APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by Mr John Thornhill,
Moscow Bureau Chief for the Financial Times
In response to an invitation to submit evidence
to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, I enclose
the following memorandum:
In general, I would say that the UK has been
blessed with a series of exceptional ambassadors to Russia in
recent years. The BBC World Service and the British Council have
also done much valuable work in raising the awareness of the UK
and capitalising on the enormous interest among the Russian population
in our language, culture, educational opportunities, and business
links.
But I would like to make a series of suggestions
about how UK-Russian relations could be further improved.
1. The current visa regime for the UK causes
an enormous amount of ill-will and should be reviewed. During
my time in Moscow, I have heard countless complaints about the
difficulties of obtaining visas for the UK and the rudeness of
the staff who conduct personal interviews. It seems that young,
single women can often face a particularly gruelling time. It
is also a mystery to me why the UK keeps no record of people leaving
the country. Such a system would surely help check the effectiveness
of the visa regime. Many other western embassies have equally
bad, if not worse, reputations in this regard. But the UK could
still make a greater effort to lead by example.
2. It seems to me that much of the international
community's support to Russia has been misdirected. The International
Monetary Fund has been asked to play the lead role in supporting
reform in Russia, a task for which it is unsuited. The challenge
now is to help Russia build stronger economic and political institutions
to enhance the credibility of the market and democracy. There
must be plenty of creative—and relatively cost effective—ways
the UK can help in this process given its rich history in both
areas. The Know How fund has been shifting more efforts towards
supporting NGOs and the formation of civil society but more could
be done in this field. There must be hundreds of charities, local
governments, small businesses, and educational institutions which
could usefully share their valuable expertise and insights with
their Russian counterparts if only there were a co-ordinating
body to marshall their efforts.
3. The European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development could perhaps be refocussed to support such aims.
As an important shareholder in the EBRD, the UK could press the
bank to devote more resources to supporting small-scale projects.
As a rule, western assistance should be targeted as close to the
ground as possible; the bank has had some striking success in
providing micro-finance to individual entrepeneurs and small enterprises.
The EBRD could also invest more in reconstruction and development.
I remember visiting southern Ireland and seeing countless plaques
noting that this bridge or that kindergarten had been built with
EU regional assistance money.Not surprisingly, the local population
was very well- disposed towards the EU. I would hope that similar
EBRD-sponsored projects in Russia in building telephone exchanges,
bridges, hosptals, schools etc, could provide similar levels of
goodwill towards the EU and teach Russians about project finance
and management.
4. Do not despair of Russia. It has become
fashionable, especially in Washington, to decry the rise of the
Russian "kleptocracy" and to urge disengagement. But
it should be recognised that Russia is still in the early stages
of a historic transformation towards a market economy and a democracy.
The West cannot—and should not—instruct Russia how
to achieve these goals but it can provide smarter help to enable
Russians to learn by themselves. It may be that Russia requires
40 years in the post-Soviet wilderness to cleanse itself of its
totalitarian past and reach the promised land. But the dream of
a prosperous and stable Russia fully engaged in international
organisations and acting as a force for good in the world should
never be abandoned.
| 
