Don't miss the annual World Russian Forum. The 2008 Forum will be held at the US Congress in Washington D.C. on May 19-20. Please, visit the Russia House website to find out more about the forum and register for the event. Please, see the extended post for the event agenda. Truly yours, Yuri Mamchur, will be a speaker in the panel "Russian Diaspora in U.S and its role in bolstering U.S. - Russian relations."

"WORLD RUSSIAN FORUM 2008"
RUSSIA - USA
Towards Economic, Political and Military Alliance
May 19-20, 2008 Washington, DC
United States Congress

Hart Senate Office Building , Room 902
8.30 - 9.00 AM: Registration

9.00 - 9.15 AM: Welcoming Remarks by His Excellency Yuri Ushakov , Russian Ambassador to Washington

9.15 - 11.00 AM : Russian Economy and U.S. Russia Economic Cooperation

Laura Brank, Partner, Chadbourne & Parke
Vladimir Golovnev, Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation
Ruslan Grinberg, Director, Institute of Economics,Russian Academy of Sciences
Trevor Gunn, Director, International Relations, Medtronic, Inc.
Aleksander Lebedev, President, National Reserve Bank of Russian Federation
Aleksey Shishaev, Head of Economic Section, Russian Embassy
Charles Taylor, Former Member of Congress
Curt Weldon, Former Member of Congress
11.00 - 11.30 AM : Coffee Break

11.30 AM - 12.45 PM : World Security Issues: Iran Nuclear Program, Missile Defense, NATO Expansion

Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, Institute of World Economy & International Relations
Robert Nurick, Monterey Institute of International Studies
Lt Gen Henry A. "Trey" Obering III, Director of the Missile Defense Agency
John Steinbruner, Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland
1.00 - 2.00 PM : Lunch. Senator John McCain (Invited)

2.00 - 5.00 PM : U.S. – Russia Relations at Crossroads

Thomas Graham, former director of the Russian desk at NSC, presently with Kissinger
Andrew Kuchins, Director of Russian and Eurasian Programs, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Edward Lozansky, American University in Moscow
Robert Legvold, Professor of Political Science, Columbia University
Andranik Migranyan, Head of U.S. Division, Institute for Democracy and Cooperation
Sergei Rogov, Director, Institute of USA and Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences
Margarita Simonyan, Editor-in-Chief, Russia Today TV
6.30 - 9.30 PM : Reception at the Russian Embassy hosted by His Excellency Yuri Ushakov, Russian Ambassador to Washington

During the Day: Exhibition "Women in Art. Selections from the Kolodzei Art Foundation Collection of Russian and Eastern European Art"
Day 2, Tuesday May 20

George Washington University, 209 Phillips Hall, 801 22nd Street, NW
10.00 - 12.00 AM "Everything you wanted to know about doing business in Russia"

Maria Bourlatskaya, Lauder Institute at the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania
Dmitri Dubograev, International Legal Counsels
Natalia Lazareva, JSC Asset Management Company NEOFITOUS
Richard Robin, George Washington University
Alexei Sidorov, American University in Moscow and Law Firm "Sidorov, Khokhlov, Uskov LLC"
Russian Cultural Center, 1825 Phelps Place, NW
2.00 - 3.15 PM : U.S. - Russia Science, Education, and Cultural Cooperation

Edward Burger, Eurasian Medical Education Program
Greg Guroff, President, Foundation for International Arts and Education
Norman Neureiter, Center for Science, Technology & Security Policy, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Carl Waltz, U.S. Astronaut
Valery Zaboristov, Institute of Bioenergy
3.30 - 5.00 PM : Russian Diaspora in U.S and its role in bolstering U.S. – Russian relations

Gennady Baryshnikov, International Union of Russian Compatriots
Greg Guroff, President, Foundation for International Arts and Education
Yuri Mamchur, Discovery Institute
Nikolai Mikhailov, Foundation "Russkiy Mir"
Marina Soboleva, Congress of Russian Americans
Anatoly Sorokin, Deputy Head, Department of International Relations of the Moscow Government
5.00 - 7.00 PM Concluding Reception and Award Ceremony

For only the second time in history, football's UEFA Cup belongs to a Russian club.

Despite facing a sometimes stout Rangers' defense, Zenit St. Petersburg controlled all but spurts of a game that saw Zenit win 2-0 against Glasgow's (Scotland) Rangers. The game was played in Manchester, England, at the City of Manchester Stadium.

Rangers fans, who reports say filled two-thirds of the stadium, watched in agony as
Igor Denisov and Konstantin Zyryanov, with goals in the 72nd minute and injury-time, respectively, sealed the victory for Zenit. Rangers, despite their many successes, including winning this year's Scottish League Cup, haven't won the European prize in more than three decades. Zenit St. Petersburg won the Russian league title last year.

Here's some more thorough coverage.

This article appeared in the May 19, 2008 edition of The Nation, and is republished with
The Nation's kind permission.

None of the remaining presidential candidates have seriously addressed, or even seem fully aware of, what should be our greatest foreign policy concern--Russia's singular capacity to endanger or enhance our national security. Overshadowed by the US disaster in Iraq, Moscow's importance will continue long after that war ends.

Despite its diminished status following the Soviet breakup in 1991, Russia alone possesses weapons that can destroy the United States, a military-industrial complex nearly America's equal in exporting arms, vast quantities of questionably secured nuclear materials sought by terrorists and the planet's largest oil and natural gas reserves. It also remains the world's largest territorial country, pivotally situated in the West and the East, at the crossroads of colliding civilizations, with strategic capabilities from Europe, Iran and other Middle East nations to North Korea, China, India, Afghanistan and even Latin America. All things considered, our national security may depend more on Russia than Russia's does on us.

And yet US-Russian relations are worse today than they have been in twenty years. The relationship includes almost as many serious conflicts as it did during the cold war--among them, Kosovo, Iran, the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia, Venezuela, NATO expansion, missile defense, access to oil and the Kremlin's internal politics--and less actual cooperation, particularly in essential matters involving nuclear weapons. Indeed, a growing number of observers on both sides think the relationship is verging on a new cold war, including another arms race.

Even the current cold peace could be more dangerous than its predecessor, for three reasons: First, its front line is not in Berlin or the Third World but on Russia's own borders, where US and NATO military power is increasingly ensconced. Second, lethal dangers inherent in Moscow's impaired controls over its vast stockpiles of materials of mass destruction and thousands of missiles on hair-trigger alert, a legacy of the state's disintegration in the 1990s, exceed any such threats in the past. And third, also unlike before, there is no effective domestic opposition to hawkish policies in Washington or Moscow, only influential proponents and cheerleaders.

How did it come to this? Less than twenty years ago, in 1989-90, the Soviet Russian and American leaders, Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush, completing a process begun by Gorbachev and President Reagan, agreed to end the cold war, with "no winners and no losers," as even Condoleezza Rice once wrote, and begin a new era of "genuine cooperation." In the US policy elite and media, the nearly unanimous answer is that Russian President Vladimir Putin's antidemocratic domestic policies and "neo-imperialism" destroyed that historic opportunity.

You don't have to be a Putin apologist to understand that this is not an adequate explanation. During the last eight years, Putin's foreign policies have been largely a reaction to Washington's winner-take-all approach to Moscow since the early 1990s, which resulted from a revised US view of how the cold war ended [see Cohen, "The New American Cold War," July 10, 2006]. In that new triumphalist narrative, America "won" the forty-year conflict and post-Soviet Russia was a defeated nation analogous to post-World War II Germany and Japan--a nation without full sovereignty at home or autonomous national interests abroad.

The policy implication of that bipartisan triumphalism, which persists today, has been clear, certainly to Moscow. It meant that the United States had the right to oversee Russia's post-Communist political and economic development, as it tried to do directly in the 1990s, while demanding that Moscow yield to US international interests. It meant Washington could break strategic promises to Moscow, as when the Clinton Administration began NATO's eastward expansion, and disregard extraordinary Kremlin overtures, as when the Bush Administration unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and granted NATO membership to countries even closer to Russia--despite Putin's crucial assistance to the US war effort in Afghanistan after September 11. It even meant America was entitled to Russia's traditional sphere of security and energy supplies, from the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia to Central Asia and the Caspian.

Such US behavior was bound to produce a Russian backlash. It came under Putin, but it would have been the reaction of any strong Kremlin leader, regardless of soaring world oil prices. And it can no longer be otherwise. Those US policies--widely viewed in Moscow as an "encirclement" designed to keep Russia weak and to control its resources--have helped revive an assertive Russian nationalism, destroy the once strong pro-American lobby and inspire widespread charges that concessions to Washington are "appeasement," even "capitulationism." The Kremlin may have overreacted, but the cause and effect threatening a new cold war are clear.

Because the first steps in this direction were taken in Washington, so must be initiatives to reverse it. Three are essential and urgent: a US diplomacy that treats Russia as a sovereign great power with commensurate national interests; an end to NATO expansion before it reaches Ukraine, which would risk something worse than cold war; and a full resumption of negotiations to sharply reduce and fully secure all nuclear stockpiles and to prevent the impending arms race, which requires ending or agreeing on US plans for a missile defense system in Europe. My recent discussions with members of Moscow's policy elite suggest that there may still be time for such initiatives to elicit Kremlin responses that would enhance rather than further endanger our national security.

American presidential campaigns are supposed to discuss such vital issues, but senators McCain, Clinton and Obama have not done so. Instead, in varying degrees, each has promised to be "tougher" on the Kremlin than George W. Bush has allegedly been and to continue the encirclement of Russia and the hectoring "democracy promotion" there, both of which have only undermined US security and Russian democracy since the 1990s.

To be fair, no influential actors in American politics, including the media, have asked the candidates about any of these crucial issues. They should do so now before another chance is lost, in Washington and in Moscow.

Stephen F. Cohen, professor of Russian studies at New York University, is the author (with his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel) of Voices of Glasnost: Conversations With Gorbachev's Reformers and, most recently, Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia (both Norton). You can find more articles by Stephen F. Cohen here.

For most international observers, the big story of Victory Day 2008 in Moscow is the revival of the Soviet tradition of parading heavy military equipment through Red Square. For most Russians, however, today is a well deserved day off, and it will be the most beloved holiday on the national calendar before Christmas and New Years.

Today, hundreds of thousands in Russia will be participating in public events across the country to thank surviving World War II veterans for their service, and to remember the millions who died to rid the world of Nazism.

Click on the extended post to read more thoughts and watch more YouTube videos about Victory Day.

For Westerners who still view Russia as an implacable foe of the West, today is a good day to remember those dark years from mid-1941 to early 1943, when the Russians by and large fought alone against the full brunt of the Nazi war machine. As for Russians who still view America as their adversary, perhaps they should visit the Lend-Lease section of the Memorial museum in Moscow (which reveals facts long omitted from Soviet textbooks) and look at photographs of their fathers and grandfathers riding into Berlin on thousands of American trucks.

Click on the links below to read Russia Blog posts from the previous three years about Victory Day and Russia's role in winning World War II:

Victory Day 2007
Victory Day 2006
Victory Day 2005

Did Uncle Joe Win the War?

Watch Frank Capra's wartime documentary Why We Fight: The Battle for Russia

A Russia Today TV video about VE-Day celebrations in Krasnodar Krai in southern Russia

President Medvedev. Yesterday Dmitriy Medvedev was sworn in as President (watch the video and the photos). His speech, almost all domestically focused, hit the themes of economic modernization, social security and “legal nihilism”. The tacit message was, as it has been, that continuity was assured. He did use the phrase “our great Russia” – it will be amusing to see how many news outlets focus their attention on that.

Prime Minister Putin. Putin was confirmed today by the Duma (the Communists voted against him) and his speech too focussed on domestic matters: increasing the capital – in all senses of the word – of Russia. It is clear that Medvedev’s and Putin’s program is to concentrate on what might be termed qualitative improvements in Russia’s domestic situation. Of course, in this sinful world, external events can arise ex nihilo and dominate the conversation.

Power. So here we are: there are now two power centers in Russia. The presidency under both Yeltsin and Putin gathered nearly all power in the country and the government structure was little more than an appendage of the Presidential Administration. But now the former president, with his immense authority and popular trust, will be running the government and a formerly member of his team has taken over the powers of the presidency. We simply cannot say, at this time, how this will work out and those who think they know are just guessing. One of these centers may eat the other: that is certainly possible and bureaucratic establishments do have a tendency to make war on each other. But it is also possible that they may cooperate, with a certain creative tension, and that is what the two principals promise. But one of the necessary conditions for what is generally termed “democracy” is pluralism of power and Russia has taken a step in that direction this week.

Inflation. As one of its last acts, the outgoing government (everyone resigns as of a new President: Article 111.2) authorised rate increases for a number of services: electricity, natural gas and railway fares. This is partly a result of the higher-than-expected inflation rate but also the gradual increase of such prices that has long been planned. More increases are likely. Prime Minister Putin’s first problem, therefore, will be to manage inflation. In getting the population to accept necessary but unpopular decisions, his prestige will be useful and probably necessary (is this a reason for his decision to become PM?).

Iran. One of President Putin’s last acts was to commit Russia to the sanctions regime against Iran.

State-owned companies. A former deputy energy minister has published a piece criticizing the performance of many of the state-owned companies created over the last several years. His argument is simply that they are not performing as well as private companies. Medvedev has said a few things in the past about this sort of thing and it will be interesting to see whether he dismantles some of them.

Nuclear agreement. On Tuesday the head of RosAtom and the US Ambassador signed a bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement. Under negotiation for two decades, it provides the basis for nuclear cooperation, trade and so forth. The agreement has to win the approval of the U.S. Congress, however, which may prove impossible.

Soccer. Moscow has relaxed visa restrictions for the thousands of British soccer fans expected to attend the European Champions League final in Moscow on the 21st. One wonders whether the additional income from the visitors will offset the extra policing costs.

Promises. Gorbachev gave an interview to a British paper in which he said that the opportunities of the ten years after the end of the Cold War had been “squandered” and mostly blamed the USA. He reiterated that Washington had promised him that NATO would not expand past Germany: “so what happened to their promises?”

Russia-Georgia. On Monday Tbilisi formally notified Moscow it was withdrawing from the air defense treaty of April 1995. It has also demanded Moscow withdraw the additional troops it put into the Abkhazia peacekeeping force (which, apparently, it was entitled to do as the total is still well below the allowed limits).

Caucasian rumors of wars. There have been some attacks in federal and local security forces in the North Caucasus in the last week as a reminder that things have not yet settled down there. Meanwhile there are charges, counter-charges and denials between Tbilisi and Sukhumi. Rhetoric is very high: the Abkhazians are even boasting they can get to Kutaisi, “the ancient capital of the Abkhaz kingdom”, five days after Tbilisi attacks. That’s about 50 kilometers from the border.

Patrick Armstrong received a PhD from Kings College, University of London, England in 1976 and began working for the Canadian government as a defence scientist in 1977. He was Political Counsellor for the Canadian Embassy in Moscow from 1993 to 1996. He has been a frequent speaker at the Wilton Park conferences in the UK.

Click on the extended post to watch another Russia Today TV video about the end of Mr. Putin's pivotal...and controversial...eight year term in the Russian presidency.

As U.S. Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977, Henry Kissinger negotiated arms control agreements between the USA and USSR and the establishment of diplomatic relations between America and mainland Communist China. In this video the elderly diplomat sits down for a twenty minute interview with Russia Today TV and describes his vision of U.S.-Russia relations in the 21st century.

This week Newsweek world affairs columnist Fareed Zakaria has provided the cover story for that magazine's issue: "The Post American World", with excerpts from his new book of the same title. Here are a few quotes from Zakaria's article "The Rise of the Rest" pertinent to U.S.-Russia relations in an era of unprecedented globalization and prosperity.

On the Need to Give the BRIC Countries a Stake in Solving Global Problems

"American parochialism is particularly evident in foreign policy. Economically, as other countries grow, for the most part the pie expands and everyone wins. But geopolitics is a struggle for influence: as other nations become more active internationally, they will seek greater freedom of action. This necessarily means that America's unimpeded influence will decline. But if the world that's being created has more power centers, nearly all are invested in order, stability and progress. Rather than narrowly obsessing about our own short-term interests and interest groups, our chief priority should be to bring these rising forces into the global system, to integrate them so that they in turn broaden and deepen global economic, political, and cultural ties.

"If China, India, Russia, Brazil all feel that they have a stake in the existing global order, there will be less danger of war, depression, panics, and breakdowns. There will be lots of problems, crisis, and tensions, but they will occur against a backdrop of systemic stability. This benefits them but also us. It's the ultimate win-win..."

Click on the extended post to read more excerpts.

America is Not Necessarily Falling - But Others Are Rising

"The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect for Americans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined by the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is the result of a series of positive trends that have been progressing over the last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

Russia: A Problem Child for the West?

"...we are told that we live in dark, dangerous times. Terrorism, rogue states, nuclear proliferation, financial panics, recession, outsourcing, and illegal immigrants all loom large in the national discourse. Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia are all threats in some way or another. But just how violent is today's world, really?

Is Russia Really Engaged in a Military Buildup?
And Does Russia Exerting Influence in Its Backyard Constitute a Threat to the West?

"....others paint a dark picture of a world in which dictators are on the march. China and Russia and assorted other oil potentates are surging. We must draw the battle lines now, they warn, and engage in a great Manichean struggle that will define the next century. Some of John McCain's rhetoric has suggested that he adheres to this dire, dyspeptic view. But before we all sign on for a new Cold War, let's take a deep breath and gain some perspective. Today's rising great powers are relatively benign by historical measure. In the past, when countries grew rich they've wanted to become great military powers, overturn the existing order, and create their own empires or spheres of influence. But since the rise of Japan and Germany in the 1960s and 1970s, none have done this, choosing instead to get rich within the existing international order. China and India are clearly moving in this direction.

"Even Russia, the most aggressive and revanchist great power today, has done little that compares with past aggressors. The fact that for the first time in history, the United States can contest Russian influence in Ukraine—a country 4,800 miles away from Washington that Russia has dominated or ruled for 350 years—tells us something about the balance of power between the West and Russia.

"Compare Russia and China with where they were 35 years ago. At the time both (particularly Russia) were great power threats, actively conspiring against the United States, arming guerrilla movement across the globe, funding insurgencies and civil wars, blocking every American plan in the United Nations. Now they are more integrated into the global economy and society than at any point in at least 100 years. They occupy an uncomfortable gray zone, neither friends nor foes, cooperating with the United States and the West on some issues, obstructing others. But how large is their potential for trouble? Russia's military spending is $35 billion, or 1/20th of the Pentagon's. China has about 20 nuclear missiles that can reach the United States. We have 830 missiles, most with multiple warheads, that can reach China. Who should be worried about whom? Other rising autocracies like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are close U.S. allies that shelter under America's military protection, buy its weapons, invest in its companies, and follow many of its diktats. With Iran's ambitions growing in the region, these countries are likely to become even closer allies, unless America gratuitously alienates them.

On Reassertive Nationalism and Perceptions of History in Russia

"...as economic fortunes rise, so inevitably does nationalism. Imagine that your country has been poor and marginal for centuries. Finally, things turn around and it becomes a symbol of economic progress and success. You would be proud, and anxious that your people win recognition and respect throughout the world.

"...in many countries such nationalism arises from a pent-up frustration over having to accept an entirely Western, or American, narrative of world history—one in which they are miscast or remain bit players. Russians have long chafed over the manner in which Western countries remember World War II. The American narrative is one in which the United States and Britain heroically defeat the forces of fascism. The Normandy landings are the climactic highpoint of the war—the beginning of the end. The Russians point out, however, that in fact the entire Western front was a sideshow. Three quarters of all German forces were engaged on the Eastern front fighting Russian troops, and Germany suffered 70 percent of its casualties there. The Eastern front involved more land combat than all other theaters of World War II put together.

On Oil and U.S. Advocacy of Human Rights:
Is There One Set of Standards for America's Arab Friends and Another for Russia?

"Such divergent national perspectives always existed. But today, thanks to the information revolution, they are amplified, echoed, and disseminated. Where once there were only the narratives laid out by The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, the BBC, and CNN, there are now dozens of indigenous networks and channels—from Al Jazeera to New Delhi's NDTV to Latin America's Telesur. The result is that the "rest" are now dissecting the assumptions and narratives of the West and providing alternative views. A young Chinese diplomat told me in 2006, "When you tell us that we support a dictatorship in Sudan to have access to its oil, what I want to say is, 'And how is that different from your support of a medieval monarchy in Saudi Arabia?' We see the hypocrisy, we just don't say anything—yet.'"

On the Integration of the BRICs into the Western Economic 'Clubs'

"The fact that newly rising nations are more strongly asserting their ideas and interests is inevitable in a post-American world. This raises a conundrum—how to get a world of many actors to work together. The traditional mechanisms of international cooperation are fraying. The U.N. Security Council has as its permanent members the victors of a war that ended more than 60 years ago. The G8 does not include China, India or Brazil—the three fastest-growing large economies in the world—and yet claims to represent the movers and shakers of the world economy. By tradition, the IMF is always headed by a European and the World Bank by an American. This "tradition," like the segregated customs of an old country club, might be charming to an insider. But to the majority who live outside the West, it seems bigoted. Our challenge is this: Whether the problem is a trade dispute or a human rights tragedy like Darfur or climate change, the only solutions that will work are those involving many nations. But arriving at solutions when more countries and more non-governmental players are feeling empowered will be harder than ever."

Click here to read Fareed Zakaria's full article at Newsweek.com.

The transition. What seems to be happening is that governing powers – formerly almost all of which were concentrated in the Presidential Administration these past several years – are being reassigned. A draft law has appeared that will delegate some of the central government’s responsibilities to lower levels of government and some powers are apparently being shifted from the Presidential Administration to the government.

Meanwhile there are personnel changes that look like some of Putin’s people moving over the government side to be ready for his arrival. I reiterate that it is still too early to know what The Plan is, but all this seems to support the hypothesis that Putin (and company) are setting up a certain division of powers between the Presidential Administration and the government. If (and this is a big if) this works in practice, it would be a good step: separation of powers is one of the secrets of successful governments.

Peak Oil? Or High Taxes?. Two weeks ago I quoted a Russian oil executive saying that Russian production had peaked; this week the CEO of Gazprom Neft says that he expects Russian production to continue to increase until the middle of the century (assuming that the industry gets the tax structure he thinks it ought to have).

Russian Imperial Family. A US DNA lab has confirmed that remains found near Yekaterinburg are those of the Romanovs son Alexei and one of their daughters, Maria. All of the bodies have now been located and identified.

May Day. Lots of marches all over Russia. Someone must be making a fortune selling political flags.

Poverty in Russia. The Health and Social Development Minister claims that the number of Russians with incomes under the minimum subsistence level has been reduced by 23% (about 6 million) over the last two years and that real, inflation-adjusted incomes have grown by 25% over the same period. These numbers appear to be more-or-less correct and, of course, provide a strong base for the popularity of Putin and his team.

Republic of Kalmykia. More attempts to pressure Ilyumzhinov out: a Communist proposal to demand his resignation was voted down in parliament but the capital city’s municipal assembly endorsed a resolution of no confidence in him. Kalmykia is best known for being a Buddhist majority republic within the Russian Federation and for its chess players.

Another Bungled Investigation? Two men, arrested last fall on suspicion of involvement in the Neva Express bombing last year, have been released from custody. Of the six suspects originally arrested, only one is still in prison.

Chechnya. Pressure on Sulim Yamadayev’s Vostok Battalion continues with President Ramzan Kadyrov enumerating crimes allegedly committed by its members; the Chechnya branch of the federal Prosecutor General’s Office has reopened a criminal case against Sulim’s younger brother. This is a potentially very dangerous situation that so far is proceeding with surprising calm.

Japan-Russia. The Japanese PM was in Moscow but there seems to have been no movement towards settling territorial issues leftover from World War II.

Gas WarsThe Ukrainian Prime Minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, says that Kyev has settled its outstanding debts for Russian gas.

South Stream. Greece has formally joined the South Stream project which is a gas pipeline under the Black Sea into Bulgaria and thence to Italy and Austria.

World Trade Organization. For some reason I’d like to see an explanation of, Georgia was admitted into the World Trade Organisation in June 2000. This gives it a certain veto over Russia’s membership, and that veto is one of its few counter-pressures against what it sees as Moscow’s bullying. Tbilisi has just suspended talks with Moscow in protest over Moscow’s increased interaction with the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Caucasian Rumors of Wars. I generally eschew alarmism (there are already plenty of people in the business with their alarms permanently set to 11) but I am beginning to smell a war coming in Georgia. Saakashvili has appealed to the populations of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, inviting them, again, to join Georgia; while the vast majority in the two republics immediately rejected the offer. This has the ring of a last-minute offer. I suspect, in light of the NATO situation, the elections (the opposition still insists Saakashvili is illegitimate but has deferred protests until the results come in) and possible dissension in the ruling party, that a “successful little war” might be seen as an means of changing the subject of political discourse.

Moscow, claiming a Georgian military buildup (but this is not a part of the world where any side’s reports can be treated as highly credible) has increased the number of peacekeepers in Abkhazia. I continue to maintain that Moscow is very afraid of a war there (the last time there was a war, it spilled over into Chechnya) and “keeps its thumb on the scale” to try and prevent either side from starting one. Should Tbilisi attack either South Ossetia or Abkhazia, I would anticipate another stinging Georgian defeat. Which would make things even worse.

Patrick Armstrong received a PhD from Kings College, University of London, England in 1976 and began working for the Canadian government as a defence scientist in 1977. He was Political Counsellor for the Canadian Embassy in Moscow from 1993 to 1996. He has been a frequent speaker at the Wilton Park conferences in the UK.

Now instead of having to wave Communist flags every year on May 1, young Russians can take advantage of their day off for other pursuits...like getting stuck in Moscow traffic at 3 a.m. with all the other club-goers looking for something to eat...

DEMOGRAPHICS. The demographic picture in Russia continues to improve: RosStat claims 273,700 births in January and February (up 12.8% over the previous year) and 368,200 deaths (up 4.1%). A bill to restrict abortion advertising has been proposed and a Duma deputy gave some numbers here: in 2006 there were one and a half million abortions (40.3 per 1000 women) in Russia, down from the two million in 2002 (54.2 per 1000 women). So, this statistical evidence suggests that the various pro-natalist programs are having an effect. We don’t know yet, of course, whether the programs actually are leading to more children, or just encouraging Russian women to have their babies sooner. New data coming in over the next few years will tell us.

INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE. More trouble. The head of the main investigative unit was fired; corruption being given as the reason. The usual rumors abound.

POLITICS. The head of Just Russia has denied plans to form a coalition with United Russia.

CHECHNYA. Grozny is making an attempt to crack down on Sulim Yamadayev’s Vostok Battalion. He and his brother have been accused of a multitude of crimes and large-scale defections are reported. The battalion is under Moscow’s control (or, more realistically, is supposed to be – very little in Chechnya is truly under Moscow’s control) and it is reported that the decision whether or not to disband it will be deferred until Medvedev becomes President. I can think of three hypotheses:

1. Grozny continues tidying up and the criminal accusations are mostly true.
2. It’s an argument over dividing the spoils.
3. It’s another step in the in-gathering of power under Grozny and Ramzan Kadyrov.

The fact that should be remembered is that Chechnya today is run by people who fought Moscow in the first war but didn’t want Chechnya to become part of the Wahhabi Imamate that Ibn Khattab was fighting for. I remain convinced that the Chechens still want independence, or at least, a lot of autonomy.

RUSSIA-GEORGIA. On Sunday a Georgian UAV was shot down over Abkhazia. Sukhumi has stuck to its first story that it was shot down by a AAM fired from an Abkhazian L-39 (they obtained a batch from Chechnya in the early 1990s: there had been a Soviet training base at Khankala). Tbilisi first denied the loss then on Monday produced a video which purportedly showed the UAV’s camera recording an attack by a twin-tailed fighter: they say it was a Mikoyan MiG-29.

There is, however, one big anomaly: the video shows it being hit over the sea but everyone seems to agree it was shot down over land and Abkhazia has been showing what it says are the fragments. Moscow sticks to its story that it had nothing to do with it but says that the flight itself was a violation of cease-fire agreements. In a telephone conversation between Presidents Saakashvili and Putin, Putin reiterated these points and insisted that recent closer relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia were in accordance with international law.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES I want to make it clear that I don’t believe anyone on the UAV story: all parties have a history of lying about these things. Videos are easy to fake but false statements are even easier. In the interest of objectivity, given that the Western media is again (vide jihadists in Pankisi) uncritically swallowing Tbilisi’s story, I wish to point out a few developments of the last week that will be left out of the account.

1. A Georgian opposition member said that nearly all Georgian electronic media is now under the control of the government.
2. Nino Burjanadze said she would not run in the parliamentary election next month, saying that certain lessons had not been learned by the government.
3. UNOMIG released a statement contradicting Tbilisi’s claims that there is an Abkhazian military buildup.
4. Spring is coming and military operations in high ground are again possible.
5. His lawyer says that France has granted former Defence Minister and Saakashvili ally Irakli Okruashvili asylum.
6. Saakashvili called on the opposition to cooperate in the face of Russian threats.
7. And, of course, the UAV story is fodder for Georgia’s needing the protection of NATO membership (but see below).

NATO. The Polish Defence Minister has been quoted as saying that neither EU nor NATO membership provides sufficient security guarantees in relation to Russia and that Warsaw wants the US missile bases to provide, apparently, that guarantee. Two observations: NATO membership and its famous Article V don’t seem to be worth much these days and this suggests Moscow has a point in its objections to the ABM plans.

Patrick Armstrong received a PhD from Kings College, University of London, England in 1976 and began working for the Canadian government as a defence scientist in 1977. He was Political Counsellor for the Canadian Embassy in Moscow from 1993 to 1996. He has been a frequent speaker at the Wilton Park conferences in the UK.

Today is the day that Orthodox Christians around the world celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. From Russia Blog to all of our readers around the world, Happy Easter and best wishes for the spring and summer of 2008!

Click here to read the post "Easter in a Russian Town". For a recipe to make kuhlich, a traditional Russian Easter cake, click here (just don't scrimp on the powdered cane sugar, even if you've been told that it does not exist in Russia!).

Click here to read a post from Easter 2007, including translations of traditional chants from Russian to English and more videos from Orthodox Easter services.

A Russia Today TV video showing cooks in the Kremlin preparing kuhlich

Currently I am in Almaty, Kazakhstan at the Eurasian Media Forum 2008. Today, I participated in the panel addressing the perceptions of the the Western media in its coverage of Russia, and the possibility of the return of the Cold War. The Eurasian Media Forum has gathered 600 distinguished participants, such as, President Nursultan Nazarbayev, his daughter Dr. Dariga Nazarbaeva, Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Dr. Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation, Mikhail Leontiev from "Odnako", Margarita Simonyan and Kevin Owen from Russia Today TV, multiple ambassadors, ministers, journalists, reporters and policy makers.

Please, view the extended post for the full agenda of the conference, and come back soon to view the photos of the conference and to read the new RRP report on the Stereotypes that Western media practices in its coverage of Russia. The report was prepared for the Forum and is available in print to those at the venue.

EURASIAN MEDIA FORUM − 2008
Almaty, Republic of Kazakhstan
April 24-25, 2008

Conference Programme
Venue: “Intercontinental Almaty” hotel

DAY 1 – Thursday, April 24

Chair of the Conference:
Riz Khan, Broadcaster, TV host, Al Jazeera International, USA

 08.00 Registration opens

 09.20 Access into the Ballroom will not be allowed after 9.20 am

 09.30-10.00: Conference Opening Ceremony (Ballroom)

Welcome Address
Nursultan NAZARBAYEV, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Welcome Speech
H.E. Srgjan KERIM, President of the 62nd session
of the United Nations General Assembly, USA

Welcome and Conference Introduction
Dr. Dariga NAZARBAYEVA, Chair of the Eurasian Media Forum
Organizing Committee

 10.00-10.30: Coffee break

 10.30-12.00: Session #1 (Ballroom)

"COLD WAR" DÉJÀ VU
Many observers believe that Putin's Munich speech accusing the Bush administration of trying to establish a "unipolar" world is similar to Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech and the famous “crusade” against the “empire of evil”, proclaimed by Reagan in 1983. A number of factors over the past months have increased the diplomatic tension between Russia and the West:

- the polonium-210 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the refusal of Russia to extradite the suspect Lougovoy;

- US vice-president Dick Cheney's harsh criticism of Putin's visit to Iran;

- the closure of the British Council offices in Russia;

- the acute situation around the independence of Kosovo;

- the intention by the US to situate an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe;

- the continuing expansion of NATO

Each of these has added to the debate about whether the cold war truly ended leading some to speculate that the increasingly hostile accusations between Russia and the West signal that the relationship has simply taken a new form.

• What are the predictions for this relationship as different leaders come to power in both Russia and the US?

• What does current Russian foreign policy stand for?

• How has the media coverage and rhetoric of these events changed? How dangerous is the tendency for the media to rely on stereotypes or clichés when covering certain political developments on the global stage?

• What are the roles and responsibilities of Western and Russian media in accurately portraying what could become a new "cold war"?

Chair:
Riz Khan, Broadcaster, TV host, Al Jazeera International, USA

Speakers:
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor
Mark Perrin de Brichambaut, Secretary General, OSCE, Austria
Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, Chairman of the Senate of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan (TBC)
Mark MacKinnon, Middle East bureau chief for the “Globe and Mail” and author of “The New Cold War: Revolutions, Rigged Elections and Pipeline Politics in the Former Soviet Union”, Canada
Yuri Mamchur, Director of Discovery Institute's Real Russia Project and author of Russia Blog's "10 Western Media Stereotypes About Russia: How Truthful Are They?"
Mikhail Leontiyev, Anchorman of the "Odnako" author’s programme, Channel 1; Editor-in-Chief of “Profile” magazine, Russia
Maxim Sokolov, Political correspondent of “Izvestiya” newspaper, Russia
Gleb Pavlovskiy, President of the Effective Policy Foundation, Russia

 12.00-12.30: Coffee break

 12.30-14.00: Session #2 (Ballroom)

ENCOURAGING SEPARATISM AND THE RIGHT FOR SELF-IDENTIFICATION? WHAT IS UNIQUE, IF ANYTHING ABOUT THE SITUATION IN KOSOVO?

The Republic of Kosova declared itself independent of Serbia in February creating the world's newest country. This has not been received with universal acceptance with several countries refusing to recognize it - unsurprisingly, mainly countries that have most to lose from emboldened secessionist movements, such as Russia, Spain and Greece. It is argued that this declaration of independence will set an unwelcome precedent and despite the legal gymnastics used to override UN security council resolution 1244 - which kept Kosovo in Serbia - the proclamation of the new state will have incalculable long-term consequences on secessionist movements from Belgium to the Black Sea via Bosnia and on relations between the US, EU and China and Russia.

In this session we will discuss the impact of formation of the Republic of Kosova in terms of the likely consequences in the Balkans and the wider ramifications for other unrecognized states? What is the UN’s role in this process and does the situation surrounding the independence of Kosovo provide further evidence of a deepening political and legal crisis within international law?

Chair:
Kevin Owen, Presenter, Russia Today TV

Speakers:
Veran Matic, President of Board of Directors & Chief Executive Officer, Broadcasting Company B92, Serbia
Eugen Saraçini, TV producer, Kosovo
Sergey Markedonov, Head of Division of Ethnic Relations, Institute of Political and Military Analysis, Russia
Alexander Iskandaryan, Political expert, Director, Caucasus Media Institute, Armenia
Lev Dzugayev, Assistant to the Head of the Russian Federal Press and Mass Communications Agency, former Deputy Head of Administration and Head of Press Service of the President of North Ossetia-Alania Republic
Mikhail Leontiyev, Anchorman of the "Odnako" author’s programme, Channel 1; Editor-in-Chief of “Profile” magazine, Russia
Nenad Pejic, Associate Director of Broadcasting, Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic

 14.00-15.00: Lunch (Almaty, Astana restaurants, “C” floor)

 15.00-15.45:

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS with (TBC)
Ali Larijani, Representative of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei
at the Supreme National Security Council of Iran

Interviewer:
Riz Khan, Broadcaster and TV host, Al Jazeera International, USA

 15.45-17.45: Session #3 (Ballroom)

ELECTION PROCESSES AND THE MEDIA
Over the last 12 months elections in various parts of the world have made headline news for the wrong reasons. The assassination of the former Pakistani Prime-Minister Benazir Bhutto on the eve of the parliamentary elections heightened tensions in Pakistan and across the Middle East. The elections in Kenya also resulted in violence and the re-emergence of tribal tensions. The legitimacy of the electoral process, the role of the media and the involvement of electoral monitoring bodies have all been under scrutiny as elections created turmoil and controversy.
In this two part session we hear about the monitoring bodies and the media’s involvement in the election processes:

• Do international bodies charged with monitoring the "fairness" of elections help promote democracy, or do they instead legitimize one political agenda over another? What responsibility, credibility and authority do electoral monitoring bodies hold? Is their role as guardians of the democratic process justified and accepted?

• Some elections are deemed "unacceptable," while those in more established democracies are beyond dispute. Are these characterizations justified? Or are they simply a way for the global powers to undermine election results that they don't like?

• What is objective election reporting? And when does coverage reflect political bias? Does the media help or hinder the electoral processes with such things as exit polls?

• Are legal limits on the activities of journalists during election times justified or necessary?

PART II - ELECTION PROCESSES AND THE MEDIA – US FOCUS

In the second part of this session we focus on the role of the media in what is the world’s most important democratic process. The US election is a long, complicated and expensive affair in which the media play a fundamental role. In this session we examine this process and the pros and cons in terms of providing legitimacy of the democratic process and a truly mandated president. In what is perhaps the most scrutinized of elections when does the media cross the line between election reporting and electioneering and does this matter?

Chair:
Charles Hodson, Anchor, CNN International, United Kingdom

Speakers:
Vladimir Churov, Chairman of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation
Julie Finley, Ambassador of the USA to OSCE, Austria
Margarita Simonyan, Chief Editor, "Russia Today" channel, Russia
Jeff Koinange, former CNN Africa Bureau Chief, Kenya (TBC)
Hameed Haroon, CEO and Publisher, Pakistan Herald Publications, Pakistan
Rahimullah Yusufzai, Resident Editor, "The News International", Pakistan
Dr. Ariel Cohen, Senior research fellow, Russian and Eurasian Studies, the Heritage Foundation, USA
Danny Schechter, Vice President and Executive Producer, MediaChannel.org, USA
Yuri Sigov, US Bureau Chief of “Business People” magazine in Washington DC, USA

 15.00-16.00: Roundtable (Ablai Khan room)

INSTABILITY IN THE WORLD FINANCIAL SYSTEM

Increasingly, the world economies are integrated. The continuing sub-prime mortgage crisis in the US epitomizes this growing interdependence. What are the consequences of this and other world financial crises for the global economy in general, and for Kazakhstan’s economy in particular? Under what circumstances can the financial media negatively affect the unfolding of economic events? Should there be mechanisms for businesses and the international financial media to cooperate to keep financial situations from spiraling out of control?

Chair:
William Green, EMEA Editor, TIME Magazine

Speakers:
Grigoriy Marchenko, Chairman of the Board, “Narodnyi Bank,” Kazakhstan
Victor Pleskachevskiy, Chairman of the Property Committee, State Duma, Russia
Gulzhana Karagusova, Chair of the Finance and Budget Committee, Mazhilis of the Parliament of the Republic of Kazakhstan (TBC)
Sergey Sarkisov, Chairman of RESO-Garantia and RESO Group, Russia
Sergei Shatalov, Country Manager for Kazakhstan, World Bank
Andre Kuusvek, Country Director for Kazakhstan, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Isabel Gorst, Caspian and Central Asia correspondent, Financial Times, UK
David A. Merkel, Former Counselor for International Affairs to the Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Director for Europe and Eurasia on the National Security Council in the White House (2005 – 2007), USA
Mariya Valovalya, Director, Eurasian Centre for Strategic Studies, Russia
Mach Frantisek, Advisor of the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Kazakhstan

 16.30-17.30: Roundtable (Ablai Khan room)

“FROZEN CONFLICTS” IN TODAY’S WORLD
with participation of representatives of international foundations

It is now estimated that there are approximately 200 frozen conflicts around the world, i.e. regions in dispute where political and military stalemate exists between the conflicting parties. Of these 200 it is estimated that around 50 are reaching or near to reaching their culmination. Each of these situations offers a different set of circumstances and challenges. Given the continuing disagreements on key principles of international law regarding territorial integrity and the right of self-determination – a way to resolve these frozen conflicts has never been more important.

Producers: The Foundation of the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
International Institute for Modern Policy, Kazakhstan

Chair:
Bektas Mukhamedzhanov, Executive Director of the Foundation of the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Speakers:
Alexander Drozdov, Executive Director of the Boris Eltsin Foundation, Russia
Wulf Lappins, Project Coordinator in Central Asia, Fridriech Ebert Foundation, Germany
Kirill Tanayev, General Director, Effective Policy Foundation, Russia
Maxim Meyer, CIS Programme Director of the “Russkiy Mir” Foundation, Russia
Dr Martha Brill Olcott, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA
Vladimir Maitussov, Advisor to the Executive Director of the Boris Eltsin Foundation, Russia
Elvira Pak, Head of Cooperation Bureau, Fridriech Ebert Foundation, Kazakhstan
Metehan Demir, Ankara Bureau Chief, HURRIYET Daily Newspaper’s internet version, Turkey
Mariya Valovalya, Director, Eurasian Centre for Strategic Studies, Russia

 19.00-21.00: Welcome Reception hosted by the Almaty City Mayor and International Herald Tribune Newspaper

DAY 2 − Friday, April 25

 09.00-10.30: Session #4 (Ballroom)

THE MEDIA'S ROLE IN BILINGUAL AND MULTICULTURAL SOCIETIES

Over the past few decades, many countries have had to address issues raised by populations that speak a different language to the majority. It is a long held view that in stable democracies these issues have been successfully resolved and are an integral part of the social life. However, there are now many examples of where cultural tensions surface. In the Netherlands for example, the distribution on the Internet of the controversial anti-Islamic film “Fitna” by Dutch politician Geert Wilders provoked condemnation both inside and outside the country. Similarly, the situation in Belgium, where the tensions between the Dutch-speaking Flemish and the French-speaking Walloons has led to division and potentially, the disintegration of the country, demonstrate that the problems of multi-cultural and multi-lingual societies still exist.

The mass media undoubtedly play an important role in this process. The media can either facilitate the coming together of diverse populations or increasingly fracture their audiences of different language.

• What experience do governments have implementing policies that let different cultures and languages coexist peacefully?

• How do the international media address issues of bilingual and multilingual audiences?

• What is the role of Kazakhstani journalists in integrating the 100+ nationalities of Kazakhstan, many of which speak their own language? What is the problem of bilingualism in Kazakhstani journalism? What are the reality and its development prospects?

• Does the media have a responsibility to help facilitate a dialogue between audiences with different cultures, religions, and languages?

Chair:
Alexander Arkhangelskiy, Author and TV host, “Tem vremenem (In the Meantime)” programme, “Culture” TV channel, Russia

Speakers:
Philippe Dutilleul, Producer, RTBF, Belgium
Minelle Mahtani, Assistant Professor at University of Toronto, former journalist, Canada
Yermukhamet Yertysbayev, Minister of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan
Danny Ilegems, Investigative journalist, Belgium
Didar Amantai, Chief Editor, “Nachnem s ponedelnika” newspaper, Kazakhstan
Yuri Kirinitsiyanov, Correspondent of “Rossiyskaya Gazeta” in Kazakhstan
Erlan Idrissov, Ambassador of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the USA

Front row:
Metehan Demir, Ankara Bureau Chief, HURRIYET Daily Newspaper’s internet version, Turkey
Melis Eshimkanov, Director General National TV and Radio Corporation of Kyrgyzstan
Valeriy Ruzin, Vice-president, General Director of the Eurasian Television Academy, Russia
Tatyana Bokova, Deputy Executive Director, “Russkiy Mir” Foundation, Russia

 10.30-11.00: Coffee break

 11.00-12.30: Session #5 (Ballroom)

THE GROUP PORTRAIT OF CIS COUNTRIES. WHO ARE THE LEADERS IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE?

Countries of the post-Soviet space, banded together under the collective CIS acronym, are by no means uniform and have many significant differences.

Even at first sight it is clear that the different states among the former Soviet Union republics have formed distinctive characteristics.

One group, including the Baltic states, has smoothly moved to a stable environment within the EU.

Another group of states comprising Tajikistan, Armenia, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan, are unable to rely on significant natural resources, and are characterised by what some have called “sustainable instability”, the countries whose political regimes have been modified slightly or if opposition is to be believed, not at all.

Another grouping includes Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Belarus and Azerbaijan where administrative pressure provides relative public stability, and social processes have been forced underground to develop unseen. These are countries where political regimes have been modified inconsiderably or even exist without any modification.

Finally, and perhaps the most significant group includes two pairs: Russia-Kazakhstan and Georgia-Ukraine. Inside these pairs there is a certain similarity. The first comprises countries rich in oil and gas, ensuring the economic growth and moderately modified autocracy while maintaining relative public stability. The second comprises countries not rich in natural resources, experiencing overt “westernisation” of the political system, relying upon the “democracy of electors”, but with some political recurrences tending to destabilise public life. In this session we discuss what the future holds for the developments of the various groupings of CIS countries.

Co-Chairs:

Dr Martha Brill Olcott, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA
Erlan Idrissov, Ambassador of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the USA

Speakers:
Bermet Akayeva, Political analyst, Advisor to the chief editor, “Political class” magazine, Russia
Mikhail Gusman, Deputy Director General, ITAR-TASS news agency, Author and Host of “Formula Vlasti (the formula of power) programme, Russia
Hydyr Saparliyev, Deputy Prime-Minister, Turkmenistan (TBC)
Saodat Olimovа, Head of the Sociology Center at the Information and Analytical Centre "Sharq", Tajikistan
Vitaliy Volkov, Editor, “Deutsche Welle”, Germany
Oleg Poptsov, President, Eurasian Academy of Television and Radio, Russia
Marat Tazhin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan (TBC)
Igor Guzhva, Editor-in-Chief, "Segodnya" Newspaper, Ukraine
Yuri Shevtsov, Director of the Center of European Integration, Publisher and editor of the “Geopolitics” and “Chernobyl” portals, Belarus
Bulat Sultanov, Director of the Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Studies under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan

 11.30-13.00: Roundtable (Ablai Khan room)

CHALLENGES CONFRONTING REGIONAL JOURNALISTS
Many media watchdogs complain that regional journalists have lost their individual voices by imitating national entertainment programs or relying on American standbys. How are regional journalists trained? Do professional qualifications tend to eradicate individuality and promote a standardized approach to coverage? Is the need to capture advertising dollars changing the way news is reported and disseminated? And should regional journalists strive to protect the local flavor of their news coverage? Journalism professors, media trainers, and other experts will comment on the trend to commodify news, addressing what can be done to bring a diversity of opinion to global audiences.

Chair:
Wilfried Ruetten, Director, European Journalism Centre, the Netherlands

Speakers:
Peter Sauer, Head of the Current News Department, Bavarian Broadcasting, Germany
Ioana Avadani, Executive director, Center for Independent Journalism, Bucharest
Kumar Bekbolotov, Media trainer, Central Asia Programmes Director, IWPR, Kyrgyzstan
Ernest Bujok, Manager, Concentra Media, Belgium
Svetlana Sorokina, Author and Host, Radio “Echo Moskvy”, Russia
Natalya Bandrovskaya, Director of “Rika TV” Television Company, Kazakhstan
Sergey Kharchenko, Chief Editor of “Kostanaiskie Novosti” newspaper, Kazakhstan
Gulnara Ibrayeva, Head of Apparatus, National TV and Radio Corporation of Kyrgyzstan

 12.30-14.00: Lunch (Almaty, Astana restaurants, “C” floor)
 14.00-15.15: Session #6 (Ballroom)

BRAND PERSONALITIES AND FREE USERS: A REAL CONFLICT IN THE UNREAL WORLD -PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PERSONALITY IN THE INTERNET Copyright and the right to intellectual property are extremely topical issues. The concepts of “authorship” and “intellect” are significant but vague while the technical difficulties faced in attempting to protect what is hard to define, combined with the challenges presented by the Internet, necessarily requires a new approach to intellectual property regimen.

The Internet makes it possible not only to express yourself anonymously but also act under false image and false name. This in turn gives rise to the potential arbitrary use of the names and reputations of socially important persons.

In this session we discuss how to protect an individual’s rights to intellectual property and personal authorship on the Internet?

Producer: RIA Novosti News Agency, "Astana in the ‘Second Life’ virtual world" project

Chairs: Maxim Shevchenko, Author and host of “Judge by Yourselves” political talk show, Channel 1, Russia
Marina Lesko, Journalist, Russia

Speakers:

Real format:
Mikhail Leontiyev, Anchorman of the "Odnako" author’s programme, Channel 1, Editor-in-Chief of “Profile” magazine, Russia
Bermet Akayeva, Political analyst, Advisor to the chief editor, “Political class” magazine, Russia
Thierry Meyssan, President, Voltaire Network, Political analyst and writer, France
Ivan Bliznets, Rector of the Russian State Institute of Intellectual Property
Saule Tlevlessova, Program Officer, Division for Certain Countries in Europe and Asia, World Intellectual Property Organization
Vartan Toganyan, President, Eurasian media group, Russia
Alexander Arkhangelskiy, Author and TV host, “Tem vremenem (In the Meantime)” programme, “Culture” TV channel, Russia

Virtual format:
Dmitriy Bykov, Author, winner of the Booker Prize, Russia
Mikhail Fedotov, Secretary of the Union of Journalists of Russia
Alena Sviridova, Author and performer of popular songs, Russia
Maxim Sukhanov, Theatre and film actor, Russia

 15.15-16.15: Session #7 (Ballroom)

CHINA UNDER THE SPOTLIGHT
As the rat becomes the pig, this is the year that defines China’s future. In this session we examine some of the current issues that will shape China in 2008 and discuss the consequences for the rest of the world this year and beyond.

• As the Olympics approaches the world focuses more and more on Beijing. How will the rest of the world assess the global implications of this regional economic powerhouse? Is it a threat or an opportunity for Europe?

• What does the sustainable development of China involve?

• China is an evident contradiction by itself: it remains a communist state with developed bureaucratic apparatus and limited human rights; however, its booming economy is developing according to the market economy mechanisms and becoming one of the leading in the world. How can this be explained? Is this a "special way" of development?

• How shall we examine the motivations of China and Russia in establishing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and why are Iran, India and Pakistan interested in the membership of the Central Asian club?

• How shall we look at the most complex and most important bilateral ties between the US and the PRC in the new century?

Chair: Yang Rui, Anchor, daily Dialogue programme, CCTV 9, China

Speakers:
Victor Gao, Director of the National Association of International Studies (CNAIS), China
David A. Merkel, Former Counselor for International Affairs to the Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Director for Europe and Eurasia on the National Security Council in the White House (2005 – 2007), USA
Jisi Wang, Dean, School of International Studies, Peking University, China
Geydar Dzhemal, Chairman of the Islamic Committee of Russia

 16.15-16.45: Coffee break

 16.45-18.00: Session #8 (Ballroom)

GLAMOUR IN POLITICS AND THE POLITICS OF GLAMOUR
Historically, politicians have limited their public life to certain stereotypical behaviours and styles. These days however, we are witnessing an emerging new era – an era of VIP politicians, who feel comfortable with glamorous behaviour where image-conscious TV appearances are the norm.

More than ever, it appears that what politicians say and do is becoming less important than how they appear.

Politics is becoming an environment where “stars” and “glamorous” heroes are the most important and popular figures.

Are politicians leading deliberately high-profile personal lives to appear more “bling” and have greater appeal to mass audiences? Is this phenomenon the new smart moves of a modern spin doctor hoping to use the mask of glamour to distract the public attention from real issues? Or is adding a touch of glamour to the intrinsically dull world of politics a legitimate way to engage and attract new audiences and voters?

Chair:
Vladimir Rerikh, Producer, journalist, Kazakhstan

Speakers:
Goedele Liekens, UNFPA Goodwill Ambassador, Belgium
Geydar Dzhemal, Chairman of the Islamic Committee of Russia
Marina Lesko, Journalist, Russia
Thierry Meyssan, President, Voltaire Network, Political analyst and writer, France
Akram Khouzam, Independent journalist, Lebanon
Vivienne Walt, Foreign correspondent, Time magazine, France
Maxim Shevchenko, Author and host of “Judge by Yourselves” political talk show, Channel 1, Russia

Front row:
Oleg Gostev, General producer of Kazakhstan fashion week, Kazakhstan
Gulnara Sarsenova, Director of “Eurasia film”, Kazakhstan

 18.00-18.15: CLOSING ADDRESS
by Dr. Dariga Nazarbayeva, Chair of the Eurasian Media Forum
Organizing Committee, Kazakhstan

 19.30-24.00: Forum Gala Event hosted by CNN International and Khabar Agency

A Russia Today TV video about the conference

Interview with Edward Lozansky, President of the World Russian Forum
(and Senior Fellow of the Real Russia Project).

Originally published in Washington Profile on April 18, 2008

Q.: The month of May is not far off, and in that month Washington will host the next World Russian Forum, a traditional event on Capitol Hill. Incidentally, what number will it be?

Lozansky: The twenty-seventh. The first one took place in May 1981, and ever since U.S. Congress generously provides one of its best auditoriums for this event. This is despite the fact that Russia is portrayed by the media as a very bad boy these days. Needless to say that we are extremely grateful to Congress for doing this.

Click on the extended post to read the rest of the interview.

Q.: Is that what it was called in the Soviet era as well?

Lozansky: No, of course not. At the time it was known as the Tribute to Andrei Sakharov. At those hearings the attendees discussed the Soviet Union’s domestic and foreign policy and how the West should adequately react. Incidentally, the main reason why our Forums are held in May is that Sakharov’s birthday falls on May 21. In 1981 Sakharov turned 60. At the time we saw the Forum as a sort of festival to celebrate his birthday.

Q.: Would it be correct to say that in the past the Forums were anti-Soviet, while now they are pro-Russian?

Lozansky: Basically, yes, but both then and now the Forum has always served the interests of America and Russia alike. I stress the word Russia, not the Soviet Union, of course, which was a sworn enemy of the United States and the entire free world. Communist dictatorship oppressed its own people and was in the business of expanding its ideology. This expansion was not just a battle of ideas, it was also backed by the mammoth military machine that the better half of the country’s economy was working for. Fighting that enemy required the Pentagon hardware, Star Wars scare, NATO, and obviously also what is called soft power, i.e. the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, the Kontinent magazine, and other underground literature, Sakharov forums, etc.

That fight ended in victory, but not of the West over Russia, as is frequently assumed, but of all of us, including the Russians, over communism. Once it collapsed, it was necessary to make a Herculean effort to incorporate Russia into the Western world. Unfortunately, America has made lots of tragic mistakes, and on this road we have wasted almost 20 years.

Q.: What were America’s worst mistakes, in your view?

Lozansky: First and foremost, Russia should have been offered considerable economic assistance to ensure as painless a transition as possible from a centrally planned to a market economy.

Next it was necessary to draw up a road map for Russia joining NATO, or else for transforming NATO into a different organization, given the new geopolitical situation. An organization with the new set of aims and tasks that would include Russia.

Last but not least, it was necessary to devise a new strategy for U.S. and European security, something that George Bush Sr. used to talk about: security from Vancouver to Vladivostok. Alas, it never went beyond verbiage, and the same can be said of Bush’s solemn promise to Gorbachev not to expand NATO.

Regrettably, not only abovementioned ideas were not implemented, worse, what has been actually done is almost the exact opposite.

Q.: Is this a reference to the desire of Bush Jr. to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO?

Lozansky: That too, and also to his decision to deploy Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) elements in Poland and Czechoslovakia – without consulting Russia or even United States’ own allies in NATO. The BMD idea as such is quite attractive, provided that its systems are developed and deployed with the U.S., Russia and NATO working closely together.

As for Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, they are certainly entitled to do so as free and independent nations, and Russia has no right to veto the process. However, it is common knowledge that the majority of Ukrainians reject this idea, while Georgia is embroiled in territorial conflicts. Georgia’s accession to NATO is not only a violation of that organization’s charter, but it is a sure way to a military collision with Russia over Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Are we ready for this? As for Ukraine it would also make a joke of the current U.S. president’s fundamental concept.

Q.: What exactly are you referring to?

Lozansky: The Bush legacy. The philosophical pivot of his legacy is the messianic idea of spreading democracy throughout the world. One may accept or reject the idea itself, but Bush, as a deeply religious person, does indeed believe that all or at least most of the global problems can be solved by democracy. Yet, what triumph of democracy can we talk about if Ukraine is being dragged into NATO against the will of its own people?

Q.: You’ve talked of America’s mistakes. Did Russia do everything just right?

Lozansky: Of course it didn’t. I can give you a long list of Russia’s mistakes too. But Russia was then and still is a young, inexperienced apprentice in democracy, while America is a renowned professor on this subject and should be judged as such.

Where Russia went wrong in a big way was its failure to condemn clearly and unequivocally the crimes of the communist regime against Eastern Europe, the Baltic states, Western Ukraine, the so-called captive nations. Russia acted somewhat unwisely, but generously and nobly, when it acknowledged the Soviet Union’s entire financial debts. Now, while it was at it, it should have clearly stated that it was not responsible for the empire’s moral debts, itself being simply another victim and one of the countries enslaved by communism. In terms of facts and figures, Russia was the country worst hit by communist terror.

Some statements to this effect have been made by Yeltsin and Putin, but they were not nearly coherent and convincing enough. Meanwhile, that would have radically improved Russia’s relations with the former captive nations, and with Europe and America too for that matter. Moreover, it would also help Russians themselves to overcome the nostalgia over the loss of the empire and move them closer to the West.

Q.: What’s on this year’s Forum’s agenda?

Lozansky: Mostly issues of Russian-U.S. cooperation in economics and security. The economic panel is being assembled by Ruslan Grinberg, director of the Economics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; the security panel, by General Vladimir Dvorkin, senior research fellow at the International Economics and World Politics Institute, also of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Both panels will include leading U.S. experts, among them General Henry Obering, director of the Missile Defense Agency.

Naturally, certain broader aspects of U.S. - Russian will also be discussed, including business, science, education, and cultural cooperation, the role of Russian Diaspora in U.S., etc.

Besides, we intend to present two new Russian NGOs about to open their offices in the United States – the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation headed by Professor Andranik Migranyan of the Moscow International Relations Institute, and the International Institute of Research into Comparative Political Cultures, founded by Mikhail Gorbachev and Alexander Lebedev.

Q.: Could you sum up the Forum’s principal goals and objectives?

Lozansky: They have remained unchanged throughout the 27 years of its existence. We would like to achieve close cooperation between a free, democratic, thriving Russia and the West, in addressing the 21st century’s global problems. This may sound a bit too grand, but it’s hard to find a different formula.

A few days ago I took part in a function honoring Zbigniew Brzezinski, attended by virtually the entire Who’s Who in U.S. foreign policy, including Henry Kissinger. Practically all of the speakers said that world’s global problems could not be solved without Russia’s cooperation. Even Brzezinski himself, a person often viewed in Russia as an evil genius, talked of the need to bring Russia to the West.

Against this backdrop, statements by Republican presidential nominee John McCain to the effect that Russia had to be excluded from G-8, isolated and contained, surely jar on one’s ear. As for the two Democratic candidates— well, frankly, so far, they are making some unintelligible noises on this issue. In the circumstances, the voice of the public appears all the more important.

Q.: Did you invite the presidential candidates to attend the Forum?

Lozansky: We certainly did. We have sent invitations to McCain and Obama as the more likely candidates for the two parties. Obama’s people promptly sent back a polite reply saying that he would be engaged elsewhere on that day. As for the McCain office, it is still keeping silent. This is a good sign, for it implies that he and his advisors are thinking the matter over. The Forum will take place at the Hart Senate Office Building, practically next door to McCain’s office, so he will not have to go too far. We have assembled quite an impressive group of U.S. and Russian experts ready to have an honest and earnest talk with McCain if he shows up, of course. McCain proved to be a good soldier on the battlefield. Let us see how he does in the battle of ideas.

For further details of the Forum and registration of participants see www.russiahouse.org/wrf

Edward Lozansky is President of the American University in Moscow.

This article was submitted by our reader David Habakkuk as an extended comment on Patrick Armstrong's Russia Blog article More Questions Than Can Be Answered.

On the absurdity of suggesting that his KGB past necessarily damns Putin, while taking on trust anything said by other ex-Chekists like Alexander Litvinenko, Oleg Gordievsky, Vasili Mitrokhin or Oleg Kalugin, Patrick Armstrong is, as so often, an immensely refreshing voice of sanity.

Uncritical acceptance of claims by Gordievsky about how Litvinenko died is particular bizarre -- given that he has made different and incompatible claims at different times, so as a simple point of logic some of what he has claimed has to be false. A further curious feature of Gordievsky's accounts, however, is that much of what he has claimed directly contradicts central elements of what has become the official British version of Litvinenko's death. And in fact, while one would be ill-advised to take anything Gordievsky says at face value, some of what he has claimed fits in distinctly better with the publicly available evidence than the official version does.

Indeed, some of Gordievsky's claims turn out to fit surprisingly well with Edward Jay Epstein's argument that the British request for Lugovoi's extradition was not a bona-fide move to bring a guilty man to justice, but an attempt to prevent any awkward questions from being raised about Litvinenko's activities in London.

Click on the extended post to read more.

According to the official version -- endlessly and uncritically recycled in the British and American press -- the British police have conclusive evidence that Litvinenko was poisoned in the Pine Bar of the Millennium Hotel by Andrei Lugovoi. It is unambiguously clear that this meeting in the Pine Bar occurred in the late afternoon of November 1, 2006, and followed, rather than preceded, an earlier meeting between Litvinenko and the Italian self-styled 'security consultant' Mario Scaramella at the Itsu sushi bar in Piccadilly.

According to the account given by Gordievsky in an article in the UK Times of London on January 20 last year -- which also quoted sources in the police, with whom Gordievsky was said to have 'worked closely' -- the poisoning took place in a fourth-floor room at the Millennium. This was attended not only by Lugovoi but by a mysterious Russian, not known to Litvinenko, and referred to as 'Vladislav' -- who was the actual murderer. This meeting is said to have taken place before, rather than after, the meeting with Scaramella.

(See http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/europe/article1294705.ece.)

In addition to this Times story, it is helpful to consult Chapter 45 -- 'Suspects Galore' -- of The Litvinenko File, published by the former BBC Moscow Correspondent Martin Sixsmith in April 2007. Besides repeating Gordievsky's account, Sixsmith interviews another London-based ex-Chekist, Boris Volodarsky, to whom the police have also apparently talked, who again claims there was an earlier meeting, and states categorically that the CCTV footage of the Pine Bar meeting makes it clear that Litvinenko could not have been murdered there. This version has been further elaborated by Volodarsky in a long riposte to Epstein's story posted on the New York Sun website. Anyone seriously interested in the case should read this -- along with the fascinating if perhaps somewhat mystifying comment from Karon von Gerhke. Either Volodarsky and Gordievsky are indulging in fantasy, or they are indeed reporting evidence that the British authorities do possess but have decided to keep both from Russian investigators and from British journalists.

According to the Times story, 'Litvinenko was reportedly able to give vital details of his suspected killer in a bedside interview with detectives just days before he died on November 23 at University College Hospital.' The story quotes Gordievsky as saying that Litvinenko 'remembered the man making him a cup of tea.' Litvinenko's belief, Gordievsky tells us, was 'that the water from the kettle was only lukewarm and that the polonium-210 was added, which heated the drink through radiation so he had a hot cup of tea.'

A rather different account was however given by Gordievsky in an interview in Russian carried by Radio Liberty on December 18, 2006, which the translator David McDuff rendered into English and published on his blog.

(See http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2006/12/litvinenko-gordievsky-interview-ii.html.)

Again the actual killer is identified not as Lugovoi, but as a mysterious Russian, only this time called 'Volodya' rather than 'Vladislav'. But Gordievsky told Radio Liberty that 'everything is known', that he himself 'knew who the killer was on the fourth day', that British officials 'all know' but were 'doing it all step by step, in the correct way'.

As these accounts appear to be in tension with one another, it is easy simply to dismiss everything Gordievsky says. But this may be a mistake. The implication of Gordievsky's account is that he and British officials had a full account from Litvinenko of his meeting with Lugovoi soon after he was taken ill. And, surely, this is what one would have expected. According to a Daily Mail story last October, Litvinenko was indeed working for MI6, and Scarlett was personally involved in his recruitment -- in which case one would have expected Litvinenko or his wife to contact MI6 immediately he fell ill.

Moreover, even if one discounts the claims of the Mail, Gordievsky was, according to his own account, a close friend of Litvinenko, and we know that he is linked to the head of MI6, Sir John Scarlett -- his case officer when Gordievsky was KGB resident in London. So one would have expected that even if Litvinenko or his wife had not contacted MI6, they would have contacted Gordievsky, and he in turn would have contacted Scarlett. So British officials ought to have been as well-informed as Gordievsky suggests they were.

If one consults Chapters 9 and 10 of Sixsmith's book, it becomes glaringly apparent that he has swallowed disinformation designed to demonstrate that nobody took any interest whatsoever in Litvinenko's claims until following his BBC Russian Service interview on November 11. If moreover one searches through the archive of the Times and Telegraph papers, it appears that the first time one can find reference to Lugovoi is more than a week after that interview, when Litvinenko was close to death and it is unclear how far, if at all, he was capable of coherent communication. (He died on November 23, Lugovoi is first referred to on November 20). The information appears to have come first from Berezovsky's factotum Alex Goldfarb -- and according to Gazeta Ru, it emerged as the result of a telephone conversation between Litvinenko and Goldfarb on November 19.

It appears that at the time Litvinenko died, the police were still ignorant of the name of the hotel where Litvinenko and Lugovoi had met. Moreover, in all these early stories, the meeting with Lugovoi is indeed placed before the meeting with Scaramella -- and features both Lugovoi and a mysterious Russian known as 'Vladimir'. This fits with Gordievsky's 'Volodya', if not his 'Vladislav': but the ambiguity would be unsurprising, if in fact there had been the kind of conversation with a dying Litvinenko which Gordievsky claimed took place in the January 20 interview. What is clear is that, if the press reports are to believed, at the time when Litvinenko was almost certainly no longer capable of communicating coherently, the police investigating the case knew nothing nothing whatsoever about the Pine Bar meeting, or indeed about the existence of Dmitri Kovtun.

The natural conclusion is that regardless of the nature of Litvinenko's business with Lugovoi, he was anxious that the police investigating his case should not know about it. This hardly gels with the widespread British assumption that the motives which drove Litvinenko to become involved with Lugovoi were purely commercial, resulting from a lack of money (for which the evidence is actually less than compelling.) Whether Gordievsky and Scarlett, or indeed Berezovsky and his people, knew about any meetings with Lugovoi, and simply did not see fit to inform the detectives handling the case, is a most interesting question. That is the assumption which is necessary if both of Gordievsky's stories are to be regarded as at least having some connection with the truth. But it is not actually a particularly implausible assumption.

If one collates Sixsmith's account with that given by Volodarsky in responding to Edward Jay Epstein, moreover, one finds further evidence in support of the latter's skepticism about the notion that the contamination trail points unambiguously to the Pine Bar and has to originate with Lugovoi. In Sixsmith's version, Scaramella was first judged to be contaminated -- but it was then declared that this was a mistake. The Itsu was contaminated -- but this turned out to be because Litvinenko and Lugovoi had eaten there during the latter's previous trip to London. However, Sixsmith trips over himself, because he says that the copier in Berezovsky's office was contaminated by Litvinenko. According to his account, Litvinenko coped emails from Scaramella before the Pine Bar meeting, not after: when if the timeline is to work, he should have been clean.

According to Volodarsky, both Scaramella and the Itsu were contaminated, but this was because Litvinenko had been contaminated at the earlier meeting when he was murdered. The inconsistencies are puzzling, to put it mildly. And, crucially, signs of contamination appearing prior to the Pine Bar meeting really do make difficulties for the official British version -- although they do not for the Gordievsky/Volodarsky version. The famous contaminated teapot is sometimes presented as clinching evidence for the official British case. But Sixsmith himself contemplates the possibility it could have been used by room service, in which case it would be compatible with the Gordievsky/Volodarsky account. Moreover, given that the teapot seems to have been first mentioned in late January, about six weeks after it was first supposed to have been identified, it is difficult to be absolutely sure it exists.

A further problem with Gordievsky's claims as reported by the Times is that according to the official version, it was only just before Litvinenko died that the results showing he was poisoned with polonium, not thallium, arrived. If Litvinenko was talking about polonium heating his tea before he died, then some of those talking to him must have been given these results earlier -- or must have known all along that polonium was involved somewhere. But then, in the light of Epstein's work, neither possibility is to be discounted, surely?

In addition to Epstein's invaluable work, another crucial contribution is the story 'Why a spy was killed' which Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy published in the UK Guardian in January.

This portrays Scaramella and Litvinenko as pivotal figures in Berlusconi's disinformation campaigns against his political opponents. It describes Litvinenko's efforts to frame Alexander Talik, supposedly to get him to become a source on the gangster Semion Mogilevich -- who by coincidence was arrested in Moscow just before the story appeared. Among the many allegations against Mogilevich is that of being behind RosUkrEnergo and its predecessor Eural Trans Gas, the middlemen in the gas trade to and through Ukraine -- which Scott-Clark and Levy fail to mention. Also of course there are the allegations of involvement in the Bank of New York scandal -- now the subject of a lawsuit by the Russian authorities. And crucially, there are the old allegations of attempted smuggling of enriched uranium, which I think come from reasonably credible sources.

It is possible that MI6 -- using private security companies as a front -- was engaged in a bona fide investigation of nuclear smuggling. Equally, it is possible that Litvinenko was trying to frame figures in the Russian elite with allegations of nuclear smuggling. Both could be the case, at the same time, and there are many other possibilities: a number of them featuring the murky underworlds of the European energy trade. Equally, Litvinenko's death could simply have been an accident, derived from incautious handling of polonium -- as Lugovoi has suggested.

The earlier meeting described by Gordievsky and Volodarsky could or could not have existed. Even if it did exist, it might or might not have taken place at the Millennium. And its existence would hardly be proof that Litvinenko was murdered at it, and still less that there is a compelling case against Lugovoi. But then again, the Gordievsky/Volodarsky account does not have the complete incredibility of the suggestion that Lugovoi chose the Pine Bar as the appropriate place to murder Litvinenko. It could indeed be that there is a cogent case against Lugovoi. But if there is, it is a case which the British authorities are afraid to make public, because -- for reasons good bad or indifferent -- candor would involve revealing a lot of information they want to keep secret.

One thing that militates against any confidence in the role of the British authorities in the affair is precisely the kind of facile black and white thinking exemplified by the article by Robert Service which Patrick Armstrong is discussing. And then there is the history of British intelligence failures over Iraq. These were intimately bound up with a propensity uncritically to swallow disinformation produces by exiles and émigrés -- of whom key figures, such as Ahmad Chalabi, were clearly conmen. Both MI6 and Scarlett were at the heart of these failures. The possibility that they have once again fallen for a bunch of conmen -- Berezovsky and his minions -- cannot, I fear, be ruled out. And, while the competence at intelligence gathering of sections of British intelligence is very much in question, there can be little doubt about their skills in manipulating the British press.

David Habbakuk lives in London, and is a former television current affairs producer. After studying economics and history at Cambridge, he lived in Mexico, then worked on the Liverpool Daily Post newspaper and the Financial Times. Subsequently he produced programs for London Weekend Television and the BBC as an independent television producer.