|
Future of Kaliningrad missiles in US hands – Medvedev
Dmitry
Medvedev says Russia would have no choice but to react should the US
take the unilateral step of building missile bases in Eastern Europe.
The President says such a response could include deploying Iskander
missiles in Kaliningrad. However, he says, Russia could shelve the
plans should the US change its mind.
Medvedev’s interview to Le Figaro
Mr President, I would like to express
my sincere gratitude to you for choosing Le Figaro for giving your
first interview to a foreign publication since Barack Obama was elected
president.
Many observers were surprised by your
first reaction, as you threatened to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad.
Will this put your relations with the newly elected president on a sort
of conflict basis?
I am ready to comment on your question. You know, I would not in any
way link my speech on November 5 to any other political events, apart
from my address to the Russian Federal Assembly. In other words, it is
not in any way linked to the US presidential election or any other
political events.
What’s more, it’s an internal document. Of course, if we consider that
the presidential address to the Federal Assembly is delivered once a
year, I could not but react to a number of serious political events and
the threats our country is facing, one of them being the decision by
the current US administration to deploy anti-missile systems in Europe,
even without the consent of a consolidated Europe, and even without
prior consent from NATO, but based on bilateral agreements with certain
countries.
We had constantly asked our US partners the same question: Why do you
need this? How efficient is it and who is this system aimed at? We
received no reasonable answer to any of those questions. What’s more –
we proposed a different step and proposed creating a global defence
system using our radar systems, as well as radars in partner countries
like Azerbaijan. There was no progress in any of those areas.
Therefore, sooner or later we had to retaliate. My predecessor has
mentioned, and so did I – some time ago – that we cannot but react to
the unilateral decisions regarding the missiles by our US counterparts.
That’s why I voiced our decision during my speech. I think it’s an
absolutely adequate response. We did not start this. It is only a
response to the unilateral move to deploy the US radars and missiles.
However, we can give up this position altogether, should the new US
administration analyse all the consequences of deploying all the
missiles and radars, analyse their efficiency and many other facts as
to whether these means are adequate to react to the threats from
so-called rogue states.
The first US reaction – from the new US administration – gives hope. At
least, our future partners are thinking about whether it is useful or
useless, efficient or inefficient, which means there is something to
discuss. We are ready for such talks and are ready even for a ‘zero’
option. It would be quite a normal way out of the current situation.
What’s more, we’re ready to continue working on the global defence
system, with participation from both the USA and the EU, as well as the
Russian Federation.
As for my relations with the president-elect Barack Obama, I’ve had a
conversation with him – a good one. I hope we’ll be able to build
normal partnership relations with the new administration and find
solutions to some difficult issues which we could not find with the
current administration.
The new US president has a very large bank of trust. He has been
elected at a very challenging time. And I wish him success and good
luck in everything which he has to do.
Will you have a chance to meet Obama during the G20 meeting in Washington?
It’s an internal US political question, because, as far as I
understand, they are now deciding whether it is appropriate for the
newly elected president to show up at such events, given that the
acting president is still in office. Anyway, Mr. Obama and I agreed
that we will meet without delay. It is necessary both for the US and
the Russian Federation.
You are now heading to Nice for the
EU-Russia Summit. Some EU countries voice their concerns about the
continuing presence of Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
What’s more, their number exceeds the number of troops stationed there
before August 7. Are you going to decrease the number of the troops in
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and is your decision to recognise the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia final?
To answer your second question immediately – our decision is final and
irreversible. This is no laughing matter. We have recognised two new
international entities. From the point of view of international
doctrine, these two new entities do exist.
As for our military contingent, let me draw your attention to the fact
that no document, including my joint plan with President Sarkozy,
envisages that this contingent should follow any rules.
We’ve talked about settling the conflict, withdrawing the peacekeeping
forces and the additional contingent when the actual war was going on.
As for the current situation, it is regulated by our current agreements
with these two new international entities.
The size of this contingent is stipulated by bilateral agreements,
between Russia and Abkhazia, on the one hand, and Russia and South
Ossetia, on the other. We will decide on our own what type of
contingent is needed, as well as how and where it will be stationed,
and what military bases will be built in the region. All this is done
to protect the two new subjects of international law and their citizens
and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. The size of the contingent
should be enough for meeting these objectives.
President Sarkozy and other heads of
EU member states have agreed to renew talks with Russia on signing a
new strategic partnership treaty. What does Russia expect from such a
strategic partnership?
First, I’d like to say I appreciate the efforts by the French President
to set up a proper, productive, long-term and mutually beneficial
dialogue between Russia and the EU. He’s doing a great job.
These are the type of relations that we want to have with the EU. We
believe it’s absolutely necessary, both for the Russian Federation and
the EU. It’s because we all live on the same continent, we all have
open economies. We’re interested in mutual investment. Europe gets oil
and gas from Russia, and we get positions on the European market which
are important for us.
The volume of trade turnover between Russia and France is 16 billion US
dollars per year, and it’s still growing. There are billions of dollars
of investment every year. These are major figures, and it’s only one
country of the EU.
That’s why we need to have a proper, solid foundation for these relations. The agreement is such a foundation.
So we are welcoming any decision to renew the negotiations on this
issue. In the near future, when I’m in Nice, we’ll discuss it with
France, the current EU chairman. I will talk to my colleague Nicolas
Sarkozy, as well as to my other colleagues.
Russia has been, is and will be an integral part of Europe.
We’re interested in very close, partnership ties with the EU.
Can you name any particular spheres where the cooperation between Russia and France can develop most actively?
Of course I can. There are several major projects where our countries
have been successfully cooperating. Let’s start with energy. There are
major projects involving French companies traditionally buying oil and
gas in Russia. ‘Total’ is one such company. These are major,
multi-billion, investment projects future-oriented. But our cooperation
is not limited to energy. We also have a number of projects in the
hi-tech sphere. Cooperation in aviation industry… new modern materials…
All this is enough to say that we have quite a rich palette of
relations.
I’d like to specially stress that we’re interested in French investment
into the Russian economy, and we hope that France will also be
interested in investment from Russia. This binds us together more than
anything else. This is the main binding factor.
Now, we have to work together to find ways of solving the problems brought about by the financial crisis.
This week, you will take part in the
G-20 meeting in Washington, where the consequences of the financial
crisis will be the main item on the agenda. Are you bringing any real
solutions for reforming the global financial system with you?
I’m not only bringing it, I’ve already sent all I had. I’ve talked to
my colleague Nicolas Sarkozy, and my other colleagues – I mean
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, Italian PM Mr. Berlusconi, and
British PM Mr. Brown. We’ve discussed the situation in the world
economy and finance system. We’ve sent in our suggestions on solving
the issue.
It’s not a secret that we’re looking at many things in the same way –
the origins of the crisis, and the answers we’ll have to come up with.
What really has to be discussed is the complex of measures aimed at
creating long-term financial stability, and the ways of reforming the
existing world financial architecture.
In other words, we need to give answers to two major questions – first,
how to deal with the current crisis and its consequences, and second –
how to prevent it from happening in the future.
The future financial architecture has to be more transparent, more
predictable and better-controlled. It has to be based on the strong
foundation of international agreements. It has to create a new, or a
partially reformed system of international institutions, including the
so-called top level creditor institutions. It’s got to create a new
system of corporate reporting and risk insurance, as well as a new,
more transparent accounting system. All these things have to be
discussed now, and that’s why we’ve come up with a suggestion to create
a rapid response system for reacting to emerging crises.
This system has to be recognized by all states, and it has to work in
the interests of all states, not just one country, even the most
powerful or largest countries.
We have to create something like the Bretton-Woods system, for new
Bretton-Woods-like agreements. I don’t know where they will be signed,
but they are necessary.
Russia will be unable to escape the
financial crisis, and the financial recession which follows. Is Russia
ready to initiate large-scale plans to revive its economy, to counter
the recession, similar to the plan recently announced by China?
Of course, this is now the number-one challenge. In its work, our
country’s leadership is mainly trying to minimize the consequences of
the crisis.
We have adopted a number of emergency measures to improve money supply
and liquidity in the spheres of banking and manufacturing. This doesn’t
mean these measures are enough. We will continue monitoring the
situation and try to respond adequately. We’re also using the
experience of our partners, and we’re watching the steps taken by our
European colleagues. To a large extent, our efforts are sometimes
simultaneous, and sometimes they’re going in the same direction. We’re
also watching the actions of our Chinese friends. But you have to make
allowances for the size and the nature of the economy. There are no
universal recipes here, although the crisis affects virtually all
countries.
Are you considering the possible
nationalisation of banks, which would allow to better use the existing
credit resources, because we’re witnessing an outflow of capital.
Yes, there is an outflow of capital, but it cannot be the reason for
nationalising banks. The issue is different. We have to preserve the
most important, pivotal banks, which are responsible for infrastructure
and money circulation inside the country. Second, and equally important
goal is to preserve the people’s deposits. Almost all deposits in
Russia are guaranteed by the state.
At the same time, though, we must monitor the situation and be ready to
take readjustment measures, if necessary… up to transferring share
stock ownership to the state… This method has been successfully used by
other countries, such as the US, Great Britain and others.
But, even if this will lead to a partial transfer of ownership rights
to the state, it will only be a temporary measure, and such stocks will
later be sold.
In my recent address to the Russian Federal Assembly, I’ve said that we
don’t need a ‘governmentalised’ economy. We need an efficient market
economy, firmly based on private property.
The drop in oil prices has seriously affected the Russian budget. Do you expect the prices will start rising?
You know, any drastic decrease in oil and gas prices, or, on the
contrary, sharp speculative growth, always leads to instability.
Of course, we cannot be happy when oil prices drop below reasonable
levels, which are today seen by all oil-producing countries at
relatively the same levels. But our economy, our budget as a whole, is
rather well protected against such oil price drops.
We have the so-called reserve fund, which we called earlier the
‘stabilisation fund’. It helps smooth out such problems and keeps the
budget spending on social and economic development on the same level.
In the long-term perspective, I’m sure the current structure of oil
prices, as well as prices for other energy carriers, will be adjusted,
and we will witness a rise in oil prices. This is completely obvious.
As for the current situation, it is somewhat predictable, but not
completely, because, as far as I know, there’s no-one who could give a
reliable forecast of oil price dynamics.
This is the factor which turns the science of economy into art.
Mr President, you’ve just proposed to
increase the presidential term from four to six years. Some observers
were quick to comment that this decision will enable Vladimir Putin to
come back to power as president. Are you planning to work till the end
of your term, or do you see a possibility of retirement?
Well, I am working now, why do you suggest I would make such decisions?
There’s only one thing I can tell you for certain – these changes will
only affect the candidate which will be elected to the post of
president after these amendments come into force.
The office terms of supreme power, be it the president or the
parliament, should first and foremost suit the interests of the
country’s development. If we take a look at France’s recent history,
the seven years in power introduced in Charles de Gaulle’s constitution
allowed the solution of a whole range of problems. Later, the people of
France saw that it was no longer relevant, and the necessary changes
were introduced. We’ll wait and see. We’ll work with this office term
now, but who knows what will happen in 30 or 40 years.
So, can you make it clear, will these changes, after they are adopted, affect you, or will they only affect your successor?
According to general legal principles, these changes, after the
constitution has been amended, will only apply to the person newly
elected to this post. They will not be retroactive. The current term in
office is only four years.
It appears that there’s still
instability in the Russian Caucasus, there are outbreaks of violence.
Can we speak about renewed terrorist activities in the region?
You know, it’s definitely too early to sit back and relax. We’re
speaking about the situation in the Caucasus as a whole, and the
terrorist situation in the world, as a whole. Terrorism, by its nature,
is international. It makes its way through borders using all kinds of
slogans, and it’s followed up by all kinds of ideas. So I certainly
cannot say that the terrorist threat is eliminated in the Caucasus, or
any other region.
We all have to face it. The Russian Federation had to face it in the
1990s, when several of the country’s regions, as a result of terrorist
activities, were not under Russian jurisdiction any longer. Bandits
were in power there.
We managed to restore constitutional order in the Chechen republic, and
ease the tensions in other republics in the North Caucasus… Similar
problems appear all across the globe… And you have to react on time...
The situation now is, really, not very calm.
Not long ago, there was an explosion in North Ossetia, people were
killed. The investigation’s main suspicion today is that it was a
terrorist act.
The goal is not only to scare people, but to spark new conflicts, as well.
That’s why we’ll spare no effort and take all measures to preserve
constitutional order in the region. It was also the reason for a number
of decisions which I’ve made to stabilise the situation on the whole,
to add more dynamic to the situation’s development in some regions, and
to strengthen the leadership in some of Russia’s regions, including the
North Caucasus.
Terrorism, and crime in general, usually intensify when non-regional
forces make their way into the region, especially if it’s such a
volatile region as the Caucasus.
The August crisis showed that when leaders of other countries lose
control at some point and resort to aggression, in the end, it
destabilises the situation in the region as a whole.
If Russia didn’t interfere and enforce order in August, it’s hard to tell what would be happening in these regions now.
It’s quite likely there would have been major bloodshed, and
large-scale terrorist activities aimed at breaking up the existing
states.
And, finally, a personal
question. Although you’re facing serious challenges, are you satisfied
with having to carry out the duties of the President?
I’ll tell you frankly that it’s a very interesting job… But it’s also a
big responsibility… And this is not a figure of speech… You have to be
involved in solving all kinds of problems 24 hours a day.
Thank you, I wish success to you and your newspaper.
|