There will be no default, and the crisis cannot be avoided

Last week, the Russian government delegation, led by First Deputy Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, managed to achieve a long-awaited agreement in Germany with the London club of creditors to write off 36.5 percent of the Soviet part of our debt to the largest world banks. We are talking about an amount exceeding $ 10 billion. At the same time, the Russian side is given a 30-year installment plan to pay the remaining part of the debt to the London club. Mikhail Zadornov, former Minister of Finance and representative of the president for relations with international financial organizations, now deputy of the State Duma from the Yabloko faction, spoke about the significance of this event and its influence on the economic situation in the country. Mikhail Mikhailovich, can we breathe a sigh of relief: the ghost of default no longer looms on the horizon? So far, Russia does not refuse to pay debts, while negotiations are underway, you can not talk about default. After all, not only we, but our creditors are not interested in aggravating the situation and making Russia bankrupt. Say, in order to even hypothetically declare a default on the London club, the consent of 90 percent of its participants is required. This is almost unrealistic. After all, what will they remain with in the end? With papers whose cost does not exceed 5 percent of the face value and with obscure prospects for the future, "therefore, I am sure, negotiations with all creditors will continue and there will be no default. The main threat is not this" what? In the inability of Russia to serve the amount of debt that will be reissued after the agreements with the Paris and London clubs. Remember, in 1997, we already announced the pomp about the seemingly final agreements on the restructuring of external debt. However, it very quickly became clear that paying $ 15 to 17 billion annually Russia was not within the power of, which became obvious by the fall of 1998. The same thing can be repeated now: we will reach some temporary agreements, and after 3-4 years we will be forced to sit down at the negotiating table again. Where is the exit? My position: to achieve the final solution to the debt problem. This means that we should insist on writing off at least 50 percent of the union debt. That is, half of those 105 billion dollars that owed the Soviet Union to the Paris and London clubs. Otherwise, we just never can pay. After all, it is impossible to strongly rely, say, for the world conjuncture of oil prices: today it is $ 28 per barrel, yesterday was 9, and which will not be known for tomorrow, "therefore, we have a choice: either sustainable economic growth - 5-6 percent per year, or half the state budget to give creditors and lose the prospects for decades. How do you evaluate the work of the economic block of the government? The economic block of the government has one specific task to the presidential election: in the absence of external financing in the first quarter, to reduce the lending to the Central Bank of the Budget needs. The newly selected serious monetary pumping was in December, which then affected the growth of the dollar course. The government will provoke the next economic crisis after the election? In any case, it is impossible to exclude the next inflationary wave in April and another noticeable adjustment of the ruble The impression that the government and the acting of the president in the economic sphere simply do not, or this is that today you will not say anything about the strategy. I still think there are several steps that the government should make a tax reform that reduces the general tax burden and cancel all of the Earth’s issue with one or another introduction to the economic circulation. They will not be invested in our economy Mikhail Mikhailovich, I can not return to recent events in the Duma, when most deputies did not support your candidate for the deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on the Budget and Tax It cannot calm down, which also confirmed the result of the candidates of Nemtsov and Lukin to the posts of the deputy chairman of the State Duma, from the point of view of the content of the work, it is much more important for me that the committee's colleagues entrusted me with the leadership of one of the key subcommittee, which are engaged in the problems of the Central Bank, the monetary policy and the currency regulation. “You have been swept by the fundamental dislike of the reformers, the“ hand ”of the Kremlin, where you still can’t forgive you for excessive independence, which is closer to the truth? Parliament is a decisive of the so -called "majority", and why? I am not going to arrange a clarification of relations with them.

Mikhail Mikhailovich, can we breathe a sigh of relief: the ghost of default no longer looms on the horizon?

So far, Russia does not refuse to pay debts, while negotiations are underway, you can not talk about default. After all, not only we, but our creditors are not interested in aggravating the situation and making Russia bankrupt. Say, in order to even hypothetically declare a default on the London club, the consent of 90 percent of its participants is required. This is almost unrealistic. After all, what will they remain with in the end? With papers whose cost does not exceed 5 percent of the face value and with obscure prospects for the future, "therefore, I am sure, negotiations with all creditors will continue and there will be no default. The main threat is not that."

And what?

In the inability of Russia to serve the amount of debt that will be reissued after the agreements with the Paris and London clubs. Remember, in 1997, we already announced the pomp about the seemingly final agreements on the restructuring of external debt. However, it very quickly became clear that paying $ 15 to 17 billion annually Russia was not within the power of, which became obvious by the fall of 1998. The same thing can be repeated now: we will reach some temporary agreements, and after 3-4 years we will be forced to sit down at the negotiating table again.

Where is the exit?

My position: to achieve the final solution to the debt problem. This means that we should insist on writing off at least 50 percent of the union debt. That is, half of those 105 billion dollars that owed the Soviet Union to the Paris and London clubs. Otherwise, we just never can pay. After all, you can’t seriously rely, say, for the world conjuncture of oil prices: today it is $ 28 per barrel, yesterday it was 9, and which will be known tomorrow, "therefore we have a choice: either sustainable economic growth - 5-6 percent per year, or half the state budget to give creditors and lose their prospects for decades.

How do you evaluate the work of the economic block of government in this regard?

The government’s economic bloc has one specific task to the presidential election: in the absence of external financing in the first quarter, to reduce the lending to the Central Bank of the budget needs. In order to prevent excess ruble emissions, and as a result - inflation and falling standard of living of people. Everything else - economic strategy, structural reforms, restructuring of external debt - will get to the new government under the newly elected president.

The last serious monetary pumping of the economy was in December, which then affected the growth of the dollar. However, in January - February, the growth of budget revenues and the minimization of internal borrowings indicate that so far the office copes with its main task. But further, especially in March, he will have much more complicated.

Will it turn out that, when solving the tactical election problem in the first quarter, the government will provoke another economic crisis after the election?

In any case, it cannot be excluded in April - May of the next inflationary wave and another noticeable adjustment of the ruble course.

Such a development of events is dictated by the need to pay external debt and perform a budget task, which means resorting to borrowing from the Central Bank and disperse inflation.

And what will happen after April - May? It seems that the government and the acting president in the economic sphere simply have no strategy. Or is it not?

I think that today no one will tell you anything about the strategy. Moreover, among those who are designed to develop it, there are supporters of not just different, but often diametrically opposite approaches. From a sharp strengthening of the role of the state in decision -making, up to interference in the economic activity of market entities, to the development of the liberal model of the economy. Nevertheless, I think there are several steps that the government should take in any case. This is a tax reform that reduces the general tax burden and cancel all taxes on circulation. This is a solution to the issue of land with one or another introduction of its into the economic circulation. Finally, this is the creation of a normal investment climate with the protection of investors' rights and a guarantee of property rights.

Another question is that if the development of the political situation does not arrange investors, then they will not invest in our economy.

Mikhail Mikhailovich, I can’t help but return to recent events in the Duma, when most deputies did not support your candidacy for the post of deputy chairman of the Duma budget and tax committee. Are you very disappointed with this?

No, I do not experience any special emotions about this. Since the day before he assumed a similar course of events. The Duma majority cannot calm down in any way, which was confirmed by the result of subsequent votes on the candidates of Nemtsov and Lukin to posts of deputy representatives of the State Duma. From the point of view of the content of work, it is much more important for me that the committee colleagues entrusted me with the leadership of one of the key subcommittees involved in the problems of the Central Bank, monetary policy and foreign exchange regulation.

According to one version, the Communists and Zhirinovites "rolled" you because of the fundamental dislike for reformers-red-handers, according to the other-behind all this is felt the "hand" of the Kremlin, where they still cannot forgive you with excessive independence when the Minister. What is closer to the truth?

Seeing the results of this vote, some political principles would be naive. It is obvious to me that behind this is the specific instructions of those people who are outside the parliament and have a decisive influence on the party of the so -called "majority."

Can you call these people?

Why? I am not going to arrange a clarification of relations with them. It is enough that I know them perfectly. And anyone who understands the alignment of political forces will easily calculate them. More importantly, another: if they fight against me, then they are considered to be with me, they do not want to strengthen my positions. And therefore, everything that I do and did before was correct.