The Bush/Cheney Executive Branch was interested in exploiting every aspect of Russian assets for their cronies. That level of 'invasive' economics is a direct threat to Russia and most communist countries and they risk a loss of their culture. As people within a country are 'demoralized' from their culture the stability of the government shifts and not always for the best. Any turmoil or uprising, if accompanied by violence, risks the people themselves that we hope to engage in 'trade.'
In the year 2009, I do not see 'investment' as healthy in any international relationship. It is a direct imposition on sovereignty and places too much importance on 'government control' which increases the risk of the investor and loss of their capital. We have witnessed repeatedly since 2000, challenges to oligarchs that sincerely threatened the stability of Russia, including those that obtained fighter jets for the building of their own empires.
The point is that 'invasive investing' touted by the Republicans as capitalism and the expansion of democratic principles is far from it. Communist nations do not provide 'private ownership' of property. They will never have a 'mortgage crisis' simply because they don't own property. One of the ways that Democracy is imposed on these nations is to demand 'owenship rights' of natural resources and 'other concepts' of investment such as 'intellectual property.'
It is my opinion, the 'Western' idea of investment is counter culture to countries such as Russia and do not serve to 'reassure' them when it come to building strong relationships with the USA and Europe. Commerce has literally become a 'weapon' between the USA and Russia and it is a dangerous one.
There are ways that Russia and the USA can build 'strong' economic ties in the way of trade, but, to insure such a relationship each country has to have something to trade. Healthy balances of goods transported to and from other nations to the USA is vital to a healthy global economy. The USA has to return to manufacturing goods as well as purchasing them. Part of the global economic collapse lies in the 'lack of balance of trade' between countries and the 'free for all' investment and credit extension by nations such as China. When China provides huge loans to the USA to fund its government programs, there are compromise to the Chinese economy when those 'investment structures' are insulted. As a result, the people of China are imposed upon to produce differently and our 'issues' then translate directly to Chinese hardship. It's "W"rong and it has to stop.
International relations between countries have to 'resume' better boundaries. The 'idea' that the world is 'one family of countries' needs to be scrapped. The economic interdependancy of the Bush "World of National Families' has proven to be a complete disaster. It threatened alliances and caused nations to move their 'interests' into 'isolationist' mode. If anyone wants to know where the majority of the first $350 billion of the $700 billion AMERICAN bank bailout disappeared to, one can look directly at the Chinese loan structure. The monies disappeared and China has made its case why such things should occur, but, the fact of the matter is countries need to redefine 'the wealth of nations' as trade partners with self sustaining economies rather than 'co-dependant' entities that can only separate their efforts through war.
Economic interdependence is NOT beneficial when it crashes every economy on Earth. It is not beneficial when it promotes abuses of Earth's troposphere and robs the well being of future generations. It is not beneficial when countries 'compete' unhealthly in the global economic sphere to 'take jobs' away from a nation's population for the sake of 'profits.' When profits 'override' beneficial relationships of diplomacy there is something vitally lost.
If "Peace" is to be a directive of the Obama Administration, there needs to be a redefinition of diplomacy to RETURN to traditional models of addressing issues in a way that moves past economic issues and address the priorities of Mutual Interests in National Security rather than interests in mutual investments. The dynamics are all "W"rong and need to be abandoned. The USA was on its way to becoming a third world nation with the military being the best paying job within its borders before the Obama Stimulus for the sake of outsourcing and destroyed manufacturing sector.
Let's not return to that in the future. To that end, disarming from nuclear capacity should be a high priority in cooperation with building strong economies with good trading relationships. The 'interest' of money is NOT the best outcome to diplomacy, but, securing countries from the brink of mutual distruction needs to be. Treaties and not contracts is the best venue for diplomatic corps.
...Foreign investment in the 39 strategic sectors of the Russian economy is monitored by the Federal Security Service (FSB),[44] the agency responsible for carrying out many functions formerly performed by the KGB. Investors that have either inadvertently or purposely committed their funds to one of these sectors will not be without due recourse, as the actions of the FSB in relation to foreign investment are still subject to oversight by Russian courts. For example, if the FSB finds out that foreigners have bought up shares in a strategic enterprise via Russian front companies, it will have to report this to the authorized body, and the government commission will challenge the deal in court. [45] ...
The problem of course, is that where America 'has interests' so goes its military. THAT is an issue with Russia. It hasn't been with China, but, then again China owns the USA for the most part.
VI. Conclusion
Russia Are foreign investors squandering valuable opportunities by not capitalizing on the business opportunities presented by the growth of the Russian economy? Or perhaps the reluctance to take on the risks Russia presents is justified? Is Russia really unsafe for foreign investors? Or is this just a stereotype propagated by the Western media fueled by doubt that Russia will ever be able to adopt a true market economy? Perhaps there is a genuine misunderstanding of Russia ’s strengthening government? Will the reforms touted by Putin’s administration really be enough to address Russia's historical problem of poorly defined property rights and protect investors? The answers to many of these questions will undoubtedly be revealed in the years to come.
