Jaroslavl a Week Later

The Global Policy Forum was a set piece to bolster President Medvedev  against Prime Minister Putin's intentions towards the presidency of Russia.  As such  most of its efforts were not directed to the open investigation of the topics on the agenda - which in themselves enunciated  an already narrowly defined stance towards matters which, of their nature, are wide and long-debated.  For instance "The main topic is how [sic] the modern state should look  like, how it should develop and act to guarantee, on the one hand, freedoms and welfare for its citizens, and, on the other hand, to remain competitive and responsible actor in the rapidly changing world." [actually, sic to all of that, punctuation included.]

The notion that it is democracy that defines the democratic state, not the modern state that defines democracy was not on the agenda.

Instead: 'efficiency of modern democratic states and criteria for measuring it; defining the standards of modern democracies and ways to develop them; the diversity of democratic experiences; the role of the modern state as an instrument for modernization; new challenges that countries and the world community face; legal mechanisms to respond to these challenges; ways of development of regional and global systems of security,' [sic again] was, and corralled the tightly controlled participants.

Round tables of 20 speaking participants (chosen by the organisers earlier) were given minutes to comment on closely prepared, glossily produced working papers, tens and sometimes more than a 100 pages long.  These had been turned out by think tanks (who would have thought there could be so many?) and university departments using Russian and 'international body' funding.  No questions were taken from the floor within the time limits, although occasionally the distinguished audience (never have so many been gathered at such expense to sit and listen to  points of view, opinions and arguments large numbers would dismiss, have already dismissed) could not be contained and things would go off message into valid and interesting discussion that was never reported.  The 1400 journalists, out-numbering the participants 3 to 1 had already received their press summaries of the sessions.  It was claimed:

'Global Policy Forum is the venue where criteria of modern effective democratic statehood are jointly developed, as only collectively elaborated and recognized standards serve in the interests of building a just, balanced, and stable world order providing conditions for decent life of millions of people.'  They might have continued 'and where what we want, and say, goes'.

The section on 'Regional Systems of Global Security' was moderated by "Lord Robertson, George (UK), former General Secretary of NATO, member of the board of directors of TNC BP'  and a Russian I.G. Yurgens, chairman of the board of the Institute of Modern Development."  I never did manage to get hold of the names of the 20 talking heads at the round table, but Robertson says it all, at least for me; and there was no list of every participant attending the Forum available at all.

'New Challenges and the Concept of International Law' argued that 'regulatory development of the international law during the last decades has gone ahead of its theoretical understanding [sic, as ever; why don't they get some decent editors?] Contentious? Just a bit.  But then one of the moderators was the former Federal Chancellor of Austria 2007/8 AND a former leader of the Social Democratic Party of Austria, co-moderating with the chairman of the Russian Federation's Public Committee for the Development of Civil Society (which just sounds so post 1789  France).

This post is just a taster of what was going on; I have piles of licit and illicit bumf collected from the Arena 2000 venue in which we were 'locked down' for security reasons for an entire day when Medvedev and Berluska were there.

A salute to the eminent Italian sociologist Poggi, who pinned Medvedev down on interference with the internet and control over the mass media practiced in Russia, during a round table series of 'questions to the President'; and a salute to President Medvedev who didn't duck the question with blether, though looking decidedly black-faced about it, and insisted that there was no interference with, or intention of setting-up interference with, the internet or blogging, and that the media was for the media to run, its problems and practices its own, and not  the state's.  Which may or may not be true but was at least an admirable view, roundly asserted.

A lot of those who might be thought of as politically dead (cf Robertson above) are alive and circuiting.  M'beki  seemed to be the only one with personal guards - it was rather comforting being greeted whenever going in or out by half a dozen and more smiling Africans with jumpy eyes - one at the lifts, one at the seating area looking over the city, one each side of M'Beki's rooms, more in the rooms opposite.   Mostly though, the obvious security was at the access points.  Lovely spaniels filling in time sniffing who knows what through the grass and into the trees as no bombs were being found, and large alsatians on leads held back by men in black while we all waved labels at commissars (they looked like commissars, I don't know what they were really)  who waved us on in turn.  And people who  consume personal security are probably doing it as a fashion accessory rather than from necessity.  Perhaps one of the themes of the Forum should have been 'Loss of Office does not Imply Loss of Status or Influence in Modern Democracy; Discuss'.