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.
