#6323
[Second Issue of the Day]
#12
[excerpts from June 24 Putin press conference]
pravda.ru
June 24, 2002
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S PRESS-CONFERENCE
ORT television company:
There are people in Russia that have not yet determined their political views for themselves, that did not join this or that political party. Maybe, they will become something like an easy prey for those political forces that offer simple solutions of complicated problems, like it happened in France. Do you think there is a threat that extreme political parties will attract masses of electors on the threshold of elections and what can be done in order not to let the extreme ideology find the support in Russia?
First of all, Russia is not France and we have a lot of things that resemble the situation in Western Europe, but this is a different country and the situation is different as well. I think that the major political forces of Western Europe are coming to certain conclusions for themselves on the ground of what is happening in connection with a shift to the right. I paid attention to those alarming symptoms in conversations with my colleagues. It happened in Germany, in Holland, in France. I think it is not our business to interfere or to express our evaluation. I think it is connected with a certain fault in the priorities of home policy, like a certain human being of a certain country gets lost amid human values. This leads to such results. As far as Russia is concerned, I do not see such a threat. In my opinion, such a threat can be formed when country’s leadership does not pay attention to the needs of its population, does not solve those issues, or ignores them. I think that our major goal is to pull Russian out of poverty, to make people feel safe here, and make Russia’s international prestige grow. We are working in this direction gradually, but not as fast as we would like to. We want to explain to the people of the country what we do, to clarify those goals that we set. I think that if this continues in the future, then there will be the adequate reaction from the population, then the country's political forces will have their support, but we will not get any extremism in Russia. There is another circumstance that I would like to pay your attention to. This is the wrong way to put opponents in illegal position. Thank God, the representatives of all political movements have a possibility to express their opinions legally, to strive for their points of view, to struggle for electors. Thirdly, we have to strengthen the multy-party system. The parliament of the country has passed the law about it, this law starts living, it will work from territories, from regions, which is very important, because the parties must show their influence on the regional political life. Everything is being done without any haste, taking into consideration the readiness and opportunities of the region to the introduction of this multy-party system on the regional level. If all this continues its realization in the future, then I do not see any radical threat for Russia.
Chechen television and radio network Khladov:
The so-called myth about Chechens, the negative myth is a serious moral and psychological damage for Chechens and for those, who live beyond the borders of the republic. Do you think it is possible to dissipate it? We have another question – is it possible to amend the system of cleansing procedures in Chechnya, in order to make them not so painful for civilians?
Speaking about the negative image of the Chechen nation. The Chechen people are not guilty of anything about it. I think that it is the guilt of the federal center, because the Chechen people were left to the mercy of fate. We will not be looking for certain guilty people, but it is clear that Russia’s state machine has not worked. What can a common Chechen citizen do, when an armed gang of 100-200 people enters a village? Even when there is a Kalashnikov in every Chechen house? They cannot do a thing with that Kalashnikov and the state turned out to be unable to protect the interests of the Chechen people. Extremist fanatics used that, was there anything in common between the bandit incursion in Dagestan of 1999 and Chechnya’s interests? There was nothing in common. Were those people protecting Chechnya’s interests? They used Chechens as the living shield. It is a tragedy today, I repeat, there is no point to look for the guilty, we have to look at the reality. Yes, there is that negative image, unfortunately, but we have to dissipate this perception, this image of the enemy, of the terrorism, and there are a lot of reasons for it. We are to blame. You know it very well that they do not talk and write much about the heroism of Chechen volunteers or Chechen police that was shown in the beginning of the struggle with extremists, by the way. The latest event – the elimination of Khattab – it became possible owing to the direct participation of the Chechen population. There are other examples to illustrate Chechens’ efficient work to oust terrorists and establish peaceful life. One has to talk about it more and that’s all. This is everyone’s goal – yours and ours, and everyone’s who is in this room today. Now speaking about cleansing procedures. They cannot be amended, they should be stopped. This will become possible only after strengthening the Chechen administration, its legal, military, and judicial constituents. The military constituent is the establishment of capable bodies of home affairs. This work is being conducted actively now, this is the next step of the normalization of the situation in Chechnya. Only Chechens must defend Chechnya. It goes without saying that this cannot be done quickly, but let’s remember the time, when everyone was saying a year or two ago, that there would be no Chechen person found, who would support the federal forces. We have forgotten about it today, because the Chechen people are actively supporting the efforts of the federal center for the establishment of law and order in their fatherland. We have to give them the opportunity to do it with the help of guns in their hands. This will take a lot of time and energy, but this work is being done now. I believe that this work is to be completed by the end of the current year, then we will move over to the next step of the normalization, I mean the constitution of the Chechen republic.
BBC Russia:
I would like to ask you about the internal Russian problem, which is still the talk of the day, this is the problem of corruption and at the same time the problem of irresponsibility within Russian law-enforcement bodies. My friends and I see that daily in the streets, when we have to communicate with police officers, the people that are called juridical persons have to deal with that daily at courts. Why don’t your words about the need of humanity work for the law-enforcement system, why do those people that exist for tax-payers’ money rook those tax-payers? Can you do anything about it?
The issues of criminality, struggle with criminality are certainly the issues that have to be solved by law-enforcement bodies, but not only them. Law-enforcement bodies are a part of our society and the society must be more mature, cultivating certain values, penetrating into the mind of the population. It would not be correct to blame them for everything, because we would not see the roots of the criminality. Those roots are in the social sphere, in the political sphere, that is why the struggle with criminality is the complex of measures that have to be taken by the state within rather a long period of time, we cannot do it in a simple way. What could be said about the struggle with criminality, when we had the whole regions of our country, which allowed themselves to create unimaginable anarchy? What could be said about any laws or any observation of those laws, when there was no federal treasury in several regions for almost ten years, when no taxes were paid to the federal treasury? This is the indication of the absence of the unity of the state. A lot of things happened and we did not notice them, or turned a blind eye on them. Everything that I was saying created a good base for talking about the absence of state mechanisms and instruments. The law-enforcement sphere is in need of the reconstruction. We are trying to do it, not everything works out, but we will keep on increasing those efforts. Speaking about the perfection of laws, you know that the new administrative code has been approved together with new rules for road police. Speaking about public security police, which are the closest to the population, I believe that they have to be closer to the regional level of administration. We have recently discussed this issue with the home minister and he made the decision, pursuant to which police chiefs will consult governors, the purpose of the police services will depend on the regional level of the administration. There are other measures that would shorten the distance between the public security system, the population and the regional administration. This all will take time and efforts, we will keep on working in this direction.
Kursky Vestnik newspaper:
Vladimir Vladimirovich, your ill-wishers keep on reminding you that the cult of the president is growing in Russia. It would be very curious to know your personal attitude to the process of “putinization” of the whole country. Doesn’t it flatter you, when your incidental slips of the tongue become so relevant for the country, when they paint your portraits on…. (Putin is interrupting)
On eggs? I do not know who paints what on eggs, I have not seen that. I have recently read an article in a newspaper, they wrote that someone was opening bars that carried my name. What can I do about it? A Russian official is an inventive person. There are state symbols – the flag, the national anthem. The president is also a symbol of the country to a certain extent, but never personified, everything should be within reasonable limits, but this depends on the level of the common culture in Russia. There cannot be anything done about it. My attitude to it is negative.
VLADIMIR PUTIN’S PRESS-CONFERENCE. CONTINUATION
Question. In 1999 you were appointed prime-minister and officially called Boris Yeltsin’s successor. The previous authorities secured mechanism of democratic handing over of the power, though, your political course seems often to deny the previous political course. In your view, is there any succession between Boris Yeltsin’s course and that one of you, besides some words about democratic course of reforms? Thank you.
Answer. I do not think that today’s course of the Russian President and the whole Russian leadership denies all what was done before. Wise versa, we develop the country on the same base which was created by the previous political leadership with the ex-Russian President Boris Yeltsin at the head. It is clear, that our life does not stand still as well as that we are different persons. We could have different views on different situations of today’s and future Russia. And it is clear, that if today Boris Yeltsin had been president, we would not have returned such symbols of our State system like Hymn of the Soviet Union, its melody. I know that Boris Yelstin was against it, he said it to me. He has his own opinion. Though today I am at the head of the country, I am politically responsible for its today’s state and for its future. Though, we respect the first president, listen to his opinion, take it into account while making a decision, though we act independently.
Abu-Dabi television (United Arab Emirates):
Question. Mr President, last year I asked you about the situation in the Middle East. Today, one year later, the situation is worsening every day. So, I have to repeat the question: What plans do you have to assist in settling this crisis in the region. What is your position on international peaceful consensus?
Answer. We are concerned with what happens in the Middle East. And the reason of this concern is not only that the Middle East is the region which is so near to our frontier; the reason is that the Middle East is one of the world centres, so events in the Middle East influence the situation in more remote regions of the world. We know this very well. This cannot help worrying. We suppose that settling all disputes and issues, untying Middle-Eastern knot should be carried out on the base of numerous decisions recently taken, in particular by the UN. This is, of course, the base for settling all conflicts in the Middle East. At the same time, we, certainly, condemn all expression of terrorism and suppose that the Palestinian leadership should do its best to guarantee stopping terrorist activity in the region. I would notice something else in this connection. While speaking about the Palestinian leadership, I meant, first of all, Yasser Arafat. And I would notice that it would be dangerous and mistaken to remove him from political arena, because, from the Russian leadership view, this would only cause radicalization of the Palestinian movement.
Komsomolskaya Pravda:
Question. Tell us, please, what is the main discrepancy between you and President Lukashenko in building Union of Byelorussia and Russia? How pointed is this controversy and what should be the base of unification of the two states? Thank you.
Answer. Actually, we do not have any discrepancies however strange you would find it. I presented my position on some questions. Alexandr Lukashenko attentively listened to me and said that in principle he shared my fears on some of them, so we agreed that about June 28, at least before the end of the month, we would meet and carry out a consultation. To support my words, to avoid making impression that I am trying to cover something, I tell you what is the question about. In general, I suppose that such questions as unification of Russia and Byelorussia should belong to the public; there should not be any hidden nuance. This concerns everybody of us – both in Russia and Byelorussia. In general, Russian and Byelorussian nations are very close, I cannot say that they are one nation, though they are sister nations in the full sense of the word. This division into different states was not only groundless, but it was harmful, both for Byelorussian and Russian nations. Apropos, I do not want these words to be understood as critics of the previous leadership, because I do not know how today’s leaderships would act in a similar situation. I only think that today we should and must act taking into account today’s reality: Belarus is an independent state, UN member country, a sovereign European country, an average country as for European criterions. As for me, unification of such close nations like Russian and Byelorussian should be carried out without any doubt, in the framework of one state. So, there must not be either the State Duma of the Russian Federation or Byelorussian parliament, either Russian government or Byelorussian one. There must be a united parliament, let us call it Union Duma or in some other way, there must be a united government and a united country. Are our partners ready to such a decision? As for the draft documents handed over to us by our Byelorussian partners, the Draft Constitutional Act of the Union State, this act should reflect the main principles. While the main principle is: sovereignty of Byelorussia, territorial integrity and the right to veto. Should we criticize this? It would be completely inadmissible. We should honour Byelorussian position. So, this is what was presented to us in the documents. If it is so, we should guarantee both to Russia and Byelorussia sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right to veto. This means that Byelorussia could say about something that it is against it. Therefore, certain decisions will not work in Byelorussian territory. So, it is senseless to write about sovereignty: Byelorussia will be swallowed up by Russia, because Byelorussian industry makes only 3 percent of the Russian one. We understand that this will happen within half a year, or within two or three years. So, while honouring Byelorussian position expressed in the documents we should guarantee this right to sovereignty. How? In the United Europe, there is such a mechanism. The European Parliament takes a decision, which is confirmed by the national parliament of the country, passed by this country’s government and turned into a law. So, this decision is being kept as an internal law of the country. And nobody can say that the big neighbour imposes its decision. Russian economy should not take decisions harmful for itself, but profitable for Byelorussian economy. If Russia does not want this, it will not take such a decision. Though, if it takes such a decision, it should follow it. In this way, this happens in Europe within last years. This is a slow movement, though it is very effective. Look, what happens now in East Europe. Some states have fallen into pieces, though they gradually enter the European Union and unit again. So, I am asking, why did they fight? The answer is easy. Because they unit now from free will. I offer the same procedure. If the question is about sovereignty, territorial integrity and so on. I say, let us secure this sovereignty and introduce some rights, like in the European Union. Everything is clear here. This is an absolutely transparent procedure, which guarantees interests both of Byelorussia and Russia. Today, we read in the document: the Union Parliament with a very wide power and unclear mechanisms of its realization. I am simply afraid of the Union Parliament, if we elect it according to these documents, passing laws, which will be neglected, sometimes in Byelorussia, sometimes in Russia, and therefore discrediting the idea of the union. To be short, there are no discrepancies, there is a working process. It is very effective. We only should stop chewing this 10-year gum and take a decision: what we want. This must be a clear legal mechanism.
Question. Soon, we celebrate anniversary of Russian-Chinese Treaty about Neighbourly Relations, Friendship and Co-operation. What is your estimation of today’s Russian-Chinese relations and what problems do you see in the bilateral relations, in particular, in trade and economical sphere. Thank you.
Answer. This is not only my opinion, this is an opinion of the whole Russian leadership, that the level of Russian-Chinese relations is as high today as it never has been. The level of trust and co-operation in the political arena. I should say that Chinese and Russian representatives to all international organizations closely co-operate with each other, almost on-line. We feel the support of the Chinese leadership, of Chinese People’s Republic while settling key questions of international life. I hope that our Chinese partners also feel our support. Much was done in economical sphere. We suppose that the level of the co-operation is not high enough, which is much lower than it should be taking into account Chinese and Russian potential. This is the subject of a special attention of the intergovernmental commission. We suppose that the level of political contacts and of military and technical co-operation should be the same as that one of relations in civil economy. We have certain plans for it and we will intensively work together with our colleagues. A very important role in it belongs to the chairman of Chinese People’s Republic, Jiang Ze Min.
Translated by Vera Solovieva
Back to the Top Next Issue
- Back to the Top -