Plenary session of St Petersburg
International Economic Forum
Vladimir Putin spoke
at the plenary session of the St Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
June 17, 2016
16:20
St Petersburg
President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev and Prime
Minister of Italy Matteo Renzi took part
in the plenary session.
* * *
Speech at plenary session
of the XX St Petersburg International Economic Forum
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
I am very glad to welcome
all of you to the 20th St Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
To start with, looking
at this hall I cannot but recall how such forums began. I cannot
but recall that it was initiated by the first mayor of this
city, Anatoly Sobchak. Twenty years, or even more, have passed since then.
It started as a regional forum although we organised it then
as members of the city administration. Today it has turned into
a major venue where people can meet, talk about problems and exchange
opinions.
First of all, I would like
to thank the heads of international organisations, leaders
of states, respected political figures and business representatives
who responded to our invitation.
The St Petersburg Forum has
traditionally served as a venue for discussing strategic issues.
Such conversation is all the more important now that the world is
undergoing a serious transformation, when deep changes are affecting
practically all areas of life.
I would like to take this
opportunity to share with you my assessments and thoughts,
to tell you how we view Russia in a changing world.
And I would like to start with the systemic problems that
are besetting the global economy and practically all countries.
True, after the 2008–2009 crisis,
we managed to partially balance our financial accounts, limit but not
overcome the debt increase problem and make cash flow more
transparent and manageable.
However, the structural problems
accumulated by the global economy still persist, and we have not
yet put our economy on the growth trajectory.
Incidentally, current geopolitical
tensions are related, to some extent, to economic uncertainty
and the exhausting of the old sources of growth. There
is a risk it may increase or even be artificially provoked. It is our
common interest to find a creative and constructive way out
of this situation.
The world’s leading economies are
looking for sources of growth, and they are looking
to capitalise on the enormous existing and growing
potential of digital and industrial technologies, robotics, energy,
biotechnology, medicine and other fields. Discoveries in these areas
can lead to true technological revolutions, to an explosive
growth of labour productivity. This is already happening and will
happen inevitably; there is impending restructuring of entire industries,
the devaluation of many facilities and assets. This will alter
the demand for skills and competencies, and competition
will escalate in both traditional and emerging markets.
In fact, even today we can see
attempts to secure or even monopolise the benefits of next
generation technologies. This, I think, is the motive behind
the creation of restricted areas with regulatory barriers
to reduce the cross-flow of breakthrough technologies
to other regions of the world with fairly tight control over
cooperation chains for maximum gain from technological advances. We have discussed
this with our colleagues; some say it is possible. I think not. One can
control the spread of certain technologies for a while, but
in today's world it would be next to impossible to keep them
in a contained area, even a large area. Yet, these efforts could
lead to basic sciences, now open to sharing of knowledge
and information through joint projects, getting closed too, with
separation barriers coming up.
However, the scale
of technological, economic problems and the objective situation
we are in – their scale and nature suggest that we can develop
effectively only together, by building cooperation. We believe that such
cooperation can be effectively built as part of a flexible
and open integration environment that encourages competition
in scientific research, a variety of technological solutions
that allow the participating countries to fully employ their
competence and their potential. In 2011, with Belarus
and Kazakhstan, and relying on the dense network
of cooperative relationships we inherited from the Soviet Union, we
formed a common customs space, and then upgraded it
to the Eurasian Economic Union. The initiator of this
project is here with us today, on this very panel. It is President
of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev.
We are deepening our integration
gradually, and are removing obstacles to commerce
and the movement of investment, technology and workforce.
We are implementing an industrial and technological cooperation
programme already, and are forming a common service market
incrementally. Common energy, oil and gas and financial markets will
emerge by 2025.
We are aware
of the impressive prospects of cooperation between the EAEU
and other countries and integration associations. Over 40 states
and international organisations have expressed the desire
to establish a free trade zone with the Eurasian Economic Union.
Our partners and we think that the EAEU can become one
of the centres of a greater emergent integration area.
Among other benefits, we can address ambitious technological problems within
its framework, promote technological progress and attract new members. We
discussed this in Astana quite recently. Now we propose considering
the prospects for more extensive Eurasian partnership involving
the EAEU and countries with which we already have close
partnership – China, India, Pakistan and Iran –
and certainly our CIS partners, and other interested countries
and associations.
To start, we might streamline
and unify the regulation of departmental cooperation
and investment, nontariff measures of technology
and phytosanitary control, customs administration and protection
of intellectual property. Further on, we should move gradually
to the reduction and eventual abolition of tariff
restrictions.
We might proceed from a network
of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements that envisage
a varying pace, extent and level of interaction
and the extent of market openness, depending on specific
national economies’ readiness for teamwork, with understandings
on joint research, educational and high-tech projects. All these
agreements should be future-oriented and provide the basis
for harmonious joint development resting on equal and effective
cooperation.
As early as June we, along
with our Chinese colleagues, are planning to start official talks
on the formation of comprehensive trade and economic
partnership in Eurasia with the participation
of the European Union states and China. I expect that this
will become one of the first steps toward the formation
of a major Eurasian partnership. We will certainly resume
the discussion of this major project at the Eastern
Economic Forum in Vladivostok in early September. Colleagues,
I would like to take this opportunity to invite all of you
to take part in it.
Friends, the project I have
just mentioned – the “greater Eurasia” project – is,
of course, open for Europe, and I am convinced that such
cooperation may be mutually beneficial. Despite all of the well-known
problems in our relations, the European Union remains Russia’s key
trade and economic partner. It is our next-door neighbour and we are
not indifferent to what is happening in the lives of our
neighbours, European countries and the European economy.
The challenge
of the technological revolution and structural changes are no
less urgent for the EU than for Russia. I also understand
our European partners when they talk about the complicated decisions
for Europe that were made at the talks
on the formation of the Trans-Atlantic partnership.
Obviously, Europe has a vast potential and a stake on just
one regional association clearly narrows its opportunities. Under
the circumstances, it is difficult for Europe to maintain
balance and preserve space for a gainful manoeuvre.
As the recent meetings with
representatives of the German and French business circles have
showed, European business is willing and ready to cooperate with this
country. Politicians should meet businesses halfway by displaying wisdom,
and a far-sighted and flexible approach. We must return trust
to Russian-European relations and restore the level of our
cooperation.
We remember how it all started. Russia
did not initiate the current breakdown, disruption, problems
and sanctions. All our actions have been exclusively reciprocal. But we
don’t hold a grudge, as they say, and are ready to meet our
European partners halfway. However, this can by no means be a one-way
street.
Let me repeat that we are interested
in Europeans joining the project for a major Eurasian
partnership. In this context we welcome the initiative
of the President of Kazakhstan on holding consultations
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the EU. Yesterday we
discussed this issue at the meeting with the President
of the European Commission.
In addition, it would be possible
to resume dialogue between experts at the technical level
on a broad range of issues, such as trade, investment,
technical regulation and customs administration. In this way we could
create the groundwork for further cooperation and partnership.
Naturally, we consider it important
to continue cooperation on major research projects, such
as the ITER thermonuclear plant and the x-ray free electron
laser, to name a few. Joint efforts will allow us to seriously
increase the technological competitiveness of both Europe
and Russia. It is enough to note that in 2015 Russia invested
1.2 billion Euros in high-tech joint projects with Europe.
Colleagues,
In formulating the strategy
for Russia’s economic development, we certainly consider the current
trends in the world and intend to make use of global
technological changes, the formation of new markets
and the opportunities of integration and cooperation
to advance our own development.
Russia has managed to resolve
the most urgent current problems in the economy. We hope growth
will resume in the near future. We have maintained reserves
and substantially reduced capital drain – by five times compared
with the first quarter of 2016. Inflation is going down as well.
It has fallen almost in half if we compare several months in 2014–2015
with the same period in 2015–2016. I believe that it is possible
to bring inflation down to 4–5 percent as early
as in the mid-term perspective.
In addition, it is necessary
to gradually decrease the budget deficit and the dependence
on revenues from hydrocarbons and other raw materials. This includes
cutting our non-oil and gas deficit at least in half
in the next 5 to 7 years.
I am sure that
the Government and the Central Bank will continue their balanced
and responsible efforts to ensure macroeconomic stability. Our goal
is to achieve economic growth rates of no less than 4 percent
a year. Yes, of course, I remember what we were saying
in previous years. Today, we are talking about far more modest targets.
The objectives are not as high as were outlined only a few
years ago, but, to reiterate, the situation has changed not only
for Russia but for the entire global economy. The current
slowdown is a global trend.
A key factor that predetermines
the overall competitiveness of the economy, market dynamics, GDP
growth and higher wages is labour productivity. We need higher labour
productivity at large and medium-sized enterprises: in industry,
in the construction and the transport sectors
and in agriculture – no less than 5 percent a year. This
appears to be a challenging and even unattainable goal, if we
look at what is happening here today. At the same time, the examples
of numerous enterprises, as well as of entire manufacturing
sectors, such as the aircraft industry, the chemical industry,
pharmaceutics and agriculture, show that this goal is quite feasible
and realistic.
We will develop legislation, tax
regulators and technical standards to incentivise companies to raise
labour productivity and introduce labour and energy saving
technology. Enterprises that are ready and willing to achieve such
goals should receive broad access to financial resources, including
through development institution mechanisms such as Vnesheconombank
and the Industry Development Fund.
With the growth of labour
productivity, inefficient employment will inevitably shrink, which means we
will need to substantially increase the labour market’s flexibility,
to offer people new opportunities. We will be able to resolve this
problem primarily by creating more jobs at small
and medium-sized businesses. The number of people (what
I am going to say is very important) employed at small
and medium-sized businesses should grow from today's 18 million by at least
1.4 million by 2020 and by more than 3 million by 2025. It
will be difficult to increase support for small and medium-sized
businesses, and still harder to consistently build a niche for its
operation. But it needs to be done.
We have already taken
an important step toward that end, which has generated some initial
results. For example, large companies co-owned by the government
have tangibly increased their orders from small and medium-sized
businesses. By the end of the year – and this is,
I think, an achievement by the Government – large
companies will place 1 trillion rubles worth of orders with small
and medium-sized businesses, a nearly nine-fold increase on last
year.
High-tech industries could provide
another niche for small and medium-sized businesses. It is important
to create favourable conditions for small companies, start-ups
entering the market with breakthrough products. Finally, there is yet
another significant niche – services, the development of consumer
services, essentially creating a comfortable, supportive environment
for people living in the cities and towns of Russia.
In July, the Federal
Corporation for the Development of Small and Medium
Enterprises will launch a free online service – the Business
Navigator – containing information on promising areas
for starting a business, by region, as well as which
products and services are in demand and what financial
and property support options are available there. The government has
already started dedicated work to promote exports and has created
the Russian export hub.
Still, we need to go further,
building on the results achieved. We need to put together
a support system for export-oriented companies, which would embrace
the entire value chain from R&D and export financing to helping
companies with certification, marketing, maintenance arrangements
and generally gaining a foothold in foreign markets.
I should add that our import
replacement programme is also aimed at manufacturing goods that are
competitive on the global market. And in this sense,
I would also like to stress that import replacement is
an important stage for expanding exports in sectors other than
raw materials and finding a place for our companies
in global manufacturing and technological alliances –
and not in secondary roles, but as strong and effective
partners.
Friends, we will continue
to further liberalise and improve the business climate.
I know a great deal has been said about this at forum events
today and yesterday. We will tackle systemic problems, of which we
still have plenty. This includes improving transparency and balancing
relations between government agencies and businesses. These relations
should be built on understanding and mutual responsibility,
meticulous observance and compliance with laws and respect
for the interests of the state and society,
and the unconditional value of the institution
of private property.
It is essential to drastically
reduce illegal criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, representatives
of security and law enforcement agencies should be made personally
liable for unjustified actions leading to the destruction
of a business enterprise. I believe that this liability can be
criminal.
I realise that this is
a very sensitive issue. We cannot and should not bind our law
enforcement agencies hand and foot. However, without a doubt, there
is a need for balance here, for a firm barrier to any
abuses of power. The leadership of the Prosecutor General’s
Office, the Investigative Committee, the Interior Ministry
and the Federal Security Service should continuously monitor
the situation on the ground and, if necessary, take measures
to improve legislation.
I ask the working group
on law enforcement in entrepreneurial activity, which is headed
by Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office
Sergei Ivanov, to focus on these issues as well. I should
add that I have already submitted to parliament a package
of draft laws prepared by the working group, designed
to humanise the so-called economic statutes
[of the Criminal Code]. That said, it is also important
to guarantee businesses and all citizens the right to fair
and impartial defence in court.
The Russian judicial community
has done a good deal recently to improve the quality
of the court system. The merging of the Supreme
and the Higher Arbitration courts has played a positive role
in ensuring the uniformity of law enforcement. I believe it
is necessary to move further toward enhancing the responsibility
of judges and making the judicial process more transparent.
A major role in creating a favourable
business environment, without a doubt, belongs to Russian regions.
I know that this was discussed at forum events
in the morning, and the results of the annual
national investment climate ratings were announced. I would like
to join in congratulating the winners and remind you that
these are Tatarstan and the Belgorod and Kaluga regions.
I would also like to note the significant progress made
by the Tula, Vladimir, Tyumen, Kirov, Lipetsk and Orel regions,
and the city of Moscow.
What stands out here? Judging
by the results, a core group of leaders has already
emerged, who are invariably at the top of rankings.
The natural question is: Where are the others? I ask
the Government, in conjunction with business communities,
to consider additional mechanisms to reward the best regional
administrative teams. On the other hand, we will take serious
measures, including dismissals, with regard to regional leaders who do not
understand that business support is a major resource for regional
and national development. I would like my colleagues
in the regions, above all, regional leaders to hear me. We will
seriously analyse what is happening in this sphere in each Russian
region and discuss the issue in depth in the autumn.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have
already talked about Russia’s participation in cooperative scientific
research projects, in particular with European countries. It is essential
to add that we have a core advantages in physics, mathematics
and chemistry. As you know, recently we honoured scientists who won
the National Award, who have made brilliant breakthroughs in biology,
genetics and medicine. Russian microbiologists have developed,
for example, an effective vaccine against Ebola. National companies
are going to bring an entire line of unmanned vehicles
to the market and are working on energy distribution
and storage, and digital sea navigation systems. We have practically
put in place a technological development management system. What does
this entail and what would I like to say in this context?
First. The recently formed
Technology Development Agency will help apply current research to real
manufacturing and set up joint ventures with foreign partners.
Second. Another mechanism will be
in use starting in 2019. Major manufacturers will be made legally
bound to use the most advanced technologies meeting the highest
environmental standards. Hopefully, this will give a serious boost
to industrial modernisation. Many neighbouring countries introduced such
requirements long ago. We have had to put off these changes due
to problems in the real economic sectors, but we can’t keep
postponing it any more. Our business colleagues know this and must be
prepared.
And finally, third.
The National Technology Initiative covers projects of the future
based on technologies that will create fundamentally new markets
in a decade or two. I would like to ask
the Government to promptly remove administrative, legislative
and other obstacles blocking the development of future markets.
It is essential to back up technological development with financial
resources. Therefore, the key task facing the overhauled
Vnesheconombank will be to support long-term projects, attractive projects
in this high-tech sector.
We clearly understand that it is
people who create and use technologies. Talented researchers, qualified
engineers and workers play a crucial role in making
the national economy competitive. Therefore education is something we
should pay particular attention to in the next few years.
We are witnessing revived interest on the part
of young people in engineering and natural sciences. Russia
already holds a leading position in the world
in the number of students training to become engineers.
Professional training standards in engineering are improving. Universities
and colleges are consolidating ties with the real economy, both state
and private sectors, and the demand for future
professionals is therefore growing.
We have to continue
to upgrade the material resources of universities
and colleges, improve teachers’ qualifications, work to improve
university and college curricula in line with modern updated
professional standards and use the expertise we received when working
with the WorldSkills international movement.
Beginning with school
and extracurricular programmes, we create conditions to enable
children throughout the country to work on technical
and scientific projects, learning to work creatively
in a team from childhood. These skills are essential
to a modern specialist in practically any sphere.
Colleagues, obviously the issues
that we are facing call for new approaches toward development management,
and here we are determined to make active use
of the project principle. A presidential council
for strategic development and priority projects will be created
in the near future. It will be headed by your humble servant,
while the council presidium will be led by Prime Minister Dmitry
Medvedev.
The council will deal with key
projects aimed at effecting structural changes in the economy
and the social sphere, and increasing growth rates. I have
spoken about some of these projects today: raising labour productivity,
the business climate, support for small and medium-sized
business, and export support, among others.
These projects are comprehensive. They
span various economic sectors and social spheres, go far beyond
the competence of one agency and require the active
participation of regions and municipalities. At the same
time a project related segment will be singled out in socially
oriented state programmes, such as healthcare, education and housing,
with clearly designated targets that we plan to achieve by 2020
and by 2025, and what measures need to be taken
to achieve these results.
By the middle
of the next decade the world will obviously be a different
place. To overlook, to ignore on-going processes means to fall
by the wayside of development. To maintain leadership
positions [we] should work to make these changes happen.
This is the 20th time
St Petersburg welcomes the forum guests. During these years Russia has
made great progress, showing its ability to meet the challenges
of the times and in certain respect remain ahead
of the curve, while preserving its identity and spiritual roots,
which I consider to be extremely important. We are confidently
looking ahead, linking our future and our success to [our] openness
to the world and wide-ranging cooperation
in the interest of development.
Dear colleagues, friends, ladies
and gentlemen, I am sure that you share this approach, and we
certainly appreciate this and invite you to work together with us.
Thank you.
Thank you to all three
of you: two presidents, one prime minister, though in Italy, you are
allowed to say ”President Renzi“ also. By the format we have
agreed upon, what I will do is we will begin this discussion first with
our host president, President Putin, and then I will widen that
conversation to include Prime Minister Renzi and President
Nazarbayev. We started a little bit late, so we will go a little bit
longer.
President Putin, let me ask you
a very simple question. Since 2014, you have had European Union sanctions
and US sanctions against Russia. NATO has announced just this week that it
is going to build up forces in states that border Russia. Russia has announced
its own buildup. Are we settling into a low-grade, lower-level cold war
between the West and Russia?
Vladimir Putin: I do not want
to believe that we are moving towards another Cold War, and I am
sure nobody wants this. We certainly do not. There is no need for this.
The main logic behind international relations development is that no
matter how dramatic it might seem, it is not the logic of global
confrontation. What is the root of the problem?
I will tell you. I will have
to take you back in time. After the collapse
of the Soviet Union, we expected overall prosperity and overall
trust. Unfortunately, Russia had to face numerous challenges, speaking
in modern terms: economic, social and domestic policy. We came up
against separatism, radicalism, aggression of international terror,
because undoubtedly we were fighting against Al Qaeda militants
in the Caucasus, it is an obvious fact, and there can be no
second thoughts about it. But instead of support from our partners
in our struggle with these problems, we sadly came across something
different – support for the separatists. We were told, “We do
not accept your separatists at the top political level, only
at the technological.”
Very well. We appreciate it. But we
also saw information support, financial support and administrative backup.
Later, after we tackled those
problems, went through serious hardships, we came to face another thing.
The Soviet Union was no more; the Warsaw Pact had ceased
to exist. But for some reason, NATO continues to expand its
infrastructure towards Russia’s borders. It started long before yesterday.
Montenegro is becoming a [NATO] member. Who is threatening Montenegro? You
see, our position is being totally ignored.
Another, equally important,
or perhaps, the most important issue is the unilateral
withdrawal [of the US] from the ABM Treaty. The ABM Treaty
was once concluded between the Soviet Union and the United
States for a good reason. Two regions were allowed to stay –
Moscow and the site of US ICBM silos.
The treaty was designed
to provide a strategic balance in the world. However, they
unilaterally quit the treaty, saying in a friendly manner, “This
is not aimed against you. You want to develop your offensive arms,
and we assume it is not aimed against us.”
You know why they said so? It is
simple: nobody expected Russia in the early 2000s, when it was
struggling with its domestic problems, torn apart by internal conflicts,
political and economic problems, tortured by terrorists,
to restore its defence sector. Clearly, nobody expected us to be able
to maintain our arsenals, let alone have new strategic weapons. They
thought they would build up their missile defence forces unilaterally while our
arsenals would be shrinking.
All of this was done under
the pretext of combatting the Iranian nuclear threat. What has
become of the Iranian nuclear threat now? There is none, but
the project continues. This is the way it is, step by step, one
after another, and so on.
Then they began to support all
kinds of colour revolutions, including the so-called Arab Spring.
They fervently supported it. How many positive takes did we hear on what
was going on? What did it lead to? Chaos.
I am not interested
in laying blame now. I simply want to say that if this policy
of unilateral actions continues and if steps
in the international arena that are very sensitive
to the international community are not coordinated then such
consequences are inevitable. Conversely, if we listen to one another
and seek out a balance of interests, this will not happen. Yes,
it is a difficult process, the process of reaching agreement,
but it is the only path to acceptable solutions.
I believe that if we ensure such
cooperation, there will be no talk of a cold war. After all, since
the Arab Spring, they have already approached our borders. Why did they
have to support the coup in Ukraine? I have often spoken
about this. The internal political situation there is complicated
and the opposition that is in power now would most likely have
come to power democratically, through elections. That’s it. We would have
worked with them as we had with the government that was in power
before President Yanukovych.
But no, they had to proceed with
a coup, casualties, unleash bloodshed, a civil war, and scare
the Russian-speaking population of southeastern Ukraine
and Crimea. All for the sake of what? And after we had
to, simply had to take measures to protect certain social groups,
they began to escalate the situation, ratcheting up tensions.
In my opinion, this is being done, among other things,
to justify the existence of the North Atlantic bloc. They
need an external adversary, an external enemy – otherwise why is
this organisation necessary in the first place? There is no Warsaw
Pact, no Soviet Union –who is it directed against?
If we continue to act according
to this logic, escalating [tensions] and redoubling efforts
to scare each other, then one day it will come to a cold war.
Our logic is totally different. It is focused on cooperation and the search
for compromise. (Applause.)
Fareed Zakaria: So let me ask
you, Mr President, then what is the way out? Because I saw
an interview of yours that you did with Die Welt, the German
newspaper, in which you said, the key problem is that the Minsk
Accords have not been implemented by the Government in Ukraine,
by Kiev, the constitutional reforms. They say on the other
side that in Eastern Ukraine, the violence has not come down,
and the separatists are not restraining themselves, and they
believe Russia should help. So since neither side seems to back down, will
the sanctions just continue, will this low-grade cold war just continue?
What is the way out?
Vladimir Putin: And it is
all about people, no matter what you call them. It is about people trying
to protect their legal rights and interests, who fear repression if
these interests are not upheld at the political level.
If we look at the Minsk
agreements, there are only a few points, and we discussed them all
through the night. What was the bone of contention? What aspect
is of primary importance? And we agreed ultimately that political
solutions that ensure the security of people living in Donbass
were the priority.
What are these political solutions?
They are laid down in detail in the agreements. Constitutional
amendments that had to be adopted by the end of 2015. But
where are they? They are nowhere to be seen. The law
on a special status of these territories, which we call
“unrecognized republics”, should have been put into practice. The law has
been passed by the country’s parliament but still hasn’t come into
effect. There should have been an amnesty law. It was passed
by the Ukrainian parliament but was never signed
by the president, it has no effect.
What kind of elections are we
talking about? What sort of election process can be organised during
an anti-terrorist operation? Do any countries do that? We do not talk
about it, but does any other country hold election campaigns when
an anti-terrorist operation is taking place on its territory?
They [elections] have to be
cancelled and our work should focus on economic and humanitarian
restoration. Nothing is being done, nothing at all. Postponing these
problems over on-going violence on the frontlines is just
an excuse. What is happening in reality is that both sides are
accusing each other of opening fire. Why do you think it is separatists
who are shooting? If you ask them, they say, “It is Ukrainian government
forces, the Ukrainian army.”
One side opens fire, the other
side responds – that’s what exchanging fire means. Do you think this is
a good enough reason to delay political reforms?
On the contrary, political reforms that will constitute
the foundation of a final settlement on security are
a pressing priority.
Some things have to be done
in parallel. I agree with Mr Poroshenko that the OSCE mission
has to be reinforced to the point of authorizing OSCE
observers to carry firearms. Other things can be done to improve
security. But we cannot afford to continue putting off key political
decision by citing the lack of security in the area.
That’s it. (Applause.)
Fareed Zakaria: There are so many
areas to cover with you, Mr President, so let me go
to the Middle East, where Russia has had a forceful intervention
to bolster the Assad regime. President Assad now says that his goal
is to take back every square inch of his territory. Do you believe
that the solution in Syria is that the Assad regime should take
back and govern every square inch of Syria?
Vladimir Putin: I think that
the problems of Syria, of course, concern primarily
the anti-terrorist struggle, but there is more to it. It goes without
saying that the Syrian conflict is rooted in contradictions within
Syrian society, and President Bashar al-Assad understands this very well.
The task is not just to expand control over various territories,
although this is very important. The point is to ensure
the confidence of the entire society and trust between
different parts of this society, and to establish on this
foundation a modern and efficient government that will be trusted
by the country’s entire population. And political negotiations
are the only road to this. We have urged this more than once.
President al-Assad also spoke about this – he accepts this process.
What needs to be done today? It
is necessary to join more actively the process of forming
the new Constitution and to conduct, on this basis, future
elections, both presidential and parliamentary. When President al-Assad
was in Moscow, we spoke about this with him and he fully agreed with
this. Moreover, it is extremely important to conduct the elections
under strict international control, with the participation
of the United Nations. Yesterday we discussed this issue
in detail with Mr de Mistura and the UN Secretary-General. They
all agree with this, but we need action. We hope very much that our partners,
primarily from the United States, will work with their allies that support
the opposition to encourage constructive cooperation with
the Syrian authorities.
What do we mean by this?
In general, when I ask my colleagues: “Why are you doing this?”
they reply: “To assert the principles of democracy. President
al-Assad’s regime is not democratic and the triumph of democracy
must be ensured.” Fine. “Is democracy everywhere there?” “No, not yet but
democracy should exist in Syria.” “Ok. And how do you make society
democratic? Is it only possible to achieve this by force of arms
or simply by force?” “No, this may be done only with the help of democratic
institutions and procedures.” And what are they all about? There is
no more democratic way of forming a government than elections
on the basis of fundamental law: a Constitution that is
formulated in a clear way, that is transparent and accepted
by the overwhelming majority of society. Pass
the Constitution and hold elections on its basis. What’s bad
about this, especially if they are held under international control?
Occasionally we hear that some
countries of the region do not fully understand what democracy is. Do
we want to replace one undemocratic regime with another undemocratic one?
And if we still want to promote the principle of democracy
let’s do this by democratic means. But considering this is a complicated
process and results will not come tomorrow or the day after
tomorrow but will require time, while we still need to do something today,
I agree with the proposals of our partners, primarily our
American partners that suggest (I don’t know, maybe I’m saying too much
although, on the other hand, this US proposal is known
in the region, and the negotiators of both
sides – the government and the opposition – are
familiar with it and I consider it absolutely acceptable), they suggested
considering the possibility of bringing representatives
of the opposition into existing power structures, for instance,
the Government. It is necessary to think about what powers this
Government will have.
However, it is important not
to go too far. It is necessary to proceed from the current
realities and to refrain from declaring unfeasible, unrealistic
goals. Many of our partners are saying that Assad should go. Today they
are saying no, let’s restructure governing institutions in such
and such a way, but in practical terms it will also mean his
departure. But this is also unrealistic. Therefore, it is necessary to act
carefully, step by step, gradually winning the confidence of all
sides to the conflict.
If this happens, and I think
this will happen in any event and the sooner the better, it
will be possible to go further and speak both about subsequent
elections and a final settlement. The main point is
to prevent the country’s collapse. And if things continue
to go as they are today, collapse will become inevitable.
And this is the worst-case scenario because we cannot assume that
after the country’s collapse some quasi-state formations will co-exist
in peace and harmony. No, this will be a destabilising factor
for the region and the rest of the world.
Fareed Zakaria: Let
me ask you, Mr President, about another democracy that is having a very
different kind of drama. You made some comments about the American
Republican presumptive nominee, Donald Trump. You called him brilliant,
outstanding, talented. These comments were reported around the world.
I was wondering, what in him led you to that judgement,
and do you still hold that judgement?
Vladimir Putin: You
are well known in our country, you personally. Not only
as a host of a major TV corporation, but also
as an intellectual. Why are you distorting everything?
The journalist in you is getting the better of the analyst.
Look, what did I say? I said in passing that Trump is
a vivid personality. Is he not? He is. I did not ascribe any other
characteristics to him. However, what I definitely note and what
I definitely welcome – and I see nothing wrong about this, just
the opposite – is that Mr Trump said that he is ready
for the full-scale restoration of Russian-US relations. What is
wrong with that? We all welcome this! Don’t you?
We never interfere
in the internal politics of other countries, especially
the United States. However, we will work with any president that
the US people vote for. Although I do not think,
by the way, that… Well, they lecture everyone on how
to live and on democracy. Now, do you really think presidential
elections there are democratic? Look, twice in US history a president
was elected by a majority of electors, but standing behind those
electors was a smaller number of voters. Is that democracy?
And when (sometimes we have debates with our colleagues; we never accuse
anyone of anything, we simply have debates) we are told: “Do not meddle
in our affairs. Mind your own business. This is how we do things,” we feel
like saying: “Well then, do not meddle in our affairs. Why do you? Put
your own house in order first.”
But,
to reiterate, indeed, this is none of our business although,
in my opinion, even prosecutors there chase international observers
away from polling stations during election campaigns. US prosecutors threaten
to jail them. However, these are their own problems; this is how they do
things and they like it. America is a great power, today perhaps
the only superpower. We accept this. We want to work with
the United States and we are prepared to. No matter how these
elections go, eventually they will take place. There will be a [new] head
of state with extensive powers. There are complicated internal political
and economic processes at work in the United States.
The world needs a powerful country like the United States,
and we also need it. But we do not need it to continuously interfere
in our affairs, telling us how to live, and preventing Europe
from building a relationship with us.
How are
the sanctions that you have mentioned affecting the United States?
In no way whatsoever. It could not care less about these sanctions because
the consequences of our actions in response have no impact
on it. They impact Europe but not the United States. Zero effect.
However, the Americans are telling their partners: “Be patient.” Why
should they? I do not understand. If they want to, let them.
Matteo, why should
they be patient? Now Matteo will explain why they should. He is
a brilliant orator, we’re seeing it now. His remarks were excellent.
I am saying this sincerely, honestly. Italy can be proud of its Prime
Minister, really. Just beautiful.
We do not lavish
praise on anybody. It’s none of our business. As Germans say,
“this is not our beer.” Because when they make their choice, we will work with
any president who has received the support of the American
people, in the hope that it will be a person who seeks
to develop relations with our country and help build a more
secure world.
Fareed Zakaria: Just
to be clear, Mr President, the word ”brilliant“ was
in the Interfax translation, I realize that other translations
might say ”bright,“ but I used the official Interfax translation. But
let me ask you about another person you have dealt with a great deal. Mr
Trump, you've never met. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
In your very long questions and answers with the Russian people,
you made a joke when somebody asked you about her – you said,
I think that the Russia idiom is, the husband and wife is
the same devil. And what it means in the English version
is, it's two sides of the same coin. What did you mean by that,
and how did she do as Secretary of State? You dealt with her
extensively.
Vladimir Putin:
I did not work with her, Lavrov did. Ask him. He is sitting here.
I was not
a foreign minister, but Sergei Lavrov was. He will soon tie [Soviet
Foreign Minister Andrei] Gromyko. (Addressing Sergei Lavrov.) How long have you
been in office?
I worked with
Bill Clinton, although for a very short time, and we had
a very good relationship. I can even say that I am grateful
to him for certain moments as I was entering the big
stage in politics. On several occasions, he showed signs
of attention, respect for me personally, as well
as for Russia. I remember this and I am grateful
to him.
About Ms Clinton.
Perhaps she has her own view on the development of Russian-US
relations. You know, there is something I would like to draw [your]
attention to, which has nothing to do with Russian-US relations
or with national politics. It is related, rather, to personnel
policy.
In my experience,
I have often seen what happens with people before they take
on a certain job and afterward. Often, you cannot recognise
them, because once they reach a new level of responsibility they
begin to talk and think differently, they even look different. We act
on the assumption that the sense of responsibility
of the US head of state, the head of the country
on which a great deal in the world depends today, that this
sense of responsibility will encourage the newly elected president
to cooperate with Russia and, I would like to repeat, build
a more secure world.
Fareed Zakaria: President
Putin, let me finally ask you one question about news reports about Russian
athletes. There are now two major investigations that have shown that Russian
athletes have engaged in doping on a massive scale,
and that there has been a systematic evasion and doctoring
of testing and lab samples. And I was just wondering what
you reaction to these reports is.
Vladimir Putin: I did
not understand what kind of programme it is – to tamper with
the samples that were collected for tests? If samples are collected
they are immediately transferred to international organisations
for storage and we have nothing to do with them. Samples are
collected and taken somewhere, to Lausanne or wherever,
I do not know where, but they are not on Russian territory. They can
be opened, re-checked, and this is what specialists are doing now.
Doping is not only
a Russian problem. It is a problem of the entire sports
world. If somebody tries to politicise something in this sphere,
I think this is a big mistake, because just like culture, for example,
sport cannot be politicised. These are the bridges that bring people,
nations and states closer together. This is the way to approach
it, not try to forge some anti-Russian or anti-whatever policy
on this basis.
As for the Russian
authorities, I can assure you, we are categorically against all doping
for several reasons. First, as a former amateur athlete,
I can tell you, and I think that the overwhelming majority
of people will agree with this: if we know there is doping, it’s not
interesting to watch the event; millions of fans lose interest
in the sport.
Second, no less
important, and maybe even most important, there is the health
of the athletes themselves. You can’t justify anything that damages
health. This is why we have combated and will continue to combat
doping in sport on the national level.
Furthermore,
as far as I know, the Prosecutor General’s Office
and the Investigative Committee have been closely looking into all
facts reported in the media, among others. Simply, this must not be
turned into a campaign, especially a campaign disparaging sport,
including Russian sport.
Next,
the third point I would like to make. There is a legal
concept that says responsibility can only be individual. Collective
responsibility cannot be imposed on all athletes or athletes
of a certain sports federation if certain individuals have been
caught doping. An entire team cannot be held responsible for those
who have committed this violation. I believe that this is
an absolutely natural, correct approach.
However, doping is
not the only problem today. There are plenty of problems
in sport. Euro 2016 is underway. I believe that less attention is
being paid to football than to brawling between fans. This is very
sad and I regret this, but here too we should always proceed from
some general criteria. To reiterate, responsibility for misconduct
should be individualised as much as possible
and the approach toward perpetrators should be the same.
Euro 2016 began
with a high-profile case: a fight between Russian and British
fans. This is absolutely outrageous. Granted, I do not know how 200
Russian fans were able to pummel several thousand Britons. I do not
understand. But in any case, law enforcement agencies should take
the same approach toward all perpetrators.
This is
the way we have organised this work and will continue to combat
doping and enforce discipline among fans. We will work with these fan
associations. I very much hope that there are plenty of intelligent,
sensible people among the fans, who really love sport and who
understand that violations do nothing to support their team but,
on the contrary, cause damage to the team
and to sport. However, a great deal has yet to be done
here, including in conjunction with our [foreign] colleagues.
I would like
to stress that there has been absolutely no support and can be absolutely
no support for violations in sport, let alone doping violations,
at the state level. We have worked and will continue
to work with all international organisations in this sphere.
<…>
Fareed Zakaria: Well,
we've had a very wide-ranging discussion, and there have been points
of disagreement, and then points of profound agreement, such
as on the quality of Kazakh-qualified women to rule
the world. President Putin, I was wondering if you may have some
closing thoughts that you could give us and then we will wrap up
the session.
Vladimir Putin: First
of all, I would like to thank all those who came to St
Petersburg.
I would like
to thank our moderator. I think we have had a very lively
discussion. We agree on some points and disagree on others but
there are still more things that unite us – this is absolutely clear.
Our Italian friend
scared me a bit toward the end by saying that unless it changes,
Europe will be no more. This sounds alarming, but to be honest,
I don’t think it’s the case – after all, Europe is Europe.
The foundations of its economy don’t give us reason to believe
that Europe will come to an end at any point, no matter what
internal processes are playing out. It is our leading trade and economic
partner. It is clear that European leaders want to gain some momentum,
just like we in Russia certainly want to do the same.
In my speech I described how we are going to achieve this.
You know, it is so
symptomatic that today we have here the leader of a European
country (and one that is developing fairly rapidly) – Italy,
and the leader of Kazakhstan – our closest partner
and ally with which we are building an integration association. Today
we have gathered everyone together. This is symptomatic because we must focus
our attention on joining forces for the sake of development
if we want to achieve it.
For its part,
Russia will do everything to follow this very road, actively developing
at home and remaining open to cooperation with all of our
partners.
Many thanks
to all of you and best of luck.
0000
No comments:
Post a Comment