I took part in a meeting devoted to organization of referendum on the question of joining of Russia the WTO in the Chamber of Trade of the Russian Federation.
Small keg of honey:
- good business, great number of sensible people and accurate and efficient performances in conditions of rigid regulations;
- everything was shot, one could wait for its appearance in network;
- uniting of representatives of the most different political and public forces in uniform organizing committee on this matter: from associations of employers in the sphere of real production to branch trade unions; from nationalists to communists (and even some columnists);
- idea to unite a question of the WTO with a question of "transit points" and in general of transportation of cargoes and manpower of NATO through the territory of the country state by one of the participants - is also the question which can cause ready response and to increase interest of people to referendum.
But here you are nigger in a woodpile:
- the first acting – one of the organizers – suggested to sign some memorandum about “non-use of referendum in political aims”. Further - about inadmissibility of "politicization" of the question, self-PR of different participators in preparation of referendum of organizations, etc. While what question is for us more political, than strategy of our development when the question of fixing of our colonial status via WTO mechanisms became its quintessence?
- the vice-president of the Chamber of Trade (the supporter of the WTO) who acted first paid attention of those who gathered to the fact that the law on referendum, in general, doesn't grant us the right to put the question to referendum and no one took courage to argue with him part seriously.
So: whether there will be a lot of steam, but all - only into a whistle?
Here it is necessary to return to "politicization" of the question of the WTO. In my performance I had to touch, first of all, this aspect of the problem.
Same vice-president of the Chamber of Trade: “Even if to refuse to join the WTO, the question: “What to do next?” will appear”. I had to pay his attention to the fact that he was arguing not with opponents of the WTO, but only with those who suggested "not to politize" the question. But, I will repeat, if there are more political questions, rather than strategy of our development (that very which answers to the question: “What to do next?”)? The present power and the national focused opposition have absolutely different visions of that strategy. If now all strategy is being concentrated on the concrete decision on the WTO, then how it’s possible to exclude this question from policy? The more so absolutely concrete economic and political interests stand behind joining the WTO. Exclude them from consideration and what could be discussed then – to believe seriously, as one of the acting persuaded, that “Putin doesn’t understand it to the end himself”?
Further: what is opposition in general: such eccentric people who simply would like to oppose themselves to the power? Probably, there are such as well. But, if to talk seriously, opposition – is those who occupy on key strategic questions position opposite to declarations and, the main thing, to power actions. Whether there is today more fundamental question, rather than question of the WTO? Today it’s possible to make a watershed leaning on it: who – for the present power, who – against. If it’s not schizophrenia to organize referendum on the WTO, on the one hand, and, at the same time on the other hand, in every way to support and justify the present power (which, say, doesn’t understand something to the end)?
One more aspect: for how many years all of us hear that “opposition isn't capable to unite”. What does it mean to "unite"? To merge in embraces? Or to agree about joint actions on that vital question which is capable to unite all? If the question of the WTO (plus question of bases of NATO and transit of NATO cargoes) becomes such question uniting original patriots of the country, then it means that at last this association will occur not formally but in fact. It’s will high time to bring the question about united for national focused opposition and superlinear organization structure.
If the power under the influence of such opposition united on specific question will change its position on the WTO (it is desirable it would do it not only on formal membership in organization, but also on all strategy of economic development), though I, unfortunately, don’t believe in such variant, nevertheless, will welcome it only. It will be, of course, bad for uniting of the national focused opposition, but it would be good - for the country.
At last, what to do and it’s even more important what conclusions should be made in case the referendum won’t be permitted, say, the law doesn't allow?
Ran about, got warmed – and thanks God? All the same all are good fellows?
Or it will necessary to return to that degree of "politicization" of the question which was so undesirable to many? In particular, I will remind: during just ended presidential election campaign we (I was authorized representative of candidate Zyuganov) not only brought attention to the question of referendum on the WTO, but also brought attention to the question of REFUSAL OF UNREASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON CARRYING OUT OF THE NATIONAL REFERENDA.
That is, being seriously against the WTO, we knew what to do even then. Namely: not only declare position against the WTO and about referendum initiative, but also to support not that candidate (Putin) who … is for the WTO and doesn't object to present restrictions on referenda, but to support that candidate who GUARANTEED THE RIGHT TO HOLD REFERENDUM.
Yes, the train (presidential elections), clear thing, already left. But it doesn't mean that detailed "blamestorming session" isn't necessary to us. It will be necessary to return to it - each time when they will demand "not to politize" next vitally for all country important question.