Putin's landmark speech in 18 March: "Russia will protect the rights of Russians abroad"

[unseen]

Speech at a State Duma Meeting to Consider the Ratification of the Treaty Between Russia and the United States on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2) and Documents Relating to the May 26, 1972 Treaty Between the USSR and the US on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missiles

April 14, 2000 - 01:00 - The State Duma, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

I would now like to deal very briefly with remarks which I think cannot be left unanswered. First of all, I support Yevgeny Primakov on what he said about Cabinet members, including the foreign minister. If the foreign minister is seen making contacts with representatives of foreign states outside his official duties, he, like any other members of the Cabinet, State Duma deputies, or faction leaders will be subjected to certain procedures in line with the law. And I must say that recent investigations by the Federal Security Service tell us that the issue is an important one. That is point one.

Point two. Concerning the detention of “one legless person and one eyeless person.” All of us together – I mean all State Duma deputies and the Cabinet – are doing some tremendous work, and not only as part of the so-called counter-terrorist operation. In effect, we are regaining lost territory. We are rebuilding Russia. We are going through pain, blood, suffering and deaths. The fatality toll already numbers more than two thousand people. And I think it would be wrong to throw stones at the Armed Forces, which are doing their duty in a way we have not seen for a long time: admirably.

<…>

True, people are different, and approaches to the current events are different, too. But servicemen are eager to get back to their units from hospitals. This has never been seen before. And I think we must not forget about this. Such things must be dealt with seriously.

The same applies to the remark that our people are willing to invite any invaders. This has never been the case in Russia, nor will it ever be. I am absolutely certain of that.

Now let me comment on the basic points raised today. I would also like to dwell briefly on remarks concerning extending the service life [of missiles] and deadlines for their withdrawal from operational status, and so on. Before coming here, I summoned the top men of the General Staff to show me their schedule. I studied it personally. All the heavy missiles – the ones the Americans call the Satan, R-36s and their derivatives – are set to be withdrawn from duty in 2007, after their service life has been extended many times. The General Staff leadership has told me just now in all earnestness that there would be no further extensions. It is inadvisable and dangerous, they said.

Of course, we could listen to experts from various research institutions and production associations speak their minds. It would be interesting. But I assure you everything would have boiled down to lobbying for the interests of production groups.

I do not think that these institutions, no matter how deeply we respect them, should define the concept of national security and the concept for the development of the Armed Forces. This must be done by the government, the president and the Federal Assembly. And proceeding from these concepts, specialists at the Defence Ministry and the General Staff should decide what to order, when to order it, and so on and so forth. That is of fundamental importance.

Now to the gist of the matter.

For seven years, since the START II Treaty was signed in 1993, we have been discussing and debating its ratification. Much of what I am going to say has already been said here. But I think I must reiterate it despite it being already said. Over this period, we have seen different political factions and deputy groups of several State Dumas formulating, rephrasing and sometimes rejecting their points of view. To say that we have done it offhand or in haste would be politically incorrect, to say the least.

We have witnessed this document being used as a means of political infighting, as a tool to tie START II with all treaties in that sphere, and with the full range of Russian-American relations.

The president of the Russian Federation has submitted the START II Treaty to the State Duma for ratification three times – in 1995, 1998 and 1999. And each time the ratification was postponed for various natural and human reasons: in 1995–1997 it was events in Chechnya; in 1998, sharp debates about a Cabinet head; and finally in 1998–1999, Yugoslavia, bombings of Iraq and so on. To be frank, it may be just as well that the issue has been contemplated so extensively. At any rate, both ordinary people and those concerned with the problem – political scientists and specialists in every field – were able to look deep into these things. But to postpone the solution of this major problem, which will determine the future of our strategic nuclear forces – a credible guarantor of Russia’s national security – is no longer possible. We consider this to be dangerous.

Today, we have two fundamentally different points of view. The first totally rejects the need to ratify the START II Treaty on the grounds that it is not in Russia’s national interests. The second suggests ratifying it on certain conditions. I think both of these views can be justified.

Actually, these conditions, which I have mentioned and which were supposed to be operative upon ratification, have already been fulfilled. There is a federal law on financing a programme for the development of strategic nuclear forces until 2010, a declaration of Russia’s right to withdraw from START II if the US violates the 1972 ABM Treaty, and so on.

Ratification opponents have put forward the following basic argument: it is highly important for Russia to retain its traditional structure of strategic nuclear forces, with its emphasis on intercontinental ballistic missiles. As we have heard many times, and as I have said, these are R-36 missiles. Let me dwell briefly on this and other arguments against ratification.

A few words about the claim that it would be to Russia’s advantage to preserve its strategic nuclear forces at the level stipulated by START I and to resume the production of heavy missiles.





The problem has some serious political implications that can bring down the entire structure of treaty relations and initiate an unacceptable and, I want to stress, an absolutely unnecessary arms race for Russia … Something that has already once been imposed on Russia. If we allow ourselves to be drawn into one for a second time, the consequences will be worse than the first time. Such a choice involves heavy spending of cash and resources. I want to stress again: absolutely irrational, sometimes even absurd, expenses are inevitable here.

I agree with some speakers that things are difficult with conventional armaments.

Let me say it bluntly: our Air Force pilots have logged an average of four flight hours each in the past three months. To give you a better grasp of the situation, I can also mention ships that have sunk and so on. The facts cited were correct, but we must draw a different conclusion from them. Last year, American pilots each logged something like 200 flight hours each on average. You may ask: and how many hours did our men fly? Mr Kornukov over there can tell you. I can’t, because I am ashamed of the figures.

Some mention has been made of former co-production. As you know, the previous production setup has been lost, its essential and most important component has stayed in Ukraine and has completely deteriorated. To develop and organise the production of new intercontinental heavy missiles will require a series of full-scale research and development programmes lasting at least 7 to 10 years and costing (including production) no less than 62.3 billion roubles ($2.38 billion).

To keep the grouping of strategic nuclear forces at its present strength, full development and maintenance costs between now and 2010 will be: under START I, 950 billion roubles ($36.33 billion), under START II (3,000 to 3,500 warheads), 750 billion roubles ($28.68 billion), and under START III (2,000 to 2,500 warheads), 400 billion roubles ($15.3 billion).

As regards the existing intercontinental ballistic missiles, their scrapping is not stipulated by the START II. I want to stress once more: it is not the treaty that dictates it, but the fact that multiple extensions of their service life have reached the end of their tether. Our main objective is to make the United States cut its real nuclear potential down to 3,500 warheads, as stipulated by START II, and proceed further to START III, as agreed in Helsinki in 1997. We have a vested interest in this. I, for one, do not know how interested the United States is in view of the changes that are taking place and that have already taken place in politics and military confrontations, including in the distribution of strategic weapons.

And last but not least – what is not covered by the Treaty, but raises certain concerns, which, generally, is only right and proper. I am referring to the so-called non-strategic nuclear arms, or long-range sea-based cruise missiles. The advantages reportedly enjoyed by the United States in this field are far from apparent. Now that you have decided to alter the tone of our debate and make it open to the public, I will not go into details, but I will say that they are not apparent. Speaking of sea-based nuclear cruise missiles, our deployment possibilities and those of the United States are about the same.

What will Russia gain from ratifying and implementing the START II Treaty?

First: the balance of forces will be maintained. Under START II, the number of warheads in Russia’s strategic nuclear forces will be reduced by approximately 47%, and those of the US forces, by roughly 66%. And this even though the Treaty leaves out Russia’s naval and air nuclear forces, does not stipulate the scrapping of a single submarine, a single heavy bomber, or a single warhead in the Navy and the Air Force. Our grouping is to cut back ground-based ballistic missiles, which, owing to physical obsolescence and for safety purposes, and whether or not the Treaty is ratified, are set to be phased out by 2007 anyway. Meanwhile, under the Treaty, the United States will have to scrap its most modern MX missile and almost halve its sea-launched strategic armaments.

Second: the potential for deterrence will be preserved. Ratification of START II will enable Russia to maintain its deterrence potential. In this respect, or regarding the number of warheads that could be delivered in retaliation to an enemy’s sensitive spots, Russia, should it fail to ratify START II, would be 1/15th as strong as the United States by 2010. I would like to emphasise this: if we fail to ratify the treaty, Russia will have 1/15th the potency of the US. The implementation of START II will make the overall ratio of the US and Russian deterrence potentials three-to-one. Should a START III treaty be concluded and implemented, the ratio of the potentials would be 1 to 1.1, as the defence minister said earlier.

It is of fundamental importance that as Russia’s forces of nuclear deterrence are reduced numerically, their survivability and response effectiveness will grow, improving the quality of Russia’s retaliation potential.

Third: the START II Treaty will be linked firmly and indissolubly with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The ratification of START II, with the proviso that it can take effect only if the ABM Treaty is fully preserved and unfailingly observed, will give the US a choice: either be a globally condemned wrecker of the underpinnings of strategic stability embodied in the treaty-based system for the limitation and control of strategic arms, or refrain from deploying a national missile defence system.

Fourth: a physical count of nuclear munitions is introduced for every heavy bomber. The START II Treaty credits every heavy bomber with the number of warheads it actually carries. In that way the ratification and realisation of the treaty removes any imbalance not only between US and Russian strategic aviation armament inventories but also between the sides’ strategic offensive arms groupings. I would like to stress that there has been no ceiling up to now. START II introduces them.

Fifth: Russia’s nuclear deterrence matches its economic potentialities. I am not going to give a more detailed description, I did so at the beginning.

Sixth: possibilities for converting nuclear deterrence forces to a more rational financial and economic modality are created. This is to say that if we refer to heavy missiles, we cannot depend on their manufacture in another country, even one as friendly as Ukraine. We cannot allow this even with separate small components. We must produce everything on our territory and count only on our own production facilities geared to a planned conversion of our nuclear deterrence forces to new weapons systems.

There are also political advantages. One is precluding the possibility of accusing Russia of slowing down the disarmament process and inciting the spread of and a race in nuclear weapons. Another is forestalling a situation in which the United States can cite Russia’s non-ratification of START II as an excuse to withdraw from the 1972 ABM Treaty. A third is prerequisites for further and deeper cuts in nuclear weapons, a subject already dealt with.

I wish particularly to stress that the ratification of the START II Treaty is closely tied to the ratification of agreements on the demarcation of strategic and non-strategic anti-ballistic missiles signed in 1997. These agreements provide for a mechanism to prevent the bypassing of the ABM Treaty by building up a non-strategic ABM system and preventing the establishment of a strategic ABM system and banned basing modes disguised as non-strategic ones. The totality of bans and ceilings on the parameters of non-strategic ABM systems and on conditions for testing and deploying them, combined with a package of confidence-building measures, creates a serious legal and technological – I want to stress the word ‘technological’ – basis for confidently addressing the ABM Treaty, not steering clear of it. At the same time, these agreements allow us to build effective systems of non-strategic anti-missile defences, which by virtue of Russia’s geo-strategic position will add a major component to its deterrence potential.

If, following our ratification of the START II Treaty in tandem with these agreements, the United States sets out to destroy the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (here I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we met with faction leaders in the Kremlin quite recently, who, as you know, voiced some fairly good and not just fairly good, but quite specific proposals and remarks on the problem we are discussing today), then I wish to stress that in this case we are in a position to pull out and will pull out not only from START II but also from the entire system of treaty-based relations on the limitation and control of strategic and conventional armaments. We can also raise the issue of reviewing our decisions on tactical weapons. And in these conditions we will opt for Russia’s pursuing an independent policy on nuclear deterrence. The point I want to make is this: the ratification decision does not mean one-way disarmament.

There are two questions we must answer: will this step preserve the nuclear shield or will it not? Will this step foster the development of our Armed Forces, will it make them more effective or not? Our answer to both questions is yes. Our nuclear forces, those of nuclear deterrence, even with a decision adopted on the START II Treaty, will be able to destroy any enemy many times over and with full guarantee at any moment and in any corner of the globe. It sounds like something out of a nightmare, but it is true even if we presume that we will have to engage several nuclear powers at the same time.

This will allow us to cut extra spending and divert funds to the development of new weapons, to making our Armed Forces more effective and more combat-ready, considering (this was also mentioned here today) that Russia will face its main threats, in view of the world’s situation, from local conflicts. Attempts to undo Russia’s status as a world power will not be made through the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. We can see such attempts already today. The basic threats stem from local conflicts.

If one asks whether or not the START II Treaty and agreements on the limitation of strategic and non-strategic anti-ballistic missile systems meet Russia’s national interests, the answer can also be only affirmative: yes, they do.

Thank you.



The source of information

Statement on the Ratification of the START II Treaty and Documents Relating to the May 26, 1972 Treaty Between the USSR and the US on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems

April 14, 2000 - 02:00 - Published in Russian media

Spoiler!

The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of Russia just now approved a decision to ratify the Treaty Between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, better known as the START II Treaty, and a 1997 package of agreements on anti-missile defences. It was a wise and important decision; important both for the national interests of our country and those of international peace and security as a whole.

For Russia, the conclusion of the START II Treaty opens up avenues for safeguarding its security to the same extent as the US and with a lower level of strategic offensive arms than before. At a level half as high as that of the existing START I Treaty and, understandably, at a lower cost.

The ratification of the START II Treaty opens up the way to official negotiations on further cuts in the strategic arsenals of Russia and the US within the framework of a START III Treaty. We are also prepared to reduce our strategic offensive arms, naturally on a reciprocal basis with the US, to a lower level than was envisaged by the Russian-American agreement of 1997 in Helsinki, or down to 1,500 warheads instead of 2,000–2,500.

The State Duma’s decision is a good and positive signal to the world community. As a great nuclear power, Russia demonstrates its responsible attitude by advancing consistently along the road of armaments reduction and disarmament. We have served as an example of the practical fulfilment of the obligations assumed in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, thus strengthening the regime created by this Treaty.

There is yet another fundamental aspect of the State Duma’s decision.

Of late the world has been paying increasing attention to the problem of missile and missile-technology proliferation, and has been talking of the so-called growing missile threat and the need to take prompt measures to defend against it. For this reason, the United States has put forward the idea of building a national anti-missile defence system, which would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.

We advocate joint measures with other states to counter the proliferation of missiles and missile technologies. But this should be done, in our view, not by scrapping existing disarmament agreements and the ABM Treaty in the first place. We stand for a different course – that of strengthening the existing non-proliferation modalities and of working out new treaties to reduce arms. Russia’s ratification of the START II Treaty is its concrete contribution to these efforts.

We also look to the United States to make the same constructive choice: it still needs to complete the ratification procedures for the START II Treaty to become effective and to approve the package of anti-missile agreements reinforcing the 1972 Treaty. The success of the cause of disarmament and the political climate in the world depend above all on the actions of our two countries.



The source of information

Excerpts from an Interview with Journalists

April 15, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:


On ratification of the START II Treaty

Whether we ratified START II or not, we would all the same have removed these missiles from operational status by 2007. The reference is indeed above all to the so-called R-36 heavy missiles and their derivatives.

<…>

The cynicism lies in the fact that if we sign the treaty we decommission them in 2007, and if we do not sign it, we also scrap them in 2007. This raises the question of whether there is any sense in ratifying the treaty. There is, and it lies above all in the diplomatic and political repercussions, if you like, of this step by the State Duma. It is a very substantial step, one that gives us a possibility to adopt an affirmative stance in negotiations on international security. On such a key issue for us and our American partners, as well as Europe, which are plans for a national missile defence.

<…>

We have already declared that if our START II partners withdraw from the treaty and fail to bring the procedure to its finish, we will feel free to take any decisions in the nuclear area as a whole.

<…>

We will closely watch our partners’ fulfilment of these obligations. Not a single warhead, not a single missile will be removed from combat duty until the final warranty period expires.



On the prospects of appointing Gennady Troshev as commander of the Joint Group of Forces in the North Caucasus

Gennady Troshev was and is deputy commander of the North Caucasian Military District… As regards the grouping proper in the North Caucasus, which operates in Chechnya and partly in Dagestan, there are plans to appoint Troshev commander of this grouping. But I repeat he will remain subordinate to Viktor Kazantsev as his district deputy commander.

The reason is that our objectives are changing, that no large-scale military operations are now being carried out there, as you know, and those conducted by the armed forces, law enforcement bodies and interior troops are ones that require revised tactics, revised content, and a revised scale.



On Russian-Belarusian Relations

We have a special relationship with Belarus. We have set the objective of working towards a Union State. Belarus, which is our closest partner in this sense, is planning to hold a meeting soon at the level of heads of government. Mikhail Kasyanov will lead the Russian delegation. The Union government will address a series of current problems, for which an agenda is now being prepared. After this event I would like very much to meet the Belarusian president, discuss this segment of our cooperation with him, and speak of the speed of progress and concrete steps towards the Union State in line with the documents signed in the recent past.



The source of information

Acting President Vladimir Putin talked by telephone with US President Bill Clinton

April 15, 2000 - 23:50

Spoiler!

US President Bill Clinton congratulated Vladimir Putin on the ratification of the START II Treaty. He said it was a significant event for Russian-American relations and for the entire international community. During their conversation, the presidents expressed their commitment to strategic security and to beginning work on the START III Treaty and the strengthening of the ABM regime.

Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton confirmed their previous agreement on a possible Russian-American summit prior to the G8 summit to be held in Okinawa.

Vladimir Putin received numerous messages from other countries’ leaders, the UN Secretary General and heads of other international organisations, congratulating him on the ratification of the START II Treaty.



The source of information

[unseen]

Address at a Meeting with British Businessmen

April 17, 2000 - 00:00 - London

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Ladies and gentlemen,

British business has always been distinguished by its common sense, balanced approach and pragmatism. For our part, we hope that our partners in Britain will stand by these constructive attitudes in future.

Mr Thompson said in his opening address that so far our trade balance has not been favourable to our British partners, and there are probably reasons for that. Today, we are ready to analyse these reasons together, and to look for ways to improve that balance and the general situation in our trade and economic relations, as well as to outline your business opportunities in Russia.

I would like to remind you that sitting at this table are our trade minister, Mikhail Fradkov, minister of fuel and energy, Viktor Kalyuzhny, presidential chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, and Russian Ambassador to Britain, Grigory Karasin.

Mr Karasin has worked in Britain for a long time and knows this country very well. He used to be one of the most active cabinet members, regularly attending meetings of the government, and now has the opportunity to keep up his contacts with any cabinet member and to promptly address issues arising in the course of our relations. I would like to draw your attention to this and to tell you that Mr Karasin will not only represent Russia in Britain, but will promptly respond to any problems arising in the course of your work in Russia.

I would like to go over to the issue on the table today. To begin with, it is important to bear in mind that the parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia have created a reliable foundation for stable economic development and cooperation between Russia and its foreign partners, cooperation based on a policy of realism and balanced interests. It is an established fact that mutual benefit is the best insurance against conflicts. We know that axiom of British business very well, and hope that the business community of Britain will become an even more reliable and important ally and partner to us.

A few words about the economic situation in Russia. I do not need to say that a new economic system has developed there. Market economy instruments do not just exist, they have been effectively used, including to overcome the effects of the August 1998 financial crisis rather quickly. I want to draw your attention to the fact that Russia’s GDP increased by 3.2% last year. The highest growth was registered in the chemical and petrochemical sector, light industry, timber processing, and engineering. The increment in those sectors, from 16% to 21%, is considerable for Russia and the global economy. At the same time, inflation went down by 50%.

The results of the first quarter of 2000 reaffirmed this positive change. Inflation has gone down from 8.4% in January 1999 to 0.6% in March 2000. Economic growth has become an undeniable reality in Russia. Investment in fixed capital grew by 4.5% in January, 8% in February, and by approximately the same amount in March.

These are real growth rates, and they are impressive. But we are not satisfied with what we have achieved. During a meeting in New Zealand several months ago, I had an opportunity to talk with that country’s leaders. The growth rate is higher there, from 2.5% to 8% on average, but a GDP growth of 3.5% at this stage is a good figure for Russia. Most importantly, this is a real, not a fictitious figure.

We intend to continue working energetically. The new government will set only attainable goals. In our view, to make promises that cannot be kept is the worst policy. Words don't pay the bills, as you say in Britain. Therefore, we will try to do everything in real terms, in real figures and real indicators.

Despite huge payments for the servicing of state debt, we plan to pass and fulfil budgets with an initial surplus. I would like to stress that Russia has always fulfilled, and intends to continue fulfilling, its obligations to foreign investors, both private and state. But we also know that a deficit-free budget and rouble stabilisation cannot be the end goal of an economic policy. Although highly effective, they are only means of ensuring stable economic growth. This is what we will be trying to achieve.

We have said more than once that the government’s actions in this new period of Russian history will be based on several key principles.

First, the state must not control business. On the contrary, we will do our best to remove red tape and give the economy more freedom. We will not only try to implement the principles of a market economy, but will also work hard to continue liberalising it.

Second, we should introduce firm and equal rules for all levels of business. The state should not only formulate such rules, but also respect them without fail. I realise that this may sound a bit vague, but it must be said.

Third, along with firm rules, Russia also needs an independent and effective judicial system. I am referring to courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration. We intend to step up our efforts in this sphere too.

And lastly, Russia not only has a new president and will have a new government; it also has many pragmatic people ready for constructive work with the executive branch. This is a logical result of a consistent policy of consolidating society for the attainment of clearly defined practical goals.

I would like to focus your attention on that fact, because the people, including those who are dealing with Russia as professionals, believe that quite a few problems involving capital flight and economic instability were largely rooted in the political instability of the past few years. In view of the consolidation I was speaking about before, we can say that this problem, one of the biggest in Russia, is being successfully overcome.

A few words about economic problems that have caused a lot of concern both in Russia and among our foreign partners. One of them is the huge tax burden. I am not going to dwell on theory here, as all of you are aware that this problem is connected with our increased financial commitments. This is a philosophy we will be changing gradually. We intend to pay more attention to low-income groups, provide assistance to the people, and ensure that social assistance reaches its intended recipient. At the same time, we will try to remove all bureaucratic obstacles for the economy. This is the essence of the liberal policy I mentioned before.

The tax burden on the real economy sector is now extremely heavy. We know that this is the root cause of tax evasion schemes and the flight of capital from Russia. We are working to solve this problem: the second part of the tax code, which stipulates tax rates and easing the tax burden, will be debated at the second reading in June. We know that the solution of this problem is crucial for improving the investment climate.

But the main goal is to find internal areas for growth, although the issue of foreign investment is a major factor of Russia’s integration in the global economy. We can restore investors’ trust only by easing the fiscal burden on the Russian economy, and by steering towards a fundamentally new investment climate. We intend to work towards that goal. We are already working hard to convince Russian capital to return home.

This is one of the problems to which I would like to draw your attention. Russian capital is returning home slowly, often in the form of investment from offshore zones. We will also focus on them. However, I view this as an important signal for foreign investors. I believe that as we complete drafting amendments to the legislation, we will see a major inflow of investment, and this could happen soon.

Russia has a special legislation covering investment, including firm legal foundations for attracting investment in the oil and gas sector and in the production of mineral resources. The lower house of Russia’s parliament is reviewing agreements signed with Russian and foreign investors that limit foreign investment in Russia. The federal laws on value added tax, on customs tariffs and corporate profits grant a number of privileges to foreign investors. There are also local laws designed to encourage foreign investment, as well as plans to introduce the post of ombudsmen, who will help to solve investors’ problems.

It is also important to say here that we are opposed to re-distribution of property. I have more than once expressed my view on this issue publicly. Despite the resistance of our left-wing opponents, I have said so even during the election campaign. A consistent protection of owners’ rights in Russia is a basic and irreversible principle of our policy. In particular, we will soon rule out the procedure of “fake” bankruptcies. Unfortunately, this procedure is often used as a pretext for replacing owners.

So, quite a lot has been done to redirect global investment flows towards Russia. We are open to constructive criticism and proposals, and I hope to hear some from you today.

We expect that a more detailed discussion of this issue will be held in London soon, at an international conference and business forum, Russia 2000: A New Reality.

Britain is one of the four largest foreign investors in Russia. Objects of British investment are located all over Russia, from St Petersburg to Sakhalin. We are determined to build on that success, which I consider a positive achievement.

Our investment portfolio includes 31 projects, and we would like to invite Britain to take part in them. Some of these proposals were submitted to the British prime minister during his visit to Russia, when we met in St Petersburg. They concern aerospace equipment, shipbuilding, and transport vehicles.

Our plans include the development of Russian-British cooperation in trade and the economy, which we will once again discuss with the prime minister later today. We have developed close contacts over the past ten years. Russia’s State Register includes more than 900 organisations set up with the assistance of British companies. Of these, more than 40% are enterprises with 100% British capital, and 483 are local offices of British companies.

However, I must also say that our business partnership has been stagnating since the mid-1990s. This runs contrary to global economic tendencies and elementary common sense, despite Russia’s recent problems.

In our opinion, the outlook for developing bilateral relations is very good. We see this in the growth of the share of finished products and technology-intensive goods in Russian exports to Britain, and in imports of industrial and other equipment to Russia. We are ready to negotiate the renewal of the British credit line for financing British investment projects in Russia. We also hope to be able to buy modern technologies in Britain.

I also believe we should step up the work of the intergovernmental committee on trade and investment. Its productivity has been going down recently. It can and must become the driver of Russian-British business cooperation.

I know that you have questions on many aspects of the Russian economy. I am sure you will want to hear about the future of the gas sector, our plans for attracting global leaders in high technologies to Russia, and our work on protecting intellectual property rights. If you would like to ask these questions now, the cabinet members present here will study them and provide replies soon, if not immediately.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Russia is no longer an abridged map of the Soviet Union, but an independent, self-sufficient state that is becoming more confident by the day.

Our confidence is based not only on our experience of reforms, but also on the mistakes we have made. We are aware of them, we admit them, and we are trying to draw firm conclusions from them. In the past years, we have learned to distinguish between real opportunities and virtual ones. And we have at last accepted the predominance of domestic goals over external effects. This is why the Russian leadership is working hard now to streamline and develop internal economic processes. One of the basic goals of this policy is to become a pole of attraction for Russian investors and respected business circles in other countries, including, of course, the business community of Britain.

We know very well that such an attraction cannot develop of itself. It can be achieved only through impressive economic results, a clear policy and openness to the world. It can be achieved through a clear understanding of the complexity of the tasks and goals facing the country. At the same time, our achievements likewise depend on the objectivity, trust and patience of all those whom we have good reasons to regard as our partners. I would like to address these words to you: our achievements depend on our common determination to promote dialogue and our rejection of the detrimental policy of isolation.

The large-scale changes that have taken place in Russia in the past ten years speak volumes and are more important than empty words and slogans.

I would like to say in conclusion that members of the British government have said on many occasions that they want Russia to be a priority of your economic policy. We have a similar perception and a similar determination to develop our cooperation. Today I would like to ask you to support this determination, because our governments’ plans and intentions will be fruitless unless our business communities decide that they are beneficial and should be fulfilled.

Good deeds are better than fine words. I hope that at the beginning of the new century you will demonstrate traditional British foresight, which I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, and will use the huge opportunities offered by the new Russia to your advantage and to the benefit of our peoples.

We have an optimistic view of the positive changes underway in our bilateral relations thanks to the efforts of the British prime minister. We have the same noble goals of national progress and prosperity, and we will continue to modernise the Russian economy in the spirit of free enterprise, democratic development, and openness in the integrated global economy.

We will be happy to reply to your questions during our discussion today, and we will do our best to give comprehensive answers.

Thank you.



The source of information

Acting President Vladimir Putin met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street

April 17, 2000 - 18:40 - London

Spoiler!

Economic cooperation was a major issue discussed at the meeting. At a news conference after the talks, Mr Putin said that the Russian side had informed the British partners about the efforts and plans to limit the government’s involvement in the economy. The discussion also included Russia’s position on the ratification of the START II Treaty and on the US plans concerning the ABM Treaty.








Mr Putin’s meeting with Mr Blair lasted for over three hours, much longer than initially planned.



The source of information

Acting President Vladimir Putin laid a wreath at the monument to Soviet soldiers and civilians killed in World War II

April 17, 2000 - 19:20 - London

Spoiler!

The monument was unveiled in the park near the Imperial War Museum on the south bank of the Thames on May 9, 1999.

The foundation of the monument contains capsules with soil from places in Russia including Volgograd and St Petersburg, as well as from Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Later President Putin went on a brief sightseeing tour of the British capital.



The source of information

Vladimir Putin met with HM Queen Elizabeth II

April 17, 2000 - 21:10 - London

Spoiler!

The audience took place in one of Her Majesty’s apartments at Windsor Castle chosen by Elizabeth II. It lasted for more than half an hour.



The source of information

News Conference Following Russian-British Talks

April 17, 2000 - 00:00 - London

Spoiler!

(Retranslated from Russian)


Tony Blair:

Good afternoon to everyone and welcome to the news conference held after the end of a very fruitful series of talks with President Putin, whom I am happy to see in London. Some time ago I had a very successful and constructive visit to St. Petersburg. Today I am pleased to welcome President Putin in London.

I believe Vladimir Putin is a leader who is ready to embrace a new relationship with the EU and the US. He wants Russia to be a strong and modern power, and to have firm relations with the West. I also believe that his election was important not only for our country, but also for the European Union and for the whole of the Western world.

We have discussed a broad range of issues – the economy and the forthcoming G8 summit on Okinawa. Naturally, we discussed political issues bearing on Chechnya, the Balkans, Kosovo, Iran, Iraq and other countries where we have common interests. I would like to see Russia engaged economically, and I also wish Russia and the West to work together for stability and peace. If we compete against each other, problems can be contained but not resolved. If we cooperate with Russia as equal partners, prospects of resolving global problems will open up before us.

As I said, we started with discussing the Russian global economy and plans for the Okinawa summit. The president described his plans for reforms to promote enterprise and to resolve social problems in Russia. There is no doubt that he talks our language of reforms, and judging by the comments of our leading businessmen who met with Vladimir Putin this morning, I think they also recognise his commitment to economic reforms in Russia.

Of course, we discussed many foreign policy issues in detail. I raised the question of our concerns about the situation in Chechnya and urged, as we always do, a proportionate response, political dialogue and full access for observers and investigators. I welcome Mr Putin’s commitment in his statement last week that all reports of human rights violations would be investigated. Some say that because of our concerns about Chechnya we should keep some distance from Moscow. I have to tell you that while I share those concerns, I believe that the best way to register those concerns and to get results is by engaging with Russia and not isolating Russia.

We also had a good discussion on international security issues. I congratulated Vladimir on the ratification of the START II Treaty by the Russian Duma, in which the Russian president played a key role. We had very useful debates on closer cooperation in the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking. I told him about our efforts in these directions. Kate Helliwell, the British coordinator on countering drug trafficking, will visit Moscow in July to further develop our coordination.

We also discussed questions of mutual interest in different parts of the world. I would like to emphasize once again that closer relations with Russia meet Britain’s fundamental national interests. I believe it is very important to build understanding between Russia and the West, including Britain, our allies in Europe, and the US. Russia’s participation in the resolution of global problems would be in the interests of all of us. If Britain can play any role in this as an EU member and a close ally of the United States, we would like to achieve this.

Finally, and I see it as a sign of stronger British-Russian relations, we have agreed to intensify our bilateral contacts and to meet in London or Moscow at least once a year.

So, I would like to welcome Vladimir Putin here once again and to say how extremely useful, informative and constructive I consider today’s talks. I am hoping for joint work with him and for further international cooperation between Britain and Russia.



Vladimir Putin:

Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank Prime Minister Tony Blair for inviting me to visit Britain, and for a chance to hold talks with him and with British businessmen. This is where we have started today.

I share the prime minister’s position. Moreover, I think that today we have turned a page in Russian-British relations, and made our bilateral policies more transparent, more predictable and more effective. Of course, there is a road towards isolation but I firmly believe that this choice is unacceptable – it will harm not only Russia, Britain, or the whole of Europe. The best example is what we have seen in Russia recently. I do not want to exaggerate but I can assure you that the very visit of the British leader to Russia some time ago in a situation complicated with the difficulties in the North Caucasus, encouraged Russian society’s trust in the Western community. It also largely influenced, at least indirectly, the decision of the State Duma deputies to vote for the ratification of the START II Treaty.

The British prime minister came to Russia with his own opinion on certain issues, such as the situation in the North Caucasus. His position was and still is considerably different from that of the Russian leadership, of the Russian Federation. But I believe that by stating his opinion openly, and inviting us to discuss this issue, the prime minister has helped us to find solutions to some important problems.

It was announced in Moscow earlier today that Russia has set up a non-governmental independent commission on human rights in the Chechen Republic. This is exactly what Mr Blair called for during his visit to Russia. I must say that this commission, which consists of well-known and reputable Russian politicians, will receive every support from the Russian government. It will be in a position to contact the Prosecutor General’s Office, military departments, and a number of governmental organisations.

Now I’d like to address our current negotiations. We have discussed a number of problems in the field of economic cooperation. I have told the prime minister about the processes going on in the Russian economy today, and the objectives that we have set in the economy and business, about our efforts to minimise red tape in both spheres, and our commitment to dynamic market reforms and economic liberalisation.

We have talked about international security. I believe it is extremely important that we had a chance to inform a Western leader about the Russian position on the ratification of the START II Treaty on the one hand, and on the deployment of a national ABM system, on the other. The latter should involve some elements that are being deployed on West European territory. This directly concerns West European countries, and I believe that for this reason discussion of this issue is an important element in our relations with Europe.

We have also discussed bilateral relations in different spheres, including defence, and the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking. We have talked about the need to continue consultations on different issues on a permanent and informal basis, and to hold regular annual meetings alternatively in Russia and Britain. These facts, as well as the character of our contacts, the spirit of our cooperation and the openness of our discussion give us confidence that Russian-British relations will help both Russia and our partners in the West to tackle a wide range of major problems facing humankind today, and will allow us to avoid the threats that may challenge the world in the future.

Thank you.



ITAR-TASS:

I have a question to both leaders. What do you think about the investment climate in Russia? I would like to ask Mr Putin to answer this question in the context of his today’s talks with British businessmen, and Mr Blair in connection with the parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia.



Tony Blair:

I believe you have already seen comments made by British businessmen this morning after talking with President Putin. They are very positive. There is no doubt that there exists a huge potential for increasing investment and trade between Britain and Russia along the clear-cut lines of economic reforms suggested by the president. I believe the British industry and the whole Western world are ready to cooperate with Russia as partners in defining the ways of promoting trade and investment, and increasing their scale. As for my personal opinion, based on the debates I had with Vladimir Putin today, I would look into the future with optimism. I mean not only the direction in which the Russian economy is developing, but also trade and investment opportunities for our two countries, and for Russia and the Western world as a whole.



Vladimir Putin:

As far as the investment climate in Russia is concerned, I must say that one of the main problems for us and our partners has been a certain degree of instability of the political situation in Russia. But there is no doubt that the elections to the State Duma and the presidential elections have relegated this main concern of our partners into the background. This is the first point I want to make.

Secondly, we still have a lot of work to do in order to create favourable conditions for business growth in Russia. We must, above all, rid the Russian economy of red tape; adopt clear, firm and consistent measures to protect the rights of the owner and the investor; take more resolute action against corruption; and establish a more effective judicial system. We need to implement financial reforms and overcome negative trends in taxation, including customs duties.

I discussed all these issues with British businessmen today. I listened to their suggestions and remarks. Several key Russian government officials attended this meeting. We have not only received the message of top British executives, but will take it into account in our work in the near future.

We still have a great deal to do to create a favourable climate. I must say that although we have already gone far along this road, we still have to cover quite a distance. But we are fully resolved to create the groundwork for promoting economic cooperation with our Western partners, including, of course, British businessmen.



Itn (Retranslated from Russian.):

Many observers in Britain and other Western countries know that for a long time you worked for the discredited KGB, and are worried about the war you have been waging in Chechnya. How are you going to prove that all these fears are groundless, and reassure the people that the freedoms that have been won in Russia with such a painstaking effort will be guaranteed for a long time to come?



Vladimir Putin:

I’m very grateful to you for this question. I want the people in the West to know that the actions of Russian troops in Chechnya have nothing to do with the destruction of civilised society, and should not raise concerns about Russia’s democratic achievements. Russia’s return to the Chechen Republic has actually brought back civilisation to this territory. Today, we do not have problems with Chechnya’s independence. Our problems in the North Caucasus are absolutely different. They have nothing to do with this.

Unfortunately, our voice does not reach Western public opinion. I would like to use this opportunity to explain our position.

The problem is that the people who staged an unprovoked attack on the neighbouring republic of Dagestan – I’d like to emphasise that this is a Muslim republic as well – were not motivated by the idea of Chechnya’s independence. They came under other slogans, notably, the terrorist slogans of seizing additional territory. We have every reason to believe that these aggressive actions against Russia are nothing other than the use of Chechen territory for these aggresive purposes. In effect, this amounts to the use of this territory as a bridgehead for attacking us. Those people, who are still based in some areas of Chechnya, have not given up their plans. It is untenable to have a Russian republic being used as a springboard for staging aggression, for eroding the institutions of Russian statehood. Russia will never allow this, just like any other civilised state wouldn’t. But this does not mean that we are ready to resolve this problem at any cost or by any means. In other words, we will observe all human rights on this territory, and will investigate all crimes committed there, no matter by whom and from which side.

More than a hundred military investigators and other law-enforcement teams are already working in Chechnya. As I said earlier, an independent non-governmental commission has been established in addition to that. We are interested in co-operating with international organisations on this issue because our aim is not to enslave the Chechen people. Our aim is to free Chechnya from international terrorists and extremists, who are threatening Russia and other European countries in an equal measure. I have every reason to say that this international radicalism, which is acting under the cover of Muslim and other religious slogans, poses a threat to some Central Asian countries.

We have seen its manifestations in some European countries as well. When I am told that some European leaders cannot support Russia for fear of a Muslim response in Europe, I reply that this is a wrong position. It is wrong because if we let extremism thrive, in Western Europe in particular, we will have insurmountable problems. This also applies to Western Europe. In this, we count on support of our efforts to counter international extremism, no matter what its slogans are.

I would like to stress once again that Russia’s actions are not aimed against Muslims or against the Chechen people. They are aimed exclusively against international terrorism and extremism. In this case Russia is fighting against this global evil single-handed, and this is not right, because extremism is a common enemy of the civilised world.



Reuters (Retranslated from Russian):

Could you imagine a situation where you would agree to changes in the 1972 ABM Treaty? Have you discussed with Mr Blair the British role in the American plans of creating a nuclear defence shield against rogue countries?



Vladimir Putin:

The START II Treaty’s ratification bill states unequivocally that a national ABM defence system cannot be deployed. Under this law, if it is deployed, Russia can consider itself free of these and other arms control commitments.

Of course, we discussed this problem with Mr Blair because some elements of a national ABM system are to be deployed in Europe. Needless to say, Russia cannot ignore this problem, and it is only natural that we must discuss it with the European leaders. Today, Mr Blair is ready to talk about it, and we are very grateful to him for that. It goes without saying that we are closely following these developments.

We have a firm position on these points; let me repeat that our law has linked these two issues. But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that at one time, on American initiative, we have drawn a line between strategic and non-strategic ABM defence, and we are ready for dialogue.



ORT TV company:

This is a question both for Mr Blair and Mr Putin. Could you comment on the commission that has been established today? This is a new institution. What role will it play in helping resolve the problem? And here is a separate question to Mr. Blair: What role do you think this commission should play?



Vladimir Putin:

As for the commission set up by the public today, it is difficult for me to comment on it because I learned about its formation here in London. I know that prominent and highly respected politicians have joined it, for example the former Minister of Justice who is now a State Duma deputy Pavel Krashenninikov, a former presidential candidate, and also the editor-in-chief of Izvestia, one of the most popular daily newspapers. As far as I know from the press, the commission’s task is to monitor human rights observance in the North Caucasus. I have already said that we are ready to give them every opportunity for fulfilling their functions and implementing the goals they have set. I will be able to give more details only after I have studied the commission’s documents.

I have already said that Mr Blair’s visit to Russia has played its role in establishing the commission since we discussed this in St Petersburg.



Tony Blair (Retranslated from Russian):

I believe all of you have noted how vehemently President Putin defended Russia’s position on Chechnya. I think we should understand how deeply he is committed to this view. Our role in this respect should be to formulate three ideas. First, as we have emphasised, any response to the situation in Chechnya and Russia’s concern about it should be proportionate. We have repeatedly expressed our concern on this issue. Second, it is necessary to switch to political dialogue as soon as possible, and to launch political initiative. We have had a meaningful discussion on this issue. Third, we urged the formation of a full-fledged non-governmental commission to investigate all statements about human rights violations. In this sense I believe we should applaud the step made in Moscow earlier today. This commission, as Mr Putin has just mentioned, is non-governmental, and includes independent representatives. It will be important for us that the commission does its work in a serious and resolute manner. Although the differences in Western and Russian views are clear, I very much hope that we have reached an understanding and that we are engaged in dialogue and discuss each other’s positions. This is the right road to the resolution of this problem. I’m sure that this is what it boils down to.



Sky TV (Retranslated from Russian):

Mr Blair, what do you think about changes in the financial markets, in particular, the high-tech sector, on which you have pegged great hopes? Mr Putin, you are the elected leader of a post-communist country. What do you think about drinking tea with Her Majesty the Queen?



Tony Blair (Retranslated from Russian):

Vladimir, I cannot advise you on the second question. As for the first one, let me say that the parameters of the financial markets are prone to change, and there is nothing I can add. All I can say is that we should always take into account the global distribution of securities of the companies representing new economic sectors and new technologies. I mean not only information technologies and electronic trade that is embracing the whole world, but also all components of the economy. I am talking not about a new class of companies, but about the emergence of a whole system of a new type that exerts fundamental influence on all companies engaged in business. To sum up, I think some often draw a totally wrong line between the so-called new economy, or the companies dealing with new technologies, and the old economy, by which they mean, say, production. We need viable dynamic production as an inseparable part of British or any other industry regardless of whether this is production, services, or the so-called industry of new technologies. New technologies are important as such. So, I have nothing to add to my comments about the events on the stock market, but it is very important to consider what I have just said about the new economy.



Vladimir Putin:

Needless to say, we have discussed this problem today with Mr Blair, and I asked him: “What do you think about this? Is it the beginning of the end or just a bad turn?” He replied that he would like to think it was a bad turn generated by the market, but no more than that, and that it would not trigger off any negative global effects. We are also hoping very much for this. Russia does not have a great influence on this market. However, it is telling us once again that we should diversify our opportunities, and rid our economy of red tape to make it more balanced and able to be effective in some sectors despite negative market changes.

We do not believe this is some disaster. We proceed from the premise that this problem can and must be resolved. The market will certainly adjust since we don’t see any external signs of an apocalypse. Nothing in the world economy gives us reason to be particularly nervous and expect a potential collapse of the market. We believe it is just an episode, and that before long this economic sector will become more stable.



Nezavisimaya Gazeta:

A question to the prime minister. We would like to hear your opinion about Russia’s worry over the destruction of the ABM Treaty. In particular, what does Britain think about the prospect of the elements of the American national anti-ballistic missile defence system being deployed on its territory?



Tony Blair:

As I said to President Putin during the course of our talks, our role in this is very much to try and build understanding of respective points of view, both of Russia and the United States. The US firmly believes the rogue countries that may acquire nuclear technologies pose a threat. On the other hand, we are deeply committed to the efforts to continue reducing the nuclear threshold, and enhancing peace and stability all over the world. Now we understand the concern expressed by Russia. What is the best approach to this situation? Clearly, we should not to try to come to terms about everything right now, standing at this rostrum at the news conference. I think we should act with patience, and, of course, to the extent to which this process concerns us, resolve this problem through dialogue with our friends and partners both in the West and in Russia because it may potentially cause serious complications in our relations. As I have already said, our role is to try to bring the sides together so that we could resolve the problem on a reasonable basis in a way that would suit all sides. In my opinion, the best way to do this is tough, patient and diplomatic efforts.



The Sun (Retranslated from Russian):

President Putin, the world has learnt the bitter truth that the money that was sent as relief to Russia has landed in some secret foreign bank accounts. As I understand, you have asked Britain to help find some of this lost money. Could you tell us what you are doing to ensure that those mafia elements that control much of Russian business comply with the law?



Vladimir Putin:

I would not say that gangsters are running the show in the Russian economy. This is an exaggeration, a hyperbole as literary experts would say. But it is, of course, necessary to fight against crime in the economy and other spheres, and we are going to do so. This is one of the Russian government’s main challenges in the near future.

I have discussed with the prime minister the problem of the export of capital, but I must say that it is not criminal as some people are trying to present it. Regrettably, laws are such that there is no need to take bags of money out. The problem is more complicated and simpler at the same time. We must put cash flows under control but do this without harming the Russian economy.

We know sad examples of some Latin American countries where the leaders resorted to tough administrative measures in a bid to shut down all potential channels for the outflow of capital, but the amount of money leaving the country increased even more. In this case, extreme measures can produce the opposite effect. But nevertheless we intend to take certain steps in order to control this sphere. We are going to upgrade our cooperation with the Russian Central Bank, restructure our financial and banking sector, and, of course, toughen monitoring of the seamy side of this business. There is no doubt about this. However, I would like to emphasise that we will concentrate our efforts on the economy, rather than the criminal sphere. I think this would be much more effective.

Finally, I want to make a point about the return of capital. We are having talks and maintaining contacts with the representatives of our hosts today, corresponding agencies in Britain, as well as our partners in other West European countries. Once again, the main emphasis is not on the criminal side, but on encouraging the return of exported Russian capital from abroad, and its investment in the Russian economy. Maybe, this process is not visible yet, but it has started. Regrettably, it goes through off-shore zones and companies, but by and large its start is still a good sign. Russian capital is coming back to the Russian economy, and this is a positive signal for other potential investors. It shows that the terms for investing in Russia have become more predictable, clear and reasonable. This allows us to say that the investment climate in Russia is improving.



The source of information

[unseen]

Address at a Session of the Security Council

April 21, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon,

There are two issues on the Security Council’s agenda: the Military Doctrine and Russian interests in the Caspian. We discussed the Military Doctrine in greater detail in February, and today we are ready to submit a final document for your approval. The Military Doctrine, a conceptual development document, has been updated and improved over the course of several weeks by a number of offices, mainly the Defence Ministry. We must finish the job today.

Now, concerning Russian interests in the Caspian. The government and presidential bodies have been actively discussing the issue. It has also evoked great public interest. We have to admit that, unfortunately, no major progress has been made here. Our partners in other countries—Turkey, Great Britain, and the United States—are paying great attention to the Caspian, and we must clearly realise that it is no chance interest. The main reason for it is that we have remained passive. We are not to turn the Caspian into another confrontation zone, but we must realise that we will get nothing without a struggle. This is competition, and we must be competitive.

As they used to say in the old days, the merchant follows the ambassador. That is why we have invited to the Security Council managers of companies leading our fuel-and-energy complex and governors who work closely with the Caspian and know the region well. The invitation runs counter to the usual routine, but we have made it deliberately. The future of the region will largely depend on the degree of our success.

We have had a preliminary discussion on the subject. As we see it, the crux of the matter is to determine the balance of interests between the state and our companies, a balance of government and corporate interests. No progress will be made by government efforts alone. We must clearly realise that. We must provide conditions for regions and our companies to penetrate the area and stake a claim for it. We have every prerequisite for it.

Now, I propose to go over to the discussion.



The source of information

News Conference Following Security Council Session

April 21, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Question:

Could you tell us about the Security Council’s decisions on the first issue, the Caspian region.



Vladimir Putin:

I believe that it is crucial to establish a coordination team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The team will include spokesmen not only from different ministries and departments but also from Russia’s largest energy and transportation companies. The issues we discussed during the meeting today concern security and our military presence. They have to do with promoting oil and gas projects Russia is interested in, and certain transportation projects.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been instructed to be more active in its consultations with our partners in Caspian countries. A decision has been made to establish the office of a presidential envoy, who will deal with the Caspian related problems we discussed at the Security Council session today. The rank of that official will be determined when we have a new Cabinet.



Question:

Has a nomination been made?



Vladimir Putin:

Not yet.



Question:

There is a wide range of problems concerning the Caspian region, including oil production and transportation. Will the presidential envoy deal with all issues?



Vladimir Putin:

He will supervise everything but, I repeat, the coordination council, which will include Russia’s leading companies, will be a consultative body at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.



Question:

Are we going to drive out the Americans, too?



Vladimir Putin:

We are not going to drive anyone out. We are going to cooperate with everyone. We will respect the legitimate interests of all those involved in the process, but we will not overlook our own interests.



QUESTION [about the situation in the Chechen Republic]…



Vladimir Putin:

We have never refused to engage in political processes and political negotiations. I have said so on a number of occasions. Moreover, we are in contact with Maskhadov’s spokesmen, and have been in contact with them for a long time. I have said so repeatedly, and I can say it again. <…> What’s important for us here is not the negotiation process in itself but Russian security guarantees. What matters to us is to make sure no that one will ever be able to use Chechnya as a bridgehead to attack Russia, or to take advantage of the situation there, as was the case last summer.

Now, who can give us such guarantees? No one but ourselves. That is why our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies will stay in Chechnya, while we continue to cooperate with everyone who is prepared to contribute to solving the problem. In that, we will rely primarily on the Chechen people, who are sick and tired of the militants and realise that they have been framed and are being used to achieve certain ends that have nothing to do with their interests.

Russia has openly stated its conditions to beginning political negotiations: immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held to this day in some mountain areas in Chechnya. There are more than two hundred hostages, according to our calculations and the estimates of our law enforcement agencies and special services.

[Another condition is that militants are handed over to us.] The names of those militants and terrorists are well known to us. Now, if Mr Maskhadov is willing to do all that but cannot, if he has developed a disease called political impotence, we are ready to help him. Let him come to the negotiating table and meet the conditions I have mentioned. If, however, he cannot hand over the militants and terrorists, let him join us as we track them down and catch them. Let him make the men who are victimising his people flee Chechnya or go behind bars.

About a month ago, one of the go-betweens – a man I generally respect – passed another proposal for our talks. We made our conditions very clear to him. We were told Maskhadov was willing to concede, to accept our conditions and come to the negotiating table. We said no – not before he put it down on paper – because we know what can happen only too well. We have seen a lot of meaningless talk, and it’s going on to this day. All those words have only one aim: to engage us in pointless negotiations and take advantage of the lull. By the way, there is going to be no lull at all. Our 42nd division is already settling down for permanent stationing there. It will stay there.

He put down his commitments on paper, the Security Council made its corrections, and passed it back to Maskhadov in writing. On the whole, the document listed, I repeat, what I have just described, our conditions for starting negotiations. And that was it – the negotiators vanished after that. We have not seen them or heard anything from them for a month now. It all stopped at that.

Everyone vanishes as soon as we come to practical steps. That’s how it is. No one will ever again engage in empty talk with them. That is something everyone must understand, and we must put an end to wishful thinking. <…>

As things stand, some people are just using him [Aslan Maskhadov] to settle certain tactical problems, but when the people who control him realise that he cannot manage even that, they will change their attitude to him, I’m afraid. As for our response to his hypothetical answer to our proposals – in writing, I stress – we will be ready in a month if he replies in a month, and we will be ready tomorrow if he replies tomorrow. I want to stress the main point now. We will not have anyone lead us by the nose and will not believe anyone if we see that we are dealing with empty talk.

There can be only one kind of guarantees – our armed forces will stay there forever. We will take political measures together with the Chechen people to bring the social and political situation back to normal. We will do it together, and we have every reason to expect that there are people we can join efforts with – apart from Maskhadov and the militants who support him.





Question:

There is a certain contradiction in what you’ve said. On the one hand, you say Maskhadov is not a man who can make any decisions, and he is just being used. On the other hand, you say you are ready to begin negotiations with him. Some regional governors, like Mintimer Shaimiyev or Aman Tuleyev, would never take steps like that on their own unless they coordinate their position with the federal centre…



Vladimir Putin:

Shaimiev and Tuleyev are in no way involved in this.



Question:

But they have been advocating the start of peace negotiations with Maskhadov.



Vladimir Putin:

First, I am afraid you haven’t been listening to what I’ve been saying. If you had, you would not have seen any contradiction at all. What I said is that if he really wants to hand over the bandits to us but cannot do so, we can offer him a way out. He can join us in fighting the militants for his own people’s sake. So there is no contradiction here whatsoever.

To be honest, we are assuming he cannot do anything. We have told him: if you cannot act, join us and fight the militants and terrorists together with us. Then, if he cannot do even that, and is not ready to do anything else, and empty talk is the only thing he is capable of, that is not the kind of negotiator we need. We’ll manage without him.



Question:

Could you clarify one point, please. What is Maskhadov’s status as far as Russia is concerned? Do you regard him as a lawfully elected head of a constituent entity or a wanted criminal, with police on his track? What is he?



Vladimir Putin:

To us he is a criminal. The amnesty applies to him, and if he wants to take advantage of it, let him, while the going is good. His election did not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, but he was elected, nevertheless. That is what we proceed from. If he wants to use the chance offered him by the State Duma of the Russian Federation with the amnesty law, he can do so.



Question:

Mr Putin, you have recently visited three countries – Ukraine, the UK and Belarus. What were the most important issues discussed during each of the visits?



Vladimir Putin:

Each had a dominant idea. For Belarus, it was progress towards a Union State, certain military technological partnership issues, and coordination of economic policies; in Britain, it was European security and bilateral economic partnership; and in Ukraine, it was similar economic issues, energy, military technological partnership, and the Black Sea Fleet.

Progress has been made on some of those matters, at least at the level of agreement and the formulation of our objectives. That is very important, as I see it.



Question:

Let us get back to Belarus. In an interview a few days ago, President Lukashenko referred to the stationing of a 300,000-strong military force. You have already clarified this to a certain extent. But still, what exactly is that force? What does “stationing” imply? Are the troops on the move?



Vladimir Putin:

Certainly not. As a matter of fact, what is happening is the implementation of a treaty signed in 1997, if I am not mistaken. That was when the State Duma ratified the interstate agreement. What is the issue here? The Belarusian Armed Forces and a part of the Armed Forces deployed in western part of the Russian Federation will undertake coordinated action in particular situations. The Belarusian Armed Forces will be subordinate only to their defence minister, and the Russian to their own leadership.

If, for some reason, the Belarusian Armed Forces need support from the Russian military, they will have such support. The matter concerns coordinated action by the two countries’ armed forces in circumstances that we expect never to arise.



The source of information

Speech at a Meeting of Heads of Regional Election Commissions

May 6, 2000 - 00:00 - Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon.

To begin with, I would like to thank Alexander Veshnyakov, his colleagues, the Central Election Commission, and all those who took part in this difficult work for their efforts. To my mind, you began, conducted and finished it at the highest professional level. You are that sort of people who shoulder the main burden during these campaigns. And I think you are all people of a special cast who, despite their sympathies and antipathies, manage to remain loyal to the law. Understandably, this is not so simple. But I think you have done it.

A good deal depends on you in the sense that moral and ethical standards in this country hinge on your professional skills, because you are the starting point for the formation of authority in any one region and throughout the entire country. And the way you work, the way you line up your activities gives a great impulse to the whole of society.

I think – no, I am certain – that this time you have made a breakthrough. All of us, our population, our people have got tired of the “dirty technologies” we have witnessed all these past years. Maybe the mood of ordinary voters prompted you to change yourselves to a certain extent, making you harsher, more united and – I would say – better organised. All that enabled you to carry out the 2000 presidential campaign at a high professional, political and organizational level, and to avoid many of the unpleasant things we have seen only recently, even in the latest State Duma elections.

Today you are having a sort of production meeting, and so I will now go over from general – important, but general – words to nuts and bolts issues. The point I want to make is that although the federal parliamentary and presidential elections are over, you, particularly the people in this audience, are still faced with many problems, because now elections will be held in the regions. Electoral activity is shifting to the regions and this is, in essence and under law, an important aspect of our political work, because the way polls are held and governing bodies formed in the regions determines the way our state will function. In this sense, one might say your work never ends. It is like working in a foundry, because the heat is always there: I do not envy you, but I wish you every success.

The past parliamentary and presidential elections have completed another cycle of Russia’s recent history. Society has undergone truly monumental changes over these years. It has learned the ABC’s of democracy, and elections at every level have been the main lesson it learned. As a rule, elections highlight the views and moral qualities of candidates. But most important of all, elections hold elected functionaries responsible before their voters.

The new Russian electoral system has taken shape before our very eyes. We have both witnessed and contributed to this process. Ten years ago Russia elected its first people’s deputies, drawing on a wide pool of candidates. Then, as polls went their way, the laws were updated, citizens gained experience, and politicians and their advisors came up with new approaches and technologies.





But you have always been able, and ultimately managed, to separate the wheat from the chaff, bona fide methods of campaigning from dishonest methods.

Together we have achieved a great deal even over the past six months, particularly in protecting electoral rights. This became possible thanks to a principled stance and active efforts of our election commissions, from the Central Commission down to local ones. We did not sit around, but tried to keep the laws up to date. This means the election commissions are staffed by knowledgeable and caring people who present the Duma with ever new bills and have a good and constructive relationship with it. A bit later, we will perhaps discuss it in greater detail.

On the agenda now are elections to a Union Parliament, and the Central Election Commission has already drafted some bills.

I would like to dwell here on some sore points and problems related to our electioneering affairs, and to focus on questions to be addressed jointly by the authorities, election commissions, and voters. Without engaged citizen participation we will not be able to turn the tables around.

What stands out here? First and foremost, it is, of course, the moral and ethical side of elections. When one just gets used to lies and gutter dirt, it does no good to society. And not only lame laws are to blame. Not everything in life can be regulated through law. During elections of different levels many exercised the ‘anything sells’ mentality.

Political victories won through such nasty technologies are, unfortunately not few and far between in our country. As a result, society has almost come to believe that politics is a dirty business, and cannot be anything else given such technologies. I think we all understand that political cynicism erodes the civilian basis of public life, and paves the way to office for political adventurers, demagogic manipulators and rank criminals. That is, of course, everybody’s fault. Some of it falls onto the authorities, which either ignore or connive at these processes. Those present today in this audience are also to blame; I don’t mean specific people, of course, but certain media use their freedom to offend society’s morals. There are issues to discuss with the election commissions themselves, which sometimes shut their eyes to what happens. The laws do not concern morals and honour, but we all must be guided by universal human values which we know well.





We must ensure that self-respect and national dignity prevail in society. And elections, wherever they are held – across the entire country or in some particular town or region – must conform to the law and moral rules, and guarantee progress and the free choice of free people.

The main principle underlying the work of election commissions, as said at the beginning, is impartiality. And you seek to observe it. We have seen it time and again. I, for one, saw it when the Central Election Commission called the attention of all candidates, including me as a presidential candidate, to observe certain rules of election campaigning. I took note of that at once.

I think you could also do a great deal to enhance legal awareness among voters to make the elections more transparent and democratic. So, with this work cut out for you, I wish you every success and extend my sincere thanks to you. All the best!



The source of information

[unseen]

The inauguration of Vladimir Putin took place in the Kremlin

May 7, 2000 - 13:00 - Moscow

Spoiler!

The inauguration ceremony began when the Presidential Standard, the State Flag, the Presidential Badge and a special copy of the Constitution were brought to the St Andrew Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace.

Boris Yeltsin, the first President of Russia, Chairman of the Constitutional Court Marat Baglai, CEC Chairman Alexander Veshnyakov, Yegor Stroyev, Speaker of the upper house, and Gennady Seleznyov, Speaker of the lower house, waited for Mr Putin at a special platform.





About 1,500 guests, including 448 deputies of the lower house, 175 members of the upper house, and 19 judges of the Constitutional Court, as well as members of the Government and representatives of federal bodies of authority and the diplomatic corps, and heads of diplomatic missions attended the ceremony.





The presidential cars entered the Kremlin several minutes before midday. Mr Putin entered the Grand Kremlin Palace and proceeded to the St Andrew Hall, where he mounted the platform at midday.





The first speaker, Mr Veshnyakov, announced the official results of the presidential election.





Mr Putin took the oath. In accordance with the Constitution, the elected president takes his post by taking the oath. At that moment, the Presidential Standard was raised over the Senate Palace.





Boris Yeltsin made a short speech encouraging the new head of state to build a new Russia on the principles of freedom and with reliance on the new generation. After that, Mr Yeltsin handed over the Presidential Badge to Mr Putin.





Vladimir Putin addressed the audience: “I understand that I have taken on a great responsibility, and I know that in Russia the head of state has always been and will always be the person who is responsible for everything in the country.”





After the ceremony, Mr Yeltsin and Mr Putin went out onto Cathedral Square, where the new President listened to the report made by the commander of the Presidential Regiment.

The inauguration ceremony ended with a march by the regiment.



The source of information

Inauguration Ceremony

May 7, 2000 - 00:01 - The Great Kremlin Palace, Moscow

Spoiler!

Approximately 1,500 people have been invited to the ceremony in the Kremlin: 448 State Duma deputies, 175 members of the Federation Council, 19 Constitutional Court judges, representatives of the Government and other federal agencies, as well as ambassadors and other diplomats.

Duration – 1 hour

A podium has been set up for President Vladimir V. Putin in the Andrew Hall of the Great Kremlin Palace.

The National Flag of the Russian Federation and the Presidential Standard are brought into the hall. Flag-bearers from the Honor Guard of the Presidential Regiment march down the aisle from the Vladimir Hall through the Alexander hall to the podium in the Andrew Hall. The flag-bearers’ uniform includes tall military caps like the kind worn during the War of 1812 as a symbol of the heroism of the Russian army, the country’s defender at all times. The uniforms, like all the elements of this ceremony, are rich with meaning.

The soldiers of the Honor Guard bring in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Presidential Emblem.

This special copy of the Constitution, as well as the Emblem and Standard, are the insignia of presidential power. President Yeltsin also took his oath of duty to the Russian people on this copy of the Constitution.

The motorcade of the newly elected President approaches the Great Kremlin Palace. At the entrance, the Kremlin’s commandant, Lieutenant-General Sergey V. Strygin, awaits the President’s arrival.



Lieutenant-General Sergey V.STRYGIN:

“Comrade President of the Russian Federation, commandant of the Moscow Kremlin Lieutenant-General Strygin!”



Vladimir V. PUTIN:

“I wish you good health, Comrade Lieutenant-General, sir!”


Vladimir V.Putin enters the Andrew Hall of the Great Kremlin Palace.


Alexander A. VESHNYAKOV, chairman of the Central Elections Commission:

“Esteemed Vladimir Vladimirovirch, esteemed guests, esteemed citizens of the Russian Federation!

“On this grand occasion, allow me, on behalf of the Central Elections Commission, to declare that on March 26, 2000, in strict accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal law on presidential elections in the Russian Federation, an early election of the President of our country took place with a sufficient voter turnout and was deemed valid. A total of 57,181,071 voters of the registered number of 109,372,000 voted in the election. Of those, 39,740,434, meaning more than half the participating voters, voted for candidate Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

“On the basis of this showing of the will of the citizens of the Russian Federation and in accordance with the law, the Central Elections Commission has declared the presidential election valid. The commission has resolved to declare Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin the President of the Russian Federation.

“Esteemed Vladimir Vladimirovich!

“Accept our sincere and heart-felt congratulations on your election as President of the Russian Federation. We wish you success in your work for the good of the Motherland and the good of every citizen of the Russian Federation.”



Marat V. Baglay, chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation:

“In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, upon taking office the President must swear an oath of duty to the people. The words [of the oath] are found in Article 82 of the Constitution. The oath is taken in the presence of members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma and judges of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation.

“Esteemed Vladimir Vladimirovich, I invite you to take the oath before the people of Russia.”



Vladimir PUTIN:

“In performing my duties as the President of the Russian Federation, I pledge to respect and protect the rights and liberties of every citizen; to observe and protect the Constitution of the Russian Federation; to protect the sovereignty and independence, security and integrity of the state and to serve the people faithfully.”



Marat V. BAGLAY:

“In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has entered the office of President of the Russian Federation.”


The Presidential Standard is raised above the Presidential residence in the Kremlin.


Boris N. YELTSIN, first President of the Russian Federation:

“Esteemed participants of this grand ceremony, dear citizens of Russia!

“I congratulate you on a historic event in the life of the country. A new President of Russia has officially entered office. I wish Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin that he may carry out the difficult duties of the President in a manner worthy of the office, and I wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity. Today’s event reminds us of the most exciting days in the lives of citizens, and particularly in the lives of presidents.

“We must build a new Russia. For that purpose, a new generation is rising – of statesmen and politicians devoted to democratic values. For them, it will be easier, as they are far less encumbered by the habits of the past than we were; they are bolder in working with outdated dogmas and can handle this.

“For me, this day is also very festive and exciting, although, frankly speaking, I hadn’t expected that. Yes, we started writing the history of the new Russia on a blank slate, so to speak, through trial and error. There were many tough challenges, many difficulties, but now we all have something to be proud of: Russia has changed. It has changed because we took care of it like the apple of our eye, and staunchly defended our main achievement — freedom. We have preserved for Russia a worthy place in the international community, we did not let the country go down the path of dictatorship, we did not allow chaotic discord and we opened up the way to people’s well-being. Success in this effort is a matter of time and intense work.

“Today is the first time in a century that we have a legal transfer of power from one head of state to another. Of course, this is not a simple thing, and we must be proud that it is happening without coups or putsches or revolutions, but in a peaceful, respectful and dignified manner. Such a thing is possible only in a free country, a country that has stopped fearing not only others but itself and its own authorities – who have freed its citizens and given them freedom. Of course, this is possible only in the new Russia, which has taught people to be free in thought and deed.

“Esteemed citizens of Russia!

“Today Vladimir Putin’s presidency officially begins. I am not passing on to him merely the symbol of presidential power; he is receiving that which is most important – responsibility for the country’s future and for all Russian citizens. So today I would like to wish you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, success and luck. The Russian people remember you and together you will go forward. These words are sincere, they come straight from the heart; I cannot do [speak] otherwise, since all of this went through me. Your goal is to live up to these hopes, and I want to repeat the words I once said to you: Take care of Russia.”


Mr. Yeltsin hands the Presidential Emblem to President Putin.


President Vladimir V. PUTIN:

“Esteemed citizens of Russia, dear friends!

“I am addressing you today, you specifically, because you have entrusted me with the highest government post in the country. I understand that I have taken on a great responsibility, and I know that in Russia the head of state has always been and will always be the person who is responsible for everything in the country. The first President of Russia, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, recalled this today, as he leaves the Kremlin, with words that many will remember. He repeated today in this hall: Take care of Russia. This is precisely what I see as the primary responsibility of the President. I will require that my comrades in arms and my colleagues fulfill this duty. I also expect to get help in this patriotic effort from the citizens of Russia and from all those who hold dear the future of our Motherland.

“Today I would also like to thank my supporters, everybody who voted for me in this election. You have supported the initial steps that have already been made. You believed that together we can change our life for the better. I am deeply grateful to you for this. But I understand that your support is only an advance [of trust] to the authorities in general and, obviously, to me, the one being inaugurated today.

“I am also addressing the people who voted for other candidates. I am confident that you cast your votes for our common future, our common aims, for a better life, for a prosperous and strong Russia. Each of us has his own experience, his own views, but we must be together, we have a great deal to do in concert.

“Today truly is a historic day; I want to draw attention to this once more. Really, for the first time in Russia’s history, power is being transferred in the most democratic and simplest way, by the will of the people, legally and peacefully. The transfer of power is always a test of constitutional order, a test of its durability. This is not the first test and, obviously, it will not be the last, but this challenge we have met, this boundary in our lives we have crossed. We have proved that Russia is becoming a modern democratic state. The peaceful succession of power is a critical element of the political stability of which we dreamed, to which we aspired, which we strived to achieve.

“The road to a free society has been neither smooth nor simple. We have both tragic and great chapters in our history. The construction of a democratic state is far from complete, but many things have been achieved. We must guard what we have gained, we must protect and promote democracy, we must make sure that the authorities elected by the people serve the people’s interests, protect Russian citizens everywhere – both inside and outside the country – and serve the public. This is a principled, staunch position that I have defended and will continue to defend.

“For today’s grand occasion we have gathered here in the Kremlin, a place that is sacred to our people. The Kremlin is a focal point of our national heritage. Here, within the walls of the Kremlin, the history of our nation has been made for centuries, and we have no right to be ‘Ivans who don’t remember their predecessors.’ We must not forget anything, we must know our history, know it the way it was and learn its lessons; we must always remember the people who created the Russian state, defended its honor and made it a great, powerful and mighty state. We will cherish this memory, and we will maintain this link between eras, and we will pass on the best of our history to our descendants.

“Esteemed citizens of Russia!

“We have faith in our potential, we have faith in our ability to truly reform and transform the country. We have common aims, we want our Russia to be a free, prosperous, strong and civilized country, a country that its citizens are proud of and that is respected internationally. In recent months, both in Moscow and during meetings in Russia’s regions, I have felt your understanding and your support. And very often I have heard from people — from ordinary people, on the squares and streets of our cities — very simple words that are nonetheless very important to me. People have said to me: ‘We believe you, we’re counting on you; just watch you don’t trick us. ’

“I can assure you that my work will be guided solely by the interests of the state. Perhaps it will not be possible to avoid mistakes, but what I can promise and what I do promise is that I will work openly and honestly.

“I consider it to be my sacred duty to unify the people of Russia, to rally citizens around clear aims and tasks, and to remember every day and every minute that we have one Motherland, one people and one future.

“Thank you!”


In honor of the inauguration, a 30-gun salute is fired.

The Presidential Regiment awaits the new Commander in Chief on Cathedral Square in front of the Great Kremlin Palace.

President Putin and Mr. Yeltsin come out to the palace porch, Krasniye Seni.


Major-General Sergey V. YANGOREV, the Commander of the Presidential Regiment:

“Comrade President of the Russian Federation, the Presidential Regiment is formed in honor of the inauguration of the President of the Russian Federation!”



President Vladimir V.PUTIN:

“Good day, comrades of the Kremlin Guard!”



Regiment:

“We wish you good health, Comrade President of the Russian Federation, sir!”



President Vladimir V.PUTIN:

“Congratulations on the 64th anniversary of the Presidential Regiment!”



Regiment:

“Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!”



Major-General Sergey V. YANGOREV:

“Regiment, dress! Attention! To parade, form a line in company, right face! Shoulder arms! Eyes right! Forward march!”


The solemn march of the Kremlin Guard is a stringent military ritual wherein the Presidential Regiment meets the new Commander in Chief, Vladimir V. Putin. The flag-bearers who carried in the President’s insignia at the inauguration now march before the Commander in Chief at the head of the regiment.

The ceremonial uniform of the Guard emphasizes the continuity between today’s Army and its predecessors, the heroes of the War of 1812, Suvorov’s legendary warriors and all those who have defended the Motherland. The new President comes down from the podium to receive congratulations on his inauguration.

At the end of the inauguration ceremony, a brief church service to pray for the President’s long and healthy life is held in the Kremlin’s Cathedral of the Annunciation. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexy II, gives his blessing to the new head of state. During the service, First Lady Lyudmila Alexandrovna Putina stands beside the President.

Addressing his words to President Putin, the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church notes that Russia’s new head of state has received the support of the majority of the country’s citizens.


Patriach ALEXY II:

“Russia is getting a new head of state who received obvious support at the polls. The majority of the people voted for continuity of power, for a well-balanced and responsible style of governance, for rule of law, order, concern for people, and for a strong country that is reasonably open to the world around us. This is the direction that you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, have adhered to in recent months as acting President. Today you are taking up the full weight of the burden of the highest state authority.”


The Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church presents the President with a Tikhvin icon of the Mother of God. Additionally, Alexy II presents the Kremlin with mosaic replicas of icons of the Savior Not Made With Hands and St. Nicholas of Mozhaisk, which adorned the Kremlin’s Spasskie (Savior’s) and Nikolskie (St. Nicholas) gates prior to the Revolution of 1917. Though the original icons were lost, the replicas are destined to get a place in history. President Putin presents an icon of St. Alexander Nevsky to the Patriarch.



The source of information

Speech at the Inauguration Ceremony

May 7, 2000 - 00:02 - The Great Kremlin Palace, Moscow

Spoiler!

The video has English subtitles




President Vladimir PUTIN:

Esteemed citizens of Russia, dear friends!

I am addressing you today, you specifically, because you have entrusted me with the highest government post in the country. I understand that I have taken on a great responsibility, and I know that in Russia the head of state has always been and will always be the person who is responsible for everything in the country. The first President of Russia, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, recalled this today, as he leaves the Kremlin, with words that many will remember. He repeated today in this hall: Take care of Russia. This is precisely what I see as the primary responsibility of the President. I will require that my comrades in arms and my colleagues fulfill this duty. I also expect to get help in this patriotic effort from the citizens of Russia and from all those who hold dear the future of our Motherland.

Today I would also like to thank my supporters, everybody who voted for me in this election. You have supported the initial steps that have already been made. You believed that together we can change our life for the better. I am deeply grateful to you for this. But I understand that your support is only an advance [of trust] to the authorities in general and, obviously, to me, the one being inaugurated today.

I am also addressing the people who voted for other candidates. I am confident that you cast your votes for our common future, our common aims, for a better life, for a prosperous and strong Russia. Each of us has his own experience, his own views, but we must be together, we have a great deal to do in concert.

Today truly is a historic day; I want to draw attention to this once more. Really, for the first time in Russia’s history, power is being transferred in the most democratic and simplest way, by the will of the people, legally and peacefully. The transfer of power is always a test of constitutional order, a test of its durability. This is not the first test and, obviously, it will not be the last, but this challenge we have met, this boundary in our lives we have crossed. We have proved that Russia is becoming a modern democratic state. The peaceful succession of power is a critical element of the political stability of which we dreamed, to which we aspired, which we strived to achieve.

The road to a free society has been neither smooth nor simple. We have both tragic and great chapters in our history. The construction of a democratic state is far from complete, but many things have been achieved. We must guard what we have gained, we must protect and promote democracy, we must make sure that the authorities elected by the people serve the people’s interests, protect Russian citizens everywhere – both inside and outside the country – and serve the public. This is a principled, staunch position that I have defended and will continue to defend.

For today’s grand occasion we have gathered here in the Kremlin, a place that is sacred to our people. The Kremlin is a focal point of our national heritage. Here, within the walls of the Kremlin, the history of our nation has been made for centuries, and we have no right to be ‘Ivans who don’t remember their predecessors.’ We must not forget anything, we must know our history, know it the way it was and learn its lessons; we must always remember the people who created the Russian state, defended its honor and made it a great, powerful and mighty state. We will cherish this memory, and we will maintain this link between eras, and we will pass on the best of our history to our descendants.

Esteemed citizens of Russia!

We have faith in our potential, we have faith in our ability to truly reform and transform the country. We have common aims, we want our Russia to be a free, prosperous, strong and civilized country, a country that its citizens are proud of and that is respected internationally. In recent months, both in Moscow and during meetings in Russia’s regions, I have felt your understanding and your support. And very often I have heard from people — from ordinary people, on the squares and streets of our cities — very simple words that are nonetheless very important to me. People have said to me: ‘We believe you, we’re counting on you; just watch you don’t trick us. ’

I can assure you that my work will be guided solely by the interests of the state. Perhaps it will not be possible to avoid mistakes, but what I can promise and what I do promise is that I will work openly and honestly.

I consider it to be my sacred duty to unify the people of Russia, to rally citizens around clear aims and tasks, and to remember every day and every minute that we have one Motherland, one people and one future.

Thank you!



The source of information

A ceremonial prayer on the inauguration of the new President was held by Alexy II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, in the Annunciation Cathedral, where Mr Putin arrived after the inauguration ceremony

May 7, 2000 - 14:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Alexy II addressed the new President, saying that the majority of Russians had voted for a balanced and responsible leadership, for law and order, concern for the people, and a strong country open to the world.

Speaking on behalf of the clergy and believers of the Russian Orthodox Church and everyone who cares for the spiritual heritage of Russia, the Patriarch asked the new head of state “to remember about the great responsibility of the leader to his people, history and God,” and appealed to Mr Putin to take care of the people’s welfare, both material and spiritual.





Alexy II also assured the President that the Russian Orthodox Church would help the secular authorities in their efforts to revitalise the country.

He presented to Mr Putin an icon of St Alexander Nevsky, and expressed his hope that the famous defender and patron saint of Russia also would become the holy defender of the President in his service to the country.





The Patriarch also handed over to Mr Putin the recreated icons of the Saviour and St Nicholas, which had been kept in the Spasskaya and Nikolskaya towers of the Kremlin until 1917, asking him to return them there.

Mr Putin replied that it was thanks to the guidance of the Russian Orthodox Church that Russia had preserved century-old traditional spiritual and moral values, which would have been otherwise lost irretrievably.

The prayer was also attended by Boris Yeltsin and his wife, and Lyudmila Putin.



The source of information

[unseen]

Speech at a Reception after the Inauguration Ceremony

May 7, 2000 - 00:03 - State Kremlin Palace, Moscow

Spoiler!

The video has English subtitles




President Vladimir Putin:

Dear colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen!

Today's ceremony contained many festive moments. Being sworn in as President is, of course, a formal ritual. But my words were not simply a tribute to ritual. The words of the presidential oath represent the very essence of work as President. Indeed, in its proper meaning, the oath addresses the people. Today I think it is important to emphasise that a country’s history and destiny do not begin with the election of a new head of state, nor do they end with his retirement. We will continue the work of those who did everything for the first time and attempted to simultaneously resolve a number of complex tasks. There were no blueprints for the work they did and there were no guarantees that it would be successful. And as I emphasise this I would also like to welcome the first President of the Russian Federation, Boris Nikolaevich Yeltsin, who is here today.





I would like to thank everyone that I have worked with during all these months. People did not believe in me alone; they saw a harmonious team, felt our unity and our desire to work conscientiously to make a real difference. It is very important that the circle of people who share our opinions are not limited to the Kremlin and the White House. We have support in the Federal Assembly and in the Russian regions. Our proposals are popular among Russian citizens. It was among the public itself that these approaches and these ideas were born and came to flourish. And it was because they were needed. And our ideas and plans will remain as open as they were before. We must be honest with our citizens. It is only then that we can preserve their trust and rely on their support.





Dear friends! We have left the extreme qualities of our political beginnings and our democratic youth behind us. Many mistakes were inevitable. But since that time both the authorities and society have grown quickly, and their confidence and maturity has certainly grown as well. We cannot promise miracles but we are ready to act professionally and expeditiously. Today the government cabinet, the deputies of the Federal Assembly and, most importantly, our voters are in the mood to work. And this implies that the harmony we dreamed about and have aspired to for so long now exists. Of course, one would be right to bet that we will still disagree on details, but I am convinced of the main thing: we share one goal, namely to preserve the dignity of our country and the prosperity of our citizens. The authorities are obliged to strive for this laudable goal.





As we come to the end of this difficult day I would like to once again thank everyone for their engagement. I would also like to express my hope that amount of energy our union benefited from today will continue to help us better understand one another and to simply help one another. And that, eventually, it will allow all of us to work for Russia in a dignified manner.





And the last thing. The length of the presidency is, of course, determined by the Constitution. But if we serve our country then we will serve her all our lives, regardless of our office or decorations. This is a moral obligation for all those who believe in Russia. And today the President of the Soviet Union and the first President of the Russian Federation act as the best examples of this.





I would like to propose a toast to the well-being and prosperity of our country! To peace and harmony on Russian land! Long live the people of the Russian Federation! Long live Great Russia!



The source of information

Address at a Parade Dedicated to the 55th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

May 9, 2000 - 00:01 - Red Square, Moscow

Spoiler!

A Parade Dedicated to the 55th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War





Address at a Parade

The video has English subtitles




President Vladimir Putin:

Comrade soldiers and sailors, sergeants and sergeant-majors, comrade officers, generals and admirals, dear veterans, citizens of Russia!

I congratulate you on this, the 55th anniversary of our great victory, victory in a war that was a harsh trial for our statehood and a great test of our national spirit, our unity and our military comradeship.

I greet the soldiers of the Great Patriotic War. Today you stand in the same ranks as the new generation of defenders of our Motherland, here once more on Red Square, this historic place that has witnessed our soldiers of different eras and that was the site of the victory parade in 1945.





Dear soldiers of the frontlines, at your side we have become used to victory. This is in our blood now and is not only a guarantee of military victories but also comes to our aid in peacetime, helping our generation to build a strong and prosperous country and raise aloft the Russian banner of democracy and freedom. Our people have lived through many wars and we know the price of peace, we know that peace is built above all on a strong economy and the prosperity of our citizens. These are the pillars of Russia’s inner and external strength and the guarantee of its defence capability and security, and this is the biggest “military secret” we shall pass on to our children.





Fifty-five years is a long time, but our country remembers everything about the war: the deprivation and hunger, the bombardments and death, the terrible toll of our losses. On May 9, we remember all those who did not live to celebrate victory. This is a sorrow that never fades. It is our sacred duty to pay tribute to the memory of our fathers, our fathers who are buried here in their native soil or in the battlefields of Europe. Our people gave everything they had for victory. We remember not only the achievements of our soldiers but also the honour and glory of those who toiled heroically on the home front. We bow low before all those who grew grain, made arms for the front and tended the wounded during those terrible years, all those who kept their patience, belief and endurance alive.





The countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States are also celebrating Victory Day today and I send my warmest greetings to all the veterans of our brother countries. We all share the sacrifices and joys of victory. We defended peace together, did not allow history to be reshaped, fought for our great Soviet motherland, preserved the independence of our countries and made a decisive contribution to the victory over fascism. Today you stand together once again and carry the glorious banner of our common victory.





Happy Victory Day, brothers and sisters in arms. Glory to the soldiers who laid the solid foundation for future peaceful victories. They have passed on to us a heroic tradition and have willed that we should celebrate this victory as our own. We are indebted to them and will pay our debt in real acts for the good of our Motherland. The years may pass but the memory of the Great Patriotic War will remain just as great a lesson for all of us and just as clear a warning to all those who consider terror and violence their greatest weapon.





Dear citizens of Russia! Our army was and always will be a people’s army. Our soldiers achieve their victories not just through their arms but also through their spirit, their strength of will. This is firmer than metal, it helps our country to overcome any trials, keeping conscience and honour, preserving the pride in our past and our present, our pride in our country’s national achievements. So it was in the past, so it is today and so it will always be.

Glory to the soldiers of the Great Patriotic War! Glory to the victorious people! Glory to our army of liberators! Happy Victory Day! Hurrah!



The source of information

Speech at a Gala Reception Dedicated to the 55th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War

May 9, 2000 - 00:02 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, defenders of the Fatherland!

Ladies and gentlemen!

It is already the 55th time that our Fatherland has marked the anniversary of the great victory, a victory that cost our people dearly. Our generation remembers and knows that we are in your debt. We owe you everything: our birth, our fate and the freedom and independence of our Fatherland.

Front-line veterans and veterans of the rear, we have learned from you to be firm and courageous. No one can measure what your generation has done for Russia. Those were four years of the most difficult war, four years of privations and losses. But those were also four years of struggle and faith in ourselves and in victory. Not only did you destroy the enemy and win. You also raised a ruined country, rebuilt it anew, you fought and you worked. You did not slave away; you worked hard and well for the homeland, for us, for your grandchildren, for your children. And those who are trying to make us forget what a big and mighty land this was are also trying to make the veterans forget their springtime and their youth, full of life plans and hopes. For them it was an era of post-war self-discovery. They discovered themselves anew. It was indeed an era of our rebirth.

Veterans of the legendary Soviet Army have just now marched in the same ranks with fellow veterans, their comrades-in-arms from the fraternal countries of the Commonwealth. Your friendship and your military comradeship sustain not only you. They still unite our peoples, nourishing our common national memory and keeping alive the ties that bind our countries together. I hope and know that this will always be so. And as Supreme Commander-in-Chief, I give the veterans the following task: all veterans, both those who were present on Red Square today and those who were not, should prepare for the next parade, a parade marking the sixtieth anniversary of victory. And everyone should be there.

My friends, the world still marvels at the strength of our motherland, at our fortitude and might. But actually there is nothing surprising about it. Today every boy in Russia knows about Stalingrad and the Kursk Bulge. In fact, every family has their own heroes. Heroes from that cruel war. And this knowledge and this memory are immortal. As the greatness of our motherland is immortal. As the pride of the nation and Russian patriotism are immortal. No force can therefore overwhelm Russian arms and break our army, an army whose glorious record includes the Brest fortress and unconquered Leningrad, harsh 1941 and victorious 1945, and now the countless feats of soldiers of the new Russia. We have inherited this spirit and this faith from you, our dear veterans. Your life and your exploits are the best school of life for us, an example for those who are rebuilding our strong new state. Since time immemorial Russia has been a victorious country, a country that is peaceful, but one that respects itself and its national dignity. And so will it remain forever. We know this for sure and give you our firm pledge to add our victories to yours.

I propose a toast to the victorious soldier. To you, heroes of the Great Patriotic War! To a strong and prosperous Russia! To peace and well-being on Russian soil! Glory to the great victory!



The source of information

[unseen]

In a letter to the Chairman of the State Council of Bashkiria, Konstantin Tolkachev, President Vladimir Putin called on the State Council to harmonise the Constitution of Bashkiria with the Constitution and laws of the Russian Federation

May 11, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

The letter read, in part:

“Harmonising federal and regional legislation must apply to all the laws pertaining to the relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Bashkortostan, the main one being the Treaty on the Delimitation of Jurisdictions and Mutual Delegation of Powers between the Government Bodies of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Bashkortostan.

“I believe that the first step towards solving that problem may be harmonising with federal legislation of those provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan which have no basis in the provisions of the Treaty.”

The head of state identified some articles in the Constitution of Bashkiria that “contradict the principles of the federal system, including the principle whereby the Russian Federation has state sovereignty over its entire territory and the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal laws prevail over its entire territory.”

The letter notes that Articles 74, 76 and 95 of the Constitution of Bashkiria “propose that the Republic of Bashkortostan become a subject under international law, including independent conduct of international and foreign trade relations, participation in inter-state associations, conclusion of international treaties, exchange of diplomatic consular and other missions and the right of the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan to appoint the corresponding representatives.”

But, as the letter argues, “such a scope of powers of the Republic of Bashkortostan in the exercise of the international and foreign trade links is not warranted by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and goes beyond the rights granted by the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Bashkortostan.”

The head of state also pointed out the contradictions between the republican and federal laws on issues of human rights and civil freedoms, citizenship, the exercise by citizens of their passive electoral rights in the elections of the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan, in the field of currency and customs regulation, the strengthening of the monetary and credit system, local regulations, including ownership, possession and disposal of municipal property, the appointment of the Prosecutor of the Republic of Bashkortostan, which is the prerogative of the state power bodies of the republic.

The letter notes that under Section 24, Article 88 and Section 15 Article 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan “the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan has the right to introduce a state of emergency in the republic or parts thereof, and the State Assembly has the right to approve the corresponding decree of the President of the Republic of Bashkortostan. These provisions contradict Articles 56, 88 and 102 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.”

“As the guarantor of the Constitution of the Russian Federation I propose that the State Assembly of the Republic of Bashkortostan take the necessary measures to harmonise the said provision of the Constitution of the Republic of Bashkortostan with the Constitution of the Russian Federation,” the letter concludes.



The source of information

Speech at a Ceremony for Presenting Credentials

May 15, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Today we propose to focus our collective work on the search for effective ways of resolving the most important global problems. The first is the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The second is the fight against international terrorism, and the third is our joint efforts to combat organised crime.

We believe that our most important common task is to preserve strategic stability in the world. Russia is doing all it can not to undermine the basic international agreements that have been reached, including those on the ABM problem. But we are prepared to move further down the road of reducing strategic armaments and to work on START III. The State Duma has confirmed the seriousness of Russia’s intentions by ratifying the START II Treaty and the 1972 ABM Treaty. This indicates, among other things, the unity of Russian society on key international security problems.

We appreciate the fact that many of our approaches to international problems meet with understanding and support in the world. They also meet with support in your countries. I am sure that in this way we are acting for the benefit of all of humankind.

We welcome the noticeable invigoration of Russian-Turkmen relations. Many of the difficulties that used to impede their development are being overcome. I am sure that my meeting with the president of Turkmenistan in Ashgabat, due to take place soon, will consolidate these positive trends.

We also note with satisfaction the positive impetus in the development of Russian-British relations. The recent summit meetings have sent a good signal for the long-term development of Russian-British ties. It is my deep conviction that this entirely meets the national interests and priorities of our countries.

We highly value our good relations with the Lithuanian Republic, and we expect that our cooperation will contribute to greater stability and positive developments in a region that is very important for Russia.





We intend to further strengthen our fruitful cooperation with the Swiss Confederation. I would say that our joint humanitarian work in Yugoslavia signals a new stage of our relations.

Our basic approach to the development of all-round relations with the Republic of Bulgaria remains unchanged. We are prepared to cooperate with the Republic of Bulgaria on the broadest range of issues.

The United Mexican States remain one of our leading partners in Latin America. We are committed to developing our interaction and stepping up bilateral trade, economic, cultural, scientific and technological ties.

It has only been ten years since official relations were established between Russia and the Holy See. The development of ties between the Vatican and the Russian Federation is in the interests of all of humankind. I hope that my forthcoming meeting with His Holiness Pope John Paul II will confirm the stability of these relations.

Historically and geopolitically, the Korean Peninsula has always been within Russia’s sphere of national interests. So, interaction with the Republic of Korea is a priority of our policy in the Asia-Pacific Region. We welcome the agreement to hold the first inter-Korean summit and we look forward to constructive partnership with the Republic of Korea in the 21st century.





The strengthening of long-standing and traditionally friendly relations with the Kingdom of Thailand, a prominent ASEAN member, is a major element of our policy in the Asia-Pacific Region. There have never been any problems in relations between our countries.

Russia is closely following the processes taking place in the Union of Myanmar. We sincerely wish you to successfully resolve the problems that face your people, and we are sure that our joint efforts will promote relations between Russia and your country.

Relations between Russia and the Republic of Angola are more than a quarter-century old. Their foundations were laid in the period of the Angolan people’s struggle for independence. Russia favours the development of multifaceted cooperation with your country. We intend to continue to contribute to stability and durable peace in Angola.

Relations between Russia and Nigeria have a long tradition. We are following with attention and great sympathy the efforts of your country’s leadership to solve the problems facing your people. I am sure that contacts between Russia and Nigeria will continue to increase.

We believe our relations with the Republic of Zimbabwe are positive. The important role your country plays in the Non-Aligned Movement is well-known in Russia. We are ready to strengthen our cooperation in various areas and to interact on the international stage.





Gentlemen,

Relations between Russia and your countries are built on rich experience and established traditions. At the same time, broad new areas of fruitful cooperation are opening up. This means, above all, healthy economic pragmatism, which should outweigh ideological considerations in international relations.

Permit me to wish you success in performing your important mission.

Thank you.



The source of information

Remarks at a Meeting with Members of the Federation Council

May 17, 2000 - 00:01 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

I would like to thank you for such a quick response in gathering here today to discuss the issues of importance for the state, issues that directly concern all of us, both personally and as a group. But of course we are going to speak primarily about the interests of the state.

I have discussed to varying degrees the problems of the federal structure and the building of the so-called vertical power structure with most of those present when I visited the regions and here in Moscow. We have taken a close look at the proposals that came from the body of governors, I mean governors in the broad sense of the word, including the presidents of republics and other constituent members of the Federation. Various proposals were put forward, some extremely radical. I believe that the proposal to have the heads of regional governments appointed by the Russian President goes too far.



Yegor Stroyev:

Especially on the eve of elections.



Vladimir Putin:

Yes. You know, as I said, I have talked with many of those present, though not with all of you, so I might as well repeat my position and I hope you will trust me that this position is sincere. I am sure that in approaching these issues we should not proceed from personal interests, or the interests of parties or groups, but exclusively from the interests of Russia.

We are not going to be around forever. I am only beginning my term. In due course I will vacate this place just like any of those present. Sooner or later we will all leave our posts. We have a chance to leave behind us a more “coherent” Russia, more governable and structured in such a way that the decisions of state bodies are taken in a more understandable fashion and the country is run more effectively.

What I am going to tell you may provoke a discussion, may be seen as the right or not-so-right decision, but I would like to say that I am confident of one thing: whatever I say, you should not get the impression that it is being proposed for the benefit of the incumbent President. Nor will it be done for the benefit of the incumbent governors or heads of republics within Russia. I repeat, this should be done for the benefit of Russia itself. I urge you to adopt this approach, to rise above your present-day official status and to look at this matter in a statesmanlike way.

I don’t believe that appointing the heads of regions would be right. I have spoken about it publicly and I would like to repeat today: I think it would not just be wrong, it would be downright harmful.

I don’t think the decision to introduce the election procedure was timely; it was premature. Likewise, in the economy some of our decisions have also been premature. We should have been more circumspect and careful. But then of course it is always easier to have hindsight. If you ask me, I wouldn’t be in a hurry. But it has already happened and the people have got used to it. It would be wrong to deprive people of the right to elect and be elected. A certain political culture connected with the election of the heads of regions has taken shape in Russia.

Besides, we have national republics. What should we do about them? Abolish their right to elect their leaders? I think that would not be quite right; it would simply provoke a negative reaction among the people in the republics.

Likewise, it would be wrong to introduce a two-tiered system – elections in some places and appointments in others – because there should be an equal playing field.

All this suggests to me that we should not give up the institution of elected heads of regions, one of the reasons being that an elected executive is far more independent in his own mind, whatever kind of person he may be. Unfortunately, to be honest, even today there are still some people in the regions who are not noted for their sense of responsibility, especially in the North. Mr Shoigu sometimes takes weeks to locate some heads of regions – weeks! I can’t describe that as having a very diligent attitude towards their jobs. But on the whole the body of governors and republican presidents consists of very responsible people. In part, responsibility is engendered by the very nature of power, the nature of being elected, because a person always feels responsible to those who have elected him. All this has persuaded me that we should not abandon the principle of elections: that would bring more minuses than pluses.

What has been done to make this vertical power structure coherent? In fact, three main proposals are on the table. First, to change the way the Federation Council is formed. The Constitution says that the State Duma is “elected” and the Federation Council is “formed”. One can argue at length about the meaning of these terms, but they are there and they are different. “Formed from amongst the representatives,” the Constitution goes on, “of representative and executive bodies of power of the constituent members of the Federation.” It does not say that they have to be chief executives or heads of the representative government bodies.

We have mulled over this question with lawyers, and different proposals have been made. One proposal made to the State Duma and the current Federation Council is for the incumbent leaders, say, governors or presidents, to directly appoint their representative to the Federation Council, whoever that representative may be. I think that solution makes the most sense.

Some experts at the State Duma do not think it is a very good idea because it is short on legitimacy, and they suggest that the governor or president send his or her candidate to the local legislature and the local legislature vote for that candidate and thus send him or her to the Federation Council. And the local legislature itself can delegate one representative from among its members. That ensures the interests of the region and protection of those interests at the Federation Council. It also ensures that the chief executive can influence the person representing him on the Federation Council, who will be his direct appointee. That eliminates the confusion between the two branches of power, the executive and the legislative. Any governor, any president is an institution of executive power; being a member of the Federation Council, he is also a member of parliament who writes laws that he then has to implement himself. That is obviously a confusion of two branches of power.

To go back to the start of our conversation. Of course each of us tends to think in his present capacity and not in his future or past capacity. But I would like to draw your attention to what I said at the beginning: I would like you to remember that sooner or later we will leave our posts, and we should leave Russia a more coherent place when we go. I am not sure everyone will agree with me. I think opinions on this issue may vary and I don’t think that should be seen as some kind of catastrophe. I will respect all your opinions. And if anyone objects on this issue it does not mean that our relations will be spoiled from that moment on. Of course I am urging you to support my position, but if you have a different opinion and if you think you have a more viable proposal, it must be given a hearing with due respect. And let me stress in particular that it would not worsen the relations between me as the President of Russia and any region, whatever opinions you may air. I am saying this quite sincerely and frankly, especially since I already have very good personal relationships with many of you; in any case they will not be affected. That’s the first thing.

Second. There is a proposal that the President of Russia be given the right to dismiss the heads of regions.

And third, as a logical consequence of the second proposal, the regional head should have the right to dismiss the heads of lower government bodies, of municipal authorities.

We believe that this builds a more or less clear structure which is part of the federal vertical power structure: the President can be removed through the impeachment procedure, the regional head can be removed by the President and the head of the local government can be removed by the governor or president of the republic.

<…>

Then there is another law that would eliminate the lack of coordination between the actions of federal officials and local authorities. I think it is the right decision too. I know that it may meet with a mixed reaction and with criticism, but in my opinion, it would strengthen the federal government at the regional level.

This is the proposed package. It consists of four draft laws.

We have had preliminary consultations with the State Duma and the leaders of the Duma parties. They made their proposals and these proposals were taken into account. We borrowed some elements from the proposals of the governors that were submitted in written form. I repeat, we studied them all. And this is the structure that emerges. Along with the creation of federal districts and the appointment of presidential envoys to head them up, I believe that it would strengthen the Russian state.

The presidential envoys must not and will not interfere in the competence of the heads of regions. They should attend exclusively to the federal bodies in the regions, to federal functions. Many of you have told me in various situations that the federal organisations are too powerful. All this should be looked into. A lot has to be dismantled, one strong regional centre should be created so that, I repeat, there could be competent coordination within the region between these federal bodies. I repeat, they will be significantly downsized compared to what there is in the regions today, including the presidential representatives now in the regions of the Federation.

This is roughly the plan of action proposed for now.



The source of information

Televised Address to the People of Russia

May 17, 2000 - 00:02 - Moscow

Spoiler!

The video has English subtitles




Vladimir Putin:

People of Russia,

This is the first time since my inauguration as president that I am submitting a package of bills to the State Duma. On the one hand, this is the usual practice of a head of state, but on the other it concerns laws meant to strengthen and cement the Russian state. I consider them vital for the future of our country. I promised that the government would follow transparent policies and explain their aims and practical steps to its citizens.

The bills being submitted to the Duma continue the project launched by the May 13 decree introducing federal districts. It is a project aimed at strengthening state unity, and it has the support of governors, deputies, and all the people of Russia. One might say this is the first time there are no divisions in the country on such a fundamental issue. The common aim of all these acts is to make both the executive and legislative branches of government work more effectively, and to ensure the application of the constitutional principles of delimitation of powers and the integrity of the executive vertical structure.

What are these bills about? They boil down to three basic points. First, they propose changing the way the Federation Council, the upper house of parliament, is formed. The Russian Constitution stipulates that the State Duma shall be elected and the Federation Council formed from representatives of the executive and legislative branches. But it does not specify that these must be chosen from regional leaderships – governors, presidents of republics, or speakers of regional legislatures. But today’s practice is precisely that. I think regional leaders should focus on practical problems facing their regions; after all, this is what they are elected for, and their representatives should make the laws, but regularly and professionally, not once a month as now.

The Russian president will have his work cut out for him dealing with a professional parliament, but this is in the best interests of the goal we are trying to achieve. That the quality of laws will improve is beyond any shadow of a doubt. We will also do away with a glaring discrepancy in the way the government operates in Russia. Today, governors and heads of republics are both executives and also, because they sit on the Federation Council, members of parliament, i.e. co-authors of the laws they are supposed to enforce. As we say, it is a mixed bag, apples and oranges, a clear violation of the principle of delimitation of powers.

The second major goal of these bills is to introduce the procedure for dismissing regional leaders and dissolving regional legislative assemblies that pass legislation that violates federal laws. It may be recalled that even the president of the country may today be stripped of his powers for violating the constitution. The same procedure must apply to heads of regions and local government bodies.

The third and last point logically proceeds, in my view, from the second. If the head of a region may be removed from his post under certain circumstances by the president of the country, then this regional leader himself must have a similar right with respect to lower authorities. Today such a power structure is not only correct, but simply necessary in order to rebuild a functioning chain of command in the country. Lacking such tools, neither the federal parliament, nor the government, nor even the president has for a long time been able to do simple but absolutely necessary things, and, above all, to ensure that civil rights are strictly observed and Russian legislation uniformly understood and enforced both in Moscow and in the remote Russian hinterland. This is a dictatorship of the law. And it will mean that we live in a strong country, an integral state, Russia.

I wish here to emphasise that all the bills I have submitted fit within the framework of the current Russian Constitution. Now I would like to address State Duma deputies and Federation Council members. Today we have debated these issues for a long time with a large number of Federation Council members in the Kremlin. The bills might get a mixed reception and may give rise to additional debate. We are ready for that. I am sure that together we will translate these far-from-simple decisions into life. The time has come to separate party, local and personal ambitions from the urgent need to strengthen the state and enhance authority. The people of Russia have long been waiting for this. We must live up to their expectations.

I am deeply convinced that we should have effectively functioning authorities, with every one pulling their weight. Lawmakers in the upper and lower houses should pass laws, and governors, who bear enormous responsibility for the social well-being of the people and for the success of their regional economies, should do their jobs. No one can replace them in this role.

Today, they are as concerned with strengthening authority as the federal centre. Some have proposed even more radical measures than those in the bills, up to and including the direct appointment of governors by the Russian president. But I believed and still believe that heads of regions should be elected by the people. This procedure is already established and became part of our democratic system.

I also consider it important to say that the bills are not directed against regional leaders. On the contrary, I am sure that the heads of regions are the president’s main support and will remain so in strengthening our state. A state is not simply a piece of land on which we live and work, not a geographical area with drawn boundaries; it is, above all, constitutional order and discipline. If these instruments are weak, so is the state. Or it just does not exist.

It is a glaring fact when – just consider the figure – one-fifth of legislative acts passed in the regions conflict with the country’s fundamental law, when the constitutions of republics and statutes of regions disagree with the Constitution of Russia, when Russian regions erect trade barriers or, worse still, border posts, which also happens. The effects of such violations are disastrous. These seemingly small things gradually combine to give rise to separatism, which sometimes develops into a more dangerous evil – international terrorism.

Once more, I address the lawmakers, and once again I want to stress that the time of forced compromise leading to instability is gone. And I do hope that you will support the policy of strengthening the Russian state.

People of Russia, you know as well as I do that lack of government discipline costs millions of ordinary people dearly. Official incompetence is damaging to personal safety, the inviolability of the home and property, and ultimately our own welfare and the future of our children. This is why we need a strong and accountable government. Therefore I am seeking your approval for the steps being taken. I was elected Russian president with that mandate in mind, and I am going to carry out this policy firmly and consistently, the way we are doing it today.

Thank you for your time.



The source of information

[unseen]

Vladimir Putin arrived in Uzbekistan

May 18, 2000 - 19:00 - Tashkent

Spoiler!

Mr Putin negotiated with Mr Karimov for 15 minutes at Tashkent-2 airport.





After that, Mr Putin and Mr Karimov visited Memory and Honour Square in central Tashkent and laid flowers at the monument “The Mourning Mother”.





“The living must never forget what the people experienced during that terrible war and must also care for all war veterans,” Mr Putin said after the ceremony.





After that, Mr Putin arrived at Durmen, the presidential residence, where the Uzbek President held a dinner in his honour.

Both heads of state then negotiated face-to-face.



The source of information

A Statement and Answers to Journalists’ Questions Following Negotiations with President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan

May 19, 2000 - 00:00 - Tashkent

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

That my first trip as a sworn-in president of Russia is to Uzbekistan is no coincidence, because the confidence, cooperation and mutual understanding between the two countries has grown since our first meeting in Tashkent, and our cooperation is expanding in every direction. There are, of course, areas which call for additional efforts from both sides to make our ties more meaningful and fulfilling. But on the whole the trend in our relations is very positive, and we are quite pleased with it.

On all the matters we discussed yesterday and today, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation think alike or almost alike. Actually, we covered the full spectrum of cooperation issues, from humanitarian ones, through economic problems, to military and military-technical questions that cannot but concern us. I wish to stress that the very important work made by Uzbekistan and backed by its allies, including Russia, to ensure security meet with understanding and support. The joint efforts to guarantee security and fight international terrorism in this part of the world will be stepped up and coordinated further, up to and including taking certain preventive measures to forestall any acts of aggression against Russia or Uzbekistan.

As you know, two joint military exercises have been held since last December. They were quite successful, adding further to the coordination of our efforts in the military sphere. We will also continue our work in the military-technical area. Those were the problems the president of Uzbekistan and I discussed.





In conclusion I would like to repeat to journalists what I said before our negotiations in an extended format: I am particularly thankful that our hosts, our Uzbek opposite numbers, are so good at creating an atmosphere that is conducive to these proceedings. On the one hand, it is possible to talk in an informal, practically homely setting and exchange views in a narrow format with the participation of experts, and on the other hand, it is possible to speak in an absolutely formal environment at the intergovernmental level in the so-called extended format with specialists from diverse fields.

All these formats as chosen and agreed by our foreign ministries help us to reach very serious agreements in an informal fashion, which is very important for further development of mutual relations between Russia and Uzbekistan.

I therefore wish to thank both the president of Uzbekistan and all our Uzbek colleagues who have taken part in our collective work, during our trip to Uzbekistan.

Thank you for your time.





Question:

Fighting international terrorism and religious extremism is one of the major objectives in this region. My question is addressed, if possible, to both presidents: have you achieved a mutual understanding and closer positions on this issue?





Vladimir Putin:

I would describe my country’s position as follows: I guess it is no secret to anybody here that there have been attempts – very active recently – to re-divide the former Soviet Union in a criminal, terrorist way. These attempts are spearheaded by extremism, including religious extremism, followed by armed terrorists as a second line of attack. No doubt, there emerged an arc of instability that runs along the southern borders of the former Soviet Union. Today, these are the republics that are closest to Russia, being home to large numbers of Russians, and the country’s humanitarian and economic efforts are concentrated there. They are our crucial partners. And one of them is, of course, Uzbekistan.

It is obvious to us that threats to Uzbekistan are also threats to the Russian Federation. To put it in a primitive and pragmatic way, if we fail to understand this and if we, jointly with our Uzbek friends, do nothing to oppose these aggressive ambitions here, in the south, we will have to fight them at home. This is perfectly clear and understandable to us, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

This is why the president of Uzbekistan and I have devoted most of our time to these matters. I will not be giving away a secret if I say that we also adopted a hands-on, or rather a map-in-hand, approach. We know where these threats lurk and what they are targeted at, we know how many men and how much equipment we must commit to counter them. And I must tell you: no one in Uzbekistan or Russia doubts the seriousness of these threats, how real and obvious they are to us. And this understanding, that it is our common objective and our common pain, is there, shared both by the Russian leadership and, as we could see yesterday and today, the Uzbek leadership as well.



The source of information

Vladimir Putin arrived in Turkmenistan

May 19, 2000 - 19:30 - Ashgabat

Spoiler!

Before the official events began, Vladimir Putin and Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov, who had met the Russian leader at the airport, visited the famous Tekinsky market in Ashgabat.





Later, the welcoming ceremony was held in Palace Square, after which the two leaders held talks, first one-to-one and then in a broader format.





After the talks, they signed a joint statement which said that strengthening national and regional security and, primarily, the fight against international terrorism, religious and political extremism and drug and weapons trafficking require closely coordinated action.





During the talks, the two presidents confirmed their commitment to determining the legal status of the Caspian Sea as soon as possible, taking into consideration the interests of all adjacent countries, in order to ensure favourable conditions for beneficial cooperation in exploiting hydrocarbons and biological resources and protecting the marine environment, according to the document.








Having discussed Turkmen-Russian trade and economic cooperation, the two leaders spoke in favour of expanding mutually beneficial cooperation, including greater mutual investment and capital flow and the creation of joint ventures in priority sectors. They laid down principles for trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Turkmenistan for 2000–2005.





They decided to speed up work to draft and sign a corresponding agreement and some other important inter-governmental documents that were being considered. The presidents confirmed their interest in holding the first meeting of the inter-governmental bilateral commission on trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation as soon as possible.





Mr Putin and Mr Niyazov also signed a joint Declaration on Cooperation in Culture, Science and Education.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin and Turkmen President Saparmurat Niyazov gave a joint news conference

May 19, 2000 - 20:00 - Ashgabat

Spoiler!

Mr Putin said that there were no irresolvable problems in Russian-Turkmen relations. Speaking about the outcome of the meeting, he said that the parties would soon draft a new gas supply agreement, and that at present they were coordinating the commercial details of this big contract. He added that the two countries would establish a clear system of interaction that would be coordinated by the inter-governmental commission for economic cooperation.

Mr Putin also said that they had agreed that Turkmenistan would annually increase gas supplies to Russia by 10 billion cubic metres a year for the following few years until it reached 50–60 billion cubic metres.

He said that the talks paid special attention to regional cooperation, including approaches to determining the status of the Caspian Sea, adding that Russia and Turkmenistan had many more common positions on these issues than they had previously thought.

Finally, the Russian President said that they had also achieved visible progress in reaching an agreement on humanitarian cooperation and had drafted an agreement on contacts between the two countries’ mass media.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin was awarded an honorary doctorate in law from Makhtumkuli Turkmen State University

May 19, 2000 - 21:00 - Ashgabat

Spoiler!

The ceremony, at which the Russian President was awarded a diploma and a robe, took place at the Rukhiyet Palace.

Mr Putin admitted that he had not expected the ceremony to be so extravagant and to gather so many people. He said that he would work to ensure that Russian-Turkmen relations were mutually beneficial, helping the two countries’ people and promoting their sincere friendship.





A concert was given at the palace after the ceremony.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin submitted the draft federal bill “On Removing Reservations to the June 17, 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare” to the State Duma

May 22, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

Mr Putin’s cover letter to State Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznyov said: “The reservations made by the USSR to the Protocol in 1928 provided for using such weapons against non-signatory states or in retaliation for enemy attacks.

“As Russia has signed the 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, as well as the 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, the removal of the reservations to the Protocol does not change any of Russia’s international commitments in these spheres.”



The source of information

In his message to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, President Vladimir Putin expressed confidence that the upcoming UN Millennium Summit, slated for September 2000, would result in major political decisions that would enhance the pivotal role of the UN in international affairs

May 22, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin said he plans to inform the heads of state and government about Russia’s opinion of the key role of the UN in searching for collective answers to modern international challenges, as well as about fundamental Russian approaches to establishing a stable multi-polar world, at the forthcoming Millennium General Assembly. He stressed that Russia was ready to closely interact on these issues with all countries concerned.

Mr Putin expressed hope for a continued, substantive dialogue with the UN Secretary General on key items on the UN and global agenda.



The source of information

[unseen]

Excerpts from a Speech at a General Meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences

May 22, 2000 - 00:00 - Moscow

Spoiler!

VLADIMIR PUTIN:

…I, as President of the Russian Federation, the President’s Administration and the Government will support the Russian Academy of Sciences in all the areas of its activity.

We are all aware of the heavy blows to science during the past decade. Yes, much can be attributed to objective causes. Fundamental changes have taken place in the state and society which overturned our lives, affected practically every person, not to speak of state institutions. Scientists had their full share of hardship. The average salaries of scientists are so low that I am ashamed to speak about it.

The question is not only of how well the academy has managed to fit into market relations. Scientists do not have to be businessmen, although I must say, to the credit of those present, that many of our leading businessmen come from scientific backgrounds.

I think the most distressing thing for our scientists was the knowledge that their work was no longer needed. That period has dragged on for an unpardonably long time. Today it is obvious that links between science and government must be restored and built in accordance with the requirements of the time, as they should be in a state that works effectively to meet people’s needs.

<…>

One need hardly argue today that it is impossible to meet the challenges facing society without relying on science. Science is an important resource of economic growth and national security. I am sure that scientists and industrialists are capable of putting Russia in the lead in areas where our positions have always been very strong.

In the context of the market, one has to face tough competition in promoting one’s product. So far we lack not only aggressiveness and self-confidence, but a coherent strategy in this sphere of government policy. The country counts on your support and assistance. There is a great need for constantly reviewing and if necessary adjusting the course our state is following. We must know what is in store for us. We would like the academy to speak with a full voice that will be heard by the public.

The academy, which is by definition not under the jurisdiction of any government agency, can become a vehicle for a single scientific-technical policy in the country emphasising the practical application of the latest achievements. By the way, such an approach could be helpful in financing science itself.

I have already said that scientists are not entrepreneurs and their interests lie in a different sphere. But of course, we need talented managers and modern organisers of science, including in the academy. So far, success has been very modest. One of the reasons is the dramatic “ageing” of the academy staff. The average age of a Ph.D is 50, and only 15% of university graduates take up science. It is a sad realisation, but it is fashionable and prestigious to be a banker and it is not lucrative or prestigious to be a senior research fellow. Such a public attitude is dangerous for the state.

It must be said for fairness sake that money, or lack of it, is not the only reason. The academy must be more modern, more aggressive and must be sensitive to the changing times and its demands. The state for its part should be more attentive towards its main strategic resource, the nation’s intellect.

I repeat: I don’t think the Academy of Sciences is in need of a large-scale reform. But there are a host of problems – ranging from managerial to financial – that need to be addressed. These problems should be handled very carefully after weighing all pros and cons.

Speakers here have mentioned the problems connected with taxes and rent payments, and have expressed fears lest the adoption of the new tax code adversely affect science as a whole and the activities of the academy in particular. I would like to share my thoughts with you on how this problem should be tackled. All our economic actions must be meaningful, transparent and clear. The state must fulfill all its obligations. Scientists should research and organisers should manage. There should be no undercover channels of financing. That applies to taxes, rent and all the rest.

I am aware of the scientific community’s concern over the crippling tax burden and I promise to take another hard look at the issue.

<…>

I’ll share with you the most general thoughts on what practical steps are to be taken in the short term.

First. The Government will shortly have a meeting which will for the first time discuss ways to attract young talent to science. We are planning to develop a five-year national programme to support young scientists. We will provide financial support for scientific schools, talented young scientists and increase the number of youth scientific contests.

Your recommendations on adjustments to the system of deferments for army service merit attention. It may be difficult, but we will think about it. We will also discuss the proposal of attracting young scientists to defence industry research institutions.

One should not ignore other problems, in the first place social problems. So far pitiful amounts are earmarked to address these problems.

Second, fundamental science must receive modern equipment and telecommunications. It is a disgrace that half of the academy’s institutes have no Internet access. I think that too requires a special programme.

Third is further support of science funds and fundamental research. But I draw your attention to what I mentioned earlier, the need for financial flows to be “transparent”. That is only possible if the national budget clearly states how much money will be spent and on what. Funds are a very flexible instrument, sometimes too flexible. But, I repeat, we will also work with funds. I make it a special point to reassure those who count on their support and are afraid that it will be cut off today or tomorrow. But the activities of funds must, first, be under control and, second, we should introduce direct financing of research from the budget. If the state is interested in such research let it pay, if it is not, the whole question becomes irrelevant.

In conclusion, I would like to say the following. The state cannot assume the whole burden of responsibility for the state of science. We should determine the unquestioned priorities for which the state will be fully responsible and the areas in which its function can be only of support. Ultimately, our joint work must become more effective and the Academy of Sciences must play a much larger role in the life of society and the state.



The source of information

Excerpt from an Address at the Ceremonial Presentation of a Standard to Sergei Shoigu, Minister of Civil Defence, Emergencies and Disaster Relief

May 22, 2000 - 00:00 - Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

...Many Emergencies Ministry specialists are presently in Chechnya. They have rescued thousands of women, senior citizens and children. We know in what adverse conditions they are doing their civil and military duty, how often they literally work under terrorist fire and deliver humanitarian cargo along mined roads.

It is our patriotic duty to restore normal, peaceful life to Chechnya. Its people must be sure they will not be left to their fate. Every ordinary citizen of the Chechen Republic must know this from his own experience, must feel that the state is there for him. The people are tired of the lawlessness that has been harassing their land for many years. They are pinning their hopes on us.

Even today, houses are still in need of heating and electricity. Factories must start working, and schools and hospitals must reopen. The state will rebuild what is lying in ruins. It will help refugees, and guarantee order and stability in the region. That is our sacred duty. The Emergencies Ministry is facing big, essential tasks to revive the Chechen social and economic infrastructure. I think you will manage.





Many countries gratefully remember Russian rescuers, for disaster knows no borders, and human sorrow has no ethnicity. Our rescuers are always up to the mark, and we are proud of you.

I am glad your ministry does not rest on its laurels but is making progress. Your personnel regularly practice emergency procedures. Emergencies Ministry experts take part in R&D for pioneering technologies. They train young specialists out of concern for the future—which means they care about the future work of their ministry.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin, in a letter to State Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznyov, notes that pending before the Duma are a number of amendments to tax legislation that are part of a large-scale tax reform

May 23, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

The head of state believes that the following goals should be achieved as a result of the reform.

First, easing the tax burden on tax payers. To this end several ineffective taxes that have had a negative impact on economic activities are to be abolished, notably the tax on proceeds from the sale of goods and services, a substantial wage fund cut. There will also be a change in the procedure for determining the taxable base of the profit tax.

Second, equal conditions of taxation for all taxpayers. That, said the president, can only be ensured by abolishing unjustified benefits and eliminating distortions in the rules for determining the taxable base as regards certain types of benefits.

Third, streamlining the tax system and reducing the number of taxes.

At the first stage of the reform it is proposed to abolish the taxes on the housing maintenance fund and social and cultural facilities, the tax on road users, and the tax on securities transactions.

Vladimir Putin noted that for the purpose of social justice a flat income tax rate is to be introduced while the non-taxable minimum income is to be substantially raised.

At the second phase of the reform the tax on the purchase of foreign currency and deductions for the reproduction of mineral and raw material resources are to be abolished.

The reform may reduce budget revenues in the short term, so reasonable compensation must be provided for the reduced incomes, especially for the local budgets.

The head of state stressed that an important element of the tax reform is the strengthening of tax administration, which must eventually be integrated within a single agency, thus greatly simplifying things for honest tax payers and giving the state greater leverage with tax evaders.

Vladimir Putin believes that “the tax reform should give a powerful impetus to entrepreneurship, the inflow of investments and rising living standards.”



The source of information

Statement for the press on the results of the meeting of the Intergovernmental Council of Customs Union Member States

May 23, 2000 - 00:00 - Minsk

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

I think that our meeting today has without any doubt contributed to the integration of the [Customs] Union. You know that after the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics our independent states quickly became rather far removed from each other in terms of their rates of economic growth, paths of development and so on. This happened very quickly without our even realising it.





Today we face the challenge of harmonising legislation and creating a common customs space. Our progress in that respect is obvious. It is evident and noticeable and it gives a new impetus to the legislative and executive bodies in all our countries.





Moreover, a new agreement has been reached in principle, as the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Council told you, expressing the wish of all those present to give our Union a new role, and to make it an international economic organisation with international legal status. And I would like you to note that it is improving. There has obviously been progress. And there has been progress on all related things, and this will have serious practical consequences for companies and businesses in all of our countries.





As for our bilateral contacts, we have met one-on-one with the presidents of Kazakhstan and Belarus, and we have of course discussed bilateral relations. We just exchanged information on the situations in our countries. Russia is not indifferent to how things are going in one of our closest allies, Belarus, and indeed you know that we are implementing a treaty on the creation of a Union State. We have a series of summit meetings lined up. I confirmed my invitation to the Belarusian President to visit Russia, Moscow. We have agreed that the visit will take place soon and if Alexander Grigoryevich [Lukashenko] agrees, we could schedule a meeting to fit into his timetable, for the end of June, for example. That would fit into my schedule. We also discussed economic issues.





Our discussions with the President of Kazakhstan covered roughly the same ground. We exchanged views on some problems of state development. That’s how I would sum up the range of problems. I was very interested to know how Kazakhstan was dealing with some of the problems of this kind. Nursultan Abishovich [Nazarbayev] was kind enough to tell me about it in more detail. I found it interesting and useful. For my part, I briefed him on what is happening in the Russian Federation, in particular the recent decision to create Federal Districts, the proposed changes in the way the Federation Council is formed and some other issues which, as you know, are treated in the draft laws introduced at the State Duma. All this cannot but be of interest to our closest allies, both in connection with the work of the Customs Union and in the context of bilateral relations. This is approximately the range of issues we discussed.





<…>





Please forgive me, I forgot to tell you something that I should have told you. We have also agreed with the President of Kazakhstan, and he has accepted our invitation to come to Moscow on an official visit in the middle of June, probably on the 19th to the 20th.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin attended a meeting of the Collective Security Council

May 24, 2000 - 14:30 - Minsk

Spoiler!

During the meeting, members of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) expressed their unanimous view that security relations between the member countries should have a higher priority than their security relations with other countries.

After the meeting, Mr Putin said that the member countries had worked out a mechanism which would make the Collective Security Treaty an instrument that could promptly react to a fast changing world. He stressed that all states that shared the same approach could enter the CSTO.





Mr Putin emphasised the importance of a joint statement on prioritising the treaty over all other security measures used by the member countries.



The source of information

The President sent a letter congratulating African heads of state on the occasion of Africa Day and the anniversary of the Organisation of African Unity's foundation

May 25, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

The Russian President stressed that “recently, Africa has been playing a bigger role on the international stage and making considerable progress in its social, economic and political development.” Mr Putin emphasised that African countries still had to tackle such challenges as armed conflicts, financial and economic problems, and human and environmental crises, which “hinder peace and stability on the continent and the development of its countries.”

The head of state expressed his satisfaction “with the persistent and fruitful development of relations between Russia and African states. The countries are finding new avenues of mutually beneficial cooperation.”

The letter said that “Russia highly appreciates these friendly relations, which are playing a big role in forming a truly democratic world order, and it is looking forward to strengthening multilateral as well as bilateral partnerships.”

Mr Putin expressed his confidence that “by joining efforts we can enhance the effectiveness of Russian-African relations and assist in settling important world issues by applying the principles of international law.”



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin sent a message to Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze on the occasion of a Georgian national holiday, Restoration of State Independence Day

May 26, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

The message said, in part:

“I am convinced that the peoples of Russia and Georgia will strengthen and develop their great common achievements: centuries-old friendship, traditions of spiritual kinship, and close cooperation in the interests of peace, stability and prosperity in the Caucasus.”



The source of information

[unseen]

President Putin’s Remarks When Introducing his Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoy to the Far Eastern Federal District

May 26, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

We have gathered, colleagues, in order to get to know Konstantin Pulikovsky better, although I am sure many of you know him, and to discuss once again the problems connected with the formation of federal districts.

As in the previous two meetings with your colleagues from other regions, I think we should use the occasion to discuss the bills submitted to the State Duma regarding the possible reorganisation of the Federation Council, along with some other issues of state structure.

Let me stress from the outset that neither the central government, nor I as President seek to weaken regional governments, which are a key element of national governance. I am referring to the governors and the regional legislatures. Our actions are not aimed at weakening that link of governance, but at making the federal component of government in the regions more coherent and far more effective than it has been up until now.

Let me emphasize again that this is being done in strict accordance with the Constitution, and it is not our intention to lay the groundwork for changing the Constitution. It is not the presidential envoy’s duty and not his task to interfere in the affairs of the regional authorities. On the contrary, his task is to render every possible assistance to the local authorities.

During our previous discussions with colleagues from other regions – you know there was a meeting yesterday, and before that a meeting with North-Western governors and speakers of legislatures, and before that there was a meeting with Yegor Stroyev and 26 Federation Council members – the question was asked again and again whether or not it would weaken the power of the governors. I repeat, this is not the aim of the measures being introduced. Moreover, to avoid negative consequences, at the request of governors I put the fourth bill that I intended to send to the State Duma on hold. It would require that the representatives and heads of federal government bodies appointed to the regions be approved by the local authorities.

We have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to take another close look at these problems so as to make sure that the regional leader has enough instruments at his disposal to effectively govern his territory.

This is the key issue. But I would like to restate the main task the President’s envoys will face. It is to ensure uniform interpretation and compliance with all the laws of the Russian Federation throughout the country’s territory in order to secure equal rights for all citizens wherever in the Russian Federation they may live or stay. Enforcement of these laws and harmonisation with the Russian Constitution – all this will naturally proceed at a normal pace, and there is no need to whip up any hysteria about it.

And this brings me to the most important question I would like to ask you. I gathered from the previous meetings that the governors and speakers of local parliaments share the view that we are moving in the right direction.

I am aware of your support even though there have been rumours about some kind of confrontation between the governors and the federal government. I think this is being done deliberately by those who want to disrupt our joint actions. These provocative elements aim to drive a wedge in our common position and undermine the unity which has been in evidence so far and which helps us to move forward and strengthen our statehood.

You know that governors and speakers of local legislatures have made many proposals. We have studied them all. And I must say that some of the proposals made were pretty radical, for example, to have the heads of regions appointed.

The bills sent to the State Duma provide for what I would call a very gentle movement toward governing the country more effectively. Very soft movement that does not involve any amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, because that must be handled very, very carefully.



The source of information

Speech at the Congress of the Unity All-Russia Political Movement

May 27, 2000 - 00:00 - Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Colleagues and friends,

I am pleased to welcome you here today.

Present in this room are delegates from all 89 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, a high-powered group of people who want to, can and will engage in politics. I welcome you all. But I hope you won’t hold it against me if I extend a special welcome to the 18-man delegation from the Chechen Republic.

You have just taken a responsible step by voting to create a party. I congratulate you on that event.

I am sure you have taken the right decision. First, Unity has had to keep up the momentum and build on every success and move forward. Secondly, reforms, both in the economy and government, need a solid political backing. Russian citizens must have an opportunity to participate in government affairs and be active in the work of the party. So far, unfortunately, not only are our government institutions weak, but our civil society is also weak, as a previous speaker quite rightly said. I absolutely agree with him.

The party’s task is to overcome these weaknesses and draw as many people as possible into its organisations. A political party can only be a partner and a pillar of the government if it contributes to forming the government. We know that Unity has joined this process and it is strongly represented in the State Duma. You have taken an active part in the campaign to elect the President of the Russian Federation. The next stage is local and regional elections.

Political parties so far have played a very modest role in regional elections, as we know only too well. The candidates, for whatever office, try to distance themselves from all parties, and that is not accidental. But there is another snag in store for many candidates. They often fall under the influence of clans and groups that are separated from society and pursue their own corporate interests.

So the building of an effective party system that is open to the people and understood by the people is a national challenge in the full sense of the word.

I must say that as the head of state, I consider it to be one of my main tasks. I will tell you honestly that I dream of the time when these institutions, these instruments are up and running in our country. If we manage to do it and if I manage to contribute to this process, I will believe that I will have fulfilled many of the tasks that face me as President. The survival and competitiveness of our society and state in the historical perspective depends on it. I am absolutely convinced of this.

We want to see the emergence not of “pocket” parties, but parties that actively contribute to the formation of government, promote charismatic leaders capable of creating teams that work effectively and are responsible to society and the state. A constitutional congress cannot accomplish that task. Prolonged and challenging work lies ahead. I would like to tell you that your movement and any other political movements and various parties, even those opposing you, will have the support of the state. But only a party that embarks on this arduous road can have a future.

I would like to say some words about what we will have to do together. We know that the main thing is to overcome poverty and backwardness. There is no more important task for us now and there won’t be any time soon.

Of course, the key to solving these problems is sustained economic growth, but it is also necessary to create political and economic systems that would provide solid protection against political risks. These two processes – achieving political stability and sustained economic development – must go hand-in-hand.

There is yet another long-term challenge that will need to be met if the economy is to develop successfully. It is the building of the state. That is why a package of laws has been drafted and submitted to the Duma aimed at making the country more governable in tune with the times, in strict compliance with the federal laws, protecting the rights of Russian citizens throughout the country’s territory no matter whether they live in Moscow or thousands of kilometres away from the capital.

It is no secret that we often see attempts to establish authoritarian rule and curtail local self-government. That is why medium and small business is not developing and we have seen the appearance of “states within a state” with their own laws that contravene the Russian Constitution and laws. I think it is time to rectify this situation.

Mind you, nobody is challenging the priorities and principles of federalism and the autonomy of regions. God forbid us to embark on that path. But everyone must understand that there are fundamental principles of state and that by violating these principles we erode the foundation of the building which will inevitably collapse, however magnificent and powerful it may look. In fact, the more massive the building, the more likely it will collapse if the foundation is destroyed.

There has to be a balance of interests. It should be reflected in the balance of all the branches and at all levels of power. This is the aim of the package of documents submitted to the State Duma which I have just referred to.

Our actions are aimed at uniting Russia. No one can be allowed to undo our gains in the field of human rights: freedom of business, creative work, freedom of speech. Every Russian citizen should feel secure. Security can be provided only by the state and only through developed institutions of civil society by ensuring privacy, property rights, stable rules and norms of life that are the same for everyone in Russia. This is one of the tasks of the government today. I think this is what ordinary Russian citizens, our voters expect from us.

I understand, and we have heard Sergei Shoigu say in his report, that Unity intends to be a partner of the government. I must say that this imposes obligations on the authorities as well because the authorities feel that they have the support of such a powerful political force, such a party. First of all, we share the responsibility for everything that will happen in the country. As several speakers have said, today you do not claim to be the ruling party. I think this is a fair approach. Attempts to create such parties have been made in Russia’s recent history. They drew support mainly from civil servants, and what is more, top-level civil servants. Let us be frank, in their time these political forces and political entities played a positive role in the life of society and the state, but for a variety of reasons they failed to gain enough authority to become integrated into the system, to strike deep roots in society.

You know that popularity and authority do not come by themselves, they cannot come about by fiat. That is a futile undertaking, as witnessed by the fate and experience of many Russian parties. You, the Unity party, which is only starting, would do well to learn from their experience.

State Duma elections are only your first success that has earned you some trust. It would be a pity if you wasted it; it would be an unpardonable mistake. People must know that the party and its leaders champion their interests, make a difference in the life of the state, change it for the better, and truly respected people join the party in the regions.

But let us be honest: it is always the case that the people who seek to become involved in government are precisely the people who shouldn’t be allowed near government. It has always been that way. I don’t think you will be spared that problem. I am sure Unity will also face that problem. I just want to alert you to this.

Colleagues, among your voters are people of diverse political views, and this is a great asset. It is not a minus, but a plus. It is very important to preserve the unity and consolidation, to find things that unite people who adhere to different views and opinions. Unity and consolidation are the key tasks for the President and for various political forces. I think we no longer have any need for parties committed to revolutionary transformation; we have had enough of them.

Our common task is to achieve a mutual understanding, to take into account the interests of various social forces. Unity has already demonstrated that it can contribute to the consolidation of society, protect the interests of the state as a whole and every Russian citizen individually. What is needed is that every Russian citizen, every individual feel it. If that happens then Unity can be hugely successful. I have no doubt about it. But the road to success, the road to that goal is an arduous one.

I wish you success along that road. I wish you all the best.

Thank you.



The source of information

Remarks at a Meeting with Members of the National Public Commission for the Investigation of Offences and for the Observance of Human Rights in the North Caucasus

May 27, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon, colleagues.

You know that as soon as the Government and the President’s administration learnt about the formation of your Commission, we vigorously backed your initiative, and we know that you are working hard. Let me say that our support has not been token support, and we are ready to back your work not because it will meet with a positive reaction in the Chechen Republic or other regions of Russia or abroad – far from it.

I would like to tell you that both I as the head of state and the Government are interested in your work being put on solid ground and meeting with success. Why? Because the Government of the Russian Federation and Russia in general have never sought and will not seek to conduct endless military actions to repress the Chechen people. We have said so from the very beginning and we continue to maintain it and will pursue only one goal: to fight against terror and banditry. But this does not mean that human rights and the laws of the Russian Federation should not be honoured or should be only partly honoured in Chechnya. On the contrary, I believe that public efforts, including your commission, will only be successful if they are aimed at securing respect for human rights, federal laws and the Constitution of the Russian Federation from everyone in Chechnya: from the federal authorities, local government bodies and all those who live and work there. That fully applies to the federal government bodies in Chechnya. In that sense your efforts, without any doubt, will help to meet the challenges facing Russia in that region of the Russian Federation.

I am ready to hear an account of everything you have done recently and listen to the problems you have encountered.

The Secretary of the Security Council, Sergei Ivanov, will be responsible for helping you to perform the tasks you face and reach the goals you have set yourselves.



The source of information

Statement for the Press and Answer to a Question on the Results of the Russia-EU Summit

May 29, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

I would like to sum up the results of our meeting today.

I would like to say right off that we welcome our continued constructive and comprehensive dialogue with a united Europe. I have to say that this meeting was very constructive, very frank and, I think, productive. It dealt with a broad range of problems of mutual interest both for Russia and the European community. Russia informed its European colleagues about the economic and political situation in Russia, and about the handling of the complicated issues Russia has been confronted with in the North Caucasus. Our cooperation in the economic sphere got a large share of attention. We took note of the expectations of our European partners in terms of the development of Russian legislation and the creation of a favourable environment for more investment in the Russian economy by our western European partners.

During the course of our work we introduced amendments to our draft final communique to make it more substantive and concrete. We agreed that the European Union would consider Russia’s application to be covered by social preferences before the end of the year.

A fair amount of attention was paid to coordinating the positions of Russia and the European Union in international affairs.

On the discussion of acute international problems, we can report the following: neither Russia nor the European Union is thinking in terms of blocs. My Russian colleagues and our European guests here were divided today not by bloc affiliation or affiliation with various delegations but by their approach to some complex European problems.

That creates a very good foundation for finding a common approach to solving problems related to European security and other issues.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their discussion today, for their constructive dialogue and for the very friendly atmosphere created today through the efforts of our negotiating partners.

<…>





Question:

Four weeks ago you had a meeting with Mr. Solana and Mr. Gama, and you said then that Russia was working on a plan for a peaceful settlement of the situation in the Caucasus. Have any measures been taken to achieve peace in the Caucasus and in Chechnya?





Vladimir Putin:

Yes, such measures are already being taken. And we intend to move forward towards a settlement for that situation. After putting down the armed resistance of international terrorists and religious extremists, we will certainly move on, are already moving on to the reconstruction of the social, cultural and economic spheres in the Chechen Republic. As before, we will pay great attention to respect for the law and human rights in the Chechen Republic, we will work with international organisations and with your colleagues, the international press, to make the situation there more transparent.

I would like you to know that of late practically all the representatives of international organisations that wanted to visit the Chechen Republic have done so. At present more than 1200 journalists are accredited in Chechnya, of whom more than 500 are foreign journalists.

We will do all we can to make sure that at the earliest possible date an OSCE group has a permanent presence in the Chechen Republic and in the region.

The Russian law enforcement bodies are broadening the scope of their activities there. We would like not only human rights, but all Russian laws to be respected there. We are interested in this because it has never been our aim to enslave the Chechen people. First, that task would be impossible, and second, it would be counterproductive in terms of restoring order there and establishing peace and prosperity. We would never do that and we are not going to do it.

But we categorically object to human rights being used as a pretext to prevent Russia from restoring order in that part of the country.

<…>

We call on all of you to pool your efforts in the fight against international terrorism. And likewise to pool your efforts to support human rights, including in the Chechen Republic. All violations of the law in the Chechen Republic, whoever commits them, will be resolutely punished.

Several dozen criminal cases have been opened and a number of people guilty of violating the law have been convicted, including some Russian Army servicemen. It must be said that any breaches of law by servicemen are sharply condemned by servicemen themselves.

We have briefed our European colleagues on the further steps we are going to take towards finding a settlement for the situation in Chechnya. We told them about the drafting of a law on provisional rule in Chechnya and its submission to the State Duma. The draft law will be introduced at the Russian Parliament soon. Needless to say, it has been drafted in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.



The source of information

[unseen]

Remarks at the Start of a Meeting with Government Members

May 30, 2000 - 00:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Vladimir Putin:

Good afternoon. Today we are having our regular working meeting. But before we proceed to discussing current issues, I would like to thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, all the government agencies of the Russian Federation, and the non-governmental organisations which were involved in and secured the release of five Russian crewmen shot down over Angola about a year ago.

There were eight victims in all. One died when the plane crash-landed, one died in captivity, one man is missing and five have been released. They are now in Zambia, where the Russian Emergencies Ministry will send a plane, and on the first of June, all five men will be back in the Russian Federation.

It must be said that this was the result of intense work by the Foreign Ministry and some non-governmental organisations and the special services. Let us hope that there will be no more incidents of this kind. I would like to draw the attention of the Foreign Ministry, the Defence Ministry, the Government as a whole and the special services to the use of various aircraft and marine vessels flying the Russian flag for commercial carriage of cargoes that are not connected with the interests of Russia. From time to time these companies, and consequently the people who work for them, find themselves in complicated situations while not performing any tasks for the Russian government, and then turn to Russia for help. And some of them, as we know, when they get into trouble are not even citizens of Russia at the time of the conflict, and then take Russian citizenship in order to get Russia to protect them.





Of course, Russia will take care of its citizens in all cases and under any circumstances. I simply want the heads of agencies and ministries to be aware that we should clearly understand where Russian interests are involved and where they are not. And they should behave and assess the situation accordingly.

Once again I would like to thank the Minister and all those who took part in securing the release of Russian citizens. And now let us move on to our current agenda.



The source of information

From the Transcript of an Interview with the American NBC News Channel

June 2, 2000 - 00:00

Spoiler!

On the Presidency


Question:

Mr President, before you took office you were known mainly to your family and your friends and colleagues. Now you are the President of one of the most powerful countries in the world at a time of historical change. During your inauguration, did you ask yourself the question: “Vladimir, how did it all happen?”



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think it is quite accurate to say that until recently I was known only to a small number of people close to me. After all, I worked as the Deputy Mayor of one of the biggest Russian cities, St. Petersburg, for five years. I repeat, it lasted for five years. It is a huge city of more than 5 million people, with a massive industry, and well-developed science and culture. And for a long time I worked at the President’s Executive Office here, in Moscow. So, it would not be true to say that I was totally unknown. But of course, what happened in the last year and a half happened very swiftly. And surely I was asking myself the kind of question you have now formulated: how did it all come about?

I might offer a variety of explanations, or opinions, but I prefer just to state the fact that it happened. I am indeed the President of the Russian Federation.

* * *

But still, it means a dramatic change in my life, and I admit that it was somewhat unexpected. As a matter of fact, I had never set myself such a goal. So there is an element of surprise there for me, too. And of course, I asked myself this question, but I couldn’t come up with anything more coherent than saying that “It is destiny”.

But I am grateful to my destiny because it gave me a unique opportunity to influence the destiny of my country in the most direct and resolute way. I have no other motives for acting than try to improve the life of ordinary Russian people: to make it more wealthy, more secure. And I think if I succeed in making even minor movement in this direction my life will not have been wasted.

* * *

Question:

What would your grandfather think about a grandson who has become a democratically elected president?



Vladimir Putin:

The fact that my grandfather worked as Stalin’s cook says nothing about his political views. It was a different country and life was different. Nobody seems to be scared by the fact that many of the prominent Russian statesmen, prominent economists who preach the principles of democracy and a liberal market economy – that their parents and members of their families belonged to a different system. I think this is a natural process. I would like to think that my grandfather and my other relatives would have been glad and would have wished me success.


On Family


Question:

Did your wife help you to take any decisions formerly? Now that you are the President of Russia, does she help you?



Vladimir Putin:

I think that in a normal family the partners should always help each other, and my family is no exception. In my new position I have faced many situations for the first time. One of the problems I had to confront (and I think it is a problem of the number one person in any country, be it small or large, but especially if it is a large country) is the problem of isolation from the external world. And perhaps the only credible compensation for this shortcoming is family, children and friends. In that sense, of course, my close ones are supportive and helping.



Question:

Does your wife give you any political advice?



Vladimir Putin:

My wife has never been into politics and she is not interested in these problems, for which I am very grateful to her. She has other interests, she is a philologist by training. But if she puts into practice the ideas we discuss with her, the ideas connected with the spread and support of the Russian language, I think she would help me a great deal in my practical work today.



Question:

Is your wife a modern woman or not a very modern woman?



Vladimir Putin:

I am sure she is a very modern woman, we have a lot of discussions with her about the place of the woman in the modern world, in society. She insists that society and the state are not paying enough attention to women and are not involving them enough in governing the state as a whole, in tackling national, ethnic and regional problems. I agree with her there. So, in a way it can be said that ideologically, and philosophically, of course, she influences my ideas of what decisions to take in this or that sphere.

* * *

Question:

Have your daughters got used to the security that has to surround them now?



Vladimir Putin:

They are getting used to it.


On Religion


Question:

At a meeting with the Russian Orthodox Church you said that spirituality is reviving in Russia. You have been baptized in Orthodoxy. Do you intend to become a champion of the Russian Orthodox Church?



Vladimir Putin:

As regards my convictions in that field I would rather keep them to myself, because I believe that it is a sphere that you should keep in your heart, in your soul and not parade it. On the contrary, I think parading such things always smacks of insincerity. My attitude to religion and various denominations should correspond to the place I occupy. As the President of Russia, undoubtedly, I will support the confessions considered to be traditional in Russia and all the people who adhere to certain religious views, whether I like it or not.



Question:

You are shortly to meet with Pope John Paul II <…> [question about the relations with the Catholic Church and its presence in Russia – Ed.]



Vladimir Putin:

I think deciding whether or not to allow the spread of this or that religion or religious views is outside the remit of secular authorities. It is up to the believers and the Church and the citizens themselves. People themselves should decide what denomination they should belong to. And to impose my own opinion and contribute to the spread of one current while suppressing others is not, I think, the right way to approach such issues. I do not intend to build my relations with religious confessions in this way. There are some disputed issues between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. I think they should solve these issues themselves without government interference.



Question:

Could you speak in more detail about how you feel about the growing role of the church in the life of society?



Vladimir Putin:

In the most general way, after the collapse of the communist ideology we have offered nothing in terms of propagating universal human values. In that sense, of course, religion as a whole, individual confessions and churches do play a huge role in the life of society. We will certainly support everything that is done in this sphere. And of course, we should count on the increased influence of the church in society in the sense that the church must bring and is bringing to society the universal human values which should govern relations among people and between the citizens and the state.


On Special Services and Human Rights


Question:

You have worked at the KGB. Many people cannot understand how a person who in the past suppressed the rights of other people in the interests of the ruling elite can now promote the principles of a democratic state?



Vladimir Putin:

You have asked me how my grandfather would have felt about me becoming a democratically elected President of Russia whereas he himself used to work for Stalin. I replied that he would have wished me success. I haven’t the slightest doubt that this would have been his reaction because I know that my grandfather and my father, and all my relatives loved Russia, they were patriots of my country and they brought me up in that spirit.

We lived in a different system, in a different country. The security bodies performed their function within the state. By the way, the security bodies have many faces. When you said that as a security man I was suppressing freedom, you were mistaken, because I worked in the foreign intelligence service. As far as I know from the history of the United States, some former intelligence chiefs have become presidents of the United States. And this did not, I think, provoke the kind of reaction in the West that you have just spoken about. I see nothing unusual there. Ultimately it is up to the citizens to choose. Our citizens saw nothing wrong with that. Commitment to the interests of the state and love of the Homeland have always been the absolute priority for any statesman.

In my opinion the past does not matter very much. What matters is that past activities should be in accordance with the law. In my case, it was so.



Question:

Is there anything in your training as a KGB agent that helps you in your new job?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes. And I think my colleagues in Russia and other countries, including the United States, would agree with me that the main advantage of the people working in the special services is communication skills: the ability to listen and the ability to hear. In my opinion, this is very important. I think it is vital. But in addition, as I said, I have not just worked with security bodies, I worked with the foreign intelligence. And foreign intelligence is akin to your work, the work of journalists: it is an information service which broadens your horizon and enables you to meet a lot of people from very different walks of life. And of course, it couldn’t but provide a certain intellectual basis, a professional basis for work at a higher level. I think my colleagues from the United States would agree with me on that.



Question:

The situation in Russia has changed now. The security bodies no longer snoop on citizens in their daily life. Still, are people aware of being protected by them?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, of course. Everything has changed, the country has changed. We are a different country now. There is no Soviet Union, there is the Russian Federation. There is no KGB. In succession to the KGB several special services have been created, the functions of intelligence and counterintelligence, electronic surveillance and security of top officials have been separated. Previously it was all in one body, the KGB, now all that is separate. And, surely, today the special services are protecting the interests of the state. Let me just note that this was also what the KGB was doing. The only difference is that the KGB was also an ideological organization which catered to the interests of the ruling party, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Now, thank God, we have no ruling party, no official communist ideology and, naturally, that function is no longer relevant. By the way, there is nothing odd about the KGB having such a function. That is history now.



Question:

This is precisely my point. When you worked for the KGB in the past, it was an ideological organization, and now everything is absolutely different. So, my question is, has that ideology left any trace in your heart or are you a totally pragmatic man?



Vladimir Putin:

You mean communist ideology? If you mean the communist ideology I should say the following. You know – and I would like to repeat it – that we lived in a different country and in a different world. We were brought up on other ideals and, of course, we were guided by these ideals. It was not by chance that the General Secretary of the former Communist Party initiated perestroika. Apparently the ideas that demanded change in society had matured within society.

I have to tell you that even the organization in which you are showing such a keen interest, the former KGB, had many people who believed that a lot of things needed to be changed. Speaking about my personal views, I am sure that the communist idea is no more than a beautiful and to some extent harmful fairy-tale – for society and the state. It is beautiful, attractive and if these ideas are embraced by millions of people it is not something to be ignored. But it is absolutely clear to us that having lived under that ideology for 70 years the country has found itself in an ideological and economic impasse. Clearly, this cannot provide the foundations of a state. To me, it is obvious. It is equally obvious to me that there is nothing more coherent to replace the communist ideology other than the principles of democracy. So, there are no contradictions there, we are witnessing evolution and development. And I think there is nothing unusual about it.


On the Situation Around Media-Most Company


Question:

The Media-Most company scandal happened shortly after your inauguration. It provoked some disappointment because it was a sign that you were not supporting the press freedom.



Vladimir Putin:

It provoked disappointment among those who used biased information that diverged from reality. The reality was a bit different. The reality is that there was no attack on Media-Most as a media outlet. The law enforcement bodies were looking into the activities of the Media-Most security structures, and our security bodies have grounds for thinking and they claim that there is evidence that Media-Most security structures engaged in illegal activities. They violated civil rights and human rights, they engaged in surveillance, wiretapping, bugged offices and so on.

This was what attracted the law enforcement bodies. As for the way it was done – ski masks, weapons – I too, don’t like it. But you know and I know, for example, that in the crisis with the Cuban boy (I think his name is Gonzales) in the United States the secret agents forcibly took him from his family, and we have all seen on television the American special service agents with automatic rifles.

And this surely prompts questions, as it is a humanitarian problem and a kid’s fate is at stake. Should automatic weapons have been used to take the boy away from his relatives and bring him back to Cuba? Some people would say it shouldn’t have been done. But I think there have been and still are people who would claim that it had to be done and they, too, have their reasons. And they will probably say that the boy was being guarded. There were crowds in the street and they were armed, it was necessary to demonstrate force. That is one way of looking at things and it has to be reckoned with.

In the case of Media-Most, I repeat, it was about its security structure which, in the opinion of our law enforcement bodies, started illegal activities and started spying on citizens, and, by the way, these security guards were also armed.

So, it is not surprising that the operations you are referring to were carried out by armed men. At the same time I would like to stress that our law enforcement bodies had not taken any illegal actions against Media-Most, and the latter hasn’t even complained. Everything was strictly within the law.

As for press freedom, let me note that I am deeply convinced that we won’t be able to build an independent, free and democratic Russia with an effective economy without a free press. There can be no doubt about that. It is a key element and instrument in creating a democratic society. As a matter of fact, we have no complaints and we haven’t been taking any actions against Media-Most information services as a mass communications outlet, nor with regard to any other media outlets.


On the Economy


Question:

(Inaudible) How will you go about fighting the oligarchs?



Vladimir Putin:

I understand that you are interviewing the President of, as you have put it, a great country – the Russian Federation. It wouldn’t be right for me to give characteristics to concrete individuals. But I wouldn’t demonize anyone and I don’t think there is anyone who rules all the oligarchs. That is unlikely, practically impossible. Just like it is impossible to imagine in the United States that a single individual or even a group of individuals would lead all the big businessmen and manipulate their opinions. As for the oligarchs, I have made my position known, and I can repeat it. If by oligarchs you mean representatives of big business, the government will cooperate with the representatives of big business and will support them at the national and international level. We will support Russian business. If by oligarchs you mean people who merged with the government and try to get close to the government in order to pursue their selfish ends, I assure you, everything will be done to prevent such a situation from ever arising in Russia. There will be no oligarchs in that sense.



Question:

[Mr Berezovsky] has said that monopolies are good for Russia. They have made massive investments in Russia which are very beneficial for it. Do you agree with that?



Vladimir Putin:

Mr Berezovsky has many original opinions about what is good and what is bad for Russia. He does not express any official opinions, he expressed his personal opinion on the issues he thinks he should pronounce on. If you believe you should interview him and disseminate his opinions among millions of people, this is your choice.

I believe that Russia has its antimonopoly laws, which should be strengthened, and I will act in this way.



Question:

The main challenge now is to restore Russia’s economy. When we talked with our businessmen in the West, they said they wouldn’t invest a cent until you have conquered corruption. But corruption is connected with the handful of people who have monopolized the entire economy. What can you do to rectify the situation?



Vladimir Putin:

I don’t think that monopolization of the economy by a group of people is Russia’s main problem. That is obviously an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that we should strengthen the law. We should guarantee property rights to all owners. It is the duty of the state to protect the property owner, and we will be consistent in this. We will develop more coherent rules for investors and create a more acceptable investment climate. We are already working hard at the State Duma and we have introduced a package of tax laws.

We will seek to make commercial activities less bureaucratic and create equal conditions for everyone so that they are at an equal distance from the government. That I think is one of the main tasks, including the task of fighting corruption. Of course, we will seek to strengthen the banking system and address the problem of “money laundering”. But let me point out to you that two notions are often confused in the West, and in the United States: the outflow of capital under the current law and money laundering. These are different things and different concepts and they will be treated differently. As for the outflow of capital, we will pursue our economic policy in such a way as to ensure that the first investors in the Russian economy be precisely the people who have taken their money out of Russia. But, needless to say, we will be tough on those who violate the law. Make no mistake about that.



Question:

Will [Boris Berezovsky and] the people who control all or most of the Russian economy retain their leading position?



Vladimir Putin:

I think you are exaggerating if you think that Mr Berezovsky holds most of the Russian economy in his hands. Russia is too big for any person or group of persons to control its entire economy. I think we would make a big mistake if we provide such publicity to certain individuals, no matter how talented they may be in promoting themselves. In general, I have a sneaking suspicion that you might have agreed with Mr Berezovsky to do a sales job on him. But seriously, I don’t think this is the case. I have made my position clear: any person who has worked in Russia for some time or is entering its economy now should be at the same distance as all the others from the center where political decisions are made. And in that sense we will act with persistence, let me stress this, and without creating such a situation we won’t create a good investment climate, and that will be one of our main tasks.



Question:

Do you understand the reasons why investors are in no hurry to invest their money, because they have done it in the past and it was unsuccessful?



Vladimir Putin:

Yes, the reasons are clear. First of all, it is red tape in the economic sphere, excessive bureaucracy. In this respect, we will undoubtedly move towards the standards of a free economy. We will seek to combat bureaucracy in decision-making in the economy.

As I have said, we will work to improve the tax sphere. The Presidential Executive Office and the Government are actively supporting the drafting of a new Tax Code at the State Duma. We will lower the customs barriers. I have already said that we will seek to provide greater protection of property rights whether the property owner is a domestic or a foreign investor. We will seek and go on to discuss Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization. And finally, a very important element is uniform interpretation of legality and laws throughout the Russian Federation. If we manage to make progress in all these areas, I don’t think there will be any names bandied about of people who allegedly monopolize part or all of the Russian economy or have a chance to do so. If we manage to create explicit conditions, on the one hand, and make the state strong enough to guarantee the compliance with these conditions, I will consider my mission fulfilled.

* * *

Question:

(Inaudible)… A prominent American businessman has said that Russia is the biggest problem and the biggest opportunities at present. But the problems may be dangerous. Do you agree with that?



Vladimir Putin:

I agree that there are many problems and opportunities in Russia. You wouldn’t deny that where there are no problems there are fewer opportunities. These are the facts of our life. Let me just note that we are aware of these problems and we are ready to work jointly with the man who said it – and one feels that he has a grasp of our current problems and knows Russia’s realities quite well – we are ready to work jointly with such people to solve these issues and we hope very much that they will come to Russia and they will feel the support of the Russian Government and the President of Russia, and will contribute to the economic growth of our country. And we for our part will guarantee the interests of business in the Russian Federation.


On Anti-Missile Defence, Relations with NATO and the US


Question:

During the course of his forthcoming visit to Europe Bill Clinton will discuss missile defences because new systems are to be deployed there. Both presidential candidates in the United States support this idea. Mr Clinton has said that he was ready to share the technology with you. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for you to support the new missile defence technology? After all, you too can become a target of potential attack.



Vladimir Putin:

The architecture of international relations in the security field has evolved over a long period and with difficulty. It has now reached a level and quality that we must all cherish. We should approach these problems with care and caution, following the principle of medical professionals: do no harm, do all you can to improve things, but above all, do no harm. That is why we have always attached a high priority to security matters in our cooperation with the United States.

Let me note that the level of confidence and the level of mutual relations in this sphere have improved in recent years. This is very important. We propose deep mutual cuts of offensive nuclear weapons while preserving the foundations of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We think it is an important basis for understandings in this sphere and we believe, given the mutual will, and taking into account each other’s interests and the changing world, we could combine our efforts in this sphere and find a solution without destroying the ABM Treaty.

You know it prompts some philosophical thoughts to me, which are however, very important, even for an ordinary citizen. We should proceed in such a way as not to destroy the system of balance to which we owe the present level of global security. We should be careful not to destroy it, because if we do it, we will undoubtedly make the peoples of our countries – both the Russian Federation and the United States – less secure. We will bring down the level of security because somebody may get the idea that he can act with impunity, and that is a dangerous move towards wrecking the existing agreements.

But we respect the opinion of our negotiating partners and we think there is some logic to what they are saying. We go along with that logic up to a point. New threats arise and we must respond. But we suggest that we respond together. I think these proposals have a future. I am sure we will have a substantive and useful dialogue with President Clinton on this matter.

<…>

Question:

So you want nuclear missiles to be cut to 1500 for each side and (inaudible) the ABM Treaty to remain in place?



Vladimir Putin:

We are just proposing it for discussion. We propose making the threshold of mutual threats as low as possible and we believe that it would benefit all the countries. The United States and Russia have stockpiled such quantities of nuclear weapons as to ensure overkill and mutual destruction and much of the rest of humankind. Why do we need such a level and such a threshold of mutual threats? As to the exact number of warheads on both sides – that is negotiable. In our opinion, the fewer, the better.

A system of agreements in the field of missile defence is in place. It is effective, and we believe that it should not be destroyed. But we agree that new threats are arising and we should react to them. We propose to do it together. You see, defending the whole territory means defending the triad: outer space, the world ocean and the land area. Speaking about the threats that Russia or the United States can be exposed to from this or that particular territory, the countries that possess such capabilities can only strike from their own territories. They have no nuclear submarines or nuclear-carrying planes. We can unfold these umbrellas over the potential threat territory. We can jointly protect the whole of Europe with this umbrella. There are both technical and political and ideological opportunities for that.

* * *

Such mechanisms are possible if we pool our efforts and direct them to neutralize the threats which may be directed at the United States or at Russia or against our allies or Europe as a whole. We have such proposals and we intend to discuss them with President Clinton.

* * *

As regards our relations with NATO, they are based on certain principles. These principles are expressed in joint documents. We intend to stick to these principles and build our relations on the basis of partnership. Only, we would not like NATO to supplant the mechanisms worked out in the framework of the United Nations. I believe that the instruments created after World War II were being worked out gradually and based on the balance of interests and forces. And we should handle that mechanism with care.

As for the NATO itself, we do not see NATO as an opponent, still less as an enemy. We would like to see NATO as a partner, a partner in the settlement of major problems and a partner, above all, in creating a safer world. But we should bear in mind that the prerogative of the UN Security Council as the main body for the settlement of international disputes should be respected.

* * *

Regarding the security issues between the United States and Russia, I would like to note that our approaches have much in common. True, we differ on some aspects of the problem, but we have much in common. And I would particularly like to stress that in recent years, especially during the previous year, our relations had their ups and downs. But we have invariably achieved mutual understanding and cooperation. I am absolutely sure that it was made possible by the significant progress in the relations between the United States and Russia achieved in the last eight years. Our relations have reached a very high benchmark. It gives us hope that we will together solve the current issues connected with key problems of international security. I feel strongly and I hope that events will move in that direction soon.


On the Fight Against Terrorism and the Situation in the Chechen Republic


Question:

Every three months the press reports that victory is at hand, yet Chechnya remains a festering wound. Is there a danger that Chechnya may turn into another Afghanistan?



Vladimir Putin:

As for Chechnya turning into Afghanistan-2, that is ruled out, absolutely ruled out. Afghanistan is a foreign country, Chechnya is part of the Russian Federation. That makes a lot of difference. That is one thing. Secondly, as regards declarations in the press about victory. I have not seen such declarations. And it is not our task to conquer the people of Chechnya. That would be a perverse interpretation of the task. The Russian leadership and the Russian military have never set such a task. We are fighting international terrorists there, that is undeniable.

I could imagine what would have happened in the United States if one state launched an armed attack on the citizens of another state. If people, thousands of people armed to their teeth had come and killed the citizens of another state, seized their property and destroyed their houses. How would the federal authorities in the United States react to such a turn of events? And yet this is what has happened in our country. For some reason the Western citizens, including the citizens of the United States, are not being told anything about it.

An attack was launched from the territory of the Chechen Republic on the neighbouring Republic of Dagestan. By the way, it is also a Muslim republic. As for the status of Chechnya, we have never said we were going to settle the problem by force of arms. It can be settled only by political means. That is how it will be solved.



Question:

Can it happen that Russia will have to keep its military or law enforcement presence in Chechnya in the same way as Britain has long kept its forces in Northern Ireland?



Vladimir Putin:

It is a very pointed question. In any case it pinpoints the problem. During the time that Russia was out of Chechnya – and Russia withdrew from Chechnya totally in 1996, there was not a single Russian soldier, or policeman, or judge, or prosecutor – Chechnya enjoyed de facto state independence. During these three years from 1996 to 1999 Chechnya turned into a haven for bandits. No state had been created there.

The territory was flooded with terrorists and religious fanatics from across the world. We in Russia understand that if we leave Chechnya, its territory will again be used as a bridgehead to attack Russia. Russia cannot afford it. We will not repeat such an experiment again. There is a clear understanding of this in Russian society, including in Chechnya itself, because the Chechens – many of them – believe they have been enticed into a trap, they have been exploited and that the striving of the Chechen people to self-determination is being abused.

So, it is better for us to keep our forces there – our Armed forces and law enforcement bodies – and tackle the problem of fighting terrorists there, rather than wait for them to attack other regions of the Russian Federation. It is our duty to solve this task and we are determined to solve it.



Question:

(Inaudible) Is Russia threatened by the terrorists based in Afghanistan?



Vladimir Putin:

The biggest threat to Russia is economic mismanagement. And speaking about external threats, I must say that the problems of religious extremism are present in Russia just like in other countries. You know, there are many Muslims in the Russian Army and they are fighting religious fanatics and terrorists. As I have said, last summer Dagestan was attacked from the territory of Chechnya. Dagestan is a Muslim Republic and Muslims there took up arms to defend their homes and to defend the Russian Federation. We are not fighting Muslims, that is rubbish, a distortion of the real situation. We believe that everyone should fight religious extremism. And speaking about Muslim extremism, Muslims themselves are interested in suppressing it not to invite an attack by all the other members of society.

By the way, this is happening in Russia.


On Globalization


Vladimir Putin:

In the context of globalization, countries must have common features, especially such big countries as Russia, the United States, major countries of Europe and Asia. There is something in common and it will grow. But I would not like my country, Russia, to lose its originality and its identity. I would like the cultural roots, the spiritual roots of Russia which we are so proud and so fond of and which shape us as individuals, to be preserved. I would very much like, with all due respect for the common features of the world, which we also cherish, I would like my children to feel themselves Russian.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin introduced his envoy, Sergei Kiriyenko, to the regional leaders of the Volga Federal District

June 2, 2000 - 13:00 - The Kremlin, Moscow

Spoiler!

Russia’s seven federal districts must by no means turn into quasi-states, Vladimir Putin said at the ceremony of introducing Sergei Kiriyenko, his plenipotentiary envoy, to the regional leaders of the Volga Federal District.

The head of state offered the participants in the meeting to think together what limits should be set to the authority of presidential representatives in the federal districts.

In the opinion of the President, the issues of defense, security, foreign affairs and a common legal space should stay in the competence of federal agencies. He stressed that the appointment of presidential envoys to the federal districts should not lead to weakening of regional government bodies. Observing the principles of federalism is an absolute priority, as violation of these principles is fraught with numerous problems, Mr Putin said.

The President emphasised that all necessary conditions should be created to ensure that all elements of the vertical structure of power function reliably.



The source of information

President Vladimir Putin replied to questions put to him by the Italian newspaper IlSole 24 Ore and the magazine Impresa Italia, in anticipation of his working visit to Italy on June 5 and 6, 2000

June 3, 2000 - 20:30

Spoiler!

One of the political and economic priorities for the Russian Government is to combat poverty, the President said in an interview with Italian journalists.

In particular, Mr Putin said: “We may only expect a decent future if we ensure successful integration of the basic principles of market economy and democracy with Russia’s realities. This is the line to be followed by experts in their research and analytical work and by the Government agencies of all levels.”

The President expressed his hope for expanding teamwork with the Italian leadership. In his opinion, both parties are interested in a closer cooperation in building European security and in strengthening the role of the United Nations in confronting new challenges, international terrorism above all.



The source of information