Fernand Braudel, the direction Russian commerce will take for the future, and the status of the defendants in this case as prophets (who will be regarded as real or false, depending on who’s whom, and what’s what) and the power of the legacy of previous times in the history of your country and its meaning at present and obvious present legal and other conditioning, and popular acclaim of these juridical matters in your capitol; the responsibilities of the parties to this trial are significant and quite serious.  These and other legal and economic processes and principles will be changed and otherwise affected by this judicial turning point.  It is important that you know outsiders to Russia understand this.  

While Mr. Khodorkovsky can be accused of forgetting his upbringing, the parties represented by the prosecution against him can in parallel be admonished for bringing a halt to a very large and constructive business concern in Russia, as illustrated in press reports and other open sources, that provided and promised a decent living and hope for a bright future for many Yukos employees, their families and considerable value, monetary and organisational, bestowed upon Russian society as the result of the innovations and initiatives of the defendants.  It is entirely possible, and given my own impression of the way in which market economics is interpreted and practiced in Russia, the country’s chief administrators, at the time Yukos activities were suspended or abrogated, did not themselves understand precisely the value of what good Yukos meant to many people, and the mysteries of its successes.  It is perhaps in the remnants of dialectic reasoning that remain in the consciousness of many people in your country that did call for an investigation of the way things happened or were “done,” and then further dicing up of what was found that makes one possible outcome of these proceedings to be so unpalatable.  What has apparently happened is the focus of the trial has not been on the business for lack of understanding of those operations, but on the defendants only.  In my studies at university I have often encountered insoluble problems, of ethics, for example, and could not revert to a solution which muddied the waters further as there are even natural rules and guidelines against this.  The prosecution in this case has apparently chosen to delve into and question matters of private business, the methods of which were in exegesis at the time of Yukos, and that have been rendered incomprehensible to observers and jurists alike with the efforts to dissect them at trial.  Both the jurists and attorneys need to comprehend what the legacy of Boris Yeltsin represents to those outside your country, and what great values and integrity he instituted in his time, in effort and in deed; at least in what concerns his own administrative efforts.  That is what really is being contested here, and this is an interpretation, and it is a political / administrative view.  No one during the time of the 1990’s to today, a great time of business innovation and invention everywhere, and especially so in Russia, can be blamed for being ambitious and, again, inventive as the Yukos executives had been.  Any decision of the courts that finally decides this case should account or compensate for this, and that Russian society has run through a crucible of economic events need not be on the heads of those Yukos people who apparently and sincerely wished for the better of the Russian economy and country.  Good day.

Sincerely,


THS

Monday, December 6, 2010

Another, belated review of "America and the World," by ...




This political book, written with David Ignatius examines current affairs and gives a new detailed synopsis of the role of the U.S. in the world, primarily from the time of the Marshall Plan through the Cold War and related nuclear threats, up to the fall of the former soviet union and then through 9 / 11 and beyond.  The text presents the idea that modern life, especially that in western society is in a new form of complexity not even seen since the fully bureaucratic days of Byzantium, for example.  The book begins with its proposals about historical events and their significance to us at this point (now 2008,) and then moves on to examine various questions, such as the Israelis and Palestinians and their state of affairs vis – a – vis the prosecution of the Iraq war.  With respect to Israel, there are great influences calling for a resolution of the conflict with the Palestinians, even at great sacrifice to the Jews, and this is in part what here is interpreted more and more as a ‘status quo’ to begin resolving this and other Middle East issues.  In fact, to abandon the ideals of an Israeli homeland at this point in time would be to equally abandon important U.S. state policies and roles in associations like the G – 20, N.A.T.O., our positions on nuclear non – proliferation and Eastern Europe, in favour of the polity of states like Iran who essentially exploit anti – Israeli groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.  Some of the text is dedicated to illustrating the last part of the Bush Administration and efforts to resolve the conflicts of Hamas, Beirut, and the role of Syria against the Jews, though this effort was shown as, and in fact was not overridingly successful.

The Taliban are perceived in the theme of this examination of historical events through Brzezinski and Scowcroft as a significant threat to U.S. national security, and as the memorable opponents of the soviets in Afghanistan as well.  One is also reminded the Pakistanis and the Taliban were trained by western military people, again against the soviets and the situation as it is today with the Taliban is extremely rancorous with respect to western governments.  

With respect to economics, though mostly politics in the Far East, the authors illustrate principally the rising power, economic and political, financial and so on, of the P.R.C. in terms of the enlightened self – interest not only of its Asian neighbors, but of western officialdom as well.  The rivalry between the P.R.C. and its Asian contemporaries with the west is nonetheless portrayed as ruthless in economic terms.  The issues of Tibet and T’ai wan, and South Korea are easily interpreted as very tense situations with P.R.C., a communist – party based government still dealing with the legacy of T’ian An Men and Deng Xiao Ping; and the recognitions of the legitimacy of smaller Asian associations such as A.S.E.A.N.  Special mention is made of North Korea and the need for its own adherence to nuclear anti – proliferation rules and other regional security issues including the naval incidents of late.  

Special mention is also made in large part of Russia and its current leadership after the very significant Gorbachev and Yeltsin years:  Apart from the conundrum surrounding the mutual political and administrative status of Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, there seem to be four major issues with Russia, and all are unsolvable:  Nuclear non – proliferation, N.A.T.O. and the former soviet and COMECON (and Warsaw Pact) states, the vagaries of the petrol business, and relations with P.R.C.  With respect to Eastern Europe, still, Western Europe is illustrated as at times a fitful ally and then again as a close political and administrative partner that is attempting on the state level to rise above issues of nationalism in its institutions.  It is here where the authors bring in their partitioned time – lines on American politics and the world, dating back to the age of John Quincy Adams, then forward to the Wilson presidency, and then post – 9 / 11 events.  Brzezinski notes at this point the older European community was much more cohesive on a regional level given the two devastating world wars and the Cold War during the 20th century, and needs at present better political coordination.  With respect to World Wars I and II, N.A.T.O. is still an issue unto itself that affects the sovereignty of most Europeans, regardless of nationality or where they reside in the region.

To begin the conclusion of the text, the authors enter into a discussion about the importance of human dignity and human rights, and its influence on their ideas about doctrinaire enlightened or “guileful” realism in affairs.  There is also some discussion of a new world order in which cultural identities have primacy, hearkening to the world of 20th century Wilsonian political ideas.  The new administration in Washington, D.C., while it promised a number of important things, especially about changes in government, is seen currently as bogged down in its own efforts, and with respect to foreign policy there has been progress and reform in the integration of departments and agencies as far as communications and functioning are concerned.