|
VLADIMIR PUTIN
February 10, 2007
Munich
Speech and the Following Discussion
at the Munich Conference on Security Policy
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much dear Madam
Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and
gentlemen!
I am
truly grateful to be invited to such a
representative conference that has assembled
politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and
experts from more than 40 nations.
This
conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive
politeness and the need to speak in roundabout,
pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This
conference’s format will allow me to say what I
really think about international security problems.
And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or
inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not
to get angry with me. After all, this is only a
conference. And I hope that after the first two or
three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not
turn on the red light over there.
Therefore. It is well known that international
security comprises much more than issues relating to
military and political stability. It involves the
stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty,
economic security and developing a dialogue between
civilisations.
This
universal, indivisible character of security is
expressed as the basic principle that “security for
one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt
said during the first few days that the Second World
War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken
anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is
in danger.”
These
words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme
of our conference – global crises, global
responsibility – exemplifies this.
Only
two decades ago the world was ideologically and
economically divided and it was the huge strategic
potential of two superpowers that ensured global
security.
This
global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and
social problems to the margins of the international
community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like
any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition,
figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological
stereotypes, double standards and other typical
aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The
unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold
War did not take place either.
The
history of humanity certainly has gone through
unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world
supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world
history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might
embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers
to one type of situation, namely one centre of
authority, one centre of force, one centre of
decision-making.
It is
world in which there is one master, one sovereign.
And at the end of the day this is pernicious not
only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from
within.
And
this certainly has nothing in common with democracy.
Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the
majority in light of the interests and opinions of
the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being
taught about democracy. But for some reason those
who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I
consider that the unipolar model is not only
unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.
And this is not only because if there was individual
leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s –
world, then the military, political and economic
resources would not suffice. What is even more
important is that the model itself is flawed because
at its basis there is and can be no moral
foundations for modern civilisation.
Along
with this, what is happening in today’s world – and
we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to
introduce precisely this concept into international
affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And
with which results?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have
not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have
caused new human tragedies and created new centres
of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as
local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr
Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less
people perish in these conflicts – even more are
dying than before. Significantly more, significantly
more!
Today
we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of
force – military force – in international relations,
force that is plunging the world into an abyss of
permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have
sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution
to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political
settlement also becomes impossible.
We are
seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic
principles of international law. And independent
legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming
increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One
state and, of course, first and foremost the United
States, has overstepped its national borders in
every way. This is visible in the economic,
political, cultural and educational policies it
imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who
is happy about this?
In
international relations we increasingly see the
desire to resolve a given question according to
so-called issues of political expediency, based on
the current political climate.
And of
course this is extremely dangerous. It results in
the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise
this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel
that international law is like a stone wall that
will protect them. Of course such a policy
stimulates an arms race.
The
force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of
countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Moreover, significantly new threats – though they
were also well-known before – have appeared, and
today threats such as terrorism have taken on a
global character.
I am
convinced that we have reached that decisive moment
when we must seriously think about the architecture
of global security.
And we
must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance
between the interests of all participants in the
international dialogue. Especially since the
international landscape is so varied and changes so
quickly – changes in light of the dynamic
development in a whole number of countries and
regions.
Madam
Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The
combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of
countries such as India and China is already greater
than that of the United States. And a similar
calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries –
Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the
cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts
this gap will only increase in the future.
There
is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of
the new centres of global economic growth will
inevitably be converted into political influence and
will strengthen multipolarity.
In
connection with this the role of multilateral
diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for
principles such as openness, transparency and
predictability in politics is uncontested and the
use of force should be a really exceptional measure,
comparable to using the death penalty in the
judicial systems of certain states.
However, today we are witnessing the opposite
tendency, namely a situation in which countries that
forbid the death penalty even for murderers and
other, dangerous criminals are airily participating
in military operations that are difficult to
consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these
conflicts are killing people – hundreds and
thousands of civilians!
But at
the same time the question arises of whether we
should be indifferent and aloof to various internal
conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian
regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact,
this was also at the centre of the question that our
dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal
Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question
(addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a
serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view
of what is happening? I will try to answer your
question as well: of course not.
But do
we have the means to counter these threats?
Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent
history. Did not our country have a peaceful
transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a
peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a
peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With
what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons!
Why should we start bombing and shooting now at
every available opportunity? Is it the case when
without the threat of mutual destruction we do not
have enough political culture, respect for
democratic values and for the law?
I am
convinced that the only mechanism that can make
decisions about using military force as a last
resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in
connection with this, either I did not understand
what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister,
just said or what he said was inexact. In any case,
I understood that the use of force can only be
legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the
EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we
have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear
correctly. The use of force can only be considered
legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN.
And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for
the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of
the international community and can really react to
events in various countries, when we will leave
behind this disdain for international law, then the
situation will be able to change. Otherwise the
situation will simply result in a dead end, and the
number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along
with this, it is necessary to make sure that
international law have a universal character both in
the conception and application of its norms.
And
one must not forget that democratic political
actions necessarily go along with discussion and a
laborious decision-making process.
Dear
ladies and gentlemen!
The
potential danger of the destabilisation of
international relations is connected with obvious
stagnation in the disarmament issue.
Russia
supports the renewal of dialogue on this important
question.
It is
important to conserve the international legal
framework relating to weapons destruction and
therefore ensure continuity in the process of
reducing nuclear weapons.
Together with the United States of America we agreed
to reduce our nuclear strategic missile
capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by
31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil
the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our
partners will also act in a transparent way and will
refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred
superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if
today the new American Defence Minister declares
that the United States will not hide these
superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might
say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I
suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration
standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia
strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision
regime for missile technologies. The principles
incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In
connection with this I would like to recall that in
the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an
agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and
medium-range missiles but these documents do not
have a universal character.
Today
many other countries have these missiles, including
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the
Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel.
Many countries are working on these systems and plan
to incorporate them as part of their weapons
arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear
the responsibility to not create such weapons
systems.
It is
obvious that in these conditions we must think about
ensuring our own security.
At the
same time, it is impossible to sanction the
appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons.
Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a
new area of confrontation, especially in outer
space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a
reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American
partners were already able to intercept their own
satellite.
In
Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space
could have unpredictable consequences for the
international community, and provoke nothing less
than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have
come forward more than once with initiatives
designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer
space.
Today
I would like to tell you that we have prepared a
project for an agreement on the prevention of
deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near
future it will be sent to our partners as an
official proposal. Let’s work on this together.
Plans
to expand certain elements of the anti-missile
defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us.
Who needs the next step of what would be, in this
case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that
Europeans themselves do.
Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight
thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to
Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem
countries. And in the near future and prospects,
this will not happen and is not even foreseeable.
And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North
Korean rocket to American territory through western
Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics.
As we say in Russia, it would be like using the
right hand to reach the left ear.
And
here in Germany I cannot help but mention the
pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe.
The
Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a
new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of
the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only
four states have ratified this document, including
the Russian Federation.
NATO
countries openly declared that they will not ratify
this treaty, including the provisions on flank
restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed
forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its
military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is
leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated
schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our
Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are
still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying
out peacekeeping operations and protecting
warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet
times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr
Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to
further work in this direction.
But
what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously
the so-called flexible frontline American bases with
up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that
NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders,
and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty
obligations and do not react to these actions at
all.
I
think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not
have any relation with the modernisation of the
Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe.
On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation
that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have
the right to ask: against whom is this expansion
intended? And what happened to the assurances our
western partners made after the dissolution of the
Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No
one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to
remind this audience what was said. I would like to
quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr
Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the
time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place
a NATO army outside of German territory gives the
Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are
these guarantees?
The
stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have
long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should
not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was
possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was
also made by our people, the people of Russia – a
choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and
a sincere partnership with all the members of the
big European family.
And
now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and
walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they
are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our
continent. And is it possible that we will once
again require many years and decades, as well as
several generations of politicians, to dissemble and
dismantle these new walls?
Dear
ladies and gentlemen!
We are
unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime
of non-proliferation. The present international
legal principles allow us to develop technologies to
manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And
many countries with all good reasons want to create
their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy
independence. But we also understand that these
technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear
weapons.
This
creates serious international tensions. The
situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme
acts as a clear example. And if the international
community does not find a reasonable solution for
resolving this conflict of interests, the world will
continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises
because there are more threshold countries than
simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to
constantly fight against the threat of the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Last
year Russia put forward the initiative to establish
international centres for the enrichment of uranium.
We are open to the possibility that such centres not
only be created in Russia, but also in other
countries where there is a legitimate basis for
using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to
develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that
they will receive fuel through direct participation
in these centres. And the centres would, of course,
operate under strict IAEA supervision.
The
latest initiatives put forward by American President
George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian
proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are
objectively and equally interested in strengthening
the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and their deployment. It is
precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and
missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in
developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures.
Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in
consultations with our American friends.
In
general, we should talk about establishing a whole
system of political incentives and economic stimuli
whereby it would not be in states’ interests to
establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel
cycle but they would still have the opportunity to
develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy
capabilities.
In
connection with this I shall talk about
international energy cooperation in more detail.
Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this
briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In
the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform
market principles and transparent conditions for
all. It is obvious that energy prices must be
determined by the market instead of being the
subject of political speculation, economic pressure
or blackmail.
We are
open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate
in all our major energy projects. According to
different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil
extraction in Russia – and please think about this
figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in
Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find
me a similar example where Russian business
participates extensively in key economic sectors in
western countries. Such examples do not exist! There
are no such examples.
I
would also recall the parity of foreign investments
in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity
is about fifteen to one. And here you have an
obvious example of the openness and stability of the
Russian economy.
Economic security is the sector in which all must
adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to
compete fairly.
For
that reason more and more opportunities are
appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our
western partners are objectively evaluating these
changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit
rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to
the third group. And today in Munich I would like to
use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for
their help in the above decision.
Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia
joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I
would point out that during long, difficult talks we
heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and
equal possibilities more than once but, for some
reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian
market.
And
there is still one more important theme that
directly affects global security. Today many talk
about the struggle against poverty. What is actually
happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial
resources are allocated for programmes to help the
world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial
financial resources. But to be honest -- and many
here also know this – linked with the development of
that same donor country’s companies. And on the
other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep
their agricultural subsidies and limit some
countries’ access to high-tech products.
And
let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes
charitable help and the other hand not only
preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the
profits thereof. The increasing social tension in
depressed regions inevitably results in the growth
of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local
conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say,
a region such as the Middle East where there is
increasingly the sense that the world at large is
unfair, then there is the risk of global
destabilisation.
It is
obvious that the world’s leading countries should
see this threat. And that they should therefore
build a more democratic, fairer system of global
economic relations, a system that would give
everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.
Dear
ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on
Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the
activities of the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this
organisation was created to examine all – I shall
emphasise this – all aspects of security: military,
political, economic, humanitarian and, especially,
the relations between these spheres.
What
do we see happening today? We see that this balance
is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform
the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to
promote the foreign policy interests of one or a
group of countries. And this task is also being
accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus
which is absolutely not connected with the state
founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and
the involvement of so-called non-governmental
organisations are tailored for this task. These
organisations are formally independent but they are
purposefully financed and therefore under control.
According to the founding documents, in the
humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist
country members in observing international human
rights norms at their request. This is an important
task. We support this. But this does not mean
interfering in the internal affairs of other
countries, and especially not imposing a regime that
determines how these states should live and develop.
It is
obvious that such interference does not promote the
development of democratic states at all. On the
contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a
consequence, politically and economically unstable.
We
expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks
and build relations with sovereign states based on
respect, trust and transparency.
Dear
ladies and gentlemen!
In
conclusion I would like to note the following. We
very often – and personally, I very often – hear
appeals by our partners, including our European
partners, to the effect that Russia should play an
increasingly active role in world affairs.
In
connection with this I would allow myself to make
one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite
us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that
spans more than a thousand years and has practically
always used the privilege to carry out an
independent foreign policy.
We are
not going to change this tradition today. At the
same time, we are well aware of how the world has
changed and we have a realistic sense of our own
opportunities and potential. And of course we would
like to interact with responsible and independent
partners with whom we could work together in
constructing a fair and democratic world order that
would ensure security and prosperity not only for a
select few, but for all.
Thank
you for your attention.
HORST
TELTSCHIK: Thank you very much for your important
speech. We heard new themes, including the issue of
global security architecture – one was not in the
foreground over the last few years – disarmament,
arms control, the issue of the NATO-Russian
relations, and cooperation in the field of
technology.
There
are still a whole number of questions and Mr
President is ready to answer.
QUESTION: Dear Mr President, thank you for your
speech. I would like to emphasise that the German
Bundestag is convinced of Russia’s importance as
Europe’s partner and of the importance of the role
you play. The Federal Chancellor said this in her
speech.
Proceeding from experience, I would like to mention
two issues in your speech. First of all, on your
opinion of NATO and NATO expansion, a phenomenon
that you consider dangerous for Russia. Would you
acknowledge that this phenomenon is, in practice,
not expansion but rather the self-determination of
democratic states who want this? And that NATO finds
it difficult to accept states that do not declare
this readiness? You could admit that thanks to NATO
expansion eastern borders have become more reliable,
more secure. Why are you afraid of democracy? I am
convinced that only democratic states can become
members of NATO. This stabilises neighbours.
About
what is happening inside your country. The murder of
Anna Politkovskaya was a symbol. One can say that
this affects many journalists, makes everybody
afraid, and the law on non-governmental
organisations also causes alarm.
QUESTION: I well understand your comments about
non-proliferation. Especially at the end of the Cold
War we saw a reduction of the deployment of nuclear
weapons, but we also saw increased terrorism.
Nuclear materials must be kept away from terrorists.
QUESTION: Coming back to the question that was also
asked to the Federal Chancellor. What does the
future hold for Kosovo and Serbia? What is your
opinion of Mr Ahtisaari? How will Russia influence
resolving this problem?
QUESTION: Can you comment on the experiences of
Russian servicemen in Chechnya? And about your
comments on energy: you briefly mentioned the market
role energy plays in politics. The EU is interested
in reaching a partnership agreement that contains
fixed policy principles. Are you ready to guarantee
reliable energy deliveries, including in the
agreement?
QUESTION: Mr President, your speech was both sincere
and frank. I hope that you understand my frank and
direct question. In the 1990s Russian experts
actively helped Iran develop missile technologies.
Iran now has advanced medium- and long-range
missiles that would enable it to strike Russia and
part of Europe. They are also working towards
placing nuclear warheads on these missiles. Your
country has made efforts to negotiate with Iran on
this issue and supported the UN Security Council
resolution to prevent Iran from carrying out such a
policy.
My
question is as follows: what efforts will Russia
make – through the UN or otherwise – to stop these
very serious events in Iran?
QUESTION: I am confident that the historians of the
future will not describe our conference as one in
which the Second Cold War was declared. But they
could. You said that it is necessary to put pressure
on Iran and to provide positive incentives. But is
it not true that Russia is interfering with the
process of applying strong pressure through
sanctions? Secondly, with regards to deliveries of
weapons, Russia is encouraging Iran, especially
since these weapons appeared in Lebanon and in Gaza.
What are your comments on this?
QUESTION: I understand your sincerity and I hope
that you will accept our sincerity. First of all,
about arms control. Who needs a new arms race? I
want to point out that the USA has not developed a
new strategic weapon in more than two decades and
that you recently tested the Topol-M missile, and
that it is already deployed in silos and on mobile
installations. You criticised the USA for unilateral
actions and said twice that military actions can
only be legitimate if they receive UN approval. The
USA is carrying out military actions in Iraq and in
Afghanistan according to UN decisions and today in
Kosovo the majority of troops are supporting
peace-making operations in this country.
My
question is the following: are you saying that
independently of how Russia perceives a threat to
its international interests, it will not undertake
military operations without UN approval?
QUESTION: You talked about the danger of a unipolar
world in which one sovereign makes a decision
without consulting anyone else. In many people’s
opinion, in Russia we are seeing an increasingly
unipolar government where competing centres of
influence are forced to tow the party line, whether
it be in the State Duma, the regional leadership,
the media, business communities or non-governmental
organisations. Would a unipolar government be such a
reliable partner when the issue of energy security
is at stake?
PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all I would like
to thank you for your questions. Very interesting.
It is a shame that we have little time left because
I would be pleased to have a separate discussion
with all of you. I very much enjoy this, I like it.
I will
begin with the last question about the unipolar
nature of the Russian government. Today the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the
United Russia Party, the Liberal Democratic Party
and other political forces as well sit in the
Russian parliament. And their basic positions differ
significantly. If you aren’t aware of this then just
have a talk with the leadership of the Communist
Party of the Russian Federation and then with the
leader of our liberal democrats, Mr Zhirinovsky. You
will see the difference at once. If you cannot see
it now, then have a talk with them. There is no
problem here, simply go to Moscow and talk to them.
About
our future plans. We would like to have a mature
political system, a multi-party system with
responsible politicians who can anticipate the
country’s development and not only work responsibly
before elections and immediately after, but in a
long-term future as well. That is what we aspire to.
And this system will certainly be a multi-party one.
All our actions within Russia, including changing
the State Duma election regime, the election regime
in the Russian parliament, are designed to
strengthen a multi-party system in Russia.
And
now about whether our government cabinet is able to
operate responsibly in resolving issues linked to
energy deliveries and ensuring energy security. Of
course it can! Moreover, all that we have done and
are doing is designed to achieve only one goal,
namely to transfer our relations with consumers and
countries that transport our energy to market-based,
transparent principles and long-term contracts.
I will
remind you and my colleague, the President of
Ukraine, who is sitting opposite from me, also knows
this. For fifteen years prior to 2006, as long as we
did not make the corresponding decisions during our
difficult talks, deliveries of Russian energy and,
first and foremost, of gas to Europe depended on the
conditions and prices for the deliveries of Russian
gas to Ukraine itself. And this was something that
Ukraine and Russia agreed among themselves. And if
we reached no agreement, then all European consumers
would sit there with no gas. Would you like to see
this happen? I don’t think so. And despite all the
scandals, the protection of interests, and
differences of opinion we were able to agree with
President Yushchenko. I consider that he made a
responsible, absolutely correct and market-oriented
decision. We signed separate contracts for the
delivery of our gas to Ukraine and for delivering
Russian gas to Europe for the next five years. You
should thank us, both Russia and Ukraine, for this
decision. And thank you also for your question.
It
would have been better if I answered your questions
at once.
Regarding our perception of NATO’s eastern
expansion, I already mentioned the guarantees that
were made and that are not being observed today. Do
you happen to think that this is normal practice in
international affairs? But all right, forget it.
Forget these guarantees. With respect to democracy
and NATO expansion. NATO is not a universal
organisation, as opposed to the UN. It is first and
foremost a military and political alliance, military
and political! Well, ensuring one’s own security is
the right of any sovereign state. We are not arguing
against this. Of course we are not objecting to
this. But why is it necessary to put military
infrastructure on our borders during this expansion?
Can someone answer this question? Unless the
expansion of military infrastructure is connected
with fighting against today’s global threats? Let’s
put it this way, what is the most important of these
threats for us today – the most important for
Russia, for the USA and for Europe – it is terrorism
and the fight against it.
Does
one need Russia to fight against terrorism? Of
course! Does one need India to fight against
terrorism! Of course! But we are not members of NATO
and other countries aren’t either. But we can only
work on this issue effectively by joining our
forces. As such, expanding infrastructure,
especially military infrastructure, to our borders
is not connected in any way with the democratic
choices of individual states. And I would ask that
we not mix these two concepts.
You
know, I wrote so illegibly here that even I cannot
read my own writing. I will therefore answer what I
can read and if I do not answer something, please
remind me of the question.
What
will happen with Kosovo and with Serbia? Only
Kosovars and Serbs can know. And let’s not tell them
how they should live their lives. There is no need
to play God and resolve all of these peoples’
problems. Together we can only create certain
necessary conditions and help people resolve their
own problems. Create the necessary conditions and
act as the guarantors of certain agreements. But we
should not impose these agreements. Otherwise, we
shall simply put the situation into a dead end. And
if one of the participants in this difficult process
feels offended or humiliated, then the problem will
last for centuries. We will only create a dead end.
What
does our position consist in? Our position consists
in adhering precisely to this principle. And if we
see that one party is clearly dissatisfied with the
proposals to resolve the situation then we are not
going to support this option.
I did
not exactly understand what you meant when you asked
about our servicemen’s experience in Chechnya. Their
experience is not pleasant, but it is extensive. And
if you are interested in the general situation in
Chechnya, then I can tell you that a parliament and
a president have been elected, and that the
government is functioning. All the bodies of
authority and administration have been formed.
Practically all the political forces in Chechnya
have been involved in work in the Republic. As an
example, the former Defence Minister of Aslan
Maskhadov’s government is now a member of parliament
in Chechnya. And we made a whole series of decisions
that would allow former insurgents to return not
only to normal life, but also to the Republic’s
political activities. As such, today we prefer to
act by using economic and political means and, in
practice, we have transferred the responsibility for
ensuring security almost 100 percent to the Chechen
people. Because the agencies of law and order that
were formed in Chechnya are almost 100 percent
composed of local citizens, from those living in
Chechnya on a permanent basis – from Chechens.
As to
Lebanon, I also did not quite understand what you
meant. But, yes, the fact that we sent military
construction workers to Lebanon to restore bridges
and infrastructure that was destroyed in the
conflict with Israel is a confirmation of a
well-known situation, the one I described just now.
And military units protecting these builders were
made up of servicemen from Chechnya and with Chechen
origins. We recognised that if our servicemen must
operate in regions inhabited by Muslims, sending a
contingent of Muslim servicemen would be no bad
thing. And we were not mistaken. The local
population really gave a warm welcome to our
military builders.
Now
about the energy agreement with the European Union,
since this is how I understood the question. We have
said many times that we are not against agreeing on
the principles underlying our energy relations with
the EU. Moreover, the principles contained in the
Charter are generally comprehensible. But the
Charter itself is not so acceptable to us. Because
not only Russia but also our European partners do
not adhere to its principles. It is enough to
remember that the market for nuclear materials
remains closed for us. Nobody has opened this market
to us.
There
are also other moments which I simply do not want to
draw attention to now. But as to the principles
themselves, we are already using these principles in
our work with German companies. I shall remind you
of the transaction that took place between Gazprom
and BASF. As a matter of fact, this was an asset
swap. We are ready to continue to work this way. We
are ready. But in each concrete instance we must
understand what we give, what our partners give,
calculate, have an independent international expert
evaluation, and then make a decision. We are ready
to engage in this work. We have actually just
recently done something similar with our Italian
partners, with the company ENI. And we did more than
simply sign an agreement about deliveries until 2035
– I think – we also talked about swapping assets.
And we are studying this same type of cooperation
with our Ukrainian friends. This is going ahead.
And is
it necessary to fix these principles in a possible
future fundamental text between Russia and the EU?
It is possible to have different opinions on this
issue. I consider that it is not necessary because,
in addition to energy, we have other spheres in
which we cooperate with the EU, including
agriculture, high-tech and transportation. And all
of this is very important and very interesting. And
we cannot put all of this in one fundamental act
that should act as a framework document. Or would
you want us to put only what you need in the
document and leave what we need outside of the
framework? Let’s discuss things honestly with one
another and take mutually acceptable decisions.
“In
the 1990s Russia helped Iran develop missile
technologies”. I think that you asked me this
question. “Today Iran wants to put nuclear warheads
on these missiles that could reach Europe. What is
Russia going to do about the Iranian nuclear
programme?” Is that so?
Well
first of all, I do not have data that in the 1990s
Russia helped Iran create its own missile
technologies. It was other countries that worked
very actively towards this. And technology was
transferred through different channels. And we have
proof of this. At the time I gave these proofs
directly to the President of the United States. And
technology also came from Europe and from Asian
countries.
So
Russia is hardly at fault here. I assure you. Russia
is the country least involved here. Least of all. If
it is involved at all. At the time I was still
working in St Petersburg, but we were not involved
with this. I can assure you of this. But you know
that at the business level something could have
happened. We trained experts in institutes and so
on. And at the request and according to the
information of our American partners we reacted
harshly to this. Immediately and harshly. We did not
observe such a reaction from our other partners,
including European partners. Moreover, I do not know
whether you are aware of this or not but you should
know that military technology and special equipment
is still coming from the United States. Until now.
Until now spare parts for F-14 planes come from the
armed forces and the Pentagon. As far as I know,
there is even an investigation taking place in the
United States on this account. And despite the fact
that this investigation is proceeding and that these
spare parts were seized at the border and then sent
back, after a certain amount of time, according to
the data I have – and if they are not correct then
check them – those same cargos were again seized at
the border. Even bearing a tag ‘material evidence’.
You
know, this stream is really hard to stop. We need to
work together to do so.
About
whether or not Iran has missiles that threaten
Europe. You are mistaken. Today Iran has – Mr Gates
is here today and certainly knows this data better
than I do, and the Russian Defence Minister is also
here – missiles with a range of 2000 kilometres.
RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTER SERGEI IVANOV: 1600-1700
kilometres.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: 1600-1700 kilometres. Only. Well,
count how many kilometres there are between Munich
and the Iranian border. Iran has no such missiles.
They plan to develop some with a range of 2400
kilometres. It is not known whether they have the
technology to do so. And with respect to 4000, 5000
or 6000 kilometres, then I think that this would
simply require a different economy. So, it is
improbable in general. And Iran is not threatening
Europe. With regard to the idea that they are
preparing to use nuclear warheads then we do not
have such data. We do not have this data about
nuclear warheads.
North
Korea has tested a nuclear device. Iranians are
constantly saying that their nuclear programme has a
peaceful character. But I agree with you that the
international community has concerns about the
character and quality of Iran’s nuclear programmes.
And Mr ElBaradai recently stated these concerns in
what I think were six or seven points. I agree with
you about this. And I do not understand why the
Iranian party has still not reacted in a positive
and constructive way to the concerns that Mr
ElBaradai stated and therefore assuaged these
concerns. I do not understand this just as you do
not understand it.
What
are we going to do? I think that together we need to
work patiently and carefully. And, that’s right, to
create incentives and show the Iranian leadership
that cooperation with the international community is
much better than confrontation.
Yes,
and again about the deliveries of weapons to Iran.
You know that there has been more talk than
deliveries. Our military and technical cooperation
with Iran is minimal. Simply minimal. I am not sure
what minimal figures it is estimated at. In general
we deliver much less arms to the Middle East than
other countries, including the United States. No
comparison is possible there. We recently delivered
an anti-aircraft weapon system to Iran – that is
true – with a medium range, approximately 30 to 50
kilometres. That is true. Why did we do this? I can
explain why. We did this so that Iran did not feel
it had been driven into a corner. So that it didn’t
feel that it was in some kind of hostile
environment. Rather that Iran could understand that
it had channels of communication and friends that it
could trust. We very much expect that the Iranian
party will understand and hear our signals.
As to
our weapons in Lebanon and in the Gaza strip. I am
not aware of our weapons in the Gaza strip. I have
not heard of such examples. Well, Kalashnikovs are
in general the most widely used small arms in the
world. They are probably everywhere. And probably
there are still automatic Kalashnikovs in Germany
or, in any case, some that have still not been
destroyed. That is one hundred percent certain.
In
Lebanon it is true. Elements of our anti-tank
systems really have been seen there. That is true.
Our Israeli partners told me about this at once. We
carried out a thorough investigation into what
happened. And we determined that these systems had
remained in Lebanese territory after the Syrian army
left. We carried out the corresponding work with our
Syrian partners. We determined that our future
military and technical cooperation with Syria would
exclude the possibility that weapons could fall into
any hands other than the ones they were destined
for. We developed such a system. Among other things,
we agreed on a system of possible warehouse
inspections, at any time that is convenient for
Russian experts. Inspections in warehouses after
deliveries of Russian weapons systems to Syria.
“The
USA are not developing strategic weapons but Russia
is. Will Russia use force in the future if it is not
sanctioned by the UN? Russia is developing a system
of strategic weapons”.
Fine
question, excellent! I am very grateful to you for
this question. It will give me the opportunity to
talk about the essence of what is happening. What
are we indebted to in the past decades if there was
a stand-off between two superpowers and two systems
but nevertheless a big war did not take place? We
are indebted to the balance of powers between these
two superpowers. There was an equilibrium and a fear
of mutual destruction. And in those days one party
was afraid to make an extra step without consulting
the other. And this was certainly a fragile peace
and a frightening one. But as we see today, it was
reliable enough. Today, it seems that the peace is
not so reliable.
Yes,
the United States is ostensibly not developing an
offensive weapon. In any case, the public does not
know about this. Even though they are certainly
developing them. But we aren’t even going to ask
about this now. We know that these developments are
proceeding. But we pretend that we don’t know, so we
say that they aren’t developing new weapons. But
what do we know? That the United States is actively
developing and already strengthening an anti-missile
defence system. Today this system is ineffective but
we do not know exactly whether it will one day be
effective. But in theory it is being created for
that purpose. So hypothetically we recognise that
when this moment arrives, the possible threat from
our nuclear forces will be completely neutralised.
Russia’s present nuclear capabilities, that is. The
balance of powers will be absolutely destroyed and
one of the parties will benefit from the feeling of
complete security. This means that its hands will be
free not only in local but eventually also in global
conflicts.
We are
discussing this with you now. I would not want
anyone to suspect any aggressive intentions on our
part. But the system of international relations is
just like mathematics. There are no personal
dimensions. And of course we should react to this.
How? Either the same as you and therefore by
building a multi-billion dollar anti-missile system
or, in view of our present economic and financial
possibilities, by developing an asymmetrical answer.
So that everybody can understand that the
anti-missile defence system is useless against
Russia because we have certain weapons that easily
overcome it. And we are proceeding in this
direction. It is cheaper for us. And this is in no
way directed against the United States themselves.
I
completely agree if you say that the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) is not directed against us,
just as our new weapons are not directed against
you. And I fully agree with my colleague and my
friend about another thing. Do you know – and I will
not be afraid of the word – that in spite of all our
disagreements I consider the President of the United
States my friend. He is a decent person and I know
that today the wolves can blame the United States
for everything that is being done on the
international arena and internally. But I know that
he is a decent person and it is possible to talk and
reach agreements with him. And when I talked to him
he said: “I proceed from the fact that Russia and
the USA will never be opponents and enemies again”.
I agree with him. But I repeat once again that there
are symmetries and asymmetries here, there is
nothing personal. It is simply a calculation.
And
now about whether Russia will use military force
without the sanction of the UN. We will always
operate strictly within the international legal
framework. My basic education is in law and I will
allow myself to remind both myself and my colleagues
that according to the UN Charter peace-keeping
operations require the sanction of both the UN and
the UN Security Council. This is in the case of
peace-keeping operations. But in the UN Charter
there is also an article about self-defence. And no
sanctions are required in this case.
So,
what have I forgotten?
QUESTION: My question was about multipolarity in
Russia itself and about the attitude of the
international community towards Russia if Russia
does not observe these principles, in reference to
the murder of journalists, fears, anxieties, the
absence of freedom and non-governmental
organisations.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will say a couple of words. I
already answered part of the question when I talked
about the structure of the Russian parliament. Look
at who is represented there, the political views of
the people who have leadership positions in
parliament, the legitimate parties. Now, as to
non-governmental organisations, they are working
actively in Russia. Yes, we introduced a new system
for registering these organisations. But it is not
that different from registration systems in other
countries. And we have not yet seen any complaints
from non-governmental organisations themselves. We
have not refused registration to almost any
organisations. There were two or three cases that
were refused on simply formal grounds and these
organisations are working on correcting certain
provisions in their charters and so on. Nobody has
been refused registration based on substantial,
fundamental issues. All are continuing to work in
the most active possible way and will continue to do
so in the future.
What
bothers us? I can say and I think that it is clear
for all, that when these non-governmental
organisations are financed by foreign governments,
we see them as an instrument that foreign states use
to carry out their Russian policies. That is the
first thing. The second. In every country there are
certain rules for financing, shall we say, election
campaigns. Financing from foreign governments,
including within governmental campaigns, proceeds
through non-governmental organisations. And who is
happy about this? Is this normal democracy? It is
secret financing. Hidden from society. Where is the
democracy here? Can you tell me? No! You can’t tell
me and you never will be able to. Because there is
no democracy here, there is simply one state
exerting influence on another.
But we
are interested in developing civil society in
Russia, so that it scolds and criticises the
authorities, helps them determine their own
mistakes, and correct their policies in Russian
citizens’ interests. We are certainly interested in
this and we will support civil society and
non-governmental organisations.
As to
fears and so on, are you aware that today Russians
have fewer fears than citizens in many other
countries? Because in the last few years we made
cardinal changes to improve the economic well-being
of our citizens. We still have a great many
problems. And we still have a great many unresolved
problems. Including problems linked with poverty.
And I can tell you that fears basically come from
this source.
As to
journalists then yes, this represents an important
and difficult problem. And, incidentally,
journalists are not only killed in Russia, but in
other countries as well. Where are most journalists
killed? You are an expert and probably know in which
country the most journalists died in, say, the last
year and a half? The largest number of journalists
were killed in Iraq.
As to
tragedies within Russia, we will certainly struggle
with these phenomena in the most thorough way
possible and sternly punish all criminals who try to
undermine trust in Russia and damage our political
system.
Thank
you for your attention.
Original Source |
