BY
According to Prime Minister Yatseniuk, Dmitry Firtash, or more precisely
one of his companies, Ostchem, has paid a due debt from 2010 of UAH 3 billion.
Jolly good.
A bad debt that should not have been written off – and wasn’t – has been
paid, and in full.
That it took the arrest of some of Mr Firtash’s assets in Ukraine to
accomplish it was no doubt necessary. Presumably those assets are no
longer subject to arrest now that the debt has been paid – or at least those
assets arrested specifically in connection with this particular debt have
presumably been released.
A particularly robust and forceful method of credit control and debt
recovery has seemingly paid off – Bravo.
However, Prime Minister Yatseniuk is attempting to frame the matter as
part of the
deoligarchisation of Ukraine and
part of the fight against corruption.
Quite how the recovery of a bad debt contributes to the
deoligarchisation of Ukraine is somewhat unclear.
The percentage of national GDP controlled by the oligarchy has not
reduced due to the repayment of this debt. The percentage of national
employment within oligarch controlled companies has not reduced by the payment
of this debt. The political influence and interference within national
politics has not reduced with the payment of this debt. The “limited
access” Ukrainian market place has not become a “free market” with the payment
of this debt.
Indeed with the payment of this debt, presuming all arrested assets
specifically arrested in connection with this debt will/should now lawfully be
returned to the control of Mr Firtash. Those arrested assets therefore
returning to oligarchical control.
There is no denying that the oligarchy have for decades gorged at the
public trough through subsidies, recapitalisation of state enterprises in which
they hold minority shares, and through bad debt write-offs for debts they
created and never intended to pay (knowing there would be State funded
recapitilisation and bad debt write-offs).
To be charitable, at a stretch it can be argued that because this debt
was not written off (as historically would be the norm), it is a token (and
perhaps genuine) gesture toward fighting corruption – against an oligarch that
finds himself marooned in Austria due to US desires to subject him to due
process over other alleged corrupt activities.
Quite what corruption this has fought (is failing to pay a debt
corruption?) and whether the signal it sends will prevent any further
corruption amongst the oligarchy or any of the Ukrainian elite remains to be
seen. It is even less clear how Mr Firtash’s Ostchem repaying the debt to
release Firtash assets back to his control in any way “deoligarchs” Ukraine.
It is hard to see this as anything more than simply hard-nosed credit
control and debt collection of legitimate debt (leaving aside any
possible/probable perceived political motivation/persecution, for the debt was
indeed due regardless).
To deoligarch Ukraine requires an open free market with numerous
competing entities in every market sector, market transparency, a level
business and legal playing field – thus ultimately reducing the oligarchy
percentage of GDP and national employment to a point where they are simply no
longer dominant – but there is no requirement that they be necessarily
destroyed for the sake of destruction and remove them from the market place.
It also requires an end to subsidies of State owned companies – indeed it
requires the privatising of State owned companies to as many foreign buyers
(not shells or fronts) as possible simply to diversify and dilute the national
GDP contributers. Deoligarchisation also requires restrictions upon their
odious interference and influence within politics. Has any of that been
accomplished by Ostchem paying a UAH 3 billion debt?
However, deoligarchisation aside, will Naftogaz now go after the other
UAH billions that it is owed by numerous other debtors with the same vigorous
credit control/debt recovery determination shown when dealing with
Ostchem and Mr Firtash? Many of those debtors are not oligarch owned
entities – but are debtors nonetheless.
No comments:
Post a Comment