![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
htpcl.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsOK then, my paranoid conspiracy theorists geopolitics junkies! While we're still about China, how about this. David Cameron has been Britain's PM for a couple of years and for all that time he has managed to visit nearly all countries that matter, from the US to Nigeria. But not even once did he bother to visit Russia. Until now, that is.
Cameron's predecessor, Gordon Brown, although heading the UK government for 3 years, didn't bother to visit Moscow even once for that time. In fact the last time a British PM had been to Russia it was Tony Blair, but the visit wasn't even in Kremlin but St.Petersburg (at the G-8 meeting in 2006).
That's why before the trip the whole British public, forgetting about their political and social quarrels for a while, made a collective brainstorm effort because of Cameron's "premiere" in Moscow - trying to give him suggestions of what he should and shouldn't do, if he didn't want to feel too embarrassed there. Where he should stand and how, and most importantly, what to say and in what a way that would make everyone understand: Britain, first and foremost, cares about its economic cooperation with Russia. But still, no trade contracts would make it forget about human rights. A delicate message really.
No serious diplomat and expert in Russian affairs remained indifferent to this visit. For instance Tony Brenton, the former British ambassador to Moscow wrote a detailed article about the horrors of Russian authoritarianism. In it he didn't forget to mention Litvinenko (the former KGB agent who was poisoned with polonium in London), the British Council, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky (a Russian billionaire and owner of Yukos, who's serving a sentence in jail for tax evasion, fraud and other federal crimes, but who's claimed to be Putin's main rival who was sacrificed like a lamb). The author also mentioned thebrown-shirts "Ours" youth movement that's Putin's most dedicated unit, and the ruling party United Russia, BP's troubles, etc etc.
Of course, the ambassador argues, there's very little honor in being photographed while hand-shaking with despots, but still Go To Russia You Must (as Yoda would've put it). If anything, at least to fight the "predatory corrupt elite" that reigns in Russia. And to help Russia become a democratic, civilized, European country. That's very noble indeed!
Instantly, four former UK foreign ministers supported ambassador Brenton. Various officials from the Foreign Office, from young Labour superstar Ed Milliband (who has Russian roots btw) to the veteran Sir Rifkind who started his career in Thatcher's cabinet, all wrote a joint open letter to Cameron, lecturing him about Russia. There was a lot of brain effort involved in that visit, by any means.
Well of course, instead of Brenton's term "predatory and corrupt elite", the protagonist in that letter is renamed to "a powerful mix of corruption and lawlessness" that sounds a bit more vague. The rest of it pretty much parrots Brenton's article. For instance they advised Cameron to charge boldly forward and keep the pressure on topics like Litvinenko and the corrupt power-brokers on the top floors of Russian politics.
Even senator John McCain, this expert on the region, urged the British prime minister to lay out the whole truth to the Russians and open their eyes about their criminal autocracy (as if they didn't already know that). And of course Litvinenko. He shouldn't forget to mention Litvinenko!
Cameron did his best not to anger the bear too much. He took a group of 24 businessmen, he promised contracts worth $350 million, opening 500 new British jobs related to the Anglo-Russian cooperation, he removed the ban on Russian beef imports to UK, he hinted about future Arctic perspectives for BP (where Russia is a shareholder), and billions for nuclear energy. Not sure where he'd pull out that money from at times of severe austerity, but still, he promised all those things, OK?
Smartly, he did his best to avoid meeting the great evil Putin. Just before the Russian trip, members of UK's government bragged that Putin hadn't met with any British officials for 4 years. Yay! But this time they eventually had to end this record.
To Cameron's credit, Litvinenko became one of the main topics of the visit. The word "KGB" sounded more frequently than "cooperation". And the Moscow tour ended with a meeting with civil rights activists, where Cameron demonstrated some profound knowledge in the matters of Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and even the Belorussian opposition against Lukashenko.
Sure, he didn't dare to show the middle finger to the Russian rulers because of the whole abomination that was the Magnitsky case. He could've given them some more heat. But meanwhile one can't help but notice the British pedantic overreaction.
Cameron, of course, has never been to any corrupt countries and he has never talked face to face with any authoritarian regimes, OK? Well, here he had to descend into the very lungs of Hell that's Kremlin (by the definition of the British mainstream media, anyway). He'd probably need a whole week to wash himself clean after all the Putin hand-shaking and the unwashed gaze of the KGBist. Poor Cameron.
But here's the funny thing. When Cameron was in China a few months ago, the conversations revolved exceptionally around the limitless business opportunities for the British companies. In his speech to some students in Beijing he went so far that even the grandfathers of the Chinese politburo would hardly be able to invent a better excuse.
Cameron said that Britain itself is having some trouble, and there's hardly a place in the world that's flawless. And China had achieved "enormous progress" in the sphere of political democratization and human rights. The ordinary Chinese are now "freer than ever before", he said. They work whatever job they want and live wherever they want, they travel abroad and they can even use text messaging (!) and Internet (!!) (of course, only after doing a passport registration). There are of course "some differences" between China and Britain on "some issues", but that's normal - after all "our culture and history is quite different". Amazing...
The Chinese dissidents had waited for a long time, but they never saw Cameron mentioning anything about the political prisoner Liu Xiaobo who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in absentia literally a few days before Cameron's visit. The Chinese authorities didn't allow Liu to send even an envoy to pick up the award, something that hasn't happened since the time of Nazi Germany (cue Godwin's fans).
But Cameron apparently decided that it'd be inappropriate to mention the missing Nobel laureate at his press conference in Beijing. And even if he had brought it up, the Chinese would've probably ignored it and censored it. This is not authoritarian Russia where every word he said about Litvinenko was instantly reported across all their state TV channels and newspapers in its entirety. Feeling weird yet?
After tactfully shutting up about Liu Xiaobo, the opening of some other topics like the first edition of Forbes China, the arrest of the world-famous painter Ai Weiwei and the meeting with the Chinese civil rights activists, turned out way beyond Cameron's capabilities as well.
But Moscow need not feel offended by the double standard of British diplomacy. Just on the contrary - they should feel proud of it, because in fact it flatters Russia. Since Russia is facing some tough pretentions and being subject to heavy moralizing, it probably means it's being subconsciously considered a civilized European country that has just strayed slightly off track, getting entangled in corruption and disregard for law. Sounds encouraging.
All in all, if you keep preaching and lecturing to the Russians, the premise is that in time they could become completely "normal" citizens of the world, and just like the West, right? Haha. OK, at least theoretically. But what about the Chinese? By Cameron's choice of conduct, it seems it's totally pointless to try to argue reason with them at all. Better do business and shut up.
Cameron's predecessor, Gordon Brown, although heading the UK government for 3 years, didn't bother to visit Moscow even once for that time. In fact the last time a British PM had been to Russia it was Tony Blair, but the visit wasn't even in Kremlin but St.Petersburg (at the G-8 meeting in 2006).
That's why before the trip the whole British public, forgetting about their political and social quarrels for a while, made a collective brainstorm effort because of Cameron's "premiere" in Moscow - trying to give him suggestions of what he should and shouldn't do, if he didn't want to feel too embarrassed there. Where he should stand and how, and most importantly, what to say and in what a way that would make everyone understand: Britain, first and foremost, cares about its economic cooperation with Russia. But still, no trade contracts would make it forget about human rights. A delicate message really.
No serious diplomat and expert in Russian affairs remained indifferent to this visit. For instance Tony Brenton, the former British ambassador to Moscow wrote a detailed article about the horrors of Russian authoritarianism. In it he didn't forget to mention Litvinenko (the former KGB agent who was poisoned with polonium in London), the British Council, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky (a Russian billionaire and owner of Yukos, who's serving a sentence in jail for tax evasion, fraud and other federal crimes, but who's claimed to be Putin's main rival who was sacrificed like a lamb). The author also mentioned the
Of course, the ambassador argues, there's very little honor in being photographed while hand-shaking with despots, but still Go To Russia You Must (as Yoda would've put it). If anything, at least to fight the "predatory corrupt elite" that reigns in Russia. And to help Russia become a democratic, civilized, European country. That's very noble indeed!
Instantly, four former UK foreign ministers supported ambassador Brenton. Various officials from the Foreign Office, from young Labour superstar Ed Milliband (who has Russian roots btw) to the veteran Sir Rifkind who started his career in Thatcher's cabinet, all wrote a joint open letter to Cameron, lecturing him about Russia. There was a lot of brain effort involved in that visit, by any means.
Well of course, instead of Brenton's term "predatory and corrupt elite", the protagonist in that letter is renamed to "a powerful mix of corruption and lawlessness" that sounds a bit more vague. The rest of it pretty much parrots Brenton's article. For instance they advised Cameron to charge boldly forward and keep the pressure on topics like Litvinenko and the corrupt power-brokers on the top floors of Russian politics.
Even senator John McCain, this expert on the region, urged the British prime minister to lay out the whole truth to the Russians and open their eyes about their criminal autocracy (as if they didn't already know that). And of course Litvinenko. He shouldn't forget to mention Litvinenko!
Cameron did his best not to anger the bear too much. He took a group of 24 businessmen, he promised contracts worth $350 million, opening 500 new British jobs related to the Anglo-Russian cooperation, he removed the ban on Russian beef imports to UK, he hinted about future Arctic perspectives for BP (where Russia is a shareholder), and billions for nuclear energy. Not sure where he'd pull out that money from at times of severe austerity, but still, he promised all those things, OK?
Smartly, he did his best to avoid meeting the great evil Putin. Just before the Russian trip, members of UK's government bragged that Putin hadn't met with any British officials for 4 years. Yay! But this time they eventually had to end this record.
To Cameron's credit, Litvinenko became one of the main topics of the visit. The word "KGB" sounded more frequently than "cooperation". And the Moscow tour ended with a meeting with civil rights activists, where Cameron demonstrated some profound knowledge in the matters of Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and even the Belorussian opposition against Lukashenko.
Sure, he didn't dare to show the middle finger to the Russian rulers because of the whole abomination that was the Magnitsky case. He could've given them some more heat. But meanwhile one can't help but notice the British pedantic overreaction.
Cameron, of course, has never been to any corrupt countries and he has never talked face to face with any authoritarian regimes, OK? Well, here he had to descend into the very lungs of Hell that's Kremlin (by the definition of the British mainstream media, anyway). He'd probably need a whole week to wash himself clean after all the Putin hand-shaking and the unwashed gaze of the KGBist. Poor Cameron.
But here's the funny thing. When Cameron was in China a few months ago, the conversations revolved exceptionally around the limitless business opportunities for the British companies. In his speech to some students in Beijing he went so far that even the grandfathers of the Chinese politburo would hardly be able to invent a better excuse.
Cameron said that Britain itself is having some trouble, and there's hardly a place in the world that's flawless. And China had achieved "enormous progress" in the sphere of political democratization and human rights. The ordinary Chinese are now "freer than ever before", he said. They work whatever job they want and live wherever they want, they travel abroad and they can even use text messaging (!) and Internet (!!) (of course, only after doing a passport registration). There are of course "some differences" between China and Britain on "some issues", but that's normal - after all "our culture and history is quite different". Amazing...
The Chinese dissidents had waited for a long time, but they never saw Cameron mentioning anything about the political prisoner Liu Xiaobo who was awarded the Nobel peace prize in absentia literally a few days before Cameron's visit. The Chinese authorities didn't allow Liu to send even an envoy to pick up the award, something that hasn't happened since the time of Nazi Germany (cue Godwin's fans).
But Cameron apparently decided that it'd be inappropriate to mention the missing Nobel laureate at his press conference in Beijing. And even if he had brought it up, the Chinese would've probably ignored it and censored it. This is not authoritarian Russia where every word he said about Litvinenko was instantly reported across all their state TV channels and newspapers in its entirety. Feeling weird yet?
After tactfully shutting up about Liu Xiaobo, the opening of some other topics like the first edition of Forbes China, the arrest of the world-famous painter Ai Weiwei and the meeting with the Chinese civil rights activists, turned out way beyond Cameron's capabilities as well.
But Moscow need not feel offended by the double standard of British diplomacy. Just on the contrary - they should feel proud of it, because in fact it flatters Russia. Since Russia is facing some tough pretentions and being subject to heavy moralizing, it probably means it's being subconsciously considered a civilized European country that has just strayed slightly off track, getting entangled in corruption and disregard for law. Sounds encouraging.
All in all, if you keep preaching and lecturing to the Russians, the premise is that in time they could become completely "normal" citizens of the world, and just like the West, right? Haha. OK, at least theoretically. But what about the Chinese? By Cameron's choice of conduct, it seems it's totally pointless to try to argue reason with them at all. Better do business and shut up.
(no subject)
Date: 17/9/11 19:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/11 19:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 10:37 (UTC)And still it's better than anywhere else. (But I would say that, wouldn't I?)
(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 10:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 15:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 15:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 16:54 (UTC)UK is ranked 16th cleanest country out of 180 worldwide. That's not horrible. Nor is it the best. There is indeed room for improvement.
So why has UK a worsened record?... "The United Kingdom’s anti-corruption credentials within the OECD and other major international
groups has clearly suffered a setback following the December 2006 decision to discontinue a
criminal investigation of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) in relation to the Al Yamamah
contract in Saudi Arabia. The decision to stop the criminal investigation raised acute concerns
over the UK’s international obligation to combat corruption." (http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008/regional_highlights_factsheets) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/24/11)
(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 17:28 (UTC)Exactly my point. No objections on the rest.
(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 18:34 (UTC)This is not to attempt to mitigate the misery of Empire, nor to deny that, historically speaking, the UK has more than its fair share of blood on its hands.
(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 18:57 (UTC)By the way impressions tend to be more complete when a number of examples are experienced personally and then compared. I'm sure most North Koreans are convinced that their country fares the best in the world in many areas, or at least their impression is such.
(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 21:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/9/11 21:05 (UTC)In America...
Date: 17/9/11 20:57 (UTC)Re: In America...
Date: 17/9/11 21:06 (UTC)Re: In America...
Date: 17/9/11 23:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/11 21:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/9/11 23:12 (UTC)Nobody in America takes McCain seriously after the 2008 election. Why should anybody else?
(no subject)
Date: 19/9/11 19:51 (UTC)