The U.S. and Georgia Don't Give Gifts but Love to Get Them

The future U.S. ambassador to Russia indicates that Russia’s entry into the WTO is advantageous for American business.

America tirelessly repeats that it supports Russia’s entry into the WTO. That support, however, is understood not as a contribution but as a non-hindrance. “Non-interference” means “help.” It’s not worth it to expect more from the U.S. Michael McFaul, director for Russian affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, spoke about this support yesterday.

So that his words would not be misinterpreted, he spelled out that the U.S. authorities do not consider Russia’s membership in the WTO as a “gift” for Russia. “The Obama administration is vigorously supporting Russia’s accession to the WTO… [but] we’re not in the business of giving gifts to Russia. We’re in the business of advancing our national interests,” said McFaul, whose candidacy for the duty of U.S. ambassador to Russia was discussed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reports Finmarket news.

Concerning gifts, the future ambassador hit the nail on the head. He might have added only that the U.S. does not generally give gifts to anyone, unless, of course, one considers those prepackaged meals with cookies and peanut butter that they once dropped over Afghanistan. Well, they also could send another plane of rice, tents or blankets if there is a flood, earthquake or epidemic somewhere. No one has ever, in all their born days, seen any other good deeds from them.

But even so, the Americans themselves expect gifts. According to McFaul, Russia’s entry into the WTO will bring plentiful opportunities for American business and establish a mechanism for resolving disputes. In other words, they are already reckoning how to lay out our market with their own industrial and consumer goods, to the ruin of our own manufacturers. After all, there is no miracle: If one business (American) has the opportunity to be added to our market, then the other (Russian) is removed.

McFaul also remarked that upon the entry of our country into the WTO, “Russia will accept international food safety standards that will make it harder for them to manipulate these things that in the past have prevented us from exporting poultry and pork in particular. As a member of the WTO Russia will have to lower tariffs, [and] liberalize conditions under which American goods and services can be sold in the Russian market,” he predicted.

Previously, American public figures did not speak so directly. They beguiled us with promises of how advantageous it will be for us to enter into this famous WTO. Now the disguise is cast away: It is advantageous to them in the first place. True, the World Bank predicted that our economy would rise by 11 percent from entry into the WTO, but that, it seems, was basically just an advertisement. Although, perhaps, they had some other economy in mind and there was simply some mistake?

What Mr. McFaul meant by “gifts” in this instance is also interesting: Most likely, the final refusal of the U.S. to intervene in Russian-Georgian talks on the WTO. If so, that means that they are succeeding in pressing us from all directions: We must reconcile with the remaining dissenters and come to an agreement with Georgia.

In Tbilisi they have already amiably welcomed McFaul’s announcement. The vice prime minister of Georgia, Giorgi Baramidze, spoke of this, as cited by RBC News: “We welcome yet another statement from the American side that Georgia is not politicizing Russia’s entry into the WTO,” he said. According to him, “The U.S. has made clear to Russia that their pathway into the WTO cannot avoid Georgia, and both countries must resolve their differences within the framework of the process of mediation (on the part of Switzerland).” “Russia,” he said, “must fulfill at least the minimum demands of the principles and regulations of the WTO.”

We remind the reader that on Oct. 8, the Russia-Georgia talks on the WTO were suspended, since Georgia announced that they were deadlocked. Nevertheless, Baramidze announced that the consultations continued, if there is still some kind of sense in that. Simultaneously he announced that Switzerland is preparing a proposed compromise on the WTO, which “may become the basis of an agreement.”

Despite the “Georgian resistance,” conclusive informal multilateral consultations on Russia’s WTO accession are planned for Oct. 26-27, said Maksim Medvedkov, head of the Russian delegation to the talks; the final formal meeting of the working groups is planned for Nov. 10.

Now only one question remains to be examined: The regime of “industrial assembly.” The talks with Georgia remain a separate matter, which are conducted through the mediation of Switzerland. Medvedkov did not evaluate the outlook for this process, noting that Russia’s position remains unchanged, and insists on the fact that the demands issued by the Georgian side are not governed by WTO norms. Yet another round of talks with Georgia is planned for the middle of next week.

The head of the delegation also announced that closing consultations on the consolidated list of obligations for market access for goods will take place Oct. 19-20. The schedule of the remaining talks on Russia’s addition to the WTO presumes that the talks will be completed by the meeting of the General Council of the organization, to be held on Dec. 15-17.

At the talks, agreements were reached on the issue of importing meat to Russia, with the exception of one technical question, and on agricultural subsidies. “We agreed on the import of meat to Russia, with the exception of one technical question touching on the classification of one type of meat,”* said Medvedkov. However, he did not cite exact figures on the volume of quotas on meat imports or the size of the subsidies, noting that this issue is connected with continuing talks on the regime of industrial assembly of automobiles.

Russia’s position at the WTO talks concerning support for agriculture is that the level of subsidies in 2012 (in the case that Russia is admitted to the WTO in 2011) could be raised to about $9 billion and afterward would gradually decrease over the course of five to seven years to $4 to $4.5 billion.

In general, the investment of our Stabilization Fund in U.S. Treasuries could also probably be used as a weighty argument for the WTO talks. And since this is not done, one could view it as yet another of our gifts to America.

*Editor’s Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be verified.