|
Just as Moscow has often used the Soviet role in World War II as a
universal moral solvent to justify or at least distract attention from
whatever the Russian government has done, now Moscow appears to be
invoking the threat of terrorism to the 2014 Sochi Olympics in order to
distract attention from massive corruption there.
As many commentators have pointed out over the last several years,
Sochi is hardly an ideal place to hold the Olympics given its proximity
to the unsettled North Caucasus and the anger of many ethnic groups in
that region about Moscow’s decision to destroy ecological and historical
sites dear to them in order to stage that competition. But if in the
past, Moscow officials have repeatedly stressed their ability to ensure
security at those games, now the head of the FSB is saying that there is
a definite terrorist threat. And while Aleksandr Bortnikov’s statement
last week is almost certainly true, the timing of his remarks highlights
what Moscow appears most concerned about – covering up corruption.
That is because over the last several weeks ever more evidence has
come out that, as one Russian news service headlined its report today,
“corruption is making the Sochi Olympics the most expensive in history,”
a charge that could have the effect of leading more people to question
the appropriateness of holding the games there.
But by invoking the threat of terrorism,
Bortnikov and presumably the powers that be behind him raise the stakes
not only for the Russian Federation but for the international community
by implying that any retreat about the Sochi Games would be a
concession to the terrorists, something neither Russians nor Western
governments are prepared to do.
Last Thursday, FSB director Aleksandr Bortnikov said that his agency
has come into possession of information that “terrorists intend to blow
up the Olympiad in Sochi in 2014,” the kind of threat that has already
forced the cancellation of the Dakar 2008 rally and one that “exerts
serious influence on political decisions. The FSB chief suggested that
such attacks reflect a change in strategy and tactics by international
terrorist structures. Now, he said, “they ever more actively use in
their interests radicalism and extremism and seek to master the latest
technologies and gain access to elements of weapons of mass
destruction.” And Bortnikov added that “fellow travelling by and at
times direct support of the terrorists from the side of particular
political forces which are attempting to use them in their goals,” a
charge that many analysts immediately saw as preparing the ground for
more attacks on militants in the North Caucasus.
That is quite possibly the case, but if so, Bortnikov’s timing
suggests that it is far from his only concern. Today, for example, the
New Region news portal posted an article about recent stories concerning
the cost of the games under the title “Corruption is Making the Olympiad in Sochi the most Expensive in History“.
Drawing on reporting by “Nezavisimaya gazeta,” New Region’s Olga
Panfilova says that the projected costs of the 2014 Sochi Games are ten
times as large as those of past games, two and a half times the original
plan, largely the result of poor planning and construction
shortcomings, an unfortunate location, and massive corruption. Natalya
Zubarevich, the director of regional programs at the Moscow Independent
Institute of Social Policy, said that the extraordinarily high costs
were the result of “ineffectiveness and corruption. We do not know how
to build inexpensively and high quality objects. And,” she adds, “there
is also corruption.”
Aleksey Skopin, deputy head of the regional economics department at
the Moscow Higher School of Economics, was more negative. He suggested
that of the 39 billion US dollars Moscow may allocate to Sochi, 30
billion of them will represent a kind of tax “which we in fact will pay
to bureaucrats, criminals and all those who participate in the
realization of the games.” According to Nezavisimaya Gazeta,
Panfilova continues, “independent experts have not seen a real business
plan for the conduct of the Olympic Games” in Sochi. As a result, it is
impossible to know just where the money is coming from and where it is
going, something that clearly works to the benefit of corrupt officials.
Indeed, the experts suggest, the rapid growth in spending on Sochi is a
means that has been adopted by the powers that be to exclude society
from any role in “the control over public finances,” a conclusion that
if true makes the consequences of the Sochi Games already a major loss
for Russia regardless of how many medals its athletes might eventually
win.
Meanwhile, The New Times
provides additional details about corruption in the Sochi project. In
London’s “Sunday Times, Russian businessman Valery Morozov accused
Vladimir Leshchevsky, an official of the Administration of Affairs of
the Presidential Administration, of taking major bribes to approve Sochi
construction. In his interview, which was picked up by Moscow’s
“Novaya gazeta,” Morozov said that Leshchevsky had demanded a bribe
equal to 12 percent of a 1.5 billion ruble (50 million US dollar) Sochi
construction project, a bribe that Morozov says he paid but that
Leshchevsky has denied receiving.
Leshchevsky is close to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. In 2003, New Times
notes, Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship” for his role in the
celebration of the 300th anniversary of St. Petersburg and international
summits, events which some observers earlier have suggested involved
corruption as well.
Paul Golbe, La Russophobe
|