Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very
much, Mr President. I would like to ask you to clarify
something. You mentioned science and technology as perhaps
the most crucial factor today. Yet even we, the current living
generations, remember outbursts of euphoria over the importance
of technology, and later that euphoria faded somehow and it
became clear that what has always been, the fundamentals – territory,
demography – are still eternal, and while technologies are adapted
somehow, the fundamentals remain most crucial.
Why do you think it has
the potential now to be a game changer?
Vladimir Putin: The things
you mentioned do remain eternal, fundamental values. It is no accident that the Torah
calls giving up territory a great sin. Both territory
and the wealth of the land, people – those all remain
the most crucial factors.
But today there has been
a qualitative change. The rate of change is so high. Mr Gref
must have told you (he can tell such tales till dawn) that it is becoming plain
to see – science and technology is becoming the decisive
factor in the area of military security and international
politics. Everything is happening so fast, and the changes are
irreversible.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.
I give the floor
to Hamid Karzai, who ruled Afghanistan for 10 years. Afghanistan is
involved in the ongoing processes, however, unfortunately it is
trying to deal mostly with the problems of the past centuries
rather than those of the 21st century.
You have a wealth of unique
experience indeed. Mr President, the floor is yours.
Hamid Karzai: Your Excellency,
Vladimir Putin, the honourable President of Russia, honoured
colleagues on the podium, ladies and gentlemen,
It is such a tremendous honour
for me to be among you all today here. I have participated
in the deliberations and discussions in the past two
days. I have been to many such occasions in the past 15
years. This is among the best. And I hope Mr Bystritsky can
invite me again next year.
Mr President, ladies
and gentlemen. The Valdai Discussion Club has raised an issue
of creative destruction: will a better world emerge from
the current conflicts? Well, I am from a very small country with
very limited means. But somehow our location in the past three
centuries has thrown us in the middle of the greatest
of games. And we have been the centre of those games
for good or for worse.
And from my point
of view and from the point of view of the Afghan
discussion of creative destruction, I would rather use in our
case the phrase used by the tsarist foreign minister
of Russia at the time, Count Karl Nesselrode. He called
the great game of the time a tournament of shadows.
When you saw the game at play, you saw shadows but you did not see
the actual hands behind unless you looked closer and deeper.
Afghanistan has gone through
the tournament of shadows in the past two centuries
at least. In the 19th century that Nesselrode called
the tournament of shadows between Great Britain
and the Russian Empire, Afghanistan was in the middle. We
played both sides. But the British happened to be a bit more
clever than the Afghans and we lost part of our territory.
And then in the 20th
century, with the rise of the Soviet Union as our neighbour
and as a great power, from 1919 to 1979 Afghanistan saw
the greatest period of its stability on account of having
us balanced the Soviet Union and the United States properly.
Of course, we were more reliant on the Soviet Union, much closer
to the Soviet Union, but also did shake hands in a warm way
with the United States and allowed them to come
and participate in the building of our country. With
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Afghanistan became the hot
spot of the Cold War, or the war turned hot
on Afghanistan at the time.
It is this specific period
of the Afghan resistance against the former Soviet Union that
has left us with tremendous legacies, terrible legacies. While,
on the one hand, the Soviet Union was trying to impose
Communism on Afghanistan, as His Excellency Mr President referred
to the Rogerwood, those who were helping the Afghan resistance,
the Americans and their allies and our neighbours, especially
Pakistan, they tried to use the Afghan resistance, which we were
doing for our liberation, to defeat the Soviet Union through
the use of religious radicalism.
So the arrival of those
extremist elements into Afghanistan, the import of those elements
into Afghanistan and the massive destruction that they tried
to cause to the Afghan society, our tradition and culture…
We were a Muslim country, a deeply believing Muslim country. But we
were a moderate country, never an extremist country. We still are
a moderate country. But the US and its allies tried to turn
us into an extremist country in order to use religion to defeat
the Soviet Union. So they would call our resistance
to the Soviet Union as the Americans would fight
to the last Afghan with the Soviets.
At the end of that
conflict, there were only two losers who were before that close friends,
the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. We both suffered badly, Afghanistan
much more so. And we see the consequences even today. The United
States for a while became the sole super power –
or as they wish, the hyper power. Europe did better. Pakistan
did much-much better. It became a nuclear power and got all
intelligence tools that they needed. Afghanistan suffered and continues
to suffer today.
The tragedy
of September 11 suddenly brought us once again into the very
centre of the world. The US after that tragedy, with
the backing of the United Nations, with the backing
of Russia, with the backing of China, with the backing
of our neighbours Iran and India, and also in a way
of Pakistan, and the rest of the international
community, intervened in Afghanistan. That intervention in the initial
stages succeeded dramatically and most efficiently. Not because
of the military might of the United States –
I must note this point. Not because of the, what are those planes
called? F-52s? M-52s? B-52s. Not because of those planes, not because
of the military might of the United States, but because
the Afghan people cooperated, it was the first time in our
history that the Afghan people cooperated with an invading force,
with an arriving foreign force. It was for that that success came
within a month and a half.
I do not want to go into
the lengths of that. I just want to give you a small
story of how I was personally involved.
When the US just arrived,
I was in central Afghanistan in the place called Tarinkot
in the Oruzgan Province. It was the month of Ramadan.
I was having Iftar, or dinner with some colleagues.
And suddenly, somebody came to say that the Americans who
arrived that night in Tarinkot, a group of fourteen
of them, the CIA and the military together, they wanted
to see me. As they came in, the man sitting with me was
narrating a story, telling me how, while chasing the Taliban,
the US planes had accidentally bombed his house, in which he lost
three or four of his grandchildren and a daughter. So
I was embarrassed. I did not know if I should invite
the Americans when this man had suffered so much. I asked them,
“Gentlemen, should I invite the Americans?” He said, “Yes, please,
by all means, bring them in.” So I invited the Americans. They
came in, a colonel and a CIA officer, who later became
the Deputy Chief of the CIA, recently retired. When they sat,
I told them that this was what had happened to this man and he
lost his family in their bombings. And then that man stopped me
and said, “No, tell them that I have three, four more children. If
in the liberation of Afghanistan I lose the other
three children and grandchildren of mine, I will not mind.
I want my country liberated.” It was the kind of enthusiasm
that they had.
And for a number
of years, we did very well. Education, health services, democratic
institutions, women’s rights, their arrival on the scene
of Afghanistan – because of the support
of the Afghan people and because of the support
of all the countries present here, primarily, the big powers,
Russia, China, Iran and so on. I was taken to the United
States on a US plane. I was brought to Moscow, Mr
President, on a Russian plane. Your government may have not told you.
I came here on a Russian plane. I went to China
on a Chinese plane. The Indians provided the same facilities.
It was this massive international cooperation with the United States
and its allies that made a success.
But soon, we began to get
troubles. Extremism arrived again, violence erupted again, terrorism arrived
again. And the US did not pay attention to where it was coming
from. It began bombing Afghan villages, it began killing Afghan people, it
began putting Afghan people in prisons. And the more they did
the more we had extremism.
Today, I am one
of the greatest critics of the US policy
in Afghanistan. Not because I am anti-Western, I am a very
Western person. My education is Western, my ideas are Western.
I am very democratic in my inner instincts. And I love
their culture. But I am against the US policy because it is not
succeeding. It is causing us immense trouble and the rise
of extremism and radicalism and terrorism. I am against
the US policy because on their watch, under their total control
of the Afghan air space, the Afghan intelligence
and the Afghan military, of all that they have, that super
power, there is Daesh in Afghanistan. How come Daesh emerged in Afghanistan
14–15 years after the US presence in Afghanistan with that mass
of resources and money and expenditure? Why is the world
not as cooperative with America in Afghanistan today as it was
before? How come Russia now has doubts about the intentions
of the US in Afghanistan or the result of its work
in Afghanistan? How come China does not view it the same way? How
come Iran has immense difficulty with the way things are conducted
in Afghanistan?
Therefore, as an Afghan
in the middle of this great game, I propose to our
ally, the United States, the following: we will all succeed if you
tell us that you have failed. We would understand. Russia would understand,
China would understand. Iran, Pakistan, everybody would understand. India would
understand. We have our Indian friends there. We see all signs of failure
there, but if you do not tell us you failed, what is this, a game?
Of course, we are not going
to play the game of extremism there. That is why many people are
asking in Afghanistan and elsewhere whether extremism
and terrorism is a tool and a pretext,
as the honourable President mentioned earlier. Are we really fighting
extremism or are we pretending to be fighting extremism? And are
we defending our interests at any cost? This is something that I have
been facing for years in my deliberations and talks with
our colleagues around.
My proposal today is, Mr
President, ladies and gentlemen, that in order for us,
the international community, with Afghanistan as a place where
we have immense suffering… just today we had nearly 50 of our soldiers killed.
Yesterday, we had 70 killed. And in the past two days
the country has lost 300 people, young men, who have wives
and children, who are all very young.
The way forward is this:
the United States of America in Afghanistan must begin
to re-engage in a new contact with Afghan people. Two:
the United States in Afghanistan must begin to re-engage with
our neighbours and big powers of the world – that means our
neighbours, that means China, that means Russia, that means India –
on a clear, transparent platform of objectives. And with
this in mind, the international community must support
the Afghan mechanism for the resolution
of the problems that we have.
The Afghan mechanism today,
the best available, is the Grand Council of Afghan People
or the Loya Jirga. Your support of this mechanism
and the coming together of the international community
and really giving Afghanistan the opportunity to own its
processes for peace and political development are going to free
us from this curse of extremism. Pakistan, our neighbour, has
a tremendous role here to play. I wish Pakistan participated
in a very civilised dialogue with the Afghan people. Use
of extremism, the exploitation of extremism is no solution. It
causes trouble for all.
With this, I hope, since
the President of Russia is here and we expect a lot
of Russia as a neighbour, as an old friend
and historical ally, to engage more formidably with the United
States and the West on Afghanistan and to lend
a supporting hand to the Afghan people to initiate their
own mechanisms for the resolution of the problems we have.
And please do send your
businesses and investors to Afghanistan. We are too close to you
not to have your businesses in our country.
Thank you very much.
Fydor Lukyanov: Thank you, Mr
President. You have brought us back to more practical current topics.
I have only one small question for you. I hope you have
a short answer to it.
You have said that you have
democratic instincts in general. Could that be your problem? We often talk
in the Valdai Club about democracy as a great form
of government but in the modern world, it often comes across
many difficulties and sometimes produces the opposite effect. Maybe
democracy is not what Afghanistan needs? Maybe you should try something else?
Hamid Karzai: We are, as the Americans
would say, a hell of a democratic country. Because,
as I told you yesterday, each Afghan is a king to himself.
We are a very egalitarian country. And egalitarianism gives you the foundations
of debate. But it must be our own. It cannot be – I must say
this, I am sorry, I do not like to mention this but I must
say this – it cannot be John Kerry’s democracy. It has to be ours. He
should not come to us to count our votes or to assign the number
of votes to this or that candidate. When it is our democracy,
when we practice it the way we are, according to our tradition, it
works. So, as the Chinese would say, we must choose our own model
of development. And that is the right course.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you very
much.
Vladimir Putin: Actually, John
is bad at counting. The process takes him two or three months,
so there is no result yet. (Laughter)
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, we can do
this much better.
Vladimir Putin: He is
a good guy, but maths do not seem to be his strong point.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you. We
look at the essence of democracy. We know that democracy goes
hand in hand with a market economy, which has become global
in the 21st century.
We are glad that our meeting is being
attended by a person who looks at the world from
a different perspective. He is Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba
Group. If you please.
Jack Ma: Mr. President Putin,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my great honour to be
invited. I was sitting there thinking why I should have been invited
earlier. When I hear so many worries and fears that makes me feel
that I am a very happy person because I do not have that much
to worry about. I know I have a lot to worry about,
but I do not have to worry as much as the Presidents
have to worry about.
I was born in 1960s,
in a country, China, full of Soviet movies, and stories
and sounds. So I think Russia and China share a lot
of similarities. Both countries came from a lot of problems,
and came from a lot of suspicion. But every time I come
to Russia, I feel more and more confidence in Russia,
especially this time in Moscow. I spent three days walking around
and looking around. I see that the city is getting cleaner.
There is more order and, of course, more traffic. This is why we think
that Alibaba should join forces with the development of Russia.
Yesterday I went to Moscow
University, and I had a wonderful time with the young
people, the talents there. I see their anxiety, and I see
their creativity and the imagination the young people have
in Russia. I think Alibaba should have the great opportunity
to work with Russian young scientists, engineers, to develop
something that is good for the future, for tomorrow.
Last year, I flew
in the air for 867 hours, and I have been to many
countries. I feel that the world is full of worries
and fears. The area I worry about, an area a lot
of people worry about, is technology. I think when we worry about
technology, and worry that the technology will destroy our future,
I think that if we have more imagination, if we have more confidence, we
will feel much better.
In 1995, when I started
my internet business in China, I was invited to join
a group of experts, IT Expert Discussion, in Beijing, about 30
people. We sat in a room discussing how terrible the internet
will be, what are the things we should worry about, any policy we should
make. We had a whole night discussing the worries about
the internet. Today, twenty years past, those things we worried about
never came up. Those things we never worried about all came up.
I am very thankful
for those worries, because this gave Alibaba opportunity. We did not have
a lot of smart competitors join us. We grew so fast over
the past 18 years, today we create more than 33 million jobs
for China, and we ourselves made last year over $550 billion. Where
other people worry, we try to figure out the way how to solve
the worries.
Today, many things have changed, but
people still worry about internet. They even worry more. It reminds me
of the yearly days when people worried about cars, when automobiles
were designed. People worried more about car accidents, rather the great
things that the car would bring to human lives. I noticed that
people worry about data, about privacy, people worry about security.
I think that the worst thing we should worry about is the worry
itself. A lot of countries, because of worry, they lose
a lot of things. In Europe today, we do not see a lot
of big internet companies. One of the reasons is that they worry
too much, I think. The worry will stop us from being more creative,
being more confident, and stop young people from getting more
opportunities. We do not have solutions for the future, but there are
solutions for the future. We do not have solutions for tomorrow,
but our young people will have solutions for tomorrow.
Yesterday, when I saw young
people at Moscow University, I know they are trying their best.
I think they will have solutions for the future. So trust
the young people, trust our future. Young people never worry about their
future. In all the universities I go to, everyone I speak
to, people never worry about the future. They worry about us. They worry
about stupid decisions we make for them. Most of the stupid
policy decisions we made are all out of great intentions, and are
taken with kindness. This is something the young people worry about.
I have been working in Alibaba. We have 60,000 great, excellent young
people from all over the world. In order to lead them,
to lead those smart people, they need a stupid leader like me. They
need to stay foolish, stay optimistic, and always try to find
solutions for tomorrow. This is how I work with smart people.
Today the world has 1.8 billion
people using internet. They speak, they check information, they communicate,
and do all those things you can do through the internet. But they are
not happy, because today young people do not want to be informed, they
want to get involved. My grandfather got all the information
through a newspaper. My father got information through
the radio. I got my information from TV. We were all told
to do this. But the internet gives young people the opportunity
to get involved. They want to be the masters of themselves.
Very soon, we are going to have four to five billion people
on the internet. All the problems we have today will become
bigger problems, if we do not see this with great optimism.
The other thing I wanted to say
is that if there is something we should really worry about, is we should worry
about the education system. Whether you like or do not like it,
the technology revolution is coming. Nobody can stop it. But the way
we teach our kids, the curriculums we teach our kids, the subjects we
teach our kids, will stop our kids from getting jobs. Because one thing is
sure: the computer is going to be much smarter than human beings. If
we keep on teaching our kids the way we taught over the past one
hundred years, our kids will be losing jobs or will not be able
to find jobs over the next thirty years. Computers can remember
better, computers can calculate better, computers never have this kind
of human anguish. This is something we should teach our kids: to be
more creative. We should teach our kids to be more innovative. We should
teach our kids to be more constructive.
I want every government
to pay special attention to the education system over
the next 30 years. We worry about data technology, but data technology is
something that might be the solution to solve the world’s
sustainability, solve the world problem of inclusiveness. We are
entering into a new world, but very few people really understand how
powerful it is, how revolutionary it is. If you do not think positively, you
will not have a positive result. If you think negative, you will surely
have a negative result. Today we worry, we feel pain about
the internet. But I would tell you: we are not even entering
the growing pain of internet technology. Every technology takes about
fifty years. The first twenty years is about internet technology
companies. The next thirty years is about the application
of this technology. The next thirty years will be the years when
the technology of those companies will be used to do good.
The car was not invented in America, but America made use of it.
Electricity was not invented in America, but America used it.
People talk about the digital
time, and IT time. I would say, the world is shifting from IT
to DT. DT is not the Digital Time. It is Data Time. Digital Time is
the upgraded version of IT Time. DT is totally different from IT.
I do not have time to explain it. Someday we will have a better
time to discuss it.
Data Time is a new theory. Data
technology is the solution to solve a lot of problems we
have today. For example, people worry about privacy, people worry about
security. We use data to use internet technology, to use internet
financing. We have given loans to over five million small businesses.
Every small business gets a loan from us of less than $5,000.
The procedure is 3–1–0. They apply within three minutes. Within one second
the money will be on the account, and zero people touch it.
So the 3–1–0 approach solves a lot of problems
for increasing financing. This is what data brings us. IT technology makes
us strong. DT technology is to empower the others. With IT
technology, we compete with knowledge. With DT technology, we compete with
wisdom. IT technology we compete with muscle. DT technology – we compete
with brain. IT makes us know the world better. DT will know the human
being better.
People always say, what is
the difference between smart and wise? Smart people know what they
want. Wise people know what they do not want. This is what we believe. DT is
the human behaviour. By learning the behaviours, we will
understand ourselves better. When we understand ourselves better, we will know
what we do not want. I believe that the world has a lot
of worries and a lot of problems, because we want too much.
A lot of things we want, we get, but actually we do not want them.
In the IT Time, 20 percent of the countries succeed,
and 80 percent of the countries do not have a chance. IT is
20/80, but DT is 80/20. We have to care for those 80 percent
of the countries, developing countries, young people, and small
businesses. We should ensure that the technology is inclusive.
About globalisation, I think
globalisation has nothing wrong. But globalisation today is not perfect. It is
only a baby. One thousand years ago, global trade was determined
by a few kings and queens. The last thirty or forty
years, globalisation benefited only 60,000 big companies. What if we can
support 60 million small and medium-sized companies that can grow global
trade? What if we can help young people so that they can buy, sell, pay,
deliver and travel globally?
We think that over the last
century, massive, large-scale standardisation is the key. This century,
with personal-made, with small and medium-sized companies we may have
a lot of things that are different. I want to say that with
DT Time, the world will be different. We can make the world more
fair. We will make the technology to empower more young people, more
small businesses. Our businesses grow, because we support using technology,
support young people only, we support SME only. Globalisation can never be
stopped, because the world is movable.
The other thing is that we
should never stop trade. When trade stops, war starts. Trade is something
to build trust. When we build trade, we respect the other culture.
When we do trade, it means that we appreciate the other culture. So we
should encourage more trade. We should encourage more young people, small
and big business to engage across the board. I think that
the world needs not only a G20, we also need a G200.
The world should not only have a B20, but also a B200.
Of course, the way we do
trade will be totally different. We are not going to do trade going
to trade shows, trade fairs. Most of the business will be done
on the internet. In the future, the trade will not be
done through containers. Trade will be done through packages.
In the future business will not be B2C. In the future,
the business will be C2B. This is what we believe. We think
in the future there will be no Made in China, no Made
in America, no Made in Russia. It is going to be Made
in internet. You can design here, transport there, manufacture
in this country. The thing is that we should not worry that trade
will stop. We should worry about what kind of policies we should use
to encourage global trade. With what kind of policies we can
encourage young people, small businesses?
Finally, I want to say that
DT technology will kill a lot of jobs. But most of these jobs
are stupid jobs. These jobs are not supposed to be done by computers,
are not supposed to be done by human beings. Over the past one
hundred years, we made people like a machine. Now we make machines like
people. But the right way to do it is to make over the next
ten-twenty years a machine like a machine and people like
people. A machine will never be able to conquer human beings.
Machines are smart, machines are stronger and faster, but a machine
does not have a soul, does not have values, does not have a belief
that people have. So we should not make a machine think like a human
being. We should make a machine learn like human beings.
This is what I want finally
to say: technology is scary. The first technology revolution caused
World War I. The second technology revolution caused, directly
or indirectly, World War II. Now we are in the third technology
revolution. What if a Third World War? If the human beings do not
have the same enemy, we will fight among ourselves. The enemy should
be poverty, the enemy should be environment, the enemy should be
disease. I think that all those countries: China, Russia, USA, European,
should share the technology, unite together to fight this war,
and this is the war that, if we fight it together, young people will
be much happier.
Finally, the bad news is that we
are entering into a world that we do not know. The good news is no
one knows. Please pay special attention to the next thirty years.
Please, pay special attention to those people who are below 30 years old,
because they might be the leaders of tomorrow. They are
the challengers, they are the changers. Please, pay attention
to those companies who have less than 30 employees. If we pay attention
to small, and small is powerful, small is beautiful, and if we
pay attention to the young people, small businesses, I think
that the world economy could be much more sustainable.
Thank you very much.
Fyodor Lukyanov: So, this is
the source of optimism. I love business, it makes things
simpler. It shows that anything is possible. It is nice when a person
believes and is certain that there is a solution for everything.
I have no questions, because everything has become clear to me.
We need to balance our
discussion again so the last person to speak will be Mr Asle Toje
from the expert community. I hope you will bring a few shadows
back to our discussion.
Asle Toje: I will
certainly do my very best. First of all, I would like
to say that I am honoured to be here at this panel,
representing, what I gather, is the academics, alongside the representative,
the leader of a great power, the former leader
of a small power and a titan of industry.
I would like to take this
opportunity initially to thank the organisers of this Valdai
Forum, the discussion club. You have done a great job,
and the four days that have passed have been inspiring, and it’s
given us a chance to get to know the Russian perspectives,
but also to be discussing our common global challenges
in the most forthright manner.
Then, to the matter
at hand. Human history, my friends, is characterised
by prolonged periods of stability being interrupted by short
sharp shocks, and those shocks are often associated with war, creating
creativity, but, let us be honest, mostly destruction. The most dangerous
moments in international politics, political science teaches us, occur
when a rising power is about to change places with
an established power. The established power will then grow less
inclined to uphold the rules of the system that it has
created, being disappointed that it has allowed other actors to grow
powerful within it. The rising powers, on the other hand, are
frequently less unhappy about the established system, feeling that it has
been weighed so as to prolong the dominance
of the established powers, and this is frequently true, all
sides of it.
What happens, according
to scholars, such as Robert Gilpin, is that
as the international community grows less certain about
the established powers’ willingness to police the system, this
can encourage risky behaviour, uncertainty, insecurity. Recently there has been
a book making the rounds called The Thucydides Trap. Those
of you not familiar with Thucydides, it is a Greek thinker who wrote
about the Peloponnesian wars, and explained that wars that broke out
between Athens and Sparta, and the wars at the rise
of Athens, and the fears that this created in Sparta made
war unavoidable. Graham Allison, who wrote the book The Thucydides
Trap, he has examined 15 cases of power transition that has taken place
in the 15th century, and what he found, he said,
in 12 out of 16 cases, the established, the incumbent power
and the rising power have ended up in war, and, therefore, this
should really focus our minds, because we are living through a period
of power transition right now.
Over the years there has been
much discussion about the world becoming multipolar. I do not really
believe in that. Frankly, if anything, the world is becoming more
bipolar. The United States is still, by far, the most powerful
actor in the international system, although China and its
economy is growing so quickly that if it has not already surpassed
the American economy, it will do so in the short to medium
term, it depends on what measures one chooses. China is no match
for the United States militarily, but Russia has still got one
of the most awesome military arsenals, especially nuclear weapons,
of any state in the world. And we have seen, well,
in accordance, it is predictable when you look at the balance
of power theory, the rapprochement between China and Russia,
these two states sticking closer together. This is going to provide
a great challenge to the United States and how
the United States and the West meet this challenge, will
determine how we will live, and if we will live, in the years
to come.
I think the West has had
great difficulties dealing with the rise of challengers. I would
like to remind you that the West was never so powerful as it
were in the years immediately after the Cold War. During
the Cold War the West had developed, you know, to use
a medical expression, a blood circulation system, a nervous
system from institutions that allow a permanent flow of humans,
capital, ideas, merchandise, which became the beginning
of globalisation. And many in the West saw globalisation
as westernisation, and it has come as somewhat
of a negative surprise that other actors have taken aspects
of globalisation and made it their own, and have been very
successful in doing so.
Therefore, in the West,
the current times are often seen as a time of uncertainty
and fears. I think it was very well pointed out in the last
presentation, this agonising over the future, and we often forget
that for many others, especially on the Eurasian continent, this
is a golden era, and in the Eurasian continent we’re seeing
a lot of power accumulating, we’re seeing roads, cities, train
networks snaking through the post-Soviet wilderness, and creating
a fabulous amount of wealth and dynamism. And we see,
and this is also globally, that we are living through a time
of great technological progress, a time of engineering marvels
that have been unsurpassed in human history.
And at the same time, we see an international system that
is, if not a new Cold War, then certainly at a low ebb since
the end of the Cold War.
So, where the optimists,
especially the champions of business, see connectivity
and interdependence as being our future, the pessimists see
chaos, a world that is no longer governable. I think that we will
find that chaos and connectivity will coexist, and that we will have
both at the same time. I think, in the West there is
a crisis of liberalism, there is crisis of a very
particular kind of liberalism that has been met with a great amount
of public dissent in a great many countries. I do not think
liberalism is dead, but I do think that the specific form
of liberalism, the one-eyed over-certain type of liberalism so
eager to impose itself on others, has gone somewhat out
of fashion.
In Eurasia, I think, some
of the adherents to authoritarian capitalism frequently forget
that the great advantage of democracy is not unfiltered public
opinion into the realm of policy. The great strength
of democracy is independent institutions and dynamic institutions.
And I think that adherents to authoritarian democracy will find
a problem, as their countries are going through these titanic changes
where people are seeing in their own lifetimes greater changes, changes
to absolutely every single facet of their life: how they live, where
they live, what they work with, how their families operate, everything, how
they adhere to religion, everything. That is going to create
a lot of uncertainty, a lot of anguish in these
societies, and I think that the state institutions are going
to find it difficult to keep pace with the public mood. That
I think is going to be the corresponding challenge
for countries that we, in the West, at least, call
authoritarian, adherents to authoritarian capitalism.
We are now seeing a period
of greater rivalry. And let us keep in mind: competition is
good, competition is what drives humanity forward, we shouldn’t be afraid
of competition. What we should be afraid of is making enemies of each
other. The Russian President gave a comprehensive list
of Russian grievances, and, as far as I can see, many
of these grievances are legitimate, and should be taken very
seriously. And I have to say that in the West, the West
have their own list of grievances directed at Russia and other
actors. I think it might be a good idea if we put those lists away
somehow and try to cooperate better. It is quite interesting
to see that the dynamism that we see in the globalisation
of the economy has not been replicated in the dynamism
of the international institutions. Many
of the international institutions, as the Russian President
rightly pointed out, have been eroded in the last years, and we
do need to reverse that trend.
And I think that
the path forward to peace, and nobody’s going to be
surprised that I say this coming from the research wing
of the Norwegian Nobel institute, I think we can learn something
from the last will and testament of Alfred Nobel, where he
singled out three charges, three suggestions for how to foster peace.
He focuses on the importance of disarmament, the importance
of institutions and the importance of good will,
the will to work for fraternity amongst nations.
And I think, in order to achieve this, we’re going
to need statesmanship, there’s no way around it. And I think
that is my appeal and my suggestion for this panel.
Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Thank you.
I know that you have no relation
to the Nobel Committee, the organisation that awards
the Nobel Prize, but you do work at the Nobel Institute.
I cannot help but ask, now that it has been mentioned: just two weeks ago,
we learned about the new winner of the Nobel Peace Prize –
a movement that advocates a complete nuclear weapons’ ban. Forgive
me, but do you think they really believe in this utopia – that anyone
would abandon their nuclear weapons, which in some sense guarantee
stability – or is this just a gesture to indicate
the right way of thinking?
Asle Toje: Well, if it is
utopia, then Russia believes in this utopia, the United States
believes in this utopia, this has been frequently stated
in the UN, in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The established powers have committed to working
for a world without nuclear weapons. ICAN, when, and I do
not speak on the behalf of the Committee, but in their
statement the Committee said the Nobel Peace Prize had two issues
that were lifted forth. One – bringing attention
to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear war,
and I think this is something that cannot be stated too often.
The use of nuclear weapons is totally unacceptable,
and I think this is something where public opinion matters.
I think that, especially, we have been talking about the young;
I think the young need to weigh
in on the policymakers.
The second issue is that ICAN
has brought forth a new attempt, or a new path towards bringing
about a world with less, with fewer, or with no nuclear weapons. This
is one of the few new initiatives on the horizon
at a time where many of the established policies are bogged
down and are not moving at all. And I do not think anybody
should be surprised that the Norwegian Nobel Committee focuses
on nuclear weapons. No single issue has been singled out
by the Nobel Committee more often than nuclear disarmament. Ten Nobel
prizes has had this in its rationale, so nobody should be surprised.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Then I will
have to try to convince you, Mr President. If they have awarded ten
Nobel Prizes; and even in our time, our country – then
the Soviet Union – put forward the idea of a complete
ban, maybe we should return to it?
Vladimir Putin: Our colleague from
the Nobel Institute is partly right.
I you ask me whether nuclear
disarmament is possible or not, I would say, yes, it is possible.
Does Russia want universal nuclear disarmament or not? The answer is
also yes – yes, Russia wants that and will work for it. This is
the good part.
However, as always, there
are issues that make you think. Modern high-tech nuclear powers are developing
other types of weapons, with higher precision and only slightly
inferior to nuclear weapons in their destructive force. Nuclear
weapons include bombs and missiles that hit large areas, carrying
a powerful charge that affects a huge territory with the power
of both the explosion and radiation. Modern high-tech armed
forces are trying to develop and put into service high-precision
weapons, which come close to nuclear weapons in their destructive
power; not quite, but close.
I think that if we take this
seriously – I can see what is happening in the world: those
who say they are ready, are ready as much as they have progressed
in the development and deployment of new weapon systems.
I must say right away that we will be ready for this too, while
carefully following what is happening in the world, as soon
as our country has new non-nuclear weapon systems, even non-nuclear ones.
Fyodor Lukyanov: I see. Thank
you very much. Colleagues, we have come to the second part. We have
a unique opportunity to ask questions.
Dmitry Suslov,let us begin with you.
Dmitry Suslov: Mr President,
Dmitry Suslov, Higher School of Economics, Valdai Club.
I would like to carry
on with the nuclear topic, or, to be exact, to emphasise
the sector where, as I see it, there is destruction but no
creation yet. I mean arms control, first of all nuclear arms.
You were right to say that
the military and strategic situation in the world is
changing fundamentally, or has already changed. This includes
the precision-guided non-nuclear munitions, as well
as the missile and even cyber defence, which is considered
a combat sphere today. However, instead of developing a concept
of the new international strategic stability or adapting
the old rules of arms control to the new situation, we,
unfortunately, see only the destruction of the old rules without
the formulation of new ones.
You were right to say that 2002,
when the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, was like
opening Pandora’s box. Unfortunately, we have to admit that Russia is
taking part in this dismantling process, as well.
You have mentioned the plutonium
agreement, I mean the Plutonium Management and Disposition
Agreement. Last year Russia suspended it. The process has gone so far that
the 1987 INF Treaty [Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty] is
in question, and the US Congress not only allows the Trump
Administration to withdraw from it, but even approve a budget bill
that would force them to produce the intermediate-range missile.
And the extension of New START is also questionable.
It turns out that by choosing
this way we, in fact, are regressing back to the 1950s, which,
as you know, ended in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Are we ready for this situation,
taking into account the global strategic situation, which is more
difficult and complex than in the 1950s? What must Russia
and all of us do to provide for this evolutionary
transition to new strategic stability?
Vladimir Putin: We are not going
back to the 1950s. Attempts have been made to push us back
there. You have mentioned some agreements. There are three agreements
in which we have suspended our membership. Why did we do so? Because our
American partners are not doing anything.
We cannot do everything alone. We
took a unilateral decision to eliminate our chemical weapons,
and we have eliminated them, as I said in my opening
remarks. But our American partners said they would not do the same yet,
because they do not have the money for this.
They have no money? The American
mint is printing dollars, but they have no money. We found the money
to build plants for the destruction of chemical weapons.
I believe we built eight such plants, investing huge funds
in construction and in training personnel. It was a titanic
job. We are now thinking about other ways to use these facilities.
As I have said when
speaking about plutonium, we have created a scheme for turning
weapons-grade plutonium into mixed oxide fuel. It took money and effort
as well, for the matter concerns investment. We have built
a reactor and coordinated the method for destroying this
plutonium with the Americans. But then they took a unilateral step
in violation of the agreement without even notifying us
of this as partners should. How did we know this? We learned about
this from a budget submission to the Congress. They asked
for millions of dollars to finance a new utilisation method
and postponed the process for an unspecified period.
No, this is not how it should be.
Under this new American method, plutonium can be converted back
to weapons-grade. We have not withdrawn from these agreements, but we have
suspended them, expecting a normal reaction from our partners. We hope
they will resume the negotiations.
As for the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, I fully agree with you. I have said many times,
and others have too – all experts agree on this – that this
treaty was the cornerstone of international security
in the sphere of strategic arms. But no, years
of negotiations with our American friends have failed to convince
them to remain within the limits of this treaty.
Now we hear that New START does not
work either. We are not going to withdraw from it, although something may
not work with us either. This is always a part of some kind
of compromise. However, it is better to have some agreements rather
than none at all. If we understand this, we will do everything
to meet our commitments, and we will meet them.
Now back to the INF
Treaty, on medium and short-range missiles. They always said, well,
not always, but recently we have been hearing many accusations about Russia
violating this treaty by cooking up something. Maybe we would be tempted
to do just that if we had no airborne and sea-based missiles. Now we
have them. The US had such missiles, and we did not.
When we agreed to eliminate
the intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, the deal concerned
Pershing missiles, which are land-based, and our missile systems.
Incidentally, when our intermediate-
and shorter-range missiles were eliminated, our chief engineer committed
suicide, because he believed that it was betrayal of his country. This is
a tragic story; let us change it.
However, the US still has both
airborne and sea-based missiles. In fact, this was unilateral
disarmament for the Soviet side as well, but now we have both
airborne and sea-based missiles. You can see how effective the Kalibr
missiles are: from the Mediterranean Sea, from the Caspian Sea, from
the air or from submarines, whatever you wish.
Moreover, besides Kalibr, with
an operational range of 1,400 km, we have other airborne missile
systems, very powerful ones with an operational range of 4,500 km. We
believe that we have only balanced out the situation. If someone does not
like it and wishes to withdraw from the treaty,
for example, our American partners, our response would be immediate,
I would like to repeat this warning. Immediate and reciprocal.
However, we have complied and we
will comply with our old treaties, as long as our partners comply
as well.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Pyotr
Dutkevich.
Pyotr Dutkevich: Pyotr
Dutkevich, Carleton University, Canada.
Mr President, first of all,
thank you for keeping in touch with us, it is a great pleasure.
At the beginning
of October, Canada joined the Magnitsky Act. Many countries have
announced that they are ready to support this law, too. Are you not
worried about the consequences of this process? Would you mind
commenting on this fact?
Vladimir Putin:When
the situation with Magnitsky, who lost his life in prison, occurred,
I was not working in foreign policy or security. I was
Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, but, of course,
I knew what was going on, I observed and discussed this with
Dmitry Medvedev, who was the President back then. This seemed strange
and completely unexpected for us that such a tragic event,
and the death of a person whatever he was charged with is
always tragic, became the source of such political games.
What do I think about what you
have just said, about Canada joining or wanting to join,
or about somebody else wanting to do it? These are all some very
unconstructive political games over things, which are in essence not what
they look like, to be treated in such a way or to fuss
about so much. What lies underneath these events? Underneath are
the criminal activities of an entire gang led by one
particular man, I believe Browder is his name, who lived
in the Russian Federation for ten years as a tourist
and conducted activities, which were on the verge of being
illegal, by buying Russian company stock without any right to do so,
not being a Russian resident, and by moving tens and hundreds
of millions of dollars out of the country and hence
avoiding any taxes not only here but in the United States
as well.
According to open sources,
I mean American open sources, please look up Ziff Brothers,
the company Mr Browder was connected with, which has been sponsoring
the Democratic Party and, substantially less, the Republican Party
during recent years. I think the latest transfer,
in the open sources I mean, was $1,200,000
for the Democratic Party. This is how they protect themselves.
In Russia, Mr Browder was
sentenced in his absence to 9 years in prison for his scam.
However, no one is working on it. Our prosecution has already turned
to the appropriate US agencies such as the Department of Justice
and the Office of the Attorney General for certain
information so we can work together on this. However, there is simply no
response. This is just used to blow up more anti-Russian hysteria. Nobody
wants to look into the matter, into what is actually beneath it.
At the bottom of it, as usual, is crime, deception
and theft.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Rein
Muellerson.
Rein Muellerson: Thank you.
My question is to President
Putin. In your speech, you mentioned Catalonia. My observations
suggest that, normally, independence is achieved then and there, where
some major powers or at least regional players are interested
in this independence or in case no one pays attention
to this.
In your speech in March
2014 with respect to Crimea, where, by the way, I was
a month ago and I must say I really enjoyed it, you cited the advisory
opinion of the International Court on Kosovo.
The declaration of Kosovo's independence indeed violates
international law. The aerial bombings of Serbia due to Kosovo
were also in breach of international law.
It seems to me that Kosovo
opened up Pandora's box. The independence of the Kurds
in Iraq meets the aspirations of no one but the Kurds
and perhaps also the Israeli interests. However, this is not enough.
The whole of Europe and the European Union are worried
about Catalan independence. Madrid is using force, relatively moderate force,
against supporters of an independent Catalonia.
My question to you is
as follows. Apart from following the principle
of non-interference in the internal affairs of other
states, how could Russia help resolve similar conflicts so as,
on the one hand, not to encourage the “parade
of sovereignties,” while, on the other hand, helping ethnic
groups and minorities, whose aspirations are not met
by the authorities? What would be Russia's position in such
cases?
One thing I cannot help
mentioning. You spoke of the “turbulent” 90s and I recalled
how Andrei Kozyrev once told President Nixon that Russia had no national
interests, only common human interests. Nixon shook his head.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: This shows that Nixon
has a head, while Mr Kozyrev, unfortunately, has not. He has
a cranium but no head as such.
As for the “parade
of sovereignties,” as you said, and our attitude towards this…
Actually, I believe, on a global scale, the creation
of mono-ethnic states is not a panacea against possible conflicts,
but just the opposite. Because after various partitions
and sovereignties, the creation of mono-ethnic states might lead
to clashes in the fight for the realisation
of the interests of the newly established mono-ethnic
states. That is what is likely to happen.
This is why people who live
in a unified state within common boundaries have a greater
chance that their state will pursue a balanced policy. Look
at Russia. Muslims constitute nearly 10 percent of our population,
which is a lot. They are not foreigners or migrants. Russia is their
only homeland, and they see it as their homeland. What has this
encouraged us to do? I suggested that we seek observer status
at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. This influences our
domestic and foreign policies, and makes our policy better balanced
and attentive to this part of the international community.
The same is true for other countries.
As for the ruling
of the UN court, I have it. I did not cite it so
as not to waste your time. I read the ruling because
I knew that we would touch on this matter. You are experts,
and so you know everything about it. However, I would like
to remind you. On November 8, 2008, the UN General Assembly
adopted Resolution 63/3. Question: Does the unilateral declaration
of independence by Kosovo’s temporary institutions comply with
international law? This question was forwarded to the International
Court of Justice in The Hague.
On July 22, 2010, after two
years of deliberations, the Hague Court issued an Advisory
Opinion that the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted
on February 17, 2008 did not violate international law.
The court ruling concerns not just Kosovo, but also the applicability
of international law to the declaration of independence
by any part of any state in principle. In this sense, you
are absolutely right that this broad interpretation does not apply to Kosovo.
It was a ruling that opened Pandora’s box. Yes, you are absolutely right
about this. Bull’s eye.
Look at what the court
ruling of July 22, 2010, says. Paragraph 79: “The practice
of States in these latter cases does not point
to the emergence in international law of a new rule
prohibiting the making of a declaration of independence
in such cases.” Paragraph 81: “No general prohibition against unilateral
declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice
of the [UN] Security Council.” Paragraph 84: “the Court
considers that general international law contains no applicable prohibition
of declarations of independence. Accordingly, it concludes that
the declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 did not
violate general international law.” Here it is, in black and white.
How all the Western countries
pushed for it and pressurised this International Court
in the Hague! We know for certain that the US had
a written recommendation for the International Court.
The State Department wrote, “The principle of territorial
integrity does not exclude the establishment of new states
in the territory of existing states.” Below: “Declarations
of independence can (and often do) violate domestic legislation.
However, this does not mean that it is a violation of international
law.” Further, “In many cases, including Kosovo, the circumstances
of the Declaration of Independence can mean fundamental respect
of international law on the part of the new state.”
Germany: “This is a matter
of peoples’ right to self-determination. International law pertaining
to the territorial integrity of states does not apply
to such peoples.” They decided to declare independence, well, good
for them. And the integrity principles do not apply to this
state.
The United Kingdom: “Secession,
or the declaration of independence, does not contradict
international law in itself.”
France: “It (international law) does
not allow, but does not forbid it (secession or separation)
in general.” So here you are.
Then there was the reaction
to this Court ruling. Here is what Ms Clinton wrote (somebody may have
worked with her) after the ruling: “Kosovo is an independent state,
and its territory is inviolable. We call on all states not
to become overly focused on Kosovo’s status and make their own
constructive contribution to supporting peace and stability
in the Balkans. We urge the countries that have not yet
recognised Kosovo to do so.”
Germany: “The consultative
ruling of the International Court confirms our legal assessment
of the legitimacy of Kosovo’s declaration of independence.
It reinforces our opinion that the independence and territorial
integrity of the Republic of Kosovo are undeniable.”
France: “The independence
of Kosovo is irreversible. The ruling of the International
Court, which terminated the legal debates on the matter, has
become a milestone and will allow all parties to dedicate
themselves to other important issues to be resolved.”
Now, “other important issues” have
arisen today, and today, when these “other important issues” have arisen,
including in Catalonia, nobody likes it. Nobody! This is exactly what
I called double standards. This example is the Pandora’s box that has
been opened, and the genie that was let out of the bottle.
What is our position on this
case? I said, I was saying, if you listened carefully, I was
saying that we hoped that the problem would be resolved based
on Spanish legislation and Constitution. I believe this is
the end of it. The end of it. However, of course, we
have to be careful in such issues and very sensitive
to everything that is going on. We hope that everything will be resolved
within the framework of democratic institutions and procedures;
there will be no more political prisoners and so on. However, this is
an internal issue of a country. I think this is enough.
Thank you.
Fyodor Lukyanov: For those
of you who may have forgotten, President Putin is a lawyer
by training, so debating him may be a challenge.
Margarita Simonyan [editor-in-chief
of the Russia Today television channel], please.
Margarita Simonyan: Good afternoon,
Thank you, Mr President,
for your shocking story about the American flags at our nuclear
facilities.
Mr Hamid Karzai, thank you
for your bold and honest position.
Mr Jack Ma, thank you
for the inexpensive Chinese-made ceiling lamp that I bought
on Alibaba. (Laughter)
However, if I may, I would
like to talk about issues that concern me. You may have heard that Russia
Today and Sputnik – our media working abroad – have been
subjected recently not just to pressure, but real harassment at their
place of work.
As recently as two days
ago, Hillary Clinton said that the alleged Russian interference
in the elections, for which we are primarily blamed (half
of the CIA report on this topic was about Russia Today
and Sputnik, and my name was mentioned 27 times in it) is
comparable to the 9/11 attacks.
We are required to register
as foreign agents. As we know from the media, the FBI
opened an investigation into our activities. Our journalists have come
under incredible pressure: every day they read about how they will never be
able to get a job anywhere else. Yesterday, the Foreign Office
of Great Britain chewed out deputies who continue to appear
on our broadcasts. What will happen next is anyone’s guess.
A year ago, people from
the State Department told me that they respect freedom of speech,
and as long as no restrictive measures are applied to US
media in Russia, no such measures will be applied to us. However,
these measures are being applied to us already, at a time when
huge numbers of American and other media, including Russian language
media, continue to operate in Russia. I can only praise them,
as they are doing a great job and have vast budgets that are
tens of times larger than those available to our media.
You may be surprised, but
by some criteria, such as citations in social media, Radio
Liberty ranks first among all Russian radio stations. You once joked that you
have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died. Everyone had
a good laugh back then, but in the end this is exactly how it
looks – we are in a situation where Russia is a more
democratic country than the countries that taught us democracy. Russia
maintains several positions. One of them is that our response should be
proportionate, and only such a response will force them to leave
us be. Another position is that we should turn the other cheek
and take the high road. May I ask you, what is your position
in this regard?
Vladimir Putin: First, about
the situation around our information resources, such as Russia Today
and Sputnik. Their capacity cannot compare with what our colleagues have
in the US, in Europe; they simply cannot compare. We do not have
so-called global media, mass media with global reach. This is the monopoly
of the Anglo-Saxon world, primarily the United States.
Indeed, we have been told all along
that it is absurd and even undemocratic to pressure any lawfully
functioning media outlets, to close or persecute them, to exert
pressure on journalists. There is only one democratic way to fight
things one does not like, for both the authorities
and the opposition: to express your opinion, but to express
it so vividly, colourfully and brilliantly that people would believe you
and accept your point of view, follow you and stand by you
and support your position. All the rest is undemocratic.
What we see happening around our
media now – I repeat, they are far less powerful than the US
or British media – I simply do not know how to describe
this. “Confusion” is too mild. They have turned everything upside down.
Regarding interference
or non-interference: everyone knows, the whole world knows what
the British or American media do. They directly and constantly
influence internal political processes in almost all countries. How else
are we to interpret what the media do, especially those outlets that
work in, say, the political segment of the media?
They do influence things,
of course, by expressing a certain point of view –
in this case, we are talking about Russia’s point of view.
And even so, they do not always take Russia’s point of view.
I cannot monitor them all the time, but sometimes I see what
Russia Today broadcasts. Its team includes journalists from various countries:
Americans, and British, I believe, and Germans, too. They do
excellent work. Really talented people. I sometimes marvel
at the courage and talent they possess to lay everything
out so clearly, precisely and fearlessly – my hat is off
to them. Apparently, this is the key to Russia Today
and Sputnik’s success, but it is also what they are hated for; anyway, it
has nothing to do with democracy.
Now about “turning the other
cheek.” I have already spoken about our nuclear facilities. It would seem
we have disclosed everything we have, there is nowhere else to search, so
we expected our American partners to do the same, well, at least
to show some consideration for our interests, so that we would be
full-fledged partners. As you can see, this is not the case,
and even the opposite is true: as soon as they realised
that our nuclear sector needs additional investment and modernisation,
that our missile technology is growing obsolete, that there are other
problems – aha, who would consider a weak partner? No one even talks
to them or considers their interests anymore.
Therefore, in this case, all we
can do is mirror their actions and rather quickly at that.
As soon as we see any moves that limit the activities
of our media in any way, a proportionate response will follow.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr Karzai, do
you want to add anything? Do you also have problems with foreign agents?
Hamid Karzai: Just a little
note on the media and the role of the international
media where the West is very strong. I have a good deal
of experience on that from my days in office
and subsequently. The alternative media developed by Russia
and China are closing the gap, which is very good news. I must
also tell you that I know that RT reaches lots of homes
in America. And so does CGTN. So the gap is closing.
And this alternative availability of media is good for all
of us. It is good for the Western audience and good
for our audience. So I guess we are going to better days
in terms of the free flow of information.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr Erlan Karin,
please.
Erlan Karin: Thank you.
Mr President, we met here last year
at a time when the situation in Syria, in particular
in Aleppo, had deteriorated. Early this year, we launched the Astana
process to settle the Syrian crisis. Delegates from various sides
of the conflict and representatives from the guarantor
countries – Russia, Turkey and Iran – met
for the first time for negotiations in Astana,
the capital of Kazakhstan. Since then we have achieved some results,
have held several rounds of talks and have signed a number
of documents.
How would you describe
the intermediate results of the Astana process?
One more thing. These events have
cast a new light on the crisis in the Middle East.
I am referring to the Kurdish referendum in northern Iraq,
which you have mentioned, the military operation in Kirkuk
and changes in the overall military situation in Syria.
What are the prospects for a settlement in Syria? What do
you think about the situation in the Middle East
as a whole?
Vladimir Putin: The first
thing I would like to do regarding the Syrian settlement
and the Astana process is to thank President of Kazakhstan
Nursultan Nazarbayev for making it possible for us and the other
participants of this process to meet in Astana. Kazakhstan is
not just a place where we meet; it is a very suitable venue because
Kazakhstan maintains neutrality. It does not interfere
in the complicated regional processes and is respected
as an intermediary.
I would like to note that
at a certain point President Nazarbayev took responsibility
for preventing the parties to the conflict
and the negotiations from leaving the table. It was a very
positive thing to do, and we are sincerely grateful to him
for this.
As for where this process
stands, it is gaining positive momentum. There have been ups and downs,
about which I will speak later, but overall, the process is
proceeding positively. Thanks to the stand taken by Turkey, Iran
and, of course, the Syrian Government, we were able to narrow
the gaps in the sides’ positions on the key issue
of ending the violence and creating de-escalation zones. It is
the most significant result we have achieved in Syria over
the past two years, particularly as part of the Astana process.
I have to note that other
countries, including the United States, are greatly contributing; even
though they are not participating in the talks in Astana
directly, they are influencing these processes behind the scenes. We
maintain stable cooperation with our American partners in this sphere,
on this track, even though not without disputes. However, there are more
positive than negative elements in our cooperation.
So far, we have managed to agree
on many issues, including the southern de-escalation zone, where
Israeli and Jordanian interests are also present. Of course, this
process could not have been what it is now without the positive impact
of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan,
as well as many other countries, small but important, including,
by the way, Qatar.
What are the prospects? There is
every reason to believe – I will put it cautiously – that
we will finish off the terrorists in the short term, but that is
no cause for joy, for saying that terrorism is over and done
with. Because, first, terrorism as a phenomenon is deeply
rooted – it is rooted in the injustice of today’s world,
the raw deal that many nations and ethnic and religious groups
get, and the lack of comprehensive education in entire
countries across the world. The lack of a normal, proper,
basic education is fertile soil for terrorism. Therefore, if we finish off
the pockets of terrorist resistance in Syria, this certainly
does not mean the threat to Syria, the region
and the world as a whole is gone – absolutely not.
On the contrary, you always have to stay alert.
The rough-going process between
the opposition and the government is also a source
of concern. The process is under way but is moving very sluggishly,
feebly; the parties to the conflict are very distrustful
of each other. I hope that it will be possible to overcome this.
Based on de-escalation zones, we hope to move
on to the next stage. There is an idea to call
a congress of the Syrian people, bringing together all ethnic
and religious groups, the government and the opposition.
If this could be done, also with
support from guarantor countries and even major powers outside
the region – Saudi Arabia, the United States
and Egypt – that would be the next, additional but very
important step toward a political settlement. And then perhaps toward
drafting a new Constitution, but it is still early to talk about
that. This is roughly the plan.
Fyodor Lukyanov: Mr President, will
the de-escalation zones not lead to the division of Syria?
Vladimir Putin: Such a threat
does exist, but as I said earlier, I do not want this to be
a blueprint to partitioning Syria, but on the contrary,
a situation where, once the de-escalation zones are in place,
the people who control these zones would start making contact with
Damascus, with the government.
Actually, this is what is already
happening in many places. For instance, in southern Damascus,
on a small territory controlled by the armed opposition,
people go to work in Damascus and return home every day. You
see, life is encouraging communication.
I strongly hope that this
practice will evolve in other de-escalation zones as well
and that gradually, step by step cooperation will begin
on the day-to-day level, which, in my opinion, is bound
to grow into long-term political agreements.