Belarus refines Russian oil at two large facilities, but exports the bulk of the produce, also charging a hefty petrochemicals export fee – which the Russian side believe is theirs. The first attempt to make Belarus itself pay Russia export, rather than domestic, was taken in January 2007, resulting in a brief halt to Russian oil supplies to Europe and a half-way tariff solution. Belarus paid US$53 per ton as export duty instead of the initial US$180, and kept 15% of the collected export duty, while Russia retained 85%. The agreement expired at the start of this year.

Now Russia is on the assault again, although this time round it has its hands tied up by its own invention, the tripartite Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, which, as Belarusian government reasonably points out, precludes any tariff duplicity. The Belarusian side, however, is also vulnerable. According to estimations by economist Yaroslav Romantchuk, should the Russian conditions be observed, Belarus would need to pay some US$5.6 billion in 2010 in oil export duties alone, which equals over 10% of its GDP and nearly equals profits from exporting refined oil, estimated over US$6 billion. The tariff is thus effectively untenable for the Belarusian economy.

Given the high stakes for both sides, negotiations over the new oil contract may prove more difficult than either side would warrant – and take longer than the now habitual seasonal energy haggles. This is because the root cause – Russia’s subsidised energy prices remains intact in principle. To resolve this most recent impasse, Russia may be hoping to obtain control over Belarusian oil refining assets, in exchange for some lower tariffs, something that the Belarusian side will be very reluctant to part with. In any case, Belarus is likely to see conditions to worsen for the oil refining industry, which is likely to lower its share in the GPD and export in the long term. For Russia, the question is how much and who exactly will gain from the new contract: the Russian budget from the higher energy tariffs, or oil companies from being able to buy Belarusian assets on cheap. The recipients of Russian oil via Belarus in Poland and Germany can remain on quiet alert, for the attempts to cover up the dispute from both sides show that they are eager to contain the situation to themselves at least at present.

Now Russia is on the assault again, although this time round it has its hands tied up by its own invention, the tripartite Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, which, as Belarusian government reasonably points out, precludes any tariff duplicity. The Belarusian side, however, is also vulnerable. According to estimations by economist Yaroslav Romantchuk, should the Russian conditions be observed, Belarus would need to pay some US$5.6 billion in 2010 in oil export duties alone, which equals over 10% of its GDP and nearly equals profits from exporting refined oil, estimated over US$6 billion. The tariff is thus effectively untenable for the Belarusian economy.

Given the high stakes for both sides, negotiations over the new oil contract may prove more difficult than either side would warrant – and take longer than the now habitual seasonal energy haggles. This is because the root cause – Russia’s subsidised energy prices remains intact in principle. To resolve this most recent impasse, Russia may be hoping to obtain control over Belarusian oil refining assets, in exchange for some lower tariffs, something that the Belarusian side will be very reluctant to part with. In any case, Belarus is likely to see conditions to worsen for the oil refining industry, which is likely to lower its share in the GPD and export in the long term. For Russia, the question is how much and who exactly will gain from the new contract: the Russian budget from the higher energy tariffs, or oil companies from being able to buy Belarusian assets on cheap. The recipients of Russian oil via Belarus in Poland and Germany can remain on quiet alert, for the attempts to cover up the dispute from both sides show that they are eager to contain the situation to themselves at least at present.

Медведев дал россиянам мечту; теперь им нужны политические инструменты.

В своем обращении президент Медведев сделал шаг вперед от традиционных «распределительно-обещательных» текстов этого жанра, привычных для жителей стран СНГ. Его послание более напоминало программные речи политиков западных демократий, призванные обозначить большие цели и вдохновить избирателей на их исполнение.

Реформатору Медведеву крайне необходима народная поддержка для реализации своего видения России. Она нужна не только для преодоления инерции и сопротивления бюрократического аппарата. Его мечта о стране «умных, свободных и ответственных» людей невозможна без их взращивания и без создания механизмов их взаимодействия с властью. В этом программа президента пока недостаточна.

Медведев предлагает усиление местных органов власти и партийное строительство – а в развитых демократиях оба механизма, особенно партийная политика, уже изжили себя и не соответствуют потребностям эклектичного неклассового пост-индустриального общества. Поэтому в то время как заимствовать опыт ведущих стран в области инфраструктуры и технологий разумно, для глубокой политической «перестройки» усиление традиционных механизмов представительной демократии неэффективно. Укреплять политические механизмы прошлого для России недостаточно.

Чтобы быть настоящим мировым лидером, России можно и нужно принести в жизнь новые политические инструменты. В частности, можно сказать новое слово в отношении института гражданского общества: создать более прямые, чем представительные, механизмы для поощрения политической и социальной деятельности активных граждан и реализации их идей. Бюрократический аппарат в законодательных и исполнительных ветвях власти для этого некомпетентен, инертен, и главное, не заинтересован. Нужны новые каналы, которые пользовались бы доверием тех самых людей, которые так важны для Медведева, и которым бы также и доверяло государство.

Президентское послание – смелый и нужный шаг. Чтобы сделать другие, и не в одиночку, президенту нужно дать возможности активным гражданам стать рядом с собой.

Наталья Лещенко Жизнь либерала

Делу лорда Ральфа Дарендорфа посвящается

3 ноября в Вестминстерском аббатстве отпевали лорда Ральфа Дарендорфа, великого мыслителя, известного политика, крупного чиновника, британского барона. Вернее, служили благодарственную за его жизнь и труды. Служба была лёгкой и светлой, и молились не за упокой души, а за продолжение дела этого человека. За свободу личности, за демократию, за истинную европейскую интеграцию. Подробнее

“Are you writing a book at the moment?”, asked my fellow scholar Ebenezer Obadare during our first meeting with Dahrendorf. “Am I writing a book?- he seemed bemused. – I am always writing a book”.

I discovered Dahrendorf’s books before I met him, surprised how easily they read. They were texts, fine impeccable stories which helped make sense of the world and its past and present – like the book explaining origins of Nazism in Germany or a later one talking of the modern social conflict. There, I was amazed to find the suggestion that for young people to advance themselves and the society most, they should be having fun with what they do. What a far cry from statistics-crammed today’s  sociological books, geared to descriptory tables and graphs. “Sociologist nowadays try to prove they are not worse than engineers” – Dahrendorf joked to us.When I came back from my own fieldwork with insane amounts of data, he said, “I hope you will be able to make some sense out of what you’ve met rather than reporting that 30% of your subjects think one way and 15% another”. This was to a great relief, for it seemed he justified and encouraged my inclination to avoid numbers and produce ideas instead.

Dahrendorf  himself of course needed no endorsement – he was known to speak his truth whatever the context – and believed this was everyone’s right, too. At the time of technocrats, he was not afraid to draw on “irrational” as possible or partial explanations for the phenomena he studied, and say that out loud, too. He spoke for liberty and, in particular, the liberty of the individual – to grow, to develop, and to make a sincere and committed contribution to the society. He spoke against the big state, and for the parliamentary chamber full of responsible individuals free from constraints of party politics. An often lone voice in his lifetime, Dahrendorf’s ideas are gaining wider momentum. The “democracy of numbers” is giving way to “democracy of ideas”, faceless masses are yielding to active individuals that have ideas and agenda, and democracy again has a chance to be redefined in a way that takes it back closer to individual-focused liberty rather than egalitarian socialism.

Like many people for certain, I like to think that Ralf Dahrendorf was my mentor. We did not meet often, but he gave me guidance with my thesis, encouraged my quest into “irrational” within political sociology framework, provided recommendations for funding applications, and most crucially, supported my inkling to get out of the academia; the phrase “you want to be more than a senior lecturer at a Warwick university” inspired more than just me to look outside the “white tower” of universities and embrace the world. Today at the service, he inspired me again. Doing CIS politics, it was a first time in several years that I heard the word “democracy” being used not with a pejorative tint, but with respect and care, as a worthy goal of a society – and a person. Lord Dahrendorf enjoyed and savoured his life, while also enlightening millions through his outstanding books and helping thousands personally. A truly great man, a fully worthy life. A genuine inspiration.

Natalia Leshchenko

The visit is best understood if seen not as a purely Russo-British affair, but rather a development in Russia-EU partnership. David Miliband is currently being slated for EU’s foreign policy chief position. His increased rapport with Russia could strengthen  his personal professional credentials, to balance the already effective ties with the U.S. -  to the benefit Europe’s foreign relations. Indeed, the most notable development of the visit so far is Miliband’s cautious support for considering Russia’s initiative of a new security framework for Europe, something that has fallen on deaf ears with Europe so far. The progress on EU-Russia security dialogue is an unexpected – but nonetheless significant outcome of Miliband’s trip to Moscow.

Russia celebrates the finding blaming the start of hostilities on Georgia, but will downplay the report’s conclusion that the separatist republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia cannot be recognised based on Kosovo precedent due to the absence of established genocide of their population by Georgian authorities. The Kremlin will not change its position on the status of the republics. Realising that the push for the recognition of the republics will only build up this pressure point in relations with Europe and the U.S., Moscow may prefer to put the issue to the back burner for the time being.