The Year of Great Battles
In January, Vlast made a forecast concerning the development of the international situation in 2004. Back then we supposed that the re-election of George Bush as the president of the USA would be the key epochal event and the world would be preparing for it the whole year. This was what actually happened. Even Yasser Arafat died only after he learned about the victory of Bush.
Bush Won
Presidential elections in the USA were the main event of 2004. In January, Vlast made a forecast that the acting president George Bush would be re-elected. This was what actually happened.
Vlast predicted that the election tension would to a greater extent depend upon the candidate the Democrats would choose. Had it been the former Vermont governor, Howard Dean (in January this perspective seemed quite realistic), the elections could have been considered over long before November 2. To all appearances the Democrats understood that and finally nominated a more moderate candidate – senator John Kerry.
Apart from that the prognosis mentioned that the intrigue could last until November. This came true as well. Moreover, as the date of the elections approached (November 2) the intrigue became more and more sophisticated. At a certain point of time it even seemed that John Kerry stood a chance of winning.
Vlast turned out to be absolutely correct in its prediction that the outcome of the elections would be decided in the minimal number of states. It is kind of a tradition that some states are firmly pro-Democratic and others are firmly pro-Republican. The system of electors makes victory in several states with average population especially significant – particularly in the Midwest. This year the Ohio state played the key role in the victory of George Bush. This state ensures 20 electors' votes.
The Aggravation in the Russian-American Relations has not been as Bad
As Vlast predicted a year ago no severe aggravation in the Russian-American relations has taken place. In the course of the year the USA authorities were too concerned with their inner problems and with preparation for the elections to pay attention to the relations with Moscow. Let alone the fact that unlike the 2000 campaign when the Republicans accused the Clinton administration of “losing Russia”, this time the Russian issue had none whatsoever significance in the election campaign.
As the election campaign in the USA developed, president Vladimir Putin said that the victory of the acting president George Bush would be preferable for Moscow. However, at the end of November - the beginning of December after the events in the Ukraine, president Putin made most sharp statements. At first he attacked the OSCE (i.e. the USA) having accused this organization of interference into the Ukraine's domestic affairs and of double standards. Then in the course of his visit to India, the president of Russia accused the USA (he did not give the name of the country though) of creating “barracks' dictatorship in a one-polar world”. Observers began talking about a drastic cooling in Russia's attitude towards the USA and about the attempts to shape an alliance of the countries that could compete against the Big Eight. World mass media have already called this alliance the “Big Five” and have named Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa as its potential participants.
However, for the time being the prospects of such an alliance are most vague. More and more often the observers mention that the exchange of harsh words is nothing but part of economic and political bargaining between the leading world powers. Last week, the White House even formally refuted the information that the Administration intended to reconsider its relations with Russia. “We constantly consider the possibilities of strengthening our relations with all countries, including Russia. The president (Bush. – Vlast) has good relations with president Putin and together we work on a whole number of issues,” said the official representative of White House, Scott McClellan, commenting on the latest publications.
Russia's Positions in CIS have Grown Weaker
Vlast predicted that “the tendency of squeezing Russia out from the post-Soviet territories and the tendency of America reinforcing its influence in the CIS countries would continue to develop in 2004”. This was what actually happened. Last year, the signs of this process became most clear. Russia lost perhaps the key battle on the post-Soviet territory – the battle for the Ukraine. The Ukrainian crisis delivered a powerful blow to Russia's positions not only in this country but also in all of the former USSR territories.
Victor Yanukovich – a candidate from the Ukrainian power party - was Moscow's unambiguous bet. Even the president of the RF, Vladimir Putin, was involved in his election campaign. He managed to twice congratulate mister Yanukovich on his victory in the presidential elections. Not only has this complicated the prospects of establishing normal relations with the new political forces in the Ukraine for Moscow but has also put the political elite in all of the post-Soviet territories on guard.
The past year in the Ukraine was marked by “the change of the political elite”– in precise accordance with Vlast's prognosis. We also supposed that “having successfully broken in the Belgrade variant of the Velvet Revolution in Georgia, the USA would try to repeat it in other CIS countries.” The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine is a convincing proof to that.
At the beginning of the year though we supposed that “Moldavia might be the first one in line” because the Americans who “had no special feelings towards the communist president, Vladimir Voronin, would for sure try to help him resign and the coolness towards Voronin on the part of the Kremlin would only play into the hand of the USA.” It seems as though the realization of this prognosis has just been postponed – until the spring of the next year when parliamentary elections take place in Moldavia.
Parallel to that last year the USA “promoted the course at the replacement of the political elite in the Central Asian republics where former first secretaries of the Central Committee had been in power for about a decade”. In our forecast we proceeded from the understanding that it was the countries rich in oil as well as the states through which energy resources would be transported to the West in future that were of key significance for Washington. Correspondingly, we supposed that Kazakhstan was the main candidate for democratization. The prognosis is beginning to come true. Pressure upon president Nazarbayev on the part of the West with the demand of real democratization has increased, the opposition has consolidated and the ruling regime is going through a deep split, the “revolt” of speaker Zharmakhan Tuyakbay being its brightest manifestation. Zharmakhan Tuyakbay has accused the authorities of falsifying the results of the elections and has joined the leadership of the opposition.
Vlast's prognosis that “even authoritarian ruler Alexander Lukashenko cannot not be completely sure of his political future” and that the referendum would boost anti-Lukashenko sentiments has come true as well. The president of Byelorussia launched the referendum in order to change the Constitution and to gain the right for the third term. It was after Alexander Lukashenko scheduled the date of the referendum this summer that the USA for the first time officially announced that they would “seek the removal of the authoritarian Byelorussian ruler from power”.
The Guerilla War in Iraq has Intensified
A year ago Vlast made a quite apparent prognosis. We supposed that Iraq would remain a headache for the USA and that the opposition to the coalition forces would increase. This supposition has been justified. The year 2004 witnessed much bloodier clashes than the year 2003, which was victorious for the USA. As Vlast supposed the capture of Saddam Hussein has not put an end to the guerilla war but on the contrary has spurred it up. In the spring of this year the American troops suffered a whole number of tangible defeats. At first there was a Shiite revolt in the South of the country. The revolt was headed by Muqtada al-Sadr. It caught the Americans unawares – at that time they were busy sending a considerable part of the military back home. The Shiite revolt derailed the long-awaited demobilization for several thousand Americans and became the first signal of the fact that the USA were getting stuck in Iraq.
The Sunni triangle was another proof: by April the opposition in this most restless region of the country increased to such an extent that the Americans were compelled to leave El-Falluja, Samarra and the neighboring cities having surrendered them to the rebels. It was only by the end of the year - already after the elections, that the Americans managed to re-institute their control over the cities.
A year ago Vlast supposed that because of the lack of actual success the American administration would invent new propaganda moves to popularize this war - especially on the eve of the elections. At the same time the USA stood practically no chance of repeating the powerful propaganda effect that was reached in December 2003 when Saddam was caught. The forecast was absolutely correct. Despite all the effort of the American political technologists all the pictures of “peaceful life in democratic Iraq” turned out to be inevitably spoiled.
Washington pinned great hopes upon the transfer of the power from the coalition provisional authority to the local government in June. However, a couple of months before this historic event the CBS TV channel made public the pictures of the tortures in the Abu Ghraib prison. This was one of the largest scandals in all of the Iraqi campaign. The shock in the whole world could compare to the effect of Saddam Hussein's capture but “with the minus sign”.
Vlast predicted another failure of the Americans: they never found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This became finally obvious in autumn when the report of Charles Duelfer was published. According to the report, Saddam Hussein did not possess forbidden weapons and the discontinuance of UNO's inspections as well as the beginning of the war on this pretext was a mistake. The report appeared in the USA on the eve of the elections and delivered a powerful blow to the reputation of the Bush administration. As a result in the course of just one year from the main success of George Bush Iraq turned into his worst failure.
Unfortunately Vlast's forecast on the increase of casualties of war has come true as well. Last year, for the first time the Iraqi fighters resorted to a new method of killing foreigners – in May Nicholas Berg (an American) was beheaded in front of a camera. After that beheading became a common practice in Iraq.
Israel and Palestine have Failed to Reconcile
At the beginning of the year Vlast mentioned that the process of the Middle-Eastern settlement could make progress only under the supervision of the USA whereas during the year of the presidential elections Washington would not want to get involved into any exhausting negotiations. The forecast turned out to be absolutely correct – 2004 was the first year in quite a while when none whatsoever negotiations between Israel and the PNA were held. The peace process was ceased which was why there was no peace in the Middle East.
The Road Map plan invented by George Bush and the “Quartet” that joined him was forgotten as had been predicted by Vlast. This triggered off the promotion of the plan of unilateral disengagement developed by Israel's premier Ariel Sharon.
What Vlast could not predict was the sequence of deaths of prominent Palestinian leaders. PNA's three most famous politicians died in the expiring year. For quite a while Israel had threatened to resort to force to remove them from the political arena and last year its wish came true.
In the spring of 2004, two leaders of the Hamas movement were killed by Israeli missiles, with just three weeks separating one death from the other: at first the aged spiritual leader, sheikh Ahmed Yasin, and then the head of the political organization, Abdel-Aziz Rantisi. Both murders became the realization of Ariel Sharon's plan on the destruction of the leaders of terrorist groups. Vlast wrote about the plan a year ago. By the way these actions have brought results – the number of terrorist acts in Israel and Palestinian territories has decreased.
However, the main death on the Palestinian territory occurred by the end of the year - on November 11. Yasser Arafat died in the Paris Percy hospital as a result of an unknown disease. Strange as it might seem but even this event became the echo of the main news of the year – according to the doctors, already in Paris Yasser Arafat closely followed the presidential elections in the USA. The Palestinian leader lapsed into a coma several minutes after George Bush was announced the winner.
Arafat's death has completely changed the situation in the Middle East. The Palestinian-Israeli peace process will never be the same whatever the apparent favorite of the coming elections in the PNA, Mahmud Abbas (who was Y.Arafat's deputy in the course of many years), says about succession.
Last year, Vlast mentioned the quite unstable position of Israeli premier Ariel Sharon that was connected with the problems inside his Likud party and with the charges of machinations brought against his sons. It took the Israeli premier a titanic effort to retain the power last year. At the same time his party actually rebelled against him having rejected his plan of unilateral disengagement and withdrawal of troops from Gaza. It was only several radical actions (the murder of the Hamas' leaders in the spring and the invasion of Gaza in the autumn) and the unexpected death of the age-old enemy, Arafat, that allowed Ariel Sharon to retain control over the situation. However, clouds continue to gather around Ariel Sharon, his governmental coalition has already fallen apart and there exists the possibility that as a politician Ariel Sharon might not outlive his implacable Palestinian enemy for too long.
&
The events are ranked according to the frequency of mentioning in the Russian mass media (the ratio: the number of materials in mass media that covered the event to the total number of materials published by mass media during the selected period of time (%). In case of unexpected events (terrorist act, resignation) a two-week period after the event was researched. In case of planned events (elections) – a week before and a week after was taken. The resources of the electronic library of the Integrum information agency (more than 1900 central and regional newspapers, information agencies, TV- and radio companies, internet-publications) were used to take measurements.
Boris Volkhonsky, Mikhail Zygar, Gennady Sysoev
All the Article in Russian as of Dec. 20, 2004
|
