I managed to sneak into a private speech that Dmitri Medvedev, deputy prime minister of Russia, gave to around 100 editors at the World Editors Forum in Moscow today [June 6, 2006]. He launched into a rather boring speech about the Russian economy, when the interpreter ear-pieces broke down. So his speech was abandoned and we went straight to questions from the floor instead.

Sensing my chance, I raised my hand. I began by saying the government deserved credit for having curbed the excesses of oligarchic capitalism in the 1990s. But, I said, considering Putin had called for a ‘dictatorship of the law’, why hadn’t the Kremlin done anything against telecom minister Leonid Reiman, considering all the evidence that he was using his position to enrich himself.

Medvedev replied: “The situation today is very different to how it was in the 1990s. That era has rightly been described as a period of oligarchic development, built on huge business empires. It’s not for me to many any judgments as to whether that period was good or bad. That line of economic development exhausted its potential for Russia towards the end of the 1990s. The last six years were a period of stable development”.

“Some people working in the government today have a commercial business background, and some have different backgrounds. Each has arrived at his position in a different way. I don’t see anything wrong if people in the government have a business background in the area which he’s supposed to manage. But it’s obvious that no one holding a position in the state structure should be allowed to use it for personal gain. But, it might surprise you to hear this, but I think too few persons with business backgrounds are working in the government, I would like to see more such people”.

So…more Leonid Reimans! Great, let’s have a government full of them.

The other questions centered on two main topics – Gazprom, of which Medvedev is chairman of the board, and whether Medvedev would succeed Putin. Notably, no one asked a question about Khodorkovsky. Last year’s story, it appears.

If I was in charge

Here’s what he said about the possibility of him succeeding Putin:

“Our obligations in national projects are my responsibility. That was a new turn in my career, a personal challenge. Previously, I had worked in law and business. When I worked as a government official, I worked behind the scenes, out of the public view. Now, I’m in charge of major national projects. If our plan works, then economic results will be augmented by social results, and people’s mood will change. If we’re successful in these national projects, we will be able to propose a new programme for the future”.

Someone again asked him if he’d turn down the top job if Putin asked him for it. He replied:

“As to my future, I would not want to try and step into anyone’s shoes. I have to cope with such a huge responsibility which has been loaded on me. If I fail in my duties, I will probably work elsewhere, [i.e. outside of politics]”.

Someone then suggested that there were two types of Russian leader – those who focus on Europe, and those who look inwards. Which type would he be, if he was president?

Medvedev disagreed with this analysis, pointing out that some leaders began with a Western focus, but then changed later in their rule. But he said:

“It’s very evident that Russia should position itself as a part of Europe. The president said this in 2005, that we are a part of the European civilization, though that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t accept other partners. Historically, Russia is a partner of Europe. The ongoing programme of the president is formulated to the maximum possible extent to European values. If that programme continues, it will be to the benefit of Russia and Europe”.

Someone then asked him what would be his first act if he was made president. He replied:

“There was a column in a Soviet magazine called the Literary Gazette, called ‘What I would do if I was in charge’. It’s a line of thinking that offers itself to many observers in government. I might share with you some of my ideas. For six years, I’ve been an insider in government. I’ve made a number of observations in that time. I’ve been accumulating worthwhile experience. I hope my assessments are similar to others, because you need to find common ground to work with others”.

“I don’t think there is anything specific or urgent to be done. There are no such issues that are not already being addressed by the government. That’s what makes the present situation so attractive. All issues are already being addressed. However, for the past ten years, we didn’t have the resources to tackle social issues. We didn’t have the muscle. Now, we have. The priority, therefore, is improving the living standards of people”.

Gazprom and Russia’s new muscle

He also defended the role of Gazprom as a reliable supplier to the EU, which was obviously on western editors’ minds. He said, in response to a question about its monopoly on gas exports:

“Gazprom is a unique company, there’s nothing like it in other countries, because of the role gas plays in the economic life of Russia and the huge resources it has. It would be naive and foolish to destroy this system just to create opportunities for competitors. That’s why we take good care of Gazprom as a company. It’s the responsibility of any government to help national businesses when they expand abroad”.

He went on:

“Any statements about the lack of reliability of Gazprom as a supplier are just virtual statements. Gazprom has never failed in its contractual obligations to Europe. If you’re speaking about the non-reliability of Gazprom you are captured by delusions. Gazprom has never given reason to others to believe it can’t fulfill its obligations. There were difficult positions with partners, a commercial conflict between two companies [i.e. Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukrainy] which admittedly had great political repercussions. But the two sides came to an agreement. And Gazprom did not for a minute stop any supplies to Europe. It’s extremely important for Gazprom to maintain its good commercial face. It is always seeking new markets, diversifying flows. And it’s obvious that Gazprom should open new doors, specifically to the Far East. Still, it will be able to meet all its obligations”.

He added that Putin had said “quite openly” that “he doesn’t see himself as the leader of any commercial structure” such as Gazprom after he leaves office. In response to a critical question about Gazprom’s ownership of media assets, he said he thought its ownership of Gazprom-Media should continue until those assets could be sold at a sufficiently high price as to get value for money for the government.

He spoke of the new confidence of Russia in international relations:

“Without doubt the past years have been very successful for Russia. We’ve achieved very good results, and hope that rates of growth won’t deteriorate, but will improve further…As Russia’s economic power grows, it’s received new opportunities to tackle issues formerly beyond our control, including international issues. Russia’s participation in the G8 is a way to recognize this. [These new opportunities] are good for Russia, and hopefully good for the international community too. We have great opportunities, great natural resources, fairly good human potential, a high level of education, we have to preserve that. If we do this, Russia can feel confident in the twenty-first century”.

He said, in response to a question on whether Russia could act as a check on US unilateralism:

“I don’t see a role for Russia in confronting the US. The role for Russia in international community is defined by the economic power and political health of Russia. If we have this combination of economic power and political health, Russia will play an active role [in the international community]. But God forbid Russia should see its future role as copying the heritage of the USSR. The standards and whole set-up of today’s Russia are totally different [to those of the USSR] and so are Russia’s priorities”.

In general, my impressions of him were this –

• He went down well with the foreign audience, much better than Vladimir Yakunin, head of Russian Railways and another possible successor to Putin, had done earlier in the day. The journalists found him open, sympathetic and Westernized.
• He clearly wants the top job. He very tentatively laid out his case for it today, pointing to his six years of experience as a political insider etc.
• At the same time, he struck me as rather tepid. Imagine, someone asks you what’s the first thing you’d do as president, and you say: “I don’t think there is anything specific or urgent to be done”. In Russia! A country with so many living under the poverty line, with an infrastructure bordering on collapse, a military in serious need of reform, an economy plagued by red-tape and corruption…It’s such a bad answer. What he meant was that the government is aware of all these problems and is already working to tackle them. Still, it showed a lack of political savvy.
• He also showed a lack of ideas. He’s smart, but he tended just to repeat comments Putin has made, to stand in line with Putin. Maybe this is what Putin wants in his successor, but is it what Russia needs? My previous sense that Medvedev was not the right man for the top job, that he lacked the grit and charisma, was not diminished.

Julian Evans, a British freelance journalist based in Moscow.

The World Editors Forum, Moscow

June 6, 2006

Hot topics

• 2007-2008 ELECTIONS IN RUSSIA