From Russia With $1 Million
As it happens, I was in Russia during the summer of 1998 when the main elements in this plan to bribe Tom DeLay to pony up appropriations to facilitate an IMF bailout went down. So I just thought I would add for the sake of context that, at the time, the lines between business, government, and organized crime were very murkier. It would be amusing to note that DeLay has helped make those lines pretty murky here in the USA, but joking aside the scale was entirely different. There was essentially no such thing as a legitimate businessman in the country at the time -- if you were making money, you were into some dirty dealings. Relatedly, the Post described NaftaSib as an "oil and gas" company, which it was. But it was specifically into government contracting, hence the ties to the Defense and Interior Ministries the story mentions. Also, the Interior Ministry over there is part of the security apparatus (think the Department Homeland Security and the FBI), not something like our Interior Department (national parks, etc.).
Also, a million dollars was a phenomenal sum of money in 1998 Russia. I was staying with a couple of middle class professionals, a doctor and an engineer, and they regarded people who could afford a Toyota Camry as being very rich. The last thing is that the measure DeLay was bribed into approving was arguably good policy on the merits.
Update [2005-12-31 15:24:48 by yglesias]: Reading this over, it's a bit more opaque than I meant it to be. What I'm trying to say is that in effect DeLay was taking money from the Russian government. Big companies were either controlled by government officials or else were controlling government officials or else it was all so bound together one couldn't say which was which. Note that this is one of the perils of America's hegemonic role in the world -- foreign governments have more luck influencing US policy by directly infiltrating our domestic politics than acting from the outside.
December 31, 2005 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would suggest someone start looking into the connections between these sorts of clients and the Russian-Israeli Mafia who are likely directly involved with the outing of Valerie Plame. I find it difficult to conceive that the sort of political bribery that was done by Russians to DeLay via Abramoff doesn't parallel the kind of political manipulation done by the Israelis to the White House via the neocons.
And the worse of that manipulation resulted in the closure of a significant CIA weapons proliferation covert operation.
Cui Bono? Who profited from the outing of Plame? The same people who bribed Dennis Hastert for a cool half million bucks to put the kibosh on legislation? Remember, Marc Rich was Scooter Libby's client. Is it so hard to imagine Libby being a conduit for Rich's influence - when it was enough to get Bill Clinton to get Rich PARDONED for Federal crimes that would have meant 400 years in jail for Rich had he returned to the US?
The corruption goes a LOT deeper than just spreading money around to the Republican political campaigns. Until someone starts following that up, the real issue is not going to be exposed - and that real issue is treason, not just bribery.
December 31, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the Post described NaftaSib as an "oil and gas" company, which it was. But it was specifically into government contracting, hence the ties to the Defense and Interior Ministries the story mentions"
You can't be an 'oil and gas' company without being into government contracting. That's why governments and oil execs are wrapped together everywhere, much more than the small slice of GDP which is oil- and gas- related would suggest. It's like local politics and real estate interests.
"Note that this is one of the perils of America's hegemonic role in the world -- foreign governments have more luck influencing US policy by directly infiltrating our domestic politics than acting from the outside."
See Stephen Walt's Taming American Power on exactly this point.
December 31, 2005 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now hang on here on the policy bits. I am pretty sure that Rubin wanted to step up and say "no" to a bailout of Russian gov't bondholders. I think there was a lot of evidence that U.S. banks were buying high interest junk bonds from Russia under the theory that the US and the world in general would think that Russia was "too nuclear to fail". Rubin was in the minority among Pentagon, State, and other Clinton administration officials in saying that the IMF bailout was a bad idea, sinc it would encourage really bad behavior on the part of governments and banks. Bond traders had gotten a series of bailouts from the Asian crash, Brazil, and others; at some point, the governments of the world had to put their foot down and say "stop". And if not with the Russian bonds, it's hard to see what sort of bad investment ought to go unpunished. We're not talking about overeager investments in Mexico here, we're talking about bondholders essentially playing brinksmanship with the governments of the world. I'll have to go read In an Uncertain World again to see what the outcome was.
He may be a little to tort-reform happy for my tastes, but on most matters I am inclined to defer to all things Rubin.
December 31, 2005 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I read the article the "measure Delay was bribed into approving," as Matt would have it, wasn't the measure Delay finally voted for. Initially, Delay was holding up IMF funding because the Russian loans were to be made contingent on Russia raising its interest rates (one of Rubin's and Summers' dumber ideas).
Delay didn't vote for the funding appropriation until the objectionable restriction had been dropped by the World Bank.
December 31, 2005 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
...isn't a big, mostly right-wing, American complaint about the UN's Oil for Food program that Saddam bribed government officials in Russia and other places, in order to win their support for dropping the sanctions?
Seems like the same thing happened in Russia, with Russian government types bribing Americans in an attempt to win support for a bail-out. If that is actually the case, then we've been pretty hypocritcal in our criticisms of Russia and France for not supporting our invasion of Iraq.
January 1, 2006 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think so. It's a peril of being a rich industrialized country. But you have to consider that Gerhard Schroder's ties to the Russian oil and gas industry are much, MUCH greater... to the point that Schroder took a lucrative job with one of them within weeks of leaving office. Russian oil and gas industries are going to try to obtain ties to ANY rich countries, not just the US.
Also, a million dollars was a phenomenal sum of money in 1998 Russia. I was staying with a couple of middle class professionals, a doctor and an engineer, and they regarded people who could afford a Toyota Camry as being very rich.
A "phenomenal" amount for whom? Average Russians? Sure. For average Americans too! For Roman Abromovich or Mikhail Kodorovsky? Not so much. And those are the people involved with the industry.
January 1, 2006 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I was staying with a couple of middle class professionals, a doctor and an engineer, and they regarded people who could afford a Toyota Camry as being very rich" Do you know how many people from russia are in The 100 World's Richest People? Be sure there so many people have Bently So no one is surprised by Toyota Camry.
April 24, 2007 4:16 AM | Reply | Permalink