PUTIN’S SPEECH AT THE 43RD MUNICH CONFERENCE ON SECURITY 31 AĞUSTOS 2007

Thank you very much dear Federal Chancellor, Mr. Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen. I am truly grateful to be invited to such a conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.

This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to my colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is just a conference. And I hope Mr. Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there after the first minutes of my speech.

It is well known that international security comprises a scope much wider than the issues relating to military and political stability. Its scope includes the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilizations.

This universal and inseparable character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first days of World War II “When peace is broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

These words remain typical today. The global crises and global responsibility that are the themes of our conference exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago, the world was ideologically and economically divided, and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global competition brought the sharpest economic and social problems to the agenda of the international community and the world. And, just like in any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other reflections of the way of thinking that belonged to the Cold War bloc.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity has certainly gone through unipolar periods and witnessed aspirations to world supremacy. But what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? You might embellish this term as much as you like, but at the end of the day it still means one type of situation, one power, one center of force, one master.

It means a world in which there is one master. And as a result, this is fatal not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

As Russia, we are constantly being taught about democracy. But, for some reason, those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I think that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible at the present day. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because intrinsically there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.

In addition, what is happening in today’s world and what we have just started to discuss is a tentative concept, the concept of a unipolar world.

So what are the results?

Unilateral and often illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars and local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr. Teltschik mentioned this very gently. The number of people getting lost or even dying in these conflicts is more than before. Quite more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost unlimited use of force -military force- in international relations. This force is dragging the world into an permanent conflicts. As a result, we do not have the strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political solution also becomes impossible.

We see that the basic principles of international law are increasingly disdained every day. And in fact, independent legal norms are getting more similar to a state’s legal system. This state and, of course, first and foremost the USA, has overstepped its national borders in every aspect. The economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations is a proof of that. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we see that the willpower to resolve a given problem according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate is becoming dominant.

Of course this is an extremely dangerous situation. As a result of that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this -no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates the race for armament.

The supremacy of this power inevitably encourages some countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, some new significant threats -though they were known before- have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that the time has come for us to seriously think about the structure of global security.

While doing this, we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly, those changes are experienced as dynamic developments in many countries and regions.

Dear Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured vis-à-vis purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is greater than that of the United States. With a similar calculation, the GDP of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will increase even more in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested, and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure; like the use of death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

However, today we are witnessing the opposite situation; namely, the countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other dangerous criminals are easily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. In fact, people are killed in these conflicts - hundreds and thousands of civilians.

But do we have the means to oppose those threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime, a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why don’t we start bombing and shooting now at every opportunity? Is it the case, in the absence of a threat that can affect us, we lose our political culture and our respect for democratic values and law?

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in this context, either I misunderstood what the Italian Minister of Defense just said or what he said was incomplete. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimized if the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different perspectives. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is approved by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN truly unites the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disregard for international law, then the situation might change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. In parallel to this, the international law should gain a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

And one must not forget that democratic political activities should be discussed and should go through a painstaking decision-making process.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger deriving from the destabilization of international relations is connected with the stagnation on the disarmament issue.

Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

It is important to preserve the international legal framework for reducing weapons and thus to ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.

Together with the USA, we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to completely fulfill the obligations it has undertaken. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and do not reserve some superfluous nuclear warheads for hard times. And if today the new USA Secretary of Defense declares that the USA will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow, then I suggest that we all rise and applaud this declaration. This declaration would be a very important step.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in those documents are universal ones.

In connection to this, in the 1980s the USSR and the USA signed an agreement on destroying numerous small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and planning to incorporate them as part of their weapon stock. And only the USA and Russia bear the responsibility to not produce such weapon systems.

It is obvious that under those conditions we must rethink about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, it is impossible to prevent the appearance of new, high-tech weapons. In fact, a time will come when new areas will be found in outer space to fight. Star wars is no longer a fantasy, it has become a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellites.

In Russia’s opinion, the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have made more than one attempts that will take the first step for preventing the use of weapons in outer space.

Today I can gladly tell you that we have prepared the project of an agreement on the prevention of armament in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official motion. Let us work on this together.

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defense system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

None of the so-called problem countries have missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometers that can pose a threat to Europe. And in the near future, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe is against the science of missiles. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed, however only 4 states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank defense (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia closed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems with Georgia, as everybody knows. We still have 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet period. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr. Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time? In the meantime, the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each are formed. As a result, NATO places its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfill the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO’s expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask; who is this expansion against? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was a historic choice “that was also made by our people” in favor of democracy, freedom, openness and a permanent partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are imposing new dividing lines and walls on us -these walls may be virtual, but nevertheless they separate and cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again have many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

We are definitely in favor of strengthening the regime of disarmament. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries, based on many valid reasons, want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. However we are also aware that these technologies can quickly be transformed into nuclear weapons.

This situation can create serious international tensions. Iranian nuclear program is a concrete example for this. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilizing crises because there are other countries ahead of Iran. We all know this. We will always fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Last year Russia took the first step of establishing international centers for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centers not only be established in Russia, but also in other countries where civil nuclear energy is legal. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy can guarantee that they produce fuel in these centers. And those centers of course operate under strict IAEA supervision.

The recent steps taken by American President George W. Bush are similar to the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.

In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political motivation and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.

In connection to this let me talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Dear Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to data from different sources, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia, and please think about this figure, belongs to foreign capital. Find me an example; try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. There are no such examples.

I would like to remind the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifty to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

For this reason, more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

In addition, as you know, the process of Russia joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) has reached its final stage. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is another important topic that directly affects global security. Today many people talk about poverty. What is actually happening in this globe? On the one hand, financial resources, and sometimes substantial financial resources, are allocated for programs to help the world’s poorest countries. But, to be honest, as most of us know, those aids are linked with the development of the companies of the donor country. And on the other hand, developed countries at the same time keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And we can characterize those situations not only as distributing charity aids and also preventing economic backwardness but also making profits from those. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in radicalism and marginality; feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens, let’s say, in a region such as the Middle East, which the world do not treat fairly, then there is the risk of global destabilization.

It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And for that reason they should build a more democratic, fairer system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop in global economic relations.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As known, this organization was created to test (I shall emphasize this) all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, in general, the relations between these aspects.

What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a simple instrument promoting political interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic system which is absolutely not connected with the founder states in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of the non-governmental organizations are serving this task. These organizations are legally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore kept under control.

According to the founding documents, in terms of its humanitarian aspect the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights issues upon request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and more importantly not imposing a regime that determines how these countries should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interferences do not contribute to the development of democratic states. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a result, politically and economically unstable.

We hope that the OSCE is governed by its primary tasks and relations built with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion I would like to emphasize the following. We -personally, I - very often hear appeals from our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

In relation to this I would like to remind a small thing. There is not much need for you to encourage us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has always followed an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we know quite well what kind of a transition that the world is going through, and we have a realistic sense of our opportunities and potential. But, of course, we would like to collaborate with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in establishing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

Thank you for your attention.