Plenary session of St Petersburg
International Economic Forum
Vladimir Putin made a speech
at the plenary session of the St Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
June 7, 2019
17:50
St Petersburg
03:17:33
SD
Plenary session of St Petersburg
International Economic Forum
Also took part in the SPIEF
session are President of China Xi Jinping, President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Slovakia Peter Pellegrini
and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The discussion is moderated by journalist,
RT TV Channel presenter Sophie Shevardnadze.
* * *
Sophie Shevardnadze (retranslated):
Hello, everyone,
I am Sophie Shevardnadze.
I am very glad to be able to moderate today’s plenary session,
because the St Petersburg Forum is a unique platform that brings
together businessmen, officials and leaders whose paths would never
otherwise have crossed, anywhere in the world. We meet each year
to figure out how to move the world forward.
I had the opportunity
to talk with our speakers shortly before the start. I think they
are committed to having a candid conversation. In any case,
I very much hope that we will have one today.
And now, the traditional
speeches by heads of state. Mr President, you are first.
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: Good afternoon, friends and colleagues, ladies
and gentlemen.
I am happy to welcome
to Russia all heads of state and government, all participants
in the St Petersburg International Economic Forum. We are grateful
to our guests for their attention and friendly attitude
to Russia and their willingness for joint work and business
cooperation that always rests, as business leaders know well,
on pragmatism, understanding of mutual interests and, of course,
trust in each other, frankness and clear-cut positions.
I would like to take
advantage of the SPIEF venue to tell you not only about
the goals and tasks that we in Russia have set for ourselves
but also about our views on the state of the global
economic system. For us this is not an abstract conversation, nor
an academic discussion. Russia’s development, simply by virtue
of its size, history, culture, the human potential and economic
opportunities cannot take place outside the global context, without
the correlation of the domestic, national and global
agendas.
Technically, global economic growth,
and I hope we will mostly talk about that since this is
an economic forum, has been positive in the recent period.
In 2011–2017, the global economy grew by an annual average
of 2.8 percent. In recent years, the relevant figure was
a bit over three percent. However, we believe, and countries’ leaders
and all of us must frankly admit that regrettably, despite this
growth, the existing model of economic relations is still
in crisis and this crisis is of a comprehensive nature.
Problems in this respect have been piling up throughout the past few
decades. They are more serious and larger than it seemed before.
The architecture
of the global economy has changed dramatically since the Cold
War as new markets were becoming part of the globalisation
process. The dominant model of development based
on the Western “liberal” tradition, let us call it Euro-Atlantic
for the sake of argument, began to claim not just
a global, but also a universal role.
International trade was the main
driver behind the current globalisation model. From 1991 to 2007, it
grew more than twice as fast as global GDP. This can be accounted
for by the newly opened markets of the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe, and goods pouring into these markets.
However, this period turned out to be relatively short-lived
by historical standards.
The global crisis
of 2008–2009 ensued. It not only exacerbated and revealed imbalances
and disproportions, but also showed that global growth mechanisms were
beginning to fail. Of course, the international community learned
its lesson. However, truth be told, there was not enough will or, perhaps,
courage, to sort things out and draw the corresponding
conclusions. A simplified approach prevailed whereby the global
development model was allegedly quite good and, essentially, nothing needed
to be changed since it was enough to eliminate the symptoms
and coordinate some rules and institutions in the global
economy and finance, and then everything would turn out just fine.
There were many hopes and positive expectations back then, but they
quickly vanished. Quantitative easing and other measures failed
to resolve the problems and only pushed them into
the future. I am aware that quantitative easing was discussed
at this and other forums. We at the Government
and the Presidential Executive Office never stop discussing
and debating these matters.
I will now cite data from
the World Bank and the IMF. Before the crisis
of 2008–2009, the global trade in goods and services
to global GDP ratio was constantly growing, but then the trend reversed.
It is a fact, there is no such growth anymore. The global trade
to global GDP ratio of 2008 has never been recovered. In fact,
global trade ceased to be the unconditional driver behind
the global economy. The new engine represented by state-of-the-art
technology is still being fine-tuned and not operating at full
capacity. Moreover, the global economy has entered a period
of trade wars and mounting direct or covert protectionism.
What are the sources
of the crisis in international economic relations? What
undermines trust between the world economic players? I think
the main reason is that the model of globalisation offered
in the late 20th century is increasingly at odds
with the rapidly emerging new economic reality.
In the past three decades,
the share of advanced countries in the global GDP
in purchasing power parity decreased from 58 to 40 percent.
In the G7 it dropped from 46 to 30 percent, whereas
the weight of the countries with developing markets is growing.
Such rapid development of new economies that, apart from their interests,
have their own development platforms and views on globalisation
and regional integration processes does not correlate well with
the ideas that seemed immutable relatively recently.
The previous patterns
essentially put the Western countries into an exclusive position
and we should be straight about this. These patterns gave them
an advantage and an enormous rent, thereby predetermining their
leadership. Other countries simply had to follow in their wake.
Of course, much happened and is still happening
to the accompaniment of talk about equality. I will speak
about this as well. And when this comfortable, familiar system began
to grow rickety and competition grew, ambitions
and a striving to preserve one’s domination at all costs
surged. Under the circumstances, the states that previously preached
the principles of free trade and honest and open
competition began to talk in terms of trade wars
and sanctions, and resorted to undisguised economic raids with
arms twisting, intimidation and the removal of rivals
by so-called non-market methods.
Look, there are many examples
of this. I will only mention those that concern us directly
and that are common knowledge. Take, for example,
the construction of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. I saw
in the hall our partners who work with it professionally, not only
Russians but also our friends from Europe. This project is designed
to enhance energy security in Europe and create new jobs. It
fully meets the national interests of all participants, both European
and Russian. If it did not meet these interests, we would have never seen
our European partners in it. Who could force them into this project? They
came because they were interested in it.
But this does not match
the logic and interests of those who became used
to exclusiveness and anything-goes behavior
in the framework of the existing universalist model. They
are used to letting others pay their bills; therefore, endless attempts
to torpedo this project are made. It is alarming that this destructive
practice has not only affected traditional energy, raw materials
and commodity markets but it has also leaked into new industries that are
now taking shape. Take the situation with Huawei. Attempts are being made
not just to challenge it on the global market but
to actually restrict it in an off-handed manner. Some circles
already call this “the first technological war” to break out
in the digital era.
It would appear that rapid digital
transformation and technologies that are quickly changing industries,
markets and professions, are designed to expand the horizons
for anyone who is willing and open to change. Unfortunately,
here too barriers are being built and direct bans on high-tech asset
purchases are being imposed. It has come to the point where even
the number of foreign students for certain specialties is
limited. Frankly, I find it hard to wrap my mind around this
fact. Nevertheless, this is all happening in reality. Surprising, but
true.
Monopoly is invariably about
concentrating revenue in the hands of a few
at the expense of everyone else. In this sense, attempts
to monopolise an innovation-driven technology wave
and to limit access to its fruits take the problems
of global inequality between countries and regions and within
states to a whole new level. This, as we all know, is
the main source of instability. It is not just about the level
of income or financial inequality, but fundamental differences
in opportunities for people.
In essence, an attempt is
being made to build two worlds, the gap between which is constantly
widening. In this situation, certain people have access
to the most advanced systems of education and healthcare
and modern technology, while others have few prospects or even
chances to break out of poverty, with some people balancing
on the verge of survival.
Today, more than 800 million people
around the world do not have basic access to drinking water,
and about 11 percent of the world's population is
undernourished. A system based on ever-increasing injustice will
never be stable or balanced.
Exacerbating environmental
and climatic challenges that represent a direct threat
to the socioeconomic well-being of all humankind are making
the crisis even worse. Climate and the environment have become
an objective factor in global development and a problem
fraught with large-scale shocks, including another uncontrolled surge
in migration, more instability and undermined security in key
regions of the planet. At the same time, there is
a high risk that instead of joint efforts to address
environmental and climate issues, we will run into attempts to use
this issue for unfair competition.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Today we are facing two extremes, two
possible scenarios for further development. The first is
the degeneration of the universalist globalisation model
and its turning into a parody, a caricature of itself,
where common international rules are replaced with the laws,
administrative and judicial mechanisms of one country or a group
of influential states. I state with regret that this is what
the US is doing today when it extends its jurisdiction
to the entire world. Incidentally, I spoke about this 12 years
ago. Such a model not only contradicts the logic of normal
interstate communication and the shaping realities of a complicated
multipolar world but, most importantly, it does not meet the goals
of the future.
The second scenario is
a fragmentation of the global economic space
by a policy of completely unlimited economic egoism
and a forced breakdown. But this is the road to endless
conflict, trade wars and maybe not just trade wars. Figuratively, this is
the road to the ultimate fight of all against all.
So what is the solution?
I am referring to a real solution rather than utopian
or ephemeral one. Obviously, new agreements will be needed
for drafting a more stable and fair development model. These
agreements should not only be written clearly but should also be observed
by all participants. However, I am convinced that talk about
an economic world order like this will remain wishful thinking unless we
return to the centre of the discussion, that is, notions
like sovereignty, the unconditional right of every country
to its own development road and, let me add, responsibility
for universal sustainable development, not just for one’s own
development.
What should be the subject
of discussion in terms of regulating such agreements
and such a common legal environment? Certainly not
the imposition of a single and the only correct canon
for all countries, but above all, the harmonisation of national
economic interests, principles of teamwork, competition
and cooperation between countries with their own individual development
models, peculiarities and interests. The drafting of such
principles should be carried out with maximum openness
and in the most democratic manner.
It is on this foundation that
the system of world trade should be adapted to current realities
and the efficiency of the World Trade Organisation
enhanced. Other international institutions should be filled with new meaning
and content rather than broken. It is necessary to sincerely
consider, rather than just talk about the requirements and interests
of the developing nations, including those that are upgrading their
industry, agriculture and social services. This is what equal conditions
for development is all about.
Incidentally, we suggest considering
the creation of an open, accessible data bank with the best
practices and development projects. Russia is ready to publish its
successful case studies in the social, demographic and economic
areas on an information platform, and invites other countries
and international organisations to join this initiative.
With regard to finance,
the main global institutions were created as part
of the Bretton Woods system 75 years ago. The Jamaican currency
system that replaced it in the 1970s confirmed the preference
of the US dollar but, in fact, failed to resolve
the key problems, primarily, the balance of currency relations
and trade exchanges. New economic centres have appeared since then,
the role of regional currencies has increased,
and the balance of forces and interests has changed.
Clearly, in the wake of these profound changes, international
financial organisations need to adapt and reconsider the role
of the dollar, which, as a global reserve currency, has now
become an instrument of pressure exerted by the issuing
country on the rest of the world.
Incidentally, I believe
the US financial authorities and political centres are making
a big mistake as they are undermining their own competitive edge that
appeared after the creation of the Bretton Woods system. Confidence
in the dollar is simply plummeting.
The technological development
agenda must unite countries and people, not divide them. For this, we
need fair parameters for interaction in key areas such
as high-tech services, education, technology transfer, innovative digital
economy branches and the global information space. Yes, building such
a harmonious system is certainly challenging, but this is the best
recipe for restoring mutual trust, as we have no alternative.
We need to join our efforts,
being fully cognizant of the scale of the new era’s global
challenges and our responsibility for the future. To do so,
we need to use the potential of the UN, which is
a unique organisation in terms of representation. We should
strengthen its economic institutions and use new associations like
the Group of 20 more effectively. Pending the creation
of a set of rules like this, we need to act
in accordance with the current situation and actual problems
and have a realistic understanding of what is happening
in the world.
As a first step, we
propose, speaking diplomatically, to conduct a kind
of demilitarisation of the key areas of the global
economy and trade, namely, to make the distribution
of essential items such as medicines and medical equipment
immune to trade and sanctions wars. (Applause.) Thank you very much
for your understanding. That also includes utilities and energy,
which help reduce the impact on the environment
and climate. This, as you understand, concerns areas that are crucial
for the life and health of millions, one might even say,
billions of people, our entire planet.
Colleagues,
The current global trends show
that a country’s role, its sovereignty and place
in the modern system of reference are determined by several
key factors. They are undoubtedly the ability to ensure
the safety of its citizens, to preserve its national identity
and also to contribute to the progress of world
culture. And there are at least three more factors that, in our
opinion, are of key significance. Let me expand on that.
The first factor is
a person’s wellbeing and prosperity, opportunities to discover
their talents.
The second factor is
the society’s and state’s receptiveness to sweeping
technological change.
And the third factor is
freedom of entrepreneurial initiative. Let me start with the first
item.
Russia’s GDP per capita
at purchasing power parity is about $30,000. South and Eastern
European countries are at the same level today. Our priority
for the coming years is not only to become one
of the world’s top five economies. It is ultimately not a goal
in itself but a vehicle; we have to reach and stay
at the average European level in all major parameters reflecting
the quality of life and people’s wellbeing. Given this, we have
identified national goals on the growth of the economy
and people’s incomes, decreasing poverty, increasing life expectancy,
improving education and healthcare, and preserving
the environment. The national projects we are implementing are
designed to address these tasks.
The second field is accelerated
technological development. It offers truly colossal opportunities. Our priority
is to be among the front-runners, those who use these technologies
and convert them into a real breakthrough. Thus, according
to experts, the introduction of artificial intelligence will add
1.2 percent annual growth to the global GDP. It is twice as much
as the impact from the global IT growth in the early
21stcentury. The world market of goods with AI will
increase almost 17-fold by 2024 to total around half a trillion
dollars.
Just like other leading nations,
Russia has drafted a national strategy for developing AI
technologies. It was designed by the Government along with domestic
hi-tech companies. An executive order launching this strategy will be signed
shortly. A detailed, step-by-step road map is incorporated
in the Digital Economy national programme.
Russia has capable research
potential, and a good starting point for designing the most
advanced technological solutions. And this refers not only to AI, but
also to other groups of the so called end-to-end technologies.
In this connection, I propose to our state companies
and the leading Russian private companies to partner with
the state in promoting end-to-end research and technologies.
These include, as I said, artificial intelligence and other
digital technologies. These are, of course, new materials, genome
technologies for medicine, agriculture and industry, as well
as portable sources of energy, technologies for energy transfer
and storage.
The practical results of such
a partnership should be the production and promotion
of successful breakthrough products and services both
in the domestic and foreign markets. This is an opportunity
for the state to build its powerful sovereign potential,
and for companies – a chance to enter a new
technological era. We discussed all these issues at a special meeting
in Moscow just a week ago. Following the meeting, respective
agreements will be signed shortly with Sberbank, Rostec, Rosatom, Russian
Railways and Rostelecom. A package of corresponding documents
has already been prepared. I ask our leading fuel and energy
companies – Gazprom, Rosneft, Rosseti, Transneft – to join this
work, this large-scale project. I give the Government a directive
to manage this effort.
How will the state
and large companies cooperate? Under the partnership agreement,
the companies invest in research and development, they invest
in competence centres, start-up support, training personnel
in research, management and engineering and in attracting
foreign specialists. The state, in turn, will provide financial
and tax incentives, generate demand for domestic hi-tech products,
including through government procurement, that is, it will guarantee
a market. We will keep working on this. Our Chinese friends may also
buy a bit more of our new products.
We need to fine-tune
the system of technical standards, and even introduce
a sort of experimental legal framework. An adequate
and flexible legal environment is a key issue for new
industries, and establishing it around the world brings new problems;
there are many sensitive issues both for state security
and for the interests of society and its people. But
in order to achieve results, it is critically important to speed
up the decision-making process, so I ask our colleagues from
the Government, experts, and the business community
to offer an effective mechanism for this.
New industries will require
specialists with new skills. We are moving quickly to upgrade programmes
and education content for this. As you may know, in August,
Kazan will host the WorldSkills Championships, during which,
at Russia’s initiative, the first ever competition
in the competences of the future will take place, including
machine learning and big data, composite materials technology and quantum
technologies. I wish every success to our team
and the participants in the competition.
I would like to mention
that we have created a new platform, Russia – An Ocean
of Opportunity, to encourage personal and professional growth.
It holds competitions, in which schoolchildren, young people
and people of different ages from Russia and abroad can take
part. A human resources project like this is unprecedented in scale.
It drew over 1.6 million people in 2018 and 2019 alone. We are
committed to promoting this system, to making it more effective
and transparent, because the more daring and talented people
engage in business, science and public and social
administration, the greater success we will achieve in handling
development issues and the more globally competitive our country will
be.
The third factor
in the country’s competitiveness, which was mentioned earlier, is
a favourable business environment. We are working on this
consistently and will continue to work on it. Today, if we look
at a number of services for businesses
and the quality of the most in-demand administrative
procedures, we are similar to, and in some cases even outperform,
countries with strong and deep-rooted traditions of entrepreneurship.
Healthy competition between regions
to attract entrepreneurs, investment and projects has been gaining
momentum. The efficiency of management teams has increased
a lot. A serious incentive for this change was
the development of the National Investment Climate Rankings
for the constituent regions of the Russian Federation.
In keeping with an established tradition at the St
Petersburg International Economic Forum, I would like to announce
and congratulate the winners of the 2019 National Rankings.
They are Moscow, Tatarstan, Tyumen and Kaluga regions and St
Petersburg. (Applause.) I also applaud them.
As for the pace
at which the investment climate is improving, the leaders are
Yakutia, Primorye Territory, Samara Region, Crimea and North Ossetia, Perm
Territory, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Udmurtia and Ivanovo and Novgorod
regions. I would like to take this opportunity to ask
the heads of the regions and the presidential envoys
to these federal districts to step up their work to attract
private capital to the national programmes and our other
development projects, including through the Russian Direct Investment Fund
and other modern and effective mechanisms.
As I mentioned, there are
some positive changes in the business climate, notably,
administrative procedures, but there are still urgent problems that worry
business. First, we still have to deal with the archaic nature
and obvious excesses of the oversight bodies, as well
as the unjustified and sometimes simply illegal interference
of law enforcement in the business environment,
in the operation of companies.
This year we launched a deep
and comprehensive reform of monitoring and oversight. It is
the largest reform in the post-Soviet era. Starting
January 1, 2021 the entire old, largely obsolete legal framework will
cease to operate. It will be replaced by a clear-cut system
of requirements: any duplication of government body authority should
be eliminated, grounds for random inspections or audits restricted
and a risk-based approach established.
The information service that is
to be launched this year will make it possible to objectively compare
information from oversight bodies on the one hand
and entrepreneurs on the other. Any incongruities must result
in a timely response.
As regards the relationship
between business and law enforcement, the logic of our actions
includes the further liberalisation of legislation,
the strengthening of the guarantees and rights
of ownership, the removal of even formal opportunities
for abusing the law to exert pressure on business,
and the constant cleansing of authority agencies
and the judicial system of unscrupulous personnel. More
transparency in the business environment is a major condition
for the effectiveness of this work. This is also very important,
colleagues. This year there will be a digital platform, a kind
of a digital ombudsman that entrepreneurs will be able to use
to report any illegal actions by representatives
of law-enforcement agencies. I think such openness can become
a guarantee of trust between the public, business
and the state.
Overall, we must ensure the transformation
of the government management system based on digital technology
as soon as possible. The goal is to comprehensively upgrade
the effectiveness of the performance of all government
bodies, reduce the speed and improve the quality of decision-making.
I would like to ask the Government to present
a specific plan of action in this regard in cooperation
with the regional governors. We have spoken about this many times.
Colleagues, Russia has repeatedly
carried out large-scale projects of spatial development in its
history. They have become symbols of deep and dynamic change
in the country, in its forward progress. Such comprehensive
projects are being implemented now in the South of Russia,
the Far East and in the Arctic. Today we must think about
the upsurge of the vast territories of central
and eastern Siberia. We must draft, accurately calculate
and coordinate a development plan. This macro region contains very
rich natural resources, about a quarter of all forest reserves, over
half of the coal reserves, substantial deposits of copper
and nickel, and tremendous energy reserves, many of which have
already been developed.
In addition, there are unique
opportunities for agricultural development. There are over 300 sunny days
in the Minusinsk Hollow area. This makes it possible
to establish a new powerful agro-industrial complex there
as well. Russian and foreign experts believe that up to several
trillion rubles of investment can be attracted to this macro region,
up to 3 trillion, provided, of course, that the government also
invests in the development of infrastructure, the social
sphere and housing. The development of areas in central
and eastern Siberia, not as a raw materials base, but
as a scientific and industrial centre should turn this region
into a link between the European part of Russia
and the Far East, between the markets of China,
the Asia Pacific Region and Europe, including Eastern Europe,
and attract a fresh, well-trained workforce.
I would like to ask
the Government to draft the necessary programmes
in cooperation with the expert community and the Russian
Academy of Sciences and to report back to me
in autumn.
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
Today in Russia, we have
embarked on implementing truly strategic long-term programmes, many
of which are global in nature, without exaggeration. The speed
and scale of today’s changes in the world are unprecedented
in history, and in the coming era, it is important
for us to hear each other and pool our efforts
for resolving common goals.
Friends,
Russia is ready for these
challenges and changes. We invite all of you to take part
in this large-scale and equitable cooperation. I am grateful
for your attention. Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Mr
President. You have identified very important issues, including the fact
that the existing rules do not suit anyone in today's world. We will
consider this at length during our discussions.
President Xi, your turn, please go
ahead.
President of the People’s
Republic of China Xi Jinping (retranslated): President Putin,
colleagues, guests, ladies and gentlemen, friends,
I am very pleased to attend
the St Petersburg International Economic Forum at the invitation
of President Putin. I want to sincerely thank President Putin
and our Russian friends for the warm welcome
and hospitality.
St Petersburg is Russia’s sea capital
and the internationally renowned crown jewel of the Baltic
Sea. Thanks to three centuries of tradition and its rapid
development, the city radiates the charm of classicism
and the elegance of modernity. We have a lot
of admiration for this.
Yesterday after lunch, President
Putin and I had a boat trip along the Neva River.
I was delighted by the interesting story he told me about
the history and the culture of your country and this city.
“The city on the free
Neva, the city of our labour glory…” the song that President
Putin once played on the piano clearly demonstrates the special
place that St Petersburg has in the heart of the Russian
people.
Since its foundation in 1997,
the St Petersburg International Economic Forum has never stopped expanding
and strengthening and has become a unique platform
for extensive discussions in the name of cooperation.
This year, the St Petersburg
Forum is being held under the following banner: we are setting
the agenda for sustainable development which meets the general
concerns of the international community and is of great
importance.
The modern world is undergoing
profound change, unparalleled in centuries. The growth rates
in emerging and developing economies are unprecedentedly high.
The unprecedented growth rates
and the intense competition are unfolding amid a new round
of scientific and technological revolution and industrial
transformation. The global governance systems and processes have
become disproportionate and dysfunctional as never before.
In a changing world, joint
efforts and mutually beneficial cooperation is the correct path
to follow for all countries without exception.
Globally, sustainable development is,
perhaps, the best common denominator of global cooperation.
The UN agenda for sustainable development to 2030,
in the spirit of harmonious coexistence between people
and nature, which takes into account the needs
of the current and future generations, provides a new
vision for global development. It focuses on three main interrelated
areas: economic growth, social development and the environment.
This year marks the 70th anniversary
of the People’s Republic of China. As the world's
largest developing economy and a responsible global power, China is
firmly adhering to its commitments in sustainable development
and has won widespread recognition and respect for its
successes.
China attaches particular importance
to promoting international cooperation in sustainable development.
This is corroborated by the Belt and Road initiative that
I launched in 2013, which is designed to provide mutual benefits
and universal development. This initiative is largely consonant with
the UN agenda in the area of sustainable development
to 2030 in terms of goals, principles and methodologies,
and enjoys the support of the international community.
The Second Belt and Road
Forum for International Cooperation was held successfully in Beijing
in April. The participants agreed on the high-quality
implementation of the Belt and Road initiative based
on the principle of joint discussion, joint implementation
and shared use. According to the concept of openness,
environmental friendliness and integrity, cooperation will be carried out
with high quality and for the benefit of the people
and sustainable development.
As we form the global
network of interconnectedness and partnership, we will effectively
couple the Belt and Road initiative with the sustainable
development agenda, ensure harmony between the economy, society and the environment
in the interest of green, low-carbon and sustainable
development.
Of course, we cannot do without
sincere, trustworthy and likeminded partners in international
cooperation. Russia is not only our largest neighbour
and a comprehensive strategic partner, but also one
of the most important and most prioritised partners in all
areas of cooperation.
In the spirit
of sustainable development, our countries are actively cooperating
in renewable energy, and consider scientific and technical
innovation, the digital economy and electronic commerce
as drivers in new cooperation. They also enjoy fruitful cooperation
in the protection of cross-border resources
and in managing cross-border nature reserves.
Mr Putin and I agreed
on certain aspects of integration in the Belt and Road
initiative and the EAEU. At the same time,
the initiative to jointly implement the Belt and Road
project is compliant with Mr Putin’s idea of a major Eurasia-wide
partnership. They can complement each other, which, in my opinion,
will boost regional economic integration in the interests
of common sustainable development.
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
Sustainable development is not just
a natural but also the inevitable result of the development
of production capacity and technological progress.
Most of the world’s
countries strive to achieve this. As people say, where there is
a will, there is a way. It is impossible to stop people from
striving for a better life. We are ready, together with all
of our partners, to turn statements into practical steps
and to jointly turn a new page in sustainable development.
First, it is important, through joint
efforts, to form an open and diversified global economy
in the spirit of joint implementation and common use. China
will gradually expand its openness, in particular, access to our
market, and create a favourable business environment for fair
competition. We will promote economic globalisation, as well
as a multilateral trade system, and will make efforts
to overcome irregularity and inequality in the development
of the global economy.
We are determined to create
mutually beneficial trade cooperation based on equality and mutual
trust. We will strive to achieve synergy between the Belt
and Road initiative and the UN agenda on sustainable
development until 2030, as well as reveal the potential
of the South-South Cooperation Assistance Fund,
and the UN-China Peace and Development Fund,
and to provide more opportunities for the developing
countries. China is ready to share with all our partners its technological
development and experience, in particular 5G technology, as well
as to create additional key advantages and change the model
of economic growth.
My second point is that we need
to step up efforts to build a tolerant society of universal
prosperity that puts the interests of a common person
at the forefront. Improving people’s wellbeing is the top
priority of any state. China is continuing to work hard
to eliminate poverty this year to completely move the rural
population out of poverty by 2020. More than 11 million new jobs will
have been created by the end of this year. Enormous efforts go
into vocational training, volunteering and charity, as well
as protecting the rights and interests of socially
vulnerable groups.
We are willing to step up
cooperation and exchange experience with all our partners in cutting
poverty and improving social security so that the peoples
in different countries live in prosperity and feel happy
and protected.
My third point is that we need
to adhere to the course of green development
in the name of building a beautiful home where people
and nature live in harmony. As the famous Russian writer
Dostoevsky said, beauty will save the world. Preserving the beauty
of nature for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren is
the glorious mission of our generation.
China is by no means pursuing
development at the expense of the environment. For us,
green mountains and emerald waters are untold treasures
for the sake of which we will conduct an uncompromising
struggle, including the development of green industry, renewable
energy sources, resource-saving technologies and circular economy.
In international cooperation, we
will focus more on the environment and environmental activities.
We are willing to jointly address current challenges in global
climate change and biodiversity conservation, in particular, by way
of proper implementation of the Paris Agreement.
Ladies and gentlemen, friends,
Peace and development remain
the top priorities of our time. The fates of different
nations are now closely interrelated as never before. The interests
of all countries are unprecedentedly integrated, and the trend
towards peace, development, cooperation and a win-win approach is
irreversible.
At the same time, new
problems and challenges are arising amid increasing anti-globalisation,
hegemonism and power-based politics. Once again, humanity is
at a crossroads. Sustainable development as the best way
out of the current situation overlaps with the initiative
to form humanity’s single destiny community in terms of goals and values.
They will serve as the common good for all of humankind
and the world in general.
In conjunction with all other
countries and guided by the sustainable development concept,
China will work for the benefit of the common future
of humankind, advance multilateralism, improve global governance systems,
promote sustainable peace on the planet and open a bright
and prosperous future hand in hand with other nations.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you,
President Xi.
President Radev, please.
President of Bulgaria Rumen
Radev (retranslated): Ms Shevardnadze, Messieurs Presidents
and Prime Ministers, Mr UN Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen,
First of all, I would like
to thank the organisers, primarily President Putin for his
invitation and this opportunity to take part in this prestigious
forum. It is a great honour for me to be next to President
Xi Jinping. I am happy that as a committed advocate
of multilateral diplomacy I will be able to discuss issues
of sustainable development with UN Secretary-General Guterres
and with the prime ministers of Slovakia and Armenia.
The St Petersburg forum has
asserted itself as a venue for meetings on large economies
with big politics, a platform for discussing key issues
of global development today. The participation of the President
of a 7-million strong Bulgaria, the prime ministers
of Slovakia and Armenia next to the two global leaders is
a very powerful message about the importance of one
of the strongest ideas in sustainable development, notably, that
this kind of development is made possible only through the contribution
of all states.
For me, participation is
an indication of the recognition of Bulgaria’s ability
to build bridges between different regions and cultures.
In the new millennium,
sustainable development has moved to the top
of the international agenda. In our time, some countries took
advantage of globalisation whereas others lost. Our planet is being
stifled by the super-exploitation of its riches
and enormous trade traffic.
We are seeing an increase
in population and a decrease in resources. In the digital
era, free movement of capital without clear-cut rules generates risks
for the most vulnerable societies, while overconsumption, which has
turned into a symbol of personal economic success, has already become
a threat to our common future.
The undermining
of the international legal order and the transition
to a polycentric world generate instability. The annual growth
of defence spending is a clear sign that the security
environment is not improving and that mistrust is increasing.
The pursuit of technological
supremacy designed to achieve political supremacy isolates science
in a narrow geographical framework, triggers scientific migration
and widens the gap between states, which President Putin described in detail.
Uneven growth has turned many beliefs
inside out and has given birth to a new world. Who could have
imagined 20 years ago that China would be the primary champion
of free trade while the US would push protectionism? Who could have
claimed that Europe, which had been promoting a model of tolerance,
would see neo-Nazi and nationalist movements rise up due
to the pressures of social disparities and migration?
This is the reason
I believe that sustainable development cannot be fulfilled solely
by reaching a set of economic, social and environmental
goals explicitly designed in the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development and enshrined in the European Union’s major policies
and programmes.
Coping with existing challenges
requires a comprehensive approach with a wide range
of tools – from political to cultural. A new supra-national
outlook should be bred in the planet’s residents, and while
the young already possess it, we, the politicians, still cannot
afford it since the world remains an arena of competition and conflicts
between nations.
Nevertheless, nature is sending
an imperative call to overcome the limitations of our own
egotism. Our predecessors overcame their differences and established
the post-war global order for the sake of peace. The UN
was a key to this, and they displayed this wisdom
at the onset of the Cold War.
We must do the same now;
however, this time, it should be done for the survival
of the planet and humankind. A new economic paradigm should
offset the scarcity or lack of resources with human capability
and genius. This paradigm should rely on knowledge, technology
and innovation. I am confident that it should be a green economy
rooted in the concept of open science, in a new
consumer culture, in new manufacturing ethics that should be included
in education curricula and economic strategies.
Sustainable development necessitates
more effective global security mechanisms. They should help limit the use
of unilateral actions and force and create privileged conditions
for dialogue and multilateral diplomacy, which is under pressure,
as well as prevent polarisation and radicalisation.
Sustainable development includes
the prevention of financial crises, which implies a more
accurate regulation of financial markets. Global consensus is needed
to fight corruption, which has emerged as a cross-border
phenomenon, money laundering and tax evasion, as well
as on limiting the operation of offshore jurisdictions.
I am confident that all political leaders are well aware of these
problems, and in this regard, they must show one single will.
Sustainable development is impossible
without security and social peace. Eliminating a massive famine is
not enough for true stability. That is why migration waves are not
subsiding, and the number of refugees is increasing. It is
insecurity and poverty that lead people to emigrate and that
fuel xenophobia and nationalist movements in their host countries. So
we need an effective model that can provide for security
and stability, investment in the economy, in education
and healthcare in the countries of origin of these
migration waves.
Sustainable development is impossible
without sustainable trust. I will give this example. Seventy years ago,
Bulgaria was the second country to recognise the People’s
Republic of China and establish diplomatic relations with it. Since
then, relations between our peoples have been developing in a spirit
of trust and friendship, despite the political environment. We
could even say that because the first state that recognised China no
longer exists, we could say Bulgaria was the first.
And that is why sustainable
development is not only a political and economic challenge; it is
a stage in the cultural maturation of humankind. It is
based on mutual recognition and acceptance of national culture
codes. Cultural differences have a major effect on the security
environment. When they are not identified, recognised or accepted
as something the other has a right to, they create distrust,
risks to security, and consequently, to sustainable development.
It is the lack of cultural communication that underlies
the other’s perception as an enemy.
I would like to quote
an outstanding Bulgarian revolutionary Gotse Delchev, who said more than
120 years ago: “I understand the world solely as a field
for cultural competition among the peoples.”
I am quoting this
for a reason, because my country is proud of its
contribution to the treasury of world culture. A prominent
citizen of St Petersburg, Professor Dmitry Likhachov, called
my homeland a country of spirit, because Russia inherited its
writing script from Bulgaria. Both Christian religion and Old Bulgarian
Slavonic language spread to Russia from our land. Many millennia later,
in 1878, Bulgaria gained its freedom through Russia, for which thousands
of Russian soldiers gave their lives. We Bulgarians never forget this. It
is an example of how strong cultural ties can withstand historical
trials and tribulations.
I remember another world-famous
citizen of St Petersburg – maestro Valery Gergiev, whom I have
the privilege to know personally. From Beijing through Brussels
to Washington, he asserts the power of culture, which sweeps
away borders, proving that the eternal power of art is above any
divisiveness.
During his last concert
in Sofia, the Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra gradually softened its
sound to pianissimo. Quieter and quieter, until the sounds
in the crowded room had completely subsided,
and the audience not only listened, but absorbed every sound,
as if for the first time we heard the quiet but distinct voice
of each of the 150 instruments, all at the same time.
After the concert, I asked the maestro: “How is this possible?
How could we hear and understand the quiet part
of the performance better than the louder parts?” He answered:
“Force is important. But melody and harmony are far more important.”
It may be time for us
politicians to cut the decibels, because we are still far from
the harmony that the citizens of the world expect from us;
but this is a good time for us to start listening to each
other. I think the number of people aspiring to act like
the conductor of the world orchestra is constantly growing, but
each of them comes with their own music score, often without even having
greeted the orchestra.
If we want to achieve
the sustainable development of mankind, we need to write
and establish clear rules for a five-line staff
and the notes themselves, and should write the music
together, taking into account the specifics of each individual
instrument in the orchestra. I think the platform
for such work is the United Nations. Until we begin to respect
this organisation, use its powerful potential, strengthen its means
and mechanisms, we will not be able to produce a melody –
only fragmentation, tension and conflicts.
I wish this forum success, more
harmony and the achievement of the goals set forth
in the UN 2030 Agenda.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you
very much, President Radev.
Rumen Radev: May I take
a minute, please?
I am tempted to take
advantage of this great forum and to address the world
business at the forum. I highly encourage you to come
and invest in Bulgaria. I will use just one single example,
and this example is the German-Bulgarian economic cooperation. Twenty
years ago we started from ground zero. There was nothing. Now we have thousands
of German companies operating in Bulgaria and growing
and expanding in Bulgaria. Last year we scored 8.3 billion euro trade
turnover. We exported products for 4.3 billion euro to Germany.
However, this is not food and wine, as many could expect. We produce
in Bulgaria and export to Germany high added value products:
electronics, machinery, sophisticated and complex systems
and components for all types of German cars. Our capital Sofia
is in top ten worldwide for start-up companies and IT
development. So, take your chance. Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you
very much. During our discussion you will be able to speak more
on why business should invest in Bulgaria. Thank you for your
wonderful speech.
Mr Pashinyan, you are next, please.
Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol
Pashinyan (retranslated): President Putin, President Xi Jinping,
President Radev, Prime Minister Pellegrini, Secretary-General Guterres, Ms
Shevardnadze,
I will start with traditional
words of gratitude for holding this meeting, for a chance
to share ideas on the paths of development for our
country and the challenges our government faces in reaching
these goals.
Today, Armenia is going through
a vital period in its contemporary history. Radical changes are
taking place in the country in terms of political stability
and unprecedented levels of the legitimacy
of the authorities. The ultimate goal is creating
a competitive and technologically advanced economy
and a modern society based on the universal principles
of equality, justice and rule of law.
What is the essence
of the changes? Briefly, they are aimed at raising
the efficiency of our political, state and economic
institutions.
Armenia is a land-locked country
with limited economic and natural resources, and a difficult
geographical situation from the point of view of logistics
corridors and the geopolitical peculiarities of the region.
All these issues are
in a way pushing us to constant activities to increase
competitiveness and efficiency. What does that mean to us?
First, it means increasing
the efficiency of the public administration system. I can
say with confidence that we have already managed to achieve tangible
results. The country has done away with systemic corruption and the activities
of artificial monopolies and oligopolies have been brought
to a minimum.
However, in the course
of our efforts to improve the economic and political
environment in our country, we faced a fundamental problem.
The country’s judicial authority, unlike the executive and legislative
branches, where we see major progress and the optimisation
of institutions, has not undergone any tangible transformation.
As a result, there was a huge gap in public trust
in the judiciary, and this in turn creates serious
obstacles to the country’s development as a whole.
All our efforts to protect
capital and create equal conditions for economic activity
and a favourable environment for attracting foreign investment
will not bring about the desired result if the judiciary does not undergo
a major transformation. Therefore, creating a truly independent
judiciary, free from corruption and political influence, is
a pressing problem for our society and a priority
in the Armenian government’s reform strategy.
The second point is making full
use of the potential of foreign economic ties
and participating in international integration projects.
For countries such as Armenia, the institutionalisation
of access to the centres of the global economy
and activity is very important. This primarily concerns our cooperation
with the Russian Federation and participation
in the Eurasian Economic Union.
We are committed to further
improvement of our strategic partnership with Russia
and the most productive participation in the Union.
For this purpose, we will make every effort to improve cooperation
mechanisms and maximise the integration between the members
of our association. This also applies to our CSTO membership.
I would like to emphasise
our interest in expanding the geography of the EAEU’s
foreign economic relations. China is of particular importance in this
sense. I am pleased to note that over the past month, our
bilateral relations have been rapidly advancing with that country, which plays
a key role in the global economy.
As a Eurasian Economic
Union member we think it important to establish institutional interaction
between different integration associations and projects. I believe
the idea of aligning the EAEU and the Silk Road
Economic Belt is a priority. The idea is quite logical
and rational.
I also consider the policy
of enhancing cooperation between the EAEU and the European
Union promising. I think this cooperation is quite possible and even
inevitable in the mid-term, if not in the immediate future.
Armenia has a treaty with
the EU on comprehensive and enhanced partnership which we are
set to make the best use of for designing
and implementing our reforms. The EU partnership is in no way
at variance with our Eurasian Economic Union membership; it supplements
the enriching of our opportunities with new and comparable
advantages.
Third is the maximum efficiency
of the human resource potential of the country. Our major
asset is people, and government activities pursue the creation
of conditions for the free fulfilment of the creative,
intellectual and business potential of our citizens. We are
in fact determined to turn Armenia into a paradise
for talented people.
We see Armenia’s future
in developing an innovation economy. There is no alternative
for a country like Armenia.
The technology sector is among
our priorities. In this context education gains special significance
for us. Armenia inherited a good school of physics
and mathematics from the Soviet era. Today we are doing everything we
can to consolidate and apply this potential.
The IT sector has grown five-fold
in Armenia in the past seven years. It has become a driver
of the country’s economic growth and its most promising
industry. Education and innovation, cooperation and integration,
the established rule of law and effective management – this
is where we see our potential advantages that will allow us to fully
utilise our resources and build conditions for sustainable economic
development.
Honestly, I think we have
already embarked on that road because the first quarter showed 7.1
percent GDP growth in Armenia. Economic activity increased by 9.2
percent in April. So, we also invite international business to invest
in Armenia. We even have a slogan for potential investors –
we invite them to Armenia to become richer and to make our
country more prosperous.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Prime
Minister Pashinyan.
Prime Minister Pellegrini, please go
ahead.
Prime Minister
of the Slovak Republic Peter Pellegrini: Dear Mr President Putin,
dear Mr President Xi Jinping, dear Mr President Radev, dear Mr Prime Minister
Pashinyan, dear Secretary-General, excellences, ladies and gentlemen.
It is a privilege for me
to join you today, in this discussion devoted to sustainable
development goals. And I am very pleased that organisers opted
for this topic, and my special thanks goes to President
Putin for opening the gates of St Petersburg to world
leaders and thinkers from all around the world. Thank you very much.
Three and a half years ago,
the international community came together in even wider setting,
and we committed to work together for humanity.
The adoption of the 2030 Agenda and its 17 sustainable
development goals was a remarkable success. We are here to understand
it is a global reference framework for development worldwide, with
a clear vision and benchmarks, taking into account the 4th Industrial
Revolution, climate change, security threats. Never before we had
a universal strategy ensuring coherence among economic, social
and environmental policies, and this is the 2030 Agenda. We need
everyone onboard. Sustainable development is our duty towards future
generations.
Recent UN reports show urgent need
for more progress. We have to understand that each one of us deals
with the issues of sustainability on a daily basis. But
the time is running out, and the chances of achieving some
of our goals are already at risk.
So where are the leaks? From
my perspective, there are two main issues. First, on financing.
The 2030 Agenda draws our attention to a number of elements
which are crucial for sustainability but tend to be overlooked. We
need five to seven trillion US dollars of global investment annually,
and that’s between seven to ten percent of the global GDP.
A year ago, at this place, Christine Lagarde said that we are seeing
storms in the forecast. And she warned against the level
and the burden of national and corporate debt, financial
fragility which will result in significant capital outflows from emerging
and low-income countries and the determination of some
to rock the system that has presided over the trade
relationships.
60% of global GDP is created
in the private sector. So we cannot no more rely on public
funding only, and make forecasts on financial fragility. I see
public figures here, sitting next to business leaders, so let’s talk
on how to combine public and private resources
in a meaningful way. The good news is that many businesses are
willing to help out. But the bad news is, only 17%
of the businesses have actually introduced any relevant plans
or policies to materialise this support. So clearly, we really need
to make some effort here.
Sustainability requires
a framework for business planning and decision-making, too.
There is a lack of experience of Slovak companies
in the development business when compared to traditional donors,
but we try. The 72nd UNGA presidency under Slovakia called
for a better implementation; it was our idea to host a high
level event dedicated to the topics of the FD SDG financing.
Representatives of businesses, think tanks, investment banks
and non-traditional donors came together to take stock
of various initiatives and best practices in removing barriers
to investment and development. You can find them assembled
in the toolbox, an online repository of lessons learned
on the website hosted by UNCTAD. It already contains more than
40 examples to learn from, and is constantly updated.
Which brings me directly
to the second issue, to which I would like to draw
your attention – namely, on communicating and networking. Unlike
the millennium development goals, sustainable development goals apply
to all, not only to developing countries. But it is not
for the UN alone to deliver on them. We have to change
our rhetoric when communicating SDGs. We have to find a common
language that enables us to communicate across cultural
and geographical boundaries. We need shared responsibility
for the world, stressed Chancellor Angela Merkel
at the Global Solution Summit in March this year. Also emphasised
by President Macron: at a time when our collective system is
falling apart, sadly, it is most in demand. And I could not
agree more. Interdependence has to become a driver and not
an obstacle. And we need to infuse this agenda and its
spirit into all areas of our work. In Slovakia, we have taken
the necessary steps to integrate the 2030 Agenda into our
long-term national development framework. We are going even further
by linking the SDGs to our national investment plan until 2030
which should boost the financing for sustainable development. But we
need a vision of where we want to have our country
and the whole European Union in eleven, in the next
eleven, in the next ten, in the next twenty, thirty years.
And we cannot implement all SDGs in all their height, width
and length. We have therefore decided to define our national
priorities for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
And this was done in a broad stakeholder participation process,
respecting the principles and values of an open government.
My country is indeed aiming
at using our role, weight and leadership in international
organisations to push the SDG agenda forward. As a current
chair in office of the OSCE, we are determined to help
foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear
and violence in line with SDG 16. And I would like
to say very clear and very loud: there can be no sustainable
development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.
And we support meaningful and comprehensive dialogue among states
as well as with other partners at the national, regional
and international levels.
Dear President Putin,
Last year, you called
for a technological breakthrough and mentioned very importantly
that we must be receptive to innovative ideas and technologies that
make a difference in people’s life and determine the future
of the country and the world. These are your words, Mr
President. In May 2019, Slovakia chaired the OECD Ministerial Council
under the theme, Harnessing Digital Transition For Sustainable
Development Opportunities and Challenges. And the mission is
to use the potential of the new digitalisation era
and to ensure it is for the benefit of all.
In my keynote speech
to the OECD ministerial, I suggested that digital humanism needs
to become the decisive philosophical orientation of the 21st century.
Digital humanism means that human beings remain the central focus
of the digital transformation, while digitalisation should be
approached in its entirety and complexity
for the improvement of people’s life
and the preservation of our planet. Digital humanism that seeks
to enable people to achieve things they never believed possible,
empowered by the use of technologies. And it is our job
as policymakers that they do so while representing the law, ethics,
fundamental freedoms, democratic principles and human rights.
Slovakia as an industrial
country also has to cope with the situation of producing
in a more and more virtual world. A decade ago –
a utopia, in ten years – a reality. Just as companies
have to learn how to do sustainable business, young people have
to gain skills for living sustainable lifestyles. We have
to bear in mind that more than 50 percent of the world
population is under 30. Youth play the central role in development.
They are actors of changes; youth is at the same time actors
of environmental changes.
Ladies and gentlemen,
the chances of achieving some of our goals are already
at risk. We need action, and we need it now. And we need
to stay united.
Thank you very much.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Mr
Pellegrini.
Mr Secretary-General, please go
ahead.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres:
President Putin, heads of state and government, ladies
and gentlemen, all protocol observed.
I am very pleased to be
making my second visit to this prestigious forum
as Secretary-General of the United Nations.
And I thank President Putin and the people
of the Russian Federation for hosting this dynamic gathering.
St Petersburg was home to many
of the seminal events that marked the 20th century.
And today, the St Petersburg Forum embodies the 21st century
truth: global challenges require global solutions. No country and no
organisation can do it alone. And we need political leaders,
the business world, scientists, scholars, philanthropists and civil
society to join hands in addressing shared threats and pursuing
common opportunities. And that is why we are here.
For nearly 75 years,
the arrangements established after the Second World War have saved
lives, advanced economic progress, upheld human rights and prevented
a third descent into global conflict and catastrophe. Yet, today
international cooperation is under immense pressure, and the values
of the United Nations Charter are being challenged and undercut.
Today I would like
to highlight several imperatives on which the spirit of St
Petersburg, the spirit of international cooperation, can help us
prevail. First, building a fair globalisation that works for all. No
one can doubt the many benefits of globalisation. More people have
risen out of extreme poverty than ever before; more people are living
longer and healthier lives. But the waves of prosperity
and growth have not reached all, and there remains a vast
backlog of despair. Hunger is again on the rise. Inequalities
are stark, especially within countries. And levels of youth
unemployment are in some parts of the world simply alarming.
Discrimination against women remains pervasive, and signs of unease
are everywhere we look. Growth is slowing down, and trade tensions are
heating up. And financial markets become uncertain. Debt is rising,
limiting what countries can do to achieve their goals and undermining
their ability to act when the crises strike. We need a global
economy that works for all and creates opportunities for all.
And the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development points
the way. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are the world’s
agreed blueprint for building a safer, more equitable world
and leaving no one behind. But we are not yet on track. And we
know what works, and we have important gains to build on. And so
I continue to call for more robust commitment
to the world’s agreed blueprint for a better future.
Political support is crucial, but the business community has
an absolutely vital role to play.
Second, we must address
the global climate emergency. We are in a race against time,
and we are losing the race. In fact, the reality is proving
to be worse than scientists had foreseen. We are also coming
to recognise how climate impacts are accelerating the drivers
of conflict, for instance, in the Sahel, and even
paving the way for expansion of terrorism and extremism
in that region. Yet, as global warming speeds up, political will has sometimes
slowed down. At the time when we know that technology is on our
side, and when businesses and civil society are more and more
engaged, this lack of political will could be tragic. We need a green
economy, not a grey economy. We need a rapid and deep change
in how to do business, how to generate power, how to build
cities and how to feed the world. That means putting
a price on carbon, ending subsidies to fossil fuels. And we
need to recognise that this is a race we can win, but we have
the tools to tackle the climate crisis. Climate action could
also yield a direct economic gain in $26 trillion compared
to business as usual through 2030, according to a recent
economic analysis. And that is why I’m convening a Climate Action
Summit at the United Nations in September to mobilise
the ambition that can reap these gains. And I’m asking leaders
to come not just with speeches, but with concrete plans
and commitment, including on financing. And I’m asking that they
do this not out of generosity, but out of enlightened self-interest.
Climate change is the most important systemic risk the world faces
at this time.
Ladies and gentlemen,
One of the primary roles
of the United Nations is to look to the horizon
and to identify emerging challenges and opportunities
and bring people together to advance our collective well-being. It is
in that spirit that next Monday, a high-level panel that
I established last year, and this is co-chaired by Jack Ma
of Ali Baba and Melinda Gates of the Gates Foundation, will
issue its report on recommendations on the future
of digital cooperation.
Technology continues
to transform our world. From bioengineering to artificial
intelligence to data analytics, and from education, health
to e-governments and the green economy, digital technologies can
turbocharge our work for the sustainable development goals. Yet,
as much as technology is a vector of hope, it is also
a source of fear.
We know there will be a massive
disruption in the labour market – with an enormous amount
of jobs both created and destroyed with artificial intelligence.
And that is why we need a massive investment in education, but
also a different sort of education, not just learning things, but
learning how to learn and learning across the lifetime.
And we also need a new generation of safety nets
for effective social protection for the people negatively
impacted.
Obviously, the risks go well
beyond the labour market. We already see the crippling impact
of cyberattacks as well as the threats to privacy
and violations of human rights. And the internet is
simultaneously a remarkable vehicle for connecting people
and a weapon for dividing them through the spread
of hate speech. And while the digital age is taking ever deeper
root, nearly half of the world’s population is still not online. Our
shared challenge is to reduce digital inequality, to build digital
capacity and ensure that new technologies are on our side
and are a force for good.
Ladies and gentlemen,
A new global landscape is taking
shape, even as age-old challenges remain. In today’s world we live
with a strange paradox: the challenges we face are global
and can only be addressed globally. No country alone, no organisation
alone can provide the solutions we need. But at the same time,
multilateralism is under attack. Agreed norms are being eroded,
and tensions are rising. We are threatened by global warming, but
also by global political warming. They are both dangerous, but they are
both avoidable.
It is true that we are slowly moving
towards a multipolar world, and that is in itself a very
positive evolution. But as history tells us, multipolarity alone does not
guarantee peace. Europe was multipolar 100 years ago, but the multilateral
framework for cooperation and problem-solving was not there,
and the result was a catastrophic world war. It is vital that
the world has multilateral institutions and architecture,
and that international relations are based on international law.
At the same time, we need
new forms of cooperation with other international and regional organisations,
a networked multilateralism, and closer links with businesses, civil
society and other stakeholders with an inclusive multilateralism.
And this is the kind of international system we need
in the 21st century. Our shared duty
for the United Nations and all of you in this room is
to show that we care and that international cooperation can deliver.
And that is why I’m pursuing fundamental reforms of the UN, so
that it can better serve the world and the people. It is why we
have also launched the disarmament agenda, strengthened our response
to terrorism and extremism, and will soon be launching
a plan of action to combat hate speech. It is why we are
fortifying peacekeeping, emphasising conflict prevention and pursuing
a surge in diplomacy to resolve protracted conflicts that are
causing enormous suffering and unsettling the world. And it is
why I appeal to all of you to join with the United
Nations and with each other to address the very dynamic problems
we face at this time, and to build a better world we know
can be ours.
We can also reflect more deeply
on our direction as a human family when we mark next year
the 75th anniversary of the United Nations
and post-war cooperation at large. As a committed
multilateralist, but also as an engineer fond of evidence
and facts, I see no other way for our world than to address
all the challenges together, with all those who can contribute working
for the benefit of all.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you very
much, Mr Secretary- General.
Dear participants, I will try
to arrange things in a way that will allow us to discuss
the important issues that you have identified in your speeches. Some,
such as climate change, even overlap.
Since this is an economic forum,
with your permission, I would like to start with what I believe
is the most important economic news, specifically, the tariff war
between China and America.
President Xi, the first question
is for you. The world’s two largest economies, China
and America, stand in opposition. At the same time, they
are so intertwined and influence so much the global economy that it
is completely unclear how to defend your own interests and not burn
your own house down in the heat of the moment. We are aware
of what kind of a negotiator and a “terrific”
businessman Mr Trump is. The first thing he does is break off
the existing treaty, then stop playing by those rules. Then,
the necessary talks begin, and eventually he gets a treaty that
is good for him. Anyway, this was the case with NAFTA and Japan.
How will this play out with you?
Xi Jinping: Thank you.
Perhaps I have an answer
to this question in my files, I am not sure. (Applause.)
In fact, you have raised
the issue of the relationship between globalisation
and anti-globalisation and the waves around these matters.
I outlined our position on globalisation in my speech
saying that we are strong supporters of globalisation. An alleged change
in China’s position was just announced. China has already become
the largest proponent of globalisation. This is an objective
trend. This is the way it is, because globalisation is a historical
trend which will continue unabated. Anti-globalisation is also
a development today. I think it is similar to a small
section in a big wave, which can cause certain fluctuations, but is
unable to stop the general trend of globalisation.
Globalisation is a double-edged
sword, it cuts both ways. Typically, one benefits and the other
suffers. This is a matter of sharing benefits and interests. But
we should not cut off our noses to spite our faces. We should not maintain
a one-sided and protectionist approach.
Of course, fundamental values do
not always correspond to the wishes of each interested party:
sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. If you are talking about global
benefit, then we must adhere to this principle, and the world
will be harmonious. We should not be self-serving.
We can see that today the issues
and problems of economic globalisation require immediate solutions.
Some ideas arise from the process of globalisation management,
technical malfunctions can appear in this machine for globalisation
management, but we should adhere to the trend and defend
the existing multilateral trade system. We are not suggesting that we need
to start all over again and turn everything upside down. We should
consider how to improve the existing system and mechanisms.
President Putin just said in his
speech that the most important thing is that there are many countries
in the world, and that all of us are brothers; there are
big and small countries, but everyone is equal. It is necessary
to proceed from mutual respect in resolving disputes.
I believe that social systems
and the development path of all countries should be respected.
For example, new economies are developing and the role
of developing countries is growing based on the existing world
order with consideration for the latest changes. Therefore, new
countries with emerging markets and developing countries — their
right to vote and their participation in international
organisations must be respected. Only this will allow us to reach more
rational processes.
We always adhere to peaceful
coexistence. Despite the existing difference of opinions, it is still
necessary to find points of contact and properly resolve
disputes that arise. I hope for such mutual respect in building
relations with all countries.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you,
President Xi.
President Putin, President Xi has
defined the tariff war as a fight between globalisation
and anti-globalisation. I do not know whether you see it like that,
but my main question is: where is Russia's place in this fight for economic
supremacy, and should Russia choose one economic paradigm?
Vladimir Putin: There is a good
Chinese proverb that says “when tigers fight in the valley,
the smart monkey sits aside and waits to see who wins.”
But things change. And this
picture is also changing. What is changing exactly? The fact is that
today, we adhere to the same principles that the world was
guided by only recently, and the United States, the world’s
leading economy by a number of indicators, remains exactly
as it was, a high-tech economy that has always promoted
the ideas of free trade and democracy
in the international economic arena. But today we see what is
happening – they are introducing a different practice –
I said as much in my remarks. As strong competitors
emerge and gain strength, such tools suddenly become unacceptable
to them, and various restrictions come into play like tariff wars
and tariff restrictions. This, by the way, causes great damage.
Yesterday I met with
the leaders of large investment companies, and cited these
figures to them – these are not our figures, these are international
figures, from international institutions, the World Bank
in particular – if by 2022 these restrictions are still growing
at the same rate as today, it will lead to a 2 percent
decline in global GDP growth and will cut global trade by 17
percent. We are certainly not happy about this scenario.
Allow me to remind you that
during the global economic and financial crisis of 2008–2009,
global GDP growth slowed by exactly 2 percent, while trade growth slowed
by 10 percent. If today’s trend continues, everyone here, including your
colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, will face big problems
and tremendous losses. Business will incur losses. Who will they shift
their losses to? To our citizens. New jobs will not be created; on the contrary,
jobs will be cut. Money will not flow to budgets at all levels,
and so on. This will have very serious negative consequences. We do not
want this to happen, of course.
Where is our place? It is
in the fight for fair, democratic principles in the development
of international economic relations. As you know, our relations with
China are expanding, and with other countries, too; despite all
the attempts to hamper certain projects, trade is growing, thank God.
But if trends like today’s persist, it will be bad for everyone. We will
certainly try to build relations based on equality
and on the principles that I spoke
of in my speech.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr
Guterres, nevertheless, the confrontation between the US
and China in a way extends to the UN as well.
The US does not hide, for example, that it does not support China’s
Belt and Road initiative, fearing that it would give China
a geopolitical advantage in the world in addition
to an economic advantage.
I know that you repeatedly spoke
in favour of this initiative because, as you believe, it is very
good for third-world countries. China invests a lot of money
in infrastructure. What will come of the differences between
your opinions and the policy of such an important UN donor
as the US? Or can we say that informal leadership
in the UN is going to China?
Antonio Guterres: A Spanish
politician once said that politicians are the only animals that stumble
twice at the same stone. And the world has stumbled into
a cold war, and we all know what a cold war means. I think
our duty is to avoid the world to fall into another cold war.
And another cold war of two blocs that probably will then be
completely separated in a monetary, in a military, but also
in a trade and technology perspective. This would be extremely
dangerous for us all, and we need to do everything to avoid
it.
And we can only avoid it
by rebuilding trust, and to rebuild trust, there is a first
thing that is essential – to respect international law.
And another thing that is essential is to contribute
to multipolarity in our world. I do not see the world only
as the United States and China, with all due respect
for President Xi Jinping. I think it’s the United States, it’s
China, it’s the Russian Federation, it’s the European Union, it’s
India, it’s many other countries. And it is the capacity for all
these countries on an equal basis to have a relationship
based on equality, on trust and on respect
of international law that we can build a world that avoids this trade
war, this cold war. And I think the United Nations must be
the platform that helps to make this possible, and we need
to learn from the mistakes made in the past. There is no
solution that one country alone can promote. There is no solution that one
institution alone can promote. If we want to address the enormous
challenges we face we need serious international cooperation. And so, it
is my true belief that the present situation needs to be
overcome and that this sleepwalking into a cold war needs to be
stopped.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Yes,
of course, we should overcome this together.
We have two representatives
of the European Union here. Perhaps we should come to you, Mr
Pellegrini? I would like to know the EU’s opinion of what
is going on because a tariff war of your own is taking shape
between you and the US. The US still intends to put tariffs
on European cars. This could hit Europe quite hard.
In the case of China,
we can say that this conflict has been brewing, it has deep roots, it did not
begin today, but in the case of Europe, which is a US ally,
I’ve got the feeling that it is strictly Trump’s story. Does the EU
share this opinion?
Peter Pellegrini: Thank you
for this question.
It is very difficult, because not
only the European Union, but also Slovakia as a member
of the European Union would have been very strong, it would have
a very strong impact on our economy also. You mentioned,
for example, the automotive sector. During my visit one month
ago with President Trump, I explained to him that an action
against the European Union in tariffs on cars
and industrial products would impact not just Germany, but also Slovakia,
the Czech Republic and, as you mentioned, it means they are allies,
and they are friends. And we also do not understand if friends are
doing each other such things. So now the side of the offer from
the European Union in this moment is not to increase tariffs,
but to put tariffs on zero. It would even increase the business
between the United States and the European Union,
on average maybe eight or nine billion euros from both sides, so it
would be a nice win-win situation. So we are lucky in this moment
that Mr President postponed his decision for another six months, but we do
not know what will be when these six months are over. And we hope we will
not start a trade war, because it will not help, even not the United
States. It will not just make something wrong towards the European Union;
it is also bad for them. I believe that we will be able,
in a normal dialogue, to finish this situation
in a positive way because otherwise we will lose jobs,
as President Putin mentioned, we will lose jobs. We will not have any more
such economic growth that we have now, and it will really create not
a pleasant situation within the countries of the European
Union. So I believe in a healthy brain of all who are
involved, that it will be a positive decision at the end.
I hope so. But you never know.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you
very much.
President Putin, we are talking about
allies now. Today China is considered to be Russia’s most important ally.
You have met with President Xi more than with other leaders. The same is
true of President Xi. He even called you his closest friend. Two days ago
you signed many important agreements. Trade between China and Russia has
reached $108 billion, which is a record. But if we subtract raw materials
from this figure, other economic indicators, even concerning military
cooperation, in fact show that Chinese-Russian friendship
and cooperation are not that close after all. Why?
Vladimir Putin: First
of all, I would like to add a few words to what our
guest from Slovakia has said. This analysis is absolutely correct. I would
like to add just one point: this uncertainty in global affairs
and the world economy is now the main factor hampering development.
The number of uncertainty factors is increasing very quickly,
and this is the main problem today. Mr Pellegrini has made
a certain sign, and this sign has different meanings; I hope
that common sense will prevail – indeed, I agree with you
on this score.
Speaking of our relations with
China, this is politics, rather than words. Indeed, President Xi Jinping
and I have established very positive personal relations. Yesterday,
we spent a lot of time together and discussed a wide
variety of matters. We parted at midnight Moscow Time or 4 am
Beijing Time. We had a lot to discuss. Later, I said:
“I have to apologise to you, I should let you go. Hosts
should not treat their guests this way.” But this indicates that our agenda is
very extensive.
Yes, 108 billion. We strove
to achieve 100 billion last year, and we reached 108 billion. We have
exceeded this target figure, and our trade continues to grow. Thanks
to our joint efforts and to the positions of our
Chinese friends, including President Xi Jinping, our trade patterns continued
to change and to improve all the time. The share
of engineering goods began to increase. True, this share decreased
slightly last year, but that was due to a number of objective
factors. However, we have no misgivings about this because on the whole
we are posting positive trends.
First, the energy sector is
a major component of our collaboration, and it also includes
a lot of technologies. We have built an oil pipeline system all
the way to the Pacific Ocean, with an offshoot
to China. It encompasses many modern technologies. By the way,
our Chinese partners have teamed up with France and joined the Arctic
LNG-2 project with NOVATEK in northern Russia, which will now be
implemented. This involves all kinds of cutting-edge technology. Adjacent
sectors facilitating these projects are also involved.
We have very good prospects
in space exploration and the aviation industry. We are now
moving to implement an ambitious joint project to develop
a large transport helicopter. There are very good prospects
in the nuclear engineering sector and the nuclear power
industry, which also involves all sorts of state-of-the-art technologies.
The Russian side has designed and built several nuclear units
in China, and we have agreed to build two more; two are currently
under construction. We have a lot of venues
in the engineering sector and the power industry.
I was happy to hear our colleagues’ reports in Moscow
the other day. To the best of my knowledge, there are
11 various groups in various fields. Today, we maintain very deep
and wide-ranging relations with China; in fact, we don’t have such
relations with any other country. Indeed, we are strategic partners
in the full sense of this word. We can say this without any
exaggeration.
What is especially important is that
both parties show intent to provide an equitable approach
to resolving problems. That is why our colleagues supported
the special relationship with China within the EAEU. We have
a very good joint action programme. Yes, there are some difficult issues
related to commodity groups and they need to be discussed
at the professional level. I can assure you, our experts
and Chinese partners debate almost each and every issue, but we
always find a solution. We strive to look for these solutions
and we find them. In this sense, I am sure we have excellent
prospects.
As for global issues
in general, cooperation between Russia and China
on the global stage is undoubtedly a very important factor
of global stability.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Can Russia-China
trade relations replace economic relations with the West for Russia?
Vladimir Putin: Russia can what?
Sophie Shevardnadze: Can trade
relations between Russia and China take the place of economic
relations with the West for Russia?
Vladimir Putin: You see, we are not
creating military alliances with China. Yes, we are strategic allies. We are
not working against anyone; we are working in our interests
and in the interests of our partners. We are not going
to replace anything with anything. Our relations with the European
Union, for instance, have always been multifaceted. Mutual trade was over
$400 billion, then it fell to half of that figure, but that was
absolutely not though any fault of ours: it was not us who imposed all
these restrictions. Now trade is approaching $300 billion, which means that
common sense is prevailing.
So these two things are not mutually
exclusive. We are ready to work with everyone, including the United
States. Mutual trade there is minimal, though: it was $30 billion, then it fell
to $20 billion when Obama was in office, now under Donald Trump it
grew by $5 billion, in spite of some 30 sanctions packages he
imposed against us. By the way, the Trump administration imposed
more sanctions than anyone, but mutual trade still has grown somewhat. We do
not set anything against anyone and we are ready to work with
everyone.
Sophie Shevardnadze: President Xi,
I began my greetings by saying that the St Petersburg Forum
unites leaders who would not meet anywhere else in the world, but all
of you are united by your dream of the Belt and Road
infrastructure. The trade route from China to Europe cannot be
imagined without Russia, and at the same time Russia is not
directly involved in this project, it is connected with the Belt
and Road initiative. What does this mean in terms of China’s
investment in Russia? Will you invest as much in Russia
and our infrastructure as the other member countries?
Xi Jinping: It is true, the Belt
and Road initiative is developing more dynamically now. At first, it
was very simple: six years ago, I came up with an initiative
of the Silk Road Economic Belt in Kazakhstan, in Astana.
Then in Indonesia I suggested the idea of the Maritime
Silk Road. It was very simple at first: we wanted to rekindle
the historical memory of dynamic exchanges between all peoples
of the world and to resume these exchanges
in the modern world. That is why I proposed this initiative. It
was well received.
In ancient times, the Silk
Road comprised a limited number of routes, whereas now most countries
expressed their interest in taking part in this initiative. We signed
relevant agreements with some 130 countries and 30 international
organisations. The result exceeded the achievements
of the original Silk Road. This initiative is now being developed all
over the world, even in Latin America and the Pacific.
This year, we held the second
Belt and Road forum. During the first summit, only heads
of state and government of 29 countries, and, of course,
heads of international organisations, including UN Secretary-General
Antonio Guterres, were invited. This year, in response
to the great interest in the forum, we invited some 30
heads of state, heads of government, as well as Mr Guterres
and the head of the International Monetary Fund.
The hall was full, so we were not able to invite more people, like
here, at this forum.
What I am saying is that we have
this mutual attraction. We adhere to the principles of joint
discussion, joint implementation and sharing. This is not just China’s
idea – it will benefit everyone. Those countries that did not want
to participate at first, said maybe that was a Marshall Plan
Chinese-style. But we do not want that. We do not want to dominate. We
have no such plans.
Perhaps, at first, some
participants alleged it was a Chinese canonisation plan. We have never
done canonisation all over the world, never since ancient times. We are
ready to adhere to the principles of joint benefit only,
while at the same time building our own solutions. According
to this principle, we have long collaborated with our good neighbour,
Russia. We have signed a $20 billion agreement and held restricted
and expanded format meetings with President Putin. We never have enough
time. We talk about more and more problems, and our contacts are
deepening. So we want to streamline our own affairs through
the promotion of the Belt and Road initiative, first
of all, and then we will work towards a community of shared
future for humankind.
I am sure that this dream will
come true.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you,
President Xi.
Vladimir Putin: May I add
something?
Sophie Shevardnadze: Of course.
Vladimir Putin: You know, Mr Guterres
and I attended the last Belt and Road event
in Beijing; I think he will confirm this. Do you know what
I noticed?
First, all the important global
players came. The European Union was represented at various levels,
by various countries, but there were practically all the leading
countries in the European Union.
And the second thing
I noticed, and I think the Secretary-General will confirm
this, I would like to emphasise it again. I don’t know if it is
my good friend Xi Jinping’s manner, or the Chinese
philosophy – they never impose anything on anyone. They propose. They
propose, in fact – I might get it wrong –
at the first stage, an investment of over $120 billion
in various spheres, and $70 billion I think has already been
invested.
As for Russia, we have
established almost 100 companies with our Chinese partners, created 13,000
jobs – good, high-tech companies – in the Far East alone,
in the priority development areas there.
As for the integration
of the EAEU and President Xi Jinping’s idea, the Belt
and Road initiative, we have specific projects together. There is
a road from China to Kazakhstan, which means large infrastructure
projects, and we have to build our road all the way
to Kazakhstan. We are actually behind schedule, because Kazakhstan has
already done their part. There are other projects of this kind. We have
very specific plans for joint work, and we are completely satisfied
with them. And I am sure that we will move forward very successfully.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.
I will certainly return
to the Belt and Road initiative.
Mr Radev, let me ask you too: should
Europe be integrated, the EAEU?
But, Mr Putin, first a question
for you. We are speaking now about Chinese investment, but here
in this hall there are not only Chinese investors, but investors from all
over the world who have invested in Russia or would like
to invest in Russia. There was this recent case with American
investor Michael Calvey and his partner Philippe Delpal, who were
detained.
You always say at all platforms
that the law enforcement agencies and security services should not
interfere in economic issues too much. You also constantly emphasise that
the rule of law is above all. But here it is a bit selective,
because Michael Calvey was put under house arrest, while Philippe Delpal was
remanded in custody. This shocked investors because it looks like you say
one thing and then do the opposite. Who should they listen to?
To you, your guarantees, guarantees of President Vladimir Putin,
or should they be guided by what the security agencies are
doing?
Vladimir Putin: In all cases
they must be guided by Russia’s current legislation. This relates both
to the government and Russian and foreign businesses.
I understand what you are talking about. I am concerned about this
too, otherwise I would not be speaking about it today, but everyone must
respect the law. When we say that law enforcement agencies should not
unjustifiably interfere in the life and activity
of business entities, this is our position. But this also means that all
participants in this process, including businesspeople, must abide
by the law.
What about this case? There was
a violation; as you know, he has been accused of embezzling 2.5
billion rubles. Some people, including many of those present here, his
Russian partners, claim he did not do it. Maybe. But it is the law
enforcement agencies’ job to find out. We have a judicial system
for this purpose.
I very much hope that everything
will be done in a transparent and clear way, with
the participation of those who defend the position of our
American partner, and that just and lawful decisions will be made.
On my part, my colleagues from the Government will monitor
the situation. The Prosecutor General, I see he is here, Mr
Chaika, will carefully watch and manage this process.
As for the fact that
someone was put under house arrest and someone was remanded
in custody. This also relates to what our French friends told me,
that someone has a place to stay in Moscow and someone does
not. How can someone be put under house arrest if he has no house or no
apartment? But we will consider this issue.
I spoke about
the humanisation of these procedures and we will move
in this direction. If there is a possibility to avoid keeping
someone in jail while investigating a case, we need to strive
to use this possibility. Our actions in the near future will be
aimed at humanising such processes.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Agreed.
I am not trying to defend anyone in this case, this is not
my competence. It is true, your partners, very reputable people, vouched
for Mr Calvey. I am talking of something else now. Investors
were scared by the Calvey case. This is what they see: Mr Calvey has
worked in Russia for 15 years, and if he failed and did not
understand the rules of the game, what would happen to them
if they come to this country tomorrow? The rules are obscure,
and this is the problem.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, take
the Bible and read: “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not
covet your neighbour's wife,” et cetera, you can find everything there. Mr
Calvey has been accused of embezzling 2.5 billion rubles. This must be
proved by the law enforcement agencies or the charges must
be dropped. That is it, nothing special.
Look at what happens
in other countries. Businesspeople in the US can be sentenced
to 100–150 years in prison, and everyone is fine with it. Do not
steal, behave and you will be fine.
But, I repeat, we will monitor
the situation carefully. And I want to say, there are
generally accepted legal regulations. Until there is a guilty verdict,
everyone is considered innocent, including Mr Calvey. He is considered innocent
and I hope that all the procedures will be conducted
in accordance with Russia’s legislation, in a transparent
and open manner, and that the Prosecutor General’s Office will
monitor the situation.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.
Mr Radev, I would like
to ask you the same question as I asked Prime Minister
Pellegrini, this time as a representative of the European
Union, and get back to the Belt and Road initiative.
The EU believes that it is better to present a united front.
What do you think? Perhaps, Bulgaria is better off discussing participation
in this project directly with President Xi?
Rumen Radev: It is
a vitally important initiative for us, for all the 17
countries, we have already 17 countries on board. We also support
the One Belt One Road initiative, but we need to be more effective
and more efficient when we work together. We need to know more about
each other. Last year, the Prime Minister of China Li Keqiang visited
Bulgaria. When he was in my office, we started discussing all
the untapped opportunity and potential behind this initiative.
I told him, okay, you are going to invest in Europe, we are
going to work together, but let’s open a centre for global
partnership for this initiative in Sofia. Why? Because we need feasibility
studies for all the projects, we need to optimise them, we need
to establish clear criteria on how to have better efficiency,
how not to waste money, which is not worth to do, but
to allocate the money for some other activities. Also we need more
information about our legislation. We need to project information
to China about EU procedures and rules and tenders, everything.
So this idea was taken into consideration; it was proposed
at the summit of all the prime ministers participating
in Sofia in July last year. And very soon we are going to open
this centre in Sofia. It is a clear example that we are going
forward, and we have great expectations behind this initiative.
Of course, there are some concerns in some countries, Western, from
the members of the initiative, but if we compare the volume
of China investment in the UK, in Germany – they are
huge, there is a huge investment in those countries. So we should not
be concerned. Of course, we should debate all the clear rules
for transparency and competition, and we are going to help.
Sophie Shevardnadze: But still,
would you prefer to discuss your participation in this initiative
directly with President Xi or while presenting a united front
together with the EU?
Rumen Radev: If I have
a chance to discuss those problems, of course, Bulgaria has its
national interest, we are highly interested in China initiatives,
in China investment, in mutual projects, so, of course, we are
ready.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.
Mr Pashinyan, this year, Armenia
chairs the Eurasian Economic Union. A relatively small, but
I must add, an absolutely wonderful country is now, so to speak,
coordinating all these huge economies on an immense territory.
You mentioned that your country has
recently signed a cooperation agreement with the EU and that
this act does not conflict with the EAEU. So far. But if your country
continues moving towards the EU, wouldn’t you expect Brussels to ask
you to leave the EAEU?
Nikol Pashinyan: Thank you
for the question.
First of all, I would like
to say that there is no movement towards the EU because Armenia is
staying exactly where it is. It is very important to make this clear,
since, as I have already said, we cooperate with the European
Union on matters that have to do with our internal reforms.
But there is something I would
like to emphasise. The EU is very interested in improving
relations with Russia. I do, of course, talk to European
leaders; all of them support Armenia’s intentions to develop
relations with the Russian Federation. This is a very important
point. What I am saying is that we are open with our Russian partners
about our relations with the EU before, and we are also open with our
European partners regarding our relations with the Russian Federation.
The only exception is certain defence matters.
Indeed, very many European leaders
are interested in settling relations with the Russian Federation.
I think the presence of two European leaders here speaks
for itself. And I believe a lot of people
in the world have now realised that geopolitical games do not benefit
anyone, and certainly not those countries that become drawn into them.
In this context, Armenia’s position is clear: we are not going
to take part in any geopolitical games and we are going
to develop relations with the Russian Federation. Yes, we take part
in the Eurasian Economic Union, in which we now hold
the Presidency. During my recent visit to China I said we
are very glad to have a good relationship with China.
Why are we interested in these
relations? China, the EU and the Russian Federation pursue global
stability, and in these relations we are primarily interested
in global stability and security. Needless to say, we are aware
of our role as an EAEU member state. We will facilitate
the improvement of relations between our partners. Of course,
our opportunities in this respect are not so broad but we will make our
contribution to global security, stability and cooperation.
Sophie Shevardnadze: I would
still like to specify something. Is it correct to say that
in this case Armenia has unequivocally made its choice in favour
of the EAEU?
Nikol Pashinyan: We are members
of the Eurasian Economic Union.
Sophie Shevardnadze: I know.
Nikol Pashinyan: In other
words, this is the only economic integration process in which we are
taking part. We will continue our participation in it and we will
continue developing relations in this process. But this does not mean that
we will not have any relations with China. We will maintain bilateral relations
with China and contribute to the development of ties
between China and the EAEU.
Sophie Shevardnadze: And what
about the EU?
Nikol Pashinyan: We cooperate
with the EU. I spoke about judicial reforms in our country. It
is very important for us to create a judicial system that would
match European standards. I think this is a very good goal because
when we talk about European standards we mean a truly independent
judiciary that is free of corruption and political pressure.
As for the rest, we
are very happy to have an opportunity to facilitate
the improvement and development of ties between the EU
and Russia. I think in some cases Armenia can even become a bridge
between the EU, Russia, China and Iran. You know that the EAEU
signed a free trade agreement with Iran. We believe Armenia can also play
and will play a key role in this issue.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr Putin,
the Prime Minister of Armenia believes that Armenia can play
an important role in the rapprochement of the EU,
Russia and the EAEU. But so far, we see that when all post-Soviet
countries drift towards the West, it always happens against
the backdrop of heightened tensions with Russia. So far, it has been
impossible to achieve a compromise. You often say that the rules
of the game are violated. This also happens because the world is
changing and the current rules cannot keep up with it. As far
as I can see, it is impossible to integrate into both
the EAEU and the EU. You write these rules to a large
extent, at least regarding the EAEU. Can you influence
the situation so that it is not always a matter of making
a forced choice but of mutual cooperation?
Vladimir Putin: Look, Charles de
Gaulle once spoke about a united space from Portugal
to the Urals. I later added, “to Vladivostok.” There are no
serious tensions. There are concrete things that we need to take into
account during these integration processes. First, integration processes are
inevitable, we are witnessing them all over the world, and we are
part of this global process. Naturally, we join our efforts with
the republics of the former Soviet Union. We share a common
language, common infrastructure; there are many things that unite us
and create natural competitive advantages. This is all very natural.
But there are certain issues we need
to overcome to be part of the integration process,
to interact with the European Union. What issues, for instance?
Technical regulations: they differ in Russia and the EU. Do you
see what I mean? These are absolutely concrete issues. The issue
of whether to put a screw in this way or that way,
or the matter of how snow loads on buildings differ here
and there, because we have more snow in Russia. This is a very
natural thing, you see? And we cannot adopt their technical regulations
in industry tomorrow, it is not possible. I admit that in some
areas European standards are better. Some regulations, like phytosanitary
supervision, are tougher in Russia. Therefore, when we speak about
allowing their products into our market, we say, please take into account our
phytosanitary regulations. Some countries are fine with it, some are not. We
need to explain to our partners that such issues cannot be dealt with
unilaterally.
Or take technical standards. We
say: yes, we will be ready to take your rules and standards, but it
will require time and money because we will have to buy new equipment
and introduce these standards. This will take time, years, and it
will require hundreds of billions in investment. It can’t be done
overnight. Our partners should understand this. They should show understanding
for this.
When we held corresponding talks with
them on this issue, which were linked to our neighbours, we told them
that to even out everything we would need about 15 years with 20 industries.
But it was reduced to one industry over two years. In effect, these
talks actually became prohibitive. You understand how difficult it will be
to come to terms. Further, the European Commission was ready
to talk to every EAEU country but not with the EAEU
as a whole because it would be more difficult to talk to us
in Russia’s presence. But eventually, as we see, our partners are now
willing to talk with the EAEU as well.
Incidentally, note that
in Nur-Sultan, formerly Astana, we said trade in the EAEU was
growing. I do not want to quote the figures for fear
of making a mistake. But trade between our countries with third
countries has increased even more. What does this indicate? It shows that when
we follow common rules based on WTO principles, it is easier
to cooperate with all of us. This cooperation is more reliable
and transparent and gives additional impetus to cooperation
between the EAEU and third countries. We only welcome this,
and there are no disagreements. All we need is goodwill to overcome
the natural obstacles. We are ready for this and will do it with
pleasure.
Nikol Pashinyan: I would
like to add to this, with your permission. When we talk about
the Belt and Road, project this is not a matter of choosing
between this project and the EAEU. Armenia faces this issue
in other cases because if infrastructure is built in Armenia,
in our region, under the Belt and Road project, there will be
integration between Iran, Armenia and Georgia. I think this will facilitate
the EAEU’s development as well.
If Armenia, part
of the EAEU, becomes a more progressive state with
well-developed economic, political and judicial systems, this will benefit
the EAEU and add new nuances to its image. I would like
to recall that, as President Putin said, it is very important
to take into account the peculiarities of every country. What is
possible in Russia may be impossible in Armenia, what is possible
in Armenia may be impossible in China and what is possible
in China may be impossible, for instance, in Bulgaria. However,
we should focus on the values that unite us. I believe there are
many values that unite Armenia and Russia, and I believe these
values are immutable.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you, Mr
Pashinyan.
Mr Putin, we say there are no serious
conflicts between the EU and the EAEU, that time and will
are needed. However, Ukraine is a graphic example of how
a country can be literally split between these two poles
of attraction. In this context I am curious why you have not
congratulated Vladimir Zelensky on becoming President?
Vladimir Putin: Well, he has been
clinging to the same rhetoric so far, calling us enemies
and aggressors. He must somehow make up his mind on what he wants
to achieve and what he wants to do. We are not renouncing all
contact with him. We will work with him.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Yes,
because you are the President of an enormous power.
As of today, he is very popular in his country and has
a high rating.
Vladimir Putin: Very good.
Sophie Shevardnadze: You do not have
a history of relationships. One small gesture can completely change
the course of events. You know this, Mr President. Why not meet him
without preconditions?
Vladimir Putin: Have I ever
refused to do this? Nobody has made such an offer to me.
Sophie Shevardnadze: But are you
ready to meet him?
Vladimir Putin: Listen,
I do not know this man. I hope we will get acquainted someday.
Judging by everything I’ve seen, he is a good specialist
in the area he has worked in until now. He is a good
actor. (Laughter.) I am serious and you are laughing. But
it is one thing to play someone and another to be someone.
Obviously, acting requires talent. Many talents. You can change your role every
ten minutes. The prince and the pauper – every ten minutes,
and you have to be convincing in every role. This is really
a talent.
In order to deal with
the affairs of the state, one needs different kinds
of qualities. One needs certain experience, knowledge, the ability
to identify the main problems, see them, find the instruments to solve
them, the ability to form a team of capable people,
establish good relations with them, believe in them, give them
a chance to think freely and come up with their own solutions,
choose these solutions – which is very important – and be able
to explain to millions of people the motives behind
choosing these solutions, and, most importantly, have the bravery
and strength of character to take responsibility for their
consequences.
I am not saying that Mr Zelensky
lacks these qualities; he very well may possess them. There may be a lack
of experience, but experience, as people say, can be gained, it comes
quickly. Does he have all the other qualities that I mentioned? He
very well may have, but I do not know as he has not shown them
in any way so far. But what we see is contradictory statements: he says
one thing during the election campaign, and another thing afterward.
Time will tell. We will see.
I am not saying that he ruined
everything with his statements without having done anything yet, no. We will
see.
Sophie Shevardnadze: I would
like to ask you about Belarus. This year Armenia chairs the Eurasian
Economic Union, and Belarus will chair it next year. You often meet with
not only the Chair, but also the President of Belarus –
in Sochi, in Nur-Sultan. There has been much talk about Russia
and Belarus uniting: in terms of both economies
and political structures.
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: Pardon, bad talk?
Sophie Shevardnadze: Much talk.
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: Ah, much.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Much talk,
yes.People also say that the unification of the two countries
has something to do with the year 2024. Is there some truth is this?
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: No, and there cannot be. I will tell you why: because it
just so happened historically that we are a single people –
and I believe that Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are one
people, I have said this many times before, many times, and that is
my opinion, I am convinced of this.
At one time, Ukraine did not
exist at all. The Zaporozhian Sich actually joined the Russian
Empire but not as Ukrainians or Russians. What mattered then?
History, language and religion, and they all considered themselves
Russian. Later, Ukraine was formed as “U Kraya,” that is,
on the edge of the empire. Proximity to European
culture and partial inclusion in Catholic Poland created
a desire to be closer to Europe in this part
of the population – this is a completely legitimate desire
and there is nothing wrong with it.
Prior to World War I,
the countries that were preparing to fight Russia began forming
the idea of Ukrainian identity. This is natural.
By destabilizing its potential enemy, they tried to split it up
and take part of it. This idea was embraced and developed. Part
of the population really acquired its own identity, and there is
nothing terrible about this. It is a natural process. So, we treat this
with understanding and respect.
The same is true
of Belarus. Again, I am deeply convinced that there is only one
nation. But it so happens that we live in different countries. Different
states were formed. I have expressed my view on this many times.
There are no grounds today for a state association. We do not have
plans or goals like this. We plan to develop our Union. I am
sure our people are interested in this.
Incidentally, much has already been
done in this respect, including in the social area. I am
referring to labour rights, free movement and so on. In some
respects, the EAEU has already left behind our Union State. Much
of what was written in the Treaty on the Union State
has not been fulfilled. Mr Lukashenko and I have discussed whether we
can fulfil some of what we did not fulfil before in the present
context, or add something more current. In effect, our whole
discussion revolved around these issues. It was constructive
and comradely. Apparently, it is our fault that we provide too little
information for the media and the public. If we did it
properly, there would be no rumours.
Sophie Shevardnadze: So it is
good that I asked this question.
Vladimir Putin: It is good that
you are here at all and ask these questions.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr Radev,
I would like to go back to international investment
and projects.
Back in the day, Bulgaria
wanted to implement the South Stream project on its territory,
but was then forced to halt it under Brussels’ pressure. I know you
were not the president back then, but you surely know more about this than
I do. What was Bulgaria’s motivation in killing the project?
Because today, there is TurkStream
that runs from Russia to Turkey; we are talking about a line that
could potentially run through your territory as well. Will you be able
to defend your interests this time and overcome your European
partners’ scepticism? Basically I ended up asking you two questions.
President of Bulgaria Rumen
Radev: President Putin has just mentioned something very important:
to be able to take responsibility for your own decisions, so
I can take responsibility for my own decisions. At that
time, I was not at that position. So I will not go back
to history, but not to forget, Bulgaria is part of the EU,
and Bulgaria develops its energy policy based on the energy
policy of the European Union, which means diversification
of roots, sources and suppliers, security of supply
and competitiveness.
Of course, Bulgaria
and Russia, we have been strong strategic partners in the field
of energy for decades. Bulgaria is 100% dependent on Russian
gas, on Russian nuclear technologies and fuel for our nuclear
power plant, and we had a very fruitful discussion with President
Putin and his team yesterday about how to continue our strategic
cooperation for the future. Because there are some changes
in Bulgaria. There are changes on the European gas market,
on the European map for gas supply. Bulgaria has been
modernising and expanding its gas transitioning network; we are building
reverse capabilities. Also we have initiated an interconnector between
Greece and Bulgaria for LNG gas supply, and all this means that
Bulgaria is developing the capability for a gas distribution
centre and establishing its own gas exchange capabilities. This provides
more opportunity for Russia to deliver more gas to Bulgaria
and to change the direction, so this gas could flow to Central
Europe through Bulgaria, which is a good opportunity for Russia.
Of course, we also need
to – this is my opinion, we discussed this yesterday – we need
to transform also our relations in how to contract, how
to deal with the price of gas deliveries, because there are new
changes, I said, on the market. We have two approaches: one is
fixed, long-term prices for pipeline gas, and the other approach
is more flexible prices coming from LNG capabilities, yet they are very
limited. For today, they are limited, but they are already
on the market, so I hope we will find the best approach
to meet our interest and to continue being strategic partners
in energy.
President of Russia Vladimir
Putin: I will only add a couple of words. President Radev
mentioned the issue of pricing – let us go back at least
a little to discussing economic issues. He said that there is
a long-term fixed price and a more flexible one. Allow me
to make a small comment here. The price indeed is long-term, but
not fixed. It is linked to a whole range of energy products,
first and foremost, to crude oil. Oil price fluctuations lead
to gas price fluctuations. The price is absolutely fair
and market-oriented. This is the pricing formula. This does not mean,
of course, that such a formula must continue unabated
for eternity. We are ready for discussion. But this has to be
done, of course, at the level of economic entities.
Speaking of South Stream, many
people in Bulgaria regret it falling through – I say this
mildly, many of them. What did Bulgaria lose? $3 billion
of investment, a thousand new high-paid jobs and $400 million
worth of transit fees annually. That is it. These are the direct
losses for the Bulgarian economy. And they are worth regretting.
And I think it is quite clear why this happened. Let us be frank:
there are certain costs to the Western integration system, which you
talked about. This has to do with sovereignty limitations.
By the way, we never face such issues at the EAEU; we can
disagree and argue till we are blue in the face, but every
decision is made unanimously, unanimously or not at all. Problems
occur, too, but it is not always the same in the European Union.
I have said many times,
and I will repeat it again: today, the European Parliament makes
more binding decisions for the EU countries than the USSR
Supreme Soviet once did with respect to the Soviet republics. This
leads to some difficulties, hence the complicated processes within
the EU. But that’s beside the point now, as we are talking about
building new routes that will diversify our commodities supply to Europe.
How many years have we been working on the second leg of Nord
Stream? South Stream even had to be postponed.
We agreed with Turkey to build
the TurkStream, thanks to the political will of President
Erdogan, who showed the best qualities of his character
and underscored his country’s sovereignty, and we will complete it
in the next few months. The offshore section has already been
laid, fully completed, and now the project is progressing
on land; we will finish it soon. So now our European partners will receive
gas via a different route, if they want to, of course. I believe
southern Europe is interested in this, because, once again I’ll repeat,
pipeline gas from Russia, considering the distance and volume
of deliveries, will always be cheaper, by definition, than liquefied
gas from overseas. Always.
Mr Miller hides this, thinks it’s
a big secret, but in fact, I think the analysts know
the profitability of production – it is one-tenth
of the cost of liquefaction plus delivery to another
continent plus re-gasification. Just cross off a zero, do you understand?
He has a good reserve margin in which he can work with
the price, but the price must still be fair for both
the seller and the buyer.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you.
Rumen Radev: Just a moment.
Talking about sovereignty limitations – of course, President Putin
has his point of view, but I cannot agree that Bulgaria does not have
sovereignty. Because South Stream was not a project just
for Bulgaria. It is a pipeline going through Bulgaria to other
EU countries, so cancelling South Stream was a collective European
decision; it was not a sole Bulgarian decision. This should be clear.
And, of course, I fully
agree as well that there is a fixed formula, a very complex
formula of calculating the price of the gas; it is called
the Netherlands formula. I don’t know why, but the name is that.
What I’m talking is to be more flexible and to look beyond
today, because there is a huge change, and we need to find again
the best solution for our two countries.
Vladimir Putin: We will continue
to do so, Mr President. You are right, I agree. Thank you very much.
Sophie Shevardnadze: President Putin
used the word ‘unanimously.’ You also said ‘unanimously.’ In this
regard, a short question to you, President Radev, and to you,
Prime Minister Pellegrini, regarding the sanctions.
Many European leaders speak out
saying the sanctions should be lifted because it hurts everyone, not just
Russia. The leaders talk, and the sanctions are extended. Can
you venture to not support the extension of the sanctions?
The sanctions are only extended unanimously, right? Yes or no?
Peter Pellegrini: There is
a position of the European Union, and Slovakia is
a part of the European Union; so, in general, we support.
But there is also a position of the Slovak Republic.
And to be honest, we do not think that sanctions are helping
somebody, even not the European Union and even not the Russian
Federation. It is the opposite. The exchange between our two countries,
or groups, went down, as President Putin mentioned, and now we
are happy that it is slowly going up again, and Slovakia will always be
first in dialogue, in communication, and not sanctions
at the first point. But in general, that is the position of the European
Union. There is now a negotiation, a discussion on how long they
should still continue, but I will again repeat as the Prime
Minister of the Slovak Republic, it is better to sit around
the table and to find solutions than to fight against each
other with sanctions.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Everyone thinks
so, but the sanctions are extended. Can you vote against
an extension?
Rumen Radev: I personally do not
vote because the Prime Minister represents Bulgaria
in the European Council, but anyway.
Sophie Shevardnadze: And if they
voted?
Rumen Radev: This question goes
a little far beyond sustainable development, but it is an interesting
one. Being an EU member, Bulgaria is a part of the EU,
understanding the position that sanctions are policy-changing, too, trying
to deescalate the tension when there is a conflict. However,
everyone who plans to impose sanctions should think about the pros
and cons and consequences. Sanctions, they are like a coin with
two sides, and the business here knows very well that businesses can
suffer from sanctions, in some areas heavily. Sanctions are not fair
because they do not hit the politicians, but they affect ordinary people.
And sanctions could be circumvented, and I will tell you from
our experience that sanctions could lead to black marketing, illegal
trafficking, organised crime. We know this from experience during
the sanctions upon the former Yugoslavia. And one who plans
and contemplates sanctions should calculate very well the outcomes,
because sometimes, the real outcomes are different from the planned effect,
and they could hit back to those who planned and impose
sanctions.
Peter Pellegrini: Sorry, but
I always like to say what I am thinking, and this moment,
and really, I have to say. It looks sometimes very, very funny,
when the biggest supporters of sanctions and those who were
fighting for sanctions against the Russian Federation the other
day are looking at how they can sell their goods in Russia
and how they can invest in Russia and to grow their own
business. So for me it is sometimes very, very funny how some people are
behaving.
Vladimir Putin: And I don’t
see anything wrong with that. At least we can work with it.
Sophie Shevardnadze: We have
drifted far away from the theme of our forum: Sustainable Economic
Development. I would like to have a short Q&A session.
You all said in your speeches that the existing rules
of interaction, of the existing system of world trade, is
not agreeable to anybody in principle; everyone is unhappy
here – China is displeased, so is America, as are the EU
and Russia. Mr Guterres, you say that something is bound to change.
I would like to hear
concrete proposals as to what needs to change, from each
of you. Everyone is unhappy but does not want to engage
in changing anything; nobody is willing. Let’s start with you, Mr
Pashinyan. You might want to see integration between the EAEU
and the EU, right?
Nikol Pashinyan: Thank you.
The situation is such that if everyone is displeased, we must do something
to make everyone more content. There is only one way to do this: compromise.
We have to work out a compromise. To achieve this, mutual
respect is needed, as Mr Putin said, we need to show understanding
for each other’s interests and respect for them. If all global
players see the situation this way and are ready to take responsibility
for such compromises – this is clearly not an easy thing
to do, but it is in fact the only way, because any other
solution will result in big problems.
Sophie Shevardnadze: President
Xi, what would you change? You say an anti-globalisation wave is surging,
and it hurts free trade among other things. What would you change
in the existing trade system to protect free trade,
to prevent sliding into protectionism and isolation?
Xi Jinping: I would rather
be a creator than a destroyer. We must respect what exists.
And we must improve it ourselves rather than upset it or cancel it.
I do not want to cause problems for others. Whatever I did,
I did it for the sake of being friends with all nations and expanding
the circle of friends for China. I see friends around
the world, only friends. For example, Russia is our great neighbour.
And we are cooperating with the EAEU. We are also strategic partners
with the EU, now also in the 17+1 format. We continue developing
relations with the ASEAN nations, and we have established
a cooperation mechanism with Africa, with most African countries. Our
relations are good with Latin America and with the South Pacific
countries.
As for the United
States… even though we have some trade friction, China and the US are
already closely knitted together. We have large investors
and the biggest trade between us. You know, every day about 10,000
people fly back and forth from the US to China, so it is hard
to imagine a complete separation between the US and China.
We are not interested in that, nor are our US partners. President Trump is
my friend, and I am sure that he is not interested in this
either.
Thank you.
Sophie Shevardnadze: President Putin,
what would you change? Maybe you could suggest something specific?
Vladimir Putin: Almost everything has
been said here. With a reliance on compromise, we need to seek
common solutions, draft common rules and adhere to the norms
of international law – what was mentioned and suggested by UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. I fully agree with this.
Sophie Shevardnadze: President
Radev.
Rumen Radev: I think it is not
about the economy, it is not about a trade war, it is about global
security. Because trade wars, they touch the deepest layers of our
security architecture. I can understand a trade war between
the United States and China. I can understand a trade war
between the United States and Russia. But I cannot understand
a trade war between the United States and Europe. When last
year, in May, trade war lasted, some of the European leaders
were so frustrated that they started talking that Europe must take its security
into its own hands. For a short time period, you can put in one
basket, because the economy and defence, they are in one basket.
Trade war and being allies – but it is impossible to be
in the same basket, an ally in defence
and a rival in the economy. In the long run, you
will split. If we split, that will have a devastating effect
on the transatlantic bond and the whole European
and world security architecture. I hope that we will find very soon
a feasible solution to fix that problem.
Peter Pellegrini: I think there
is a crisis of multilateralism in this moment
in the world, so I think we should come back and act again
according to the international rules to support international
organisations such as the United Nations and the World
Trade Organisation. I think that is the best we can do to come
back and to respect the international rules, and not
to fight against each other.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Mr
Secretary-General, please allow me to formulate the question
a bit differently, in the context of the UN. You said
in your speech that now many important political processes are taking
place outside the UN. Can all these changes that we are discussing today
be more successful under the UN aegis? If you had the freedom
to take radical decisions, how would you reform the organisation you
head?
Antonio Guterres: Well, first
of all, we are reforming the UN in what we can do to reform
the UN, and it is essentially to make the Secretariat
and the coordination of our agencies more transparent, more
better coordinated and more accountable. But of course, there are
central questions, and UN-related, about the way this policy works,
the General Assembly works. But looking at the UN, looking
at the World Trade Organisation, any other organisation –
everything can be reformed, and I am very much in favour
of reform, of improvement. By the way, the World Trade
Organisation has a reform process taking place. The central question
for me is related to the behaviour of the actors.
And that is where the major change is needed. And the first
change is to re-establish trust in international relations.
And to establish trust, there are things that are absolutely
essential. First, behaviours need to be rational, and need to be
predictable, and need to be in line with international law. If
you are able to do these things, we can reform the institutions, we
can make them better. If you are not able to do these things, there is no
way we will be able to reform the institutions, because we will never
agree on the way to do it. So, let us re-establish trust, let us
make sure that key actors in the world act in a way that is
rational, that is predictable. And if that happens, we will be able
to improve the way our organisations work in a fantastic
way. But let us never forget: everything is important, but the most
important is people, the people that are assuming responsibilities
in the way they are able to shape international relations based
on trust.
Sophie Shevardnadze: I promise
you that we are almost finished. I literally have one last question
for my President and for President Xi. This is
a geopolitical question because after all I am a foreign affairs
journalist and I would not be forgiven by my colleagues if
I don’t ask. Before the forum I discussed this with
my chief, Margarita Simonyan, who cannot be here because she was taken
to the hospital for the reasons that you know, President
Putin. This is a question about the Korean Peninsula.
Vladimir Putin: Ms Simonyan is
pregnant and she says: for the reasons that you know. What do
I have to do with this? (Laughter.)
Sophie Shevardnadze: Yes, Kim
Jong-un met with Mr Trump, but the talks did not go well. Then he went
to Russia. It all comes down to this: who or what guarantees
a happy and calm life for the North Korean leader if not
an atomic bomb? You, President Xi, and you, President Putin, said
in Vladivostok that in general, international guarantees could make
a big difference. If everyone agrees with this why not give him these
guarantees? Maybe it makes sense to agree here in St Petersburg: two
big nuclear powers, we are willing to give guarantees. Mr Trump, are you
with us or not? Go ahead please.
Xi Jinping: Indeed, denuclearisation
of the Korean Peninsula is already the subject
of international agreements. This issue holds the attention
of the whole world, in particular, the dialogue between
Pyongyang and Washington. I think it is necessary to become
convinced of the prospects for this dialogue.
The interested parties maintain close coordination. This includes
President Putin and me – we are very interested
in the problem of the Korean Peninsula. We are working
together in a constructive way to advance the process
of a political settlement.
It should be said that we need
to make sure, keep our confidence in it and further promote this
process towards the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. We
are sure that there is the potential and good chances for this.
The key is to work together in this direction.
Of course, various mechanisms
need to be established to remove the mistrust between
the key countries – this is what we are striving for, and we
need to discuss their decisions.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: The issue
of the North Korean nuclear programme is definitely a serious
and important one not only for the region but also
for the whole world. I totally agree, and we pay a lot
of attention to this with our Chinese friends. Of course,
I would like to reaffirm what President Xi said – the key
role should belong to the countries who are the principal
rivals – the United States and North Korea.
Nevertheless, we have to say
that North Korea abides by its obligations. First it cancelled its nuclear
tests and is decommissioning one of the test sites. We hear our
US partners say “No, this is not enough.” Maybe it is not enough but this is
what they agreed to.
On the other hand, we need
to consider a mechanism to provide security for North
Korea. Of course, they see the example of Iraq and Libya,
and they do not want this. We must bear this in mind and take it
very seriously. The nature of any guarantees can be a very
complicated matter.
I will not hide
and I will not reveal too big a secret – this problem was
also among those discussed yesterday. I do not have a complete answer
now. I think, nobody has such a proposal. By the way, we
also talked about this with the Americans, when Mr Pompeo visited. We,
and China, are definitely interested in denuclearisation. We want it,
we are pursuing it, because the spread of WMDs around the world
adds up the risks and threats that we normally forget about
in our everyday lives. But they are present, and they are growing,
and this of course worries us.
What sort of guarantees do we
need? This is the key question. It must be a matter
for consideration by everyone. In this case what the UN
Secretary-General said is of utmost importance here – trust.
Of course, we must propose some sort of a plan. Currently
the process is moving along the road map worked out by Russia
and China. On the whole, we are satisfied with the way
the process is unfolding. We are looking forward to President Trump
and the North Korean leader making an arrangement shortly,
to re-establish contact and to carry the process further.
We will work towards this in every way we can.
Sophie Shevardnadze: Thank you
very much.
Thank you all
for the interesting discussion.
I wish you good luck in all
your endeavours. That’s all for today. Have a nice evening!
Vladimir Putin: We all wish
Margarita Simonyan the very best. Give her our best wishes.
No comments:
Post a Comment