[R-G] What Putin Said to Le Monde

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

<http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2008/05/31/vladimir-poutine-elargir-l-otan-c-est-eriger-de-nouveaux-murs-de-berlin_1052123_3214.html>
Vladimir Poutine, premier ministre russe
Vladimir Poutine : "Elargir l'OTAN, c'est ériger de nouveaux murs de Berlin"
LEMONDE.FR | 31.05.08 | 10h56  •  Mis à jour le 31.05.08 | 14h02
Propos recueillis par Marie Jégo, Rémy Ourdan et Piotr Smolar

<http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2008/05/31/la-version-integrale-de-l-interview-de-vladimir-poutine_1052321_3214.html>
La version intégrale de l'interview de Vladimir Poutine
LEMONDE.FR | 31.05.08 | 13h57  •  Mis à jour le 31.05.08 | 13h58
Propos recueillis par Marie Jégo, Rémy Ourdan et Piotr Smolar

<http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/25525>
June 1, 2008, 9:32
What Putin said to Le Monde - in full

On his official visit to Paris, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin spoke
exclusively and at length to France's Le Monde newspaper. RT now
presents the full version of that interview.

Click the video button to watch the interview in full - below is a transcript
<http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/25525/video>

On Russia's political system

Russia is a presidential republic. And we are not going to strip the
head of state of the key role he plays in Russia's political system.
As for the delineation of responsibilities, the final decision, of
course, is always made by the president, and that post today is
occupied by Dmitry Medvedev.

Of course, that I am now the head of the cabinet is an interesting
fact in our political history. But of even greater interest is the
fact that I am now the head of a political party that plays a leading
role in Russia's politics and has a clear majority in parliament. This
clearly indicates that Russia pays close attention to maintaining a
multi-party system and increasing parliament's influence on its
politics.
It is this, I believe, that should be considered as the most important
political signal.

There are many challenges that Russia is facing. And we intend to deal
fairly with our people. We are not going to play politics. If we
succeed in what we do, it doesn't matter how everything is organised
at the top level. What is important is that we reach our goals. Today,
we in Russia have an effective, professional team of experts and
politicians supporting us in parliament. We will do our best to
preserve this unity for as long as possible. As for the distribution
of roles and ambitions, that is a secondary matter.

We do not invent anything, but develop our country, following the
principles and criteria established in the civilised world and
applicable to our reality, I mean political history and political
culture in the Russian Federation - its traditions. It is this way
that we are going to work.

The judicial system, which despite its many drawbacks, does get firmer
and functions. The law-enforcement and state management, including the
judicial branch, functioned rather poorly in defending the interests
of the people. Thus, naturally the people had a disrespect and
mistrust towards the justice system. Which means our task is to
improve this system. And this is what we have been doing and are going
to continue to do. Much remains to be done to make the system work 100
per cent  for the benefit of the people.
The same I can say about the multi-party system. Much has been done to
enhance parliamentarianism and the multi-party system.

It is not about a thousand parties who are incapable of organising a
political process and destroy the state organisation. A multi-party
system is, in my view, when large groups of people representing the
interests of various groups of the population, can efficiently
function, and during the political struggle, a civilised struggle
between themselves, work out decisions to express the interests of the
overwhelming majority of the country's population.

Also, in recent years we've undertaken concrete steps fixed in the
law, concerning the passing over of some authority from the federal
level to the regional and municipal. We have actually decentralised
power and passed on some of the authority, along with financial
resources to local levels. Without the municipal component there can
be no normal, civilised society. We are aware of this and are acting
towards this.  It needs to be done according to reality, we'll make
our steps realistic in order to improve the country. However, there
are certain traditions which must be taken into account.

At the same time, we'll be moving within the main stream of a general
civilisation process.

On Russia's energy sector

In most oil-producing countries, oil-extracting companies are
state-owned.  In Russia, private companies account for a larger part
of the oil and gas sector. All the world's oil giants are represented
in the Russian oil sector, including those from Europe, including
those from France: Gaz de France, Total… And those companies develop
our major fields.

Granted, we did take some steps to support those companies where the
state has a share, or a controlling stake - say, Gazprom, or Rosneft.
But all the other companies - and we have perhaps a dozen major
companies - are in private hands, and some of them are owned by
foreigners. British, American, Indian, Chinese, French, German
companies… The Russian energy sector is much more liberal than those
of many other countries, even European ones.

For example, we are about to complete a massive reform of the electric
energy sector. From July 1st, our largest electrical company, UES,
will cease to exist. Instead, we'll have several major companies that
were parts of this one big company. Generating facilities - both
individual power plants and groups of plants - will now be sold to
private owners. Major players from Europe will be part of this: ENI
from Italy, some German companies… They will invest 6, 8, 10, or 12
billion dollars or euros.

Please note that few European countries are so liberal. Nobody allows
Russian investors to buy into similar projects abroad. But we are
giving other countries such an opportunity.

We have offered certain benefits to newly-developed fields, including
those in the northern sea shelf and in Eastern Siberia, where there is
no infrastructure. I have no doubt whatsoever that this sector of the
Russian economy will develop dynamically in the near future.

On TNK-BP

TNK-BP hasn't had any trouble so far. They do have some problems with
their Russian partners. Several years ago, I warned them that they had
it coming. It's not because it's TNK-BP. It's because several years
ago, they set up a joint venture with a 50-50 ownership. When they did
it - and I was present when they signed the papers -  told them, "You
shouldn't do it. You should decide between the two of you who will
have a controlling stake. And we don't mind if you want BP to have it.
We would, of course, like to see the Russian side, TNK, as the main
shareholder. But somebody has to be in charge. When you don't have a
clearly defined authority in such a business, it is very likely you'll
run into problems." They told me, "No, we will always be able to work
out an agreement." I told them, "Fine, go ahead if you want." Now they
have problems. They constantly have frictions regarding this matter,
which one of the two companies is in charge. That's the main problem.
These are commercial disputes within the company.

On his achievements as president

I'd prefer not to do it myself. I'd prefer not to assess the work I've
done - although I believe I have been working diligently and in good
faith, and there are many things I was able to accomplish, from
restoring Russia's territorial integrity and constitutional order to
ensuring the good dynamics of Russia's economic development and
fighting poverty.

The high oil prices and the situation on international markets today,
of course, had a positive effect on the Russian economy, and that
effect was substantial and significant. Nevertheless, I'd like to
point out that there have been periods in the past, say in the time of
the Soviet Union, when oil prices were quite high. However, that money
was squandered and had no impact on economic development.

In fact, even if we consider our recent history, one may recall that
the oil price began to grow in 2004. But we were able to achieve a
record 10% growth in the Russian economy as early as in 2000. That had
nothing to do with oil prices.

We made some changes to our tax system and our administration system
to ensure growth in the manufacturing industry, which is of the utmost
importance to us.

On what's still to be done

We need to make sure the Russian economy develops in an innovative
way. We want our economy to be innovative, but even in our plans for
the next five years our goals for the innovative part of the economy
are too low.

However, what this means is that we are focusing on those problems
now. We'll work until we solve them.

In Russia, we also face the need to take some steps to modernize a
number of areas. I'm referring not only to making the economy more
innovative - something that we are now working on and that has started
to produce some results.  But we should also change the way we pay our
public servants. We need to switch to an occupation-based system of
payment.

We need to modernize our pension system. We need to ensure that our
senior citizens have a decent life, a decent income. We need to bring
up the so-called replacement ratio, i.e., the ratio between the
pension and the income one has during their working life.

Also, we need to modernise agriculture.

On Mikhail  Khodorkovsky

Khodorkovsky broke the law. More than once and grossly. What's more, a
part of his group is guilty, proven in a court, of personal crimes,
not only economic. They committed murders, more than one person. This
kind of "competition" is not admissible. And we'll do our best to stop
it.

Just as I was when I was president, Dmitry Medvedev should be guided
by Russian legislation. Mr Medvedev, like myself, graduated from the
Law Faculty of  St. Petersburg University. We had good teachers who
taught us to respect the law. And I've known Mr. Medvedev for many
years. He will respect the law and, incidentally, he has said this in
public several times.

On Chechnya and the Caucasus

The situation in the Chechen Republic has improved, and it improved
because of several circumstances, the main one being the fact that the
Chechen people have made a certain choice for themselves towards the
development of their republic within the Russian Federation.

We saw the reaction of the Chechen people to attempts to implant
untraditional forms of Islam into the minds of the local population.
This is what it all started with - resisting Wahhabism. In fact it is
a normal branch of Islam, and there is nothing terrible in it, but it
is those extremist trends within it, that were trying to be implanted
into the consciousness of the Chechen people.

And the people realized that someone from outside was fighting not for
their interests, but trying to use people as a tool to loosen the
Russian Federation as a major and significant player on the
international arena and that would bring only suffering to the people.
The awareness of this factor was the main thing, in terms of
stabilisation. This was what it started with.

And it became a fact, when we understood that the population's mood
has changed, we passed on the main part of the responsibility, both in
law-enforcement sector and economy.

It seemed impossible that a defence minister in the government led by
[Aslan] Maskhadov could become a member of today's Chechen parliament.
Now it's a fact.

And it created the necessary political conditions for the
reconstruction of Grozny and for immediate steps in the economy.

I can tell you that courts and the prosecutor's office is actively
working in the Chechen Republic, and investigations are carried out.
Suspects are made accountable for any crimes committed, disregarding
their motives or previous posts or jobs. Even concerning former rebels
and Russian servicemen. Criminal prosecution is possible not only in
future but now. We have trials completed against a number of people
who are convicted while serving as Russian officers, they are now in
prison. I should say it was a hard decision for our courts, because
despite their apparent crimes, a court jury justified them on more
than one occasion. It shows trends in Russian society. Especially
after the atrocities done to our citizens by terrorists. I'm
personally certain that if we want to bring the order and peace, we
mustn't let anyone contravene the law.

As far as Dagestan and Ingushetia are concerned, we see and are well
aware of what is going on there - there are indeed disputes and
conflicts of interest, but it is not about political interests, but
first and foremost, economic, as well as some political conflicts, but
not related to any separatist movements - it is about an internal
political struggle within the republics themselves.

What is the priority for the Caucasus as a whole and the republics?
First for all, it's the restoration of the social and economic
sectors. Many people live below the poverty line there, most suffering
from unemployment, which is particularly bad among young people. So we
have adopted a Programme of Development for Southern Russia, which
concerns the North Caucasus republics, first of all. This programme
envisages huge investments into the economy and the social sector as a
priority. I count on it to be fulfilled successfully.

On NATO

We are generally against NATO extension. Let's remember how NATO was
created - in 1949, the 5th paragraph of the Washington treaty. It was
done as a defensive measure during a face-off with the Soviet Union.
To defend against a possible threat. The Soviet Union used to say that
it wouldn't attack anybody, western countries said the opposite, but
nevertheless officially it was done to defend against the Soviet
Union. There's no Soviet Union anymore. There's no threat. But the
organisation remains. The question is: "Against whom are you allied?
What is it all for? "

Ok, some say NATO should fight modern threats. But what are these
threats? The spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, epidemics,
international crime, drugs. Is it possible to tackle these threats as
a closed military alliance? No. These problems can be solved only on
the basis of wide cooperation.

Not on the basis of a military block, but on the basis of global
cooperation. On the basis of an honest, open and joint struggle
against these problems.

And expanding the bloc is only creating new borders in Europe. New
Berlin walls. This time invisible, but no less dangerous. It limits
the power of joint efforts against common threats, because it leads to
distrust. It's obstructive.

We all know how decisions are made in NATO. Military-political blocs
limit the sovereignty of any member country. Inside barrack-like
discipline appears.  And the decisions are at first made (we all know
where) in one of the leading countries of the bloc, and then
legitimized and dispersed.

For example the decision on AMD. At first the decision was made and
THEN it was discussed in Brussels, only after we criticized it. And we
are afraid that if these countries get into NATO today - tomorrow
there might appear some offensive rocket systems which will pose a
threat to us.  Nobody will ask them - the rockets will appear
whatever. And what are we going to do then?


We always talk about limiting arms in Europe. But while Western
countries have been talking about it, we have done it in our country.
And in return two military bases appeared near our borders…

Soon we might get two new positions in Poland and the Czech Republic.
And we can see that military infrastructure is heading towards our
borders. What for? No one is posing threat.

How can you be a good willing democrat inside the country, and a scary
monster outside? What's democracy? - it is power of the people. In
Ukraine polls show more than 80 per cent of the population does not
want  the country to join NATO. And our partners say that Ukraine WILL
be in NATO. So they have decided everything for Ukraine? The opinion
of the Ukrainian people doesn't mean anything? And you are saying this
is democracy?


On double standards and the West

We always hear things like "we are civilised countries in the West,
choosing partners we should follow common values." Remembering the
hard events in the Caucasus several years ago - thank god it's over
now – during an apparent civil war we suspended the death penalty in
our country. It was a hard, but responsible decision. Isn't it a case
of "common values"? In some G8 countries, NATO members, the death
penalty persists. Death penalties still carried out. Are they "common
values"? It doesn't stop them from being in NATO and G8. Why is it so
selective concerning Russia? What's permitted to Caesar is not
permitted to anyone else? Such dialogue cannot be productive. We
should show our hands, treat each other honestly, respect each other -
and then a lot more can be done.

Let's take Deripaska for example. I asked my US partners: "Why don't
you grant him a visa? Can you explain? If you have reasons for not
giving him a visa, if you have evidence of his illegal activity,
please give them to us, and we'll use them in our country. They would
give us nothing and explain nothing. However, he was not granted
entry.

He is not a friend or relative of mine, just a representative of big
business in Russia. He has multi-billion dollar commercial interests
in many countries of the world. Why is he restricted? What did he do?
If there is something, show it to us. If there is nothing to show,
then remove the restrictions.

On Iran's nuclear programme

I don't think the Iranians are looking to make a nuclear bomb. We have
no reason to believe this. The Iranian people are very proud and
independent. They are trying to implement their legal right to develop
peaceful nuclear technologies.

I should say that formally Iran hasn't violated any rules. It even has
the right to carry out enrichment. It only takes a quick glance at the
relevant documents to confirm this. There were some claims that Iran
hadn't revealed all its programmes to the IAEA. This is what we need
to clear up. But to a large extent Iran has revealed its nuclear
programmes. I repeat there is no official basis for legal claims
against Iran.

But I have always openly told our Iranian colleagues that we take into
account that Iran is not isolated in a vacuum, but in a very dangerous
and volatile region.  They should keep this in mind and avoid
aggravating their neighbours and the international community, and
should take steps to convince the international community that they
have no secret plans. We have worked in very tight cooperation with
our partners in Iran and within the framework of the six-party talks,
and we will continue to do this in the future.

We are against - this is our principle - we are against the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We think it's a very
dangerous trend. And most importantly its not in the interest either
of Iran or the region as a whole. Because the use of nuclear weapons
in such a small region as the Middle East is nothing short of suicide.
In whose interest could a nuclear bomb possibly be used? Palestine? If
nuclear weapons were used, Palestine would cease to exist. We remember
the Chernobyl tragedy - all it takes is for the wind to blow in the
wrong direction, and that's it! Who could possibly benefit from this?
We think it's counter-productive. This has always been our position
and I hope this opinion will be shared by president Medvedev.

We will use any means possible to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

We offered an international programme of enrichment, because Iran is
only a part of the problem. A lot of countries are on the threshold of
the peaceful use of nuclear energy. And this means that they will need
enrichment technology. And if they create their own closed cycle to
solve the problem, there will always be the suspicion that they could
produce military grade uranium. It is difficult to control. That's why
we propose carrying out the enrichment on the territory of those
countries which are beyond suspicion because they already possess
nuclear weapons.  Also these countries will get a guarantee that they
will receive the uranium they need and be able to send spent fuel for
recycling. It is possible to create such a system and it will be
reliable and safe.

On France's presidency of the EU

France is our long-time partner and a reliable one.  We have always
talked about the strategic partnership between France and Russia, and
I agree with this definition. France has always had and I hope will
continue to have an independent foreign policy. It's in their blood -
they won't be dictated to. And any French leader should always keep
this in mind. We can see this independence today, we value it very
much, and that's why we expect a lot from France's EU chairmanship.

First of all we expect a constructive dialogue aimed at creating the
legal basis for our relations with EU. I am talking about our
fundamental partnership treaty which as you know has expired.
However, this is not a legal vacuum, because existing procedures exist
making it possible for us to prolong it every year, but of course it
needs to be renewed. We have said many times that we are interested in
signing a new agreement; this of equal importance to our European
partners as it is to us.

So I expect that the French chairmanship will lead to the renewal of
our relations, and to joint efforts in developing our mutual
interests.

-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>