A Speech that Could Change the World -- Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club
Print This
By Vladimir Putin, speaker at the Valdai International Discussion Club
kremlin.ru
Tuesday, Nov 1, 2016
President of Russia
Vladimir Putin:
Tarja, Heinz, Thabo, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure to see you again. I want
to start by thanking all of the participants in the Valdai International
Discussion Club, from Russia and abroad, for your constructive part in this work,
and I want to thank our distinguished guests for their readiness to take part
in this open discussion.
Our
esteemed moderator just wished me a good
departure into retirement, and I wish myself the same when the time
comes. This
is the right approach and the thing to do. But I am not retired yet
and am for now the leader of this big country. As such, it is fitting
to show restraint
and avoid displays of excessive aggressiveness. I do not think that this
is my style in any case.
But I do think that we should be frank with
each other, particularly here in this gathering. I think we should hold candid,
open discussions, otherwise our dialogue makes no sense and would be insipid
and without the slightest interest.
I think that this style of discussion is extremely
needed today given the great changes taking place in the world. The theme for our meeting this year, The Future in Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow, is very topical.
Last year, the Valdai forum participants
discussed the problems with the current world order. Unfortunately, little has
changed for the better over these last months. Indeed, it would be more honest
to say that nothing has changed.
The tensions engendered by shifts in distribution of economic and political influence continue to grow. Mutual
distrust creates a burden that narrows our possibilities for finding effective
responses to the real threats and challenges facing the world today.
Essentially, the entire globalisation project is in crisis today and in Europe,
as we know well, we hear voices now saying that multiculturalism has failed.
I think
this situation is in many respects the result of mistaken, hasty
and to some extent over-confident choices made by some countries’ elites
a quarter-of-a-century ago. Back then, in the late
1980s-early 1990s, there was a chance not just to accelerate
the globalisation
process but also to give it a different quality and make it more
harmonious and sustainable in nature.
But some countries that saw themselves as victors in the Cold War, not just saw themselves this way but said it openly,
took the course of simply reshaping the global political and economic order to fit their own interests.
In their euphoria, they essentially abandoned
substantive and equal dialogue with other actors in international life, chose
not to improve or create universal institutions, and attempted instead to bring
the entire world under the spread of their own organisations, norms and rules.
They chose the road of globalisation and security for their own beloved selves,
for the select few, and not for all. But far from everyone was ready to agree
with this.
We
may as well be frank here, as we know full
well that many did not agree with what was happening, but some were
unable by then to respond, and others were not yet ready to respond.
The result though is
that the system of international relations is in a feverish state
and the global economy cannot extricate itself from systemic crisis.
At the same time,
rules and principles, in the economy and in politics, are constantly
being
distorted and we often see what only yesterday was taken as a truth
and raised
to dogma status reversed completely.
If the powers that be today find some standard
or norm to their advantage, they force everyone else to comply. But if tomorrow
these same standards get in their way, they are swift to throw them in the bin,
declare them obsolete, and set or try to set new rules.
Thus,
we saw the decisions to launch airstrikes
in the centre of Europe, against Belgrade, and then came Iraq, and then
Libya.
The operations in Afghanistan also started without the corresponding
decision
from the United Nations Security Council. In their desire to shift
the strategic balance in their favour these countries broke apart
the international
legal framework that prohibited deployment of new missile defence
systems. They
created and armed terrorist groups, whose cruel actions have sent
millions of civilians into flight, made millions of displaced persons
and immigrants, and plunged entire regions into chaos.
We see how free trade is being sacrificed and countries use sanctions as a means of political pressure, bypass the World
Trade Organisation and attempt to establish closed economic alliances with
strict rules and barriers, in which the main beneficiaries are their own
transnational corporations. And we know this is happening. They see that they
cannot resolve all of the problems within the WTO framework and so think, why
not throw the rules and the organisation itself aside and build a new one
instead. This illustrates what I just said.
At the same
time,
some of our partners demonstrate no desire to resolve the real
international
problems in the world today. In organisations such as NATO, for example,
established during the Cold War and clearly out of date today, despite
all the talk about the need to adapt to the new reality, no real
adaptation takes place.
We see constant attempts to turn the OSCE, a crucial mechanism
for ensuring
common European and also trans-Atlantic security, into an instrument
in the service of someone’s foreign policy interests. The result is that
this very
important organisation has been hollowed out.
But they continue
to churn out threats, imaginary and mythical threats such as the ‘Russian
military threat’. This is a profitable business that can be used to pump new
money into defence budgets at home, get allies to bend to a single superpower’s
interests, expand NATO and bring its infrastructure, military units and arms
closer to our borders.
Of course,
it can
be a pleasing and even profitable task to portray oneself
as the defender of civilisation against the new barbarians. The only
thing is that Russia has no
intention of attacking anyone. This is all quite absurd. I also read
analytical
materials, those written by you here today, and by your colleagues
in the USA
and Europe.
It
is unthinkable,
foolish and completely unrealistic. Europe alone has 300 million people.
All of the NATO members together with the USA have a total population
of 600 million,
probably. But Russia has only 146 million. It is simply absurd to even
conceive
such thoughts. And yet they use these ideas in pursuit of their
political aims.
Another
mythical
and imaginary problem is what I can only call the hysteria the USA has
whipped
up over supposed Russian meddling in the American presidential election.
The United States has plenty of genuinely urgent problems, it would
seem, from the colossal public debt to the increase in firearms violence
and cases of arbitrary action by the police.
You
would think
that the election debates would concentrate on these and other
unresolved
problems, but the elite has nothing with which to reassure society, it
seems,
and therefore attempt to distract public attention by pointing instead
to supposed Russian hackers, spies, agents of influence and so forth.
I have to ask
myself and ask you too: Does anyone seriously imagine that Russia can somehow
influence the American people’s choice? America is not some kind of ‘banana
republic’, after all, but is a great power. Do correct me if I am wrong.
The question is, if
things continue in this vein, what awaits the world? What kind of world will we
have tomorrow? Do we have answers to the questions of how to ensure stability,
security and sustainable economic growth? Do we know how we will make a more
prosperous world?
Sad
as it is to say, there is no consensus on these issues in the world
today. Maybe you have
come to some common conclusions through your discussions, and I would,
of course, be interested to hear them. But it is very clear that there
is a lack
of strategy and ideas for the future. This creates a climate
of uncertainty
that has a direct impact on the public mood.
Sociological
studies conducted around the world show that people in different
countries and on different continents tend to see the future as murky
and bleak. This is sad.
The future does not entice them, but frightens them. At the same time,
people
see no real opportunities or means for changing anything, influencing
events
and shaping policy.
Yes,
formally
speaking, modern countries have all the attributes of democracy:
Elections,
freedom of speech, access to information, freedom of expression. But
even in the most advanced democracies the majority of citizens have no
real influence
on the political process and no direct and real influence on power.
People
sense an ever-growing gap between their interests and the elite’s
vision of the only
correct course, a course the elite itself chooses. The result is that
referendums and elections increasingly often create surprises
for the authorities. People do not at all vote as the official
and respectable media
outlets advised them to, nor as the mainstream parties advised them to.
Public
movements that only recently were too far left or too far right are
taking
centre stage and pushing the political heavyweights aside.
At first,
these
inconvenient results were hastily declared anomaly or chance. But when
they
became more frequent, people started saying that society does not
understand
those at the summit of power and has not yet matured sufficiently to be
able to assess the authorities’ labour for the public good. Or they sink
into hysteria
and declare it the result of foreign, usually Russian, propaganda.
Friends and colleagues, I would like to have such a propaganda machine here in Russia, but
regrettably, this is not the case. We have not even global mass media outlets
of the likes of CNN, BBC and others. We simply do not have this kind of capability yet.
As for the claim
that the fringe and populists have defeated the sensible, sober and responsible
minority – we are not talking about populists or anything like that but about ordinary
people, ordinary citizens who are losing trust in the ruling class. That is the problem.
By the way,
with
the political agenda already eviscerated as it is, and with elections
ceasing
to be an instrument for change but consisting instead of nothing but
scandals
and digging up dirt – who gave someone a pinch, who sleeps with whom, if
you’ll
excuse me. This just goes beyond all boundaries. And honestly, a look
at various candidates’ platforms gives the impression that they were
made from the same mould – the difference is slight, if there is any.
It
seems as if the elites do not see the deepening stratification
in society and the erosion of the middle class, while at the same time,
they implant ideological ideas that,
in my opinion, are destructive to cultural and national identity.
And in certain cases, in some countries they subvert national interests
and renounce
sovereignty in exchange for the favour of the suzerain.
This begs the question: who is actually the fringe? The expanding class of the supranational
oligarchy and bureaucracy, which is in fact often not elected and not
controlled by society, or the majority of citizens, who want simple and plain
things – stability, free development of their countries, prospects for their
lives and the lives of their children, preserving their cultural identity, and,
finally, basic security for themselves and their loved ones.
People
are clearly scared
to see how terrorism is evolving from a distant threat to an everyday
one, how
a terrorist attack could occur right near them, on the next street, if
not on their own street, while any makeshift item – from a home-made
explosive to an ordinary truck – can be used to carry out a mass
killing.
Moreover,
the terrorist attacks that have taken place in the past few years
in Boston and other US cities, Paris, Brussels, Nice and German cities,
as well as, sadly, in our own country, show that terrorists do not need
units or organised structures – they can act independently, on their
own, they just need the ideological
motivation against their enemies, that is, against you and us.
The terrorist
threat is a clear example of how people fail to adequately evaluate
the nature
and causes of the growing threats. We see this in the way events
in Syria are
developing. No one has succeeded in stopping the bloodshed and launching
a political settlement process. One would think that we would have
begun to put
together a common front against terrorism now, after such lengthy
negotiations,
enormous effort and difficult compromises.
But
this has not happened
and this common front has not emerged. My personal agreements with
the President of the United States have not produced results either.
There were
people in Washington ready to do everything possible to prevent these
agreements
from being implemented in practice. This all demonstrates
an unexplainable and I would say irrational desire on the part
of the Western countries to keep
making the same mistakes or, as we say here in Russia, keep stepping
on the same rake.
We all see what is
happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and a number of other countries. I have
to ask, where are the results of the fight against terrorism and extremism?
Overall, looking at the world as a whole, there are some results in particular
regions and locations, but there is no global result and the terrorist threat
continues to grow.
We
all remember the euphoria in some capitals over the Arab Spring. Where
are these fanfares today?
Russia’s calls for a joint fight against terrorism go ignored. What’s
more,
they continue to arm, supply and train terrorist groups in the hope
of using
them to achieve their own political aims. This is a very dangerous game
and I address the players once again: The extremists in this case are
more cunning,
clever and stronger than you, and if you play these games with them, you
will
always lose.
Colleagues,
it is
clear that the international community should concentrate on the real
problems
facing humanity today, the resolution of which will make our world
a safer and more stable place and make the system of international
relations fairer and more equal. As I said, it is essential to transform
globalisation from
something for a select few into something for all. It is my firm belief
that we
can overcome these threats and challenges only by working together
on the solid
foundation of international law and the United Nations Charter.
Today
it is the United Nations that
continues to remain an agency that is unparalleled in representativeness
and universality, a unique venue for equitable dialogue. Its universal
rules are
necessary for including as many countries as possible in economic
and humanitarian integration, guaranteeing their political
responsibility and working
to coordinate their actions while also preserving their sovereignty
and development models.
We
have no doubt that sovereignty is
the central notion of the entire system of international relations.
Respect for it and its consolidation will help underwrite peace
and stability both at the national
and international levels. There are many countries that can rely
on a history
stretching back a thousand years, like Russia, and we have come
to appreciate
our identity, freedom and independence. But we do not seek global
domination,
expansion or confrontation with anyone.
In our mind, real leadership lies in seeing real problems rather than attempting to invent mythical threats and use
them to steamroll others. This is exactly how Russia understands its role in global affairs today.
There
are priorities without which a prosperous future for our shared planet
is unthinkable and they are absolutely
obvious. I won’t be saying anything new here. First of all, there is
equal and indivisible security for all states. Only after ending armed
conflicts and ensuring the peaceful development of all countries will we
be able to talk
about economic progress and the resolution of social, humanitarian
and other
key problems. It is important to fight terrorism and extremism
in actuality. It
has been said more than once that this evil can only be overcome
by a concerted
effort of all states of the world. Russia continues to offer this to all
interested partners.
It
is necessary to add to the international agenda the issue of restoring
the Middle Eastern countries’
lasting statehood, economy and social sphere. The mammoth scale
of destruction demands
drawing up a long-term comprehensive programme, a kind of Marshall Plan,
to revive the war- and conflict-ridden area. Russia is certainly
willing to join
actively in these team efforts.
We
cannot achieve global stability
unless we guarantee global economic progress. It is essential to provide
conditions for creative labour and economic growth at a pace that would
put an end to the division of the world into permanent winners
and permanent losers.
The rules of the game should give the developing economies at least
a chance to catch up with those we know as developed economies. We
should work to level out
the pace of economic development, and brace up backward countries
and regions
so as to make the fruit of economic growth and technological progress
accessible to all. Particularly, this would help to put an end
to poverty, one
of the worst contemporary problems.
It is also absolutely evident that
economic cooperation should be mutually lucrative and rest on universal
principles to enable every country to become an equal partner in global
economic activities. True, the regionalising trend in the world economy is
likely to persist in the medium term. However, regional trade agreements should
complement and expand not replace the universal norms and regulations.
Russia
advocates the harmonisation
of regional economic formats based on the principles of transparency
and respect for each other’s interests. That is how we arrange the work
of the Eurasian Economic Union and conduct negotiations with our
partners,
particularly on coordination with the Silk Road Economic Belt project,
which
China is implementing. We expect it to promote an extensive Eurasian
partnership, which promises to evolve into one of the formative centres
of a vast Eurasian integration area. To implement this idea, 5+1 talks
have begun
already for an agreement on trade and economic cooperation between all
participants in the process.
An important
task of ours is to develop human potential. Only a world with ample
opportunities for all, with
highly skilled workers, access to knowledge and a great variety of ways
to realise their potential can be considered truly free. Only a world
where people
from different countries do not struggle to survive but lead full lives
can be
stable.
A decent future is impossible without
environment protection and addressing climate problems. That is why the conservation
of the natural world and its diversity and reducing the human impact on the environment
will be a priority for the coming decades.
Another
priority is global healthcare. Of course, there are many problems, such
as large-scale epidemics, decreasing the mortality rate in some regions
and the like. So there is enormous room for advancement.
All people in the world, not only the elite, should have the right
to healthy,
long and full lives. This is a noble goal. In short, we should build
the foundation for the future world today by investing in all priority
areas of human development. And of course, it is necessary to continue
a broad-based
discussion of our common future so that all sensible and promising
initiatives
are heard.
Colleagues,
ladies and gentlemen, I am
confident that you, as members of the Valdai Club, will actively take
part in this work. Your expertise enables you to understand all angles
of the processes
underway both in Russia and in the world, forecast and evaluate
long-term
trends, and put forward new initiatives and recommendations that will
help us
find the way to the more prosperous and sustainable future that we all
badly
need.
If you appreciated this article, please consider making a donation to Axis of Logic.
We do not use commercial advertising or corporate funding. We depend solely upon you,
the reader, to continue providing quality news and opinion on world affairs.Donate here