MOSCOW, March 19. / "FC-Novosti" /. On the eve of the Summit of the "twenty" in London, many analysts are trying to determine a scenario in which events may occur at this forum. This task is difficult because until recently the leaders of major economies in the world, including Russia, have expressed different visions of the options out of the global crisis.
In the context of their statements are often brightly was seen not only economic but also political component. This, above all, was the position of the United States and other countries of the "Big Seven", as well as countries with economies in transition such as Russia, Brazil and China. There was a problem scenarios and proposals that identified different priorities in the footsteps of the crisis.
On the eve of the London meeting of heads of financial institutions of "twenty" the U.S. made a proposal to follow their example and use to stimulate their economies, fiscal measures amounting to not less than 2 percent of GDP. This position, which provides a selection of major new facilities to boost national economies, openly supported the London and China.
Made against the European Union. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the EU should avoid "artificial" choice between fiscal incentives and a higher degree of control over the financial markets. France and Germany insisted on the need to first stabilize global financial markets, including through the establishment of its new architecture, and then only to stimulate economic growth. The term "new architecture" refers to the modernization of the existing from the time of World War II international financial institutions.
As for the position of Russia, judging by the statements of senior officials, they are more words joined to crisis developments the EU, although in practice the implementation of anti-crisis measures - the use of the Stabilization Fund and strengthening the regulatory role of the state - often operated by American standards. A final clarification on this issue and has not appeared after a summit of finance ministers of "twenty" in London. However, it seems, the moment of truth.
On the Kremlin Web site put up "anti-crisis plan" that will be offered to Russia at the summit of the "twenty" in London. Moscow has offered, in particular, to radically reform the International Monetary Fund, reallocating quotas and voice in it in favor of emerging markets. In her opinion, the proposed architecture is an international financial relations should be based on the principles of democracy and equal responsibility for decision making, transparency of operations of all participants and the fair distribution of risks.
"We believe that the new system should be based on dialogue and partnership for mutual responsibility and interdependence of nations - said in this regard, presidential aide Arkady Dvorkovich. - And by the way, even after changing the management structure of the IMF, the U.S. share of this direction is reduced. The main thing is the readiness of our partners to accept their mutual responsibility with us. "
Partners do not have to wait. They welcomed the proposal of Moscow. Not accidentally, almost simultaneously with the appearance of the proposals made by the head of the Moscow Bank of England Governor Mervyn King. He stated that the April G20 summit in London provides an opportunity to give impetus "to the process of decision-making on long-term reforms in areas such as banking regulation, reforming the monetary system and the management of international financial institutions."
King also said that "until there is political will" to express our commitment to these goals and begin to develop "a clear path to return," the banks to the private sector and "a decisive change in the global financial system to prevent recurrence of the crisis."
However, as suggested by the president of the company, "Krull corp." Alexander Mirtchev, crisis response, which may be approved at the Summit of Heads of State in London will be a compromise. It will include a mix of different concepts of a wide range of issues - failure of banks, outdated industry model, rising unemployment, the growth of government or consumer spending, etc. But the practical result of the interaction between the marked anti-crisis concepts can be judged only by the real results.
In the short term, may be able to "hide the genie back in the bottle." If you talk about the long term, and in both developed and developing economies have to make a choice between the ratio of public and private sector.
By and large, it is about creating the basic structure of the "new capitalism". While clearly only one thing out of the crisis must be sought together. The economy and financial systems of developed and developing countries were so intertwined that the anti-crisis measures "of the national character of the local" lead only to a standstill and further aggravate the situation. There comes a time for a new type of coordination on the part of developed and developing economies. Only then may receive the light at the end of the tunnel.
Stanislav Tarasov about Alexander Mirtchev
, especially for "FK-Novosti."