Read the full transcript of Vladimir Putin’s landmark speech at 43rd Munich Security Conference on February 10th 2007.
Listen to the audio version here:
TRANSCRIPT:
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Thank you very much, esteemed Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr. Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen!
I am very grateful for the invitation to such a representative conference, which brought together politicians, military personnel, entrepreneurs, and experts from more than 40 countries.
The conference format allows me to avoid “excessive politeness” and the need to speak in rounded, pleasant, but empty diplomatic cliches. The conference format allows me to say what I really think about the problems of international security. And if my reasoning seems to our colleagues to be overly polemically pointed or inaccurate, I ask you not to be angry with me – after all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after two or three minutes of my speech, Mr. Telchik will not turn on the “red light” there.
The Comprehensive Nature of International Security
So. It is known that the problems of international security are much broader than the issues of military-political stability. This is the stability of the world economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and the development of inter-civilizational dialogue.
This comprehensive, indivisible nature of security is also expressed in its basic principle: “the security of each is the security of all.” As Franklin Roosevelt said in the early days of the flaring up of World War II: “Wherever peace is broken, peace is everywhere in danger and under threat.”
These words remain relevant today. Incidentally, this is also evidenced by the theme of our conference, which is written here: “Global crises – global responsibility.”
The End of the Cold War and Its Aftermath
Just two decades ago, the world was ideologically and economically divided, and its security was ensured by the enormous strategic potential of two superpowers.
The global confrontation pushed extremely acute economic and social issues to the periphery of international relations and the agenda. And, like any war, the “cold war” left us with “unexploded shells,” figuratively speaking. I mean ideological stereotypes, double standards, and other patterns of bloc thinking.
The unipolar world proposed after the Cold War also did not materialize.
The history of mankind, of course, knows periods of unipolarity and the desire for world domination. What has not happened in the history of mankind.
The Flaws of a Unipolar World
But what is a unipolar world? No matter how this term is embellished, in practice it ultimately means only one thing: it is one center of power, one center of strength, one center of decision-making.
This is a world of one master, one sovereign. And this is ultimately destructive not only for everyone within this system, but also for the sovereign himself, because it destroys him from within.
And this has nothing in common, of course, with democracy. Because democracy is, as we know, the power of the majority, taking into account the interests and opinions of the minority.
By the way, Russia, we, are constantly being taught democracy. But those who teach us, for some reason, themselves do not really want to learn.
I believe that for the modern world, a unipolar model is not only unacceptable, but also impossible. And not only because with sole leadership in the modern – precisely in the modern – world, there will not be enough military-political or economic resources. But what is even more important: the model itself is not working, since it is not based and cannot have a moral and ethical basis for modern civilization.
The Consequences of Unipolarity
At the same time, everything that is happening in the world today – and we have only just begun to discuss this – is a consequence of attempts to introduce precisely this concept into world affairs – the concept of a unipolar world.
And what is the result?
Unilateral, often illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem. Moreover, they have become a generator of new human tragedies and hotbeds of tension. Judge for yourself: there are no fewer wars, local and regional conflicts. Mr. Telchik mentioned this very mildly. And no fewer people die in these conflicts, and even more than before – significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost unrestrained, hypertrophied use of force in international affairs, military force, force that plunges the world into the abyss of conflicts following one another. As a result, there are not enough forces for a comprehensive solution to any of them. Their political solution is becoming impossible.
The Erosion of International Law
We see an increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law. Moreover, individual norms, and, in fact, almost the entire legal system of one state, first of all, of course, the United States, have crossed their national borders in all areas: in economics, in politics, and in the humanitarian sphere – and are being imposed on other states. Who would like that? Who would like that?
In international affairs, there is an increasingly common desire to resolve a particular issue based on so-called political expediency, based on the current political situation.
And this is, of course, extremely dangerous. And it leads to the fact that no one feels safe anymore. I want to emphasize this: no one feels safe! Because no one can hide behind international law as if it were a stone wall. Such a policy is, of course, a catalyst for the arms race.
The dominance of the force factor inevitably fuels the desire of a number of countries to possess weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, fundamentally new threats have emerged that were known before, but today are acquiring a global character, such as terrorism.
The Need for a New Security Architecture
I am convinced that we have reached a turning point when we must seriously think about the entire architecture of global security.
And here we must start from the search for a reasonable balance between the interests of all subjects of international communication.
Especially now, when the “international landscape” is changing so noticeably and so quickly – changing due to the dynamic development of a number of states and regions.
The Federal Chancellor has already mentioned this. Thus, the combined GDP of India and China in terms of purchasing power parity is already greater than that of the United States of America. And the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – calculated according to the same principle, exceeds the combined GDP of the European Union. And, according to experts, this gap will only increase in the foreseeable historical perspective.
There is no doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
The Importance of Multilateral Diplomacy
In this regard, the role of multilateral diplomacy is seriously increasing. Openness, transparency and predictability in politics have no alternative, and the use of force should be a truly exceptional measure, just as the use of the death penalty in the legal systems of some states.
Today, on the contrary, we are witnessing a situation where countries where the death penalty is prohibited even for murderers and other criminals – dangerous criminals, despite this, such countries easily participate in military operations that can hardly be called legitimate. And people die in these conflicts – hundreds, thousands of peaceful people!
But at the same time, the question arises: should we look on indifferently and weak-willedly at various internal conflicts in individual countries, at the actions of authoritarian regimes, tyrants, at the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? This, in essence, was the basis of the question that was asked of the Federal Chancellor by our esteemed colleague Mr. Lieberman. (Addressing J. Lieberman) Did I understand your question correctly? And, of course, this is a serious question! Can we look on indifferently at what is happening? I will try to answer your question too. Of course, we should not look on indifferently. Of course not.
The Role of the UN in International Decision-Making
But do we have the means to counter these threats? Of course we do. Just recall recent history. After all, there was a peaceful transition to democracy in our country! After all, there was a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what quantities of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why do we now need to bomb and shoot at every opportunity? Is it really true that in the absence of the threat of mutual destruction, we lack political culture, respect for the values of democracy and the law?
I am convinced that the only mechanism for making decisions on the use of military force as a last resort can only be the UN Charter. And in this regard, either I did not understand what was said recently by our colleague, the Italian Minister of Defense, or he expressed himself inaccurately. In any case, I heard that the use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is made in NATO, or the European Union, or the UN. If he really thinks so, then we have different points of view. Or maybe I misheard. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is made on the basis and within the UN. And there is no need to replace the United Nations with either NATO or the European Union. And when the UN really unites the forces of the international community, which can really respond to events in individual countries, when we get rid of disregard for international law, then the situation may change. Otherwise, the situation will only reach a dead end and multiply the number of serious mistakes. At the same time, of course, we must strive to ensure that international law has a universal character both in understanding and in applying norms.
And we must not forget that a democratic way of acting in politics necessarily presupposes discussion and painstaking decision-making.
The Importance of Disarmament
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
The potential danger of destabilization of international relations is also associated with the obvious stagnation in the area of disarmament.
Russia advocates resuming dialogue on this critical issue.
It is important to maintain the stability of the international legal disarmament framework, while ensuring the continuity of the process of reducing nuclear weapons.
We have agreed with the United States of America to reduce our nuclear potential on strategic carriers to 1,700–2,200 nuclear warheads by December 31, 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfill its obligations. We hope that our partners will also act transparently and will not put aside an extra couple of hundred nuclear warheads just in case, for a “rainy day.” And if today the new US Secretary of Defense announces to us here that the United States will not hide these extra charges either in warehouses or “under the pillow” or “under the blanket,” I suggest that everyone stand up and applaud this. This would be a very important statement.
Russia strictly adheres and intends to continue to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the multilateral missile technology control regime. The principles laid down in these documents are universal in nature.
The Need for Universal Disarmament Treaties
In this regard, I would like to recall that in the 1980s, the USSR and the United States signed a Treaty on the Elimination of an Entire Class of Medium-Range and Short-Range Missiles, but this document was not given a universal character.
Today, a number of countries already have such missiles: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel. Many other countries in the world are developing these systems and plan to put them into service. And only the United States of America and Russia are obligated not to create such weapons systems.
It is clear that in these conditions we are forced to think about ensuring our own security.
The Danger of Space Militarization
At the same time, we must not allow the emergence of new destabilizing high-tech weapons. I am not even talking about measures to prevent new areas of confrontation, especially in space. “Star Wars”, as we know, is no longer science fiction, but reality. Back in the mid-80s [of the last century], our American partners actually intercepted their own satellite.
The militarization of space, in Russia’s opinion, could provoke unpredictable consequences for the world community – no less than the beginning of the nuclear era. And we have repeatedly put forward initiatives aimed at preventing weapons from entering space.
Today I would like to inform you that we have prepared a draft treaty on preventing the placement of weapons in outer space. It will be sent to partners as an official proposal in the near future. Let us work on this together.
We also cannot help but be concerned about the plans to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Europe. Who needs another round of the arms race that is inevitable in this case? I seriously doubt that the Europeans themselves do.
None of the so-called problem countries have missile weapons that could really threaten Europe, with a range of about 5-8 thousand kilometers. And in the foreseeable future and the foreseeable future – they will not appear, and are not even expected. And the hypothetical launch, for example, of a North Korean missile at the territory of the USA through Western Europe – this clearly contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it is the same as “reaching the left ear with the right hand.”
The Crisis in Conventional Arms Control
And, being here in Germany, I cannot help but mention the crisis state of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account the new geopolitical reality – the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact. Seven years have passed since then, and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.
NATO countries have openly stated that they will not ratify the Treaty, including the provisions on flank limitations (on the deployment of a certain number of armed forces on the flanks) until Russia withdraws its bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our troops are being withdrawn from Georgia, and even in an accelerated manner. We have resolved these problems with our Georgian colleagues, and everyone knows this. A group of 1,500 servicemen remains in Moldova, performing peacekeeping functions and guarding ammunition depots left over from the Soviet era. And Mr. Solana and I are constantly discussing this issue, he knows our position. We are ready to continue working in this direction.
But what is happening at the same time? And at the same time, so-called light American forward bases with five thousand bayonets in each appear in Bulgaria and Romania. It turns out that NATO is moving its forward forces to our state borders, and we, strictly observing the Treaty, do not react to these actions in any way.
NATO Expansion and Broken Promises
I think it is obvious: the process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it is a serious provocative factor that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a fair right to ask frankly: against whom is this expansion? And what happened to the assurances that were given by Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those statements now? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote from the speech of NATO Secretary General Mr. Wörner in Brussels on May 17, 1990. He said then: “The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops outside the territory of the FRG gives the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.” Where are those guarantees?
The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long since been turned into souvenirs. But we must not forget that its fall was also made possible by a historical choice, including that of our people – the people of Russia, a choice in favor of democracy and freedom, openness and sincere partnership with all members of the large European family.
Now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – virtual ones, but still dividing, cutting through our common continent. Will it really take many years and decades, a change of several generations of politicians, to “dismantle” and “disassemble” these new walls?
Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Energy Independence
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We are also in favor of strengthening the non-proliferation regime. The existing international legal framework allows for the creation of technologies for producing nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries, with good reason, want to create their own nuclear energy as the basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into weapons-grade materials.
This is causing serious international tensions. A clear example of this is the situation with the Iranian nuclear program. If the international community does not develop a reasonable solution to this conflict of interests, the world will continue to be shaken by such destabilizing crises, because there are more threshold countries than Iran, and we know this. We will constantly face the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Last year, Russia came up with an initiative to create multinational uranium enrichment centers. We are open to the idea of such centers being created not only in Russia, but also in other countries where peaceful nuclear energy exists on a legitimate basis. States wishing to develop nuclear energy could be guaranteed to receive fuel through direct participation in the work of these centers, of course, under strict IAEA control.
The latest initiatives of the President of the United States of America George Bush are in line with the Russian proposal. I believe that Russia and the United States are objectively and equally interested in tightening the regimes of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. It is our countries, which are leaders in nuclear and missile potential, that should also become leaders in developing new, tougher measures in the sphere of non-proliferation. Russia is ready for such work. We are holding consultations with our American friends.
In general, we should be talking about creating a whole system of political levers and economic incentives – incentives under which states would be interested in not creating their own nuclear fuel cycle capacities, but would have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy, strengthening their energy potential.
International Energy Cooperation
In this regard, I will dwell in more detail on international energy cooperation. Madam Federal Chancellor also briefly mentioned this, but touched upon this topic. In the energy sector, Russia is focused on creating market principles and transparent conditions that are uniform for all. It is obvious that the price of energy resources should be determined by the market and not be the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.
We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in our largest energy projects. According to various estimates, up to 26 percent of oil production in Russia – just think about this figure, please – up to 26 percent of oil production in Russia is accounted for by foreign capital. Try, try to give me an example of such a broad presence of Russian business in key sectors of the economy of Western countries. There are no such examples! There are no such examples.
Let me also remind you of the ratio of investments coming into Russia and going from Russia to other countries of the world. The ratio is approximately fifteen to one. Here is a visible example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.
Economic security is an area where everyone should adhere to the same principles. We are ready to compete fairly.
The Russian economy is getting more and more opportunities for this. Such dynamics are objectively assessed by experts and our foreign partners. Thus, Russia’s rating in the OECD was recently raised: our country moved from the fourth risk group to the third. And I would like to take this opportunity here, today in Munich, to thank our German colleagues for their assistance in making the above-mentioned decision.
Next. As you know, the process of Russia’s accession to the WTO has entered its final stage. I would like to note that during the long and difficult negotiations we have heard more than once words about freedom of speech, freedom of trade, equal opportunities, but for some reason exclusively in relation to our Russian market.
Global Poverty and Economic Inequality
And another important topic that directly affects global security. Today, there is much talk about the fight against poverty. What is really happening here? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programs to help the poorest countries – and sometimes considerable financial resources. But honestly, and many here also know this, it is often for the “development” of companies from the donor countries themselves. But at the same time, on the other hand, in developed countries, subsidies in agriculture are maintained, and access to high technology is limited for others.
And let’s call a spade a spade: it turns out that “charity aid” is being handed out with one hand, while with the other, not only is economic backwardness being preserved, but profits are also being collected. The social tension that arises in such depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, and fuels terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this also happens, say, in the Middle East in conditions of heightened perception of the outside world as unfair, then the risk of global destabilization arises.
It is obvious that the world’s leading countries must see this threat. And, accordingly, build a more democratic, fair system of economic relations in the world – a system that gives everyone a chance and opportunity for development.
The Role of the OSCE
Speaking at a conference on security, ladies and gentlemen, one cannot pass over in silence the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. As is known, it was created to consider all – I will emphasize this – all, all aspects of security: military-political, economic, humanitarian, and in their interrelationship.
What do we see in practice today? We see that this balance is clearly violated. They are trying to turn the OSCE into a vulgar instrument for ensuring the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries in relation to other countries. And the OSCE bureaucratic apparatus, which is absolutely not connected with the founding states, was “tailored” to this task. The decision-making procedures and the use of so-called non-governmental organizations were “tailored” to this task. Formally, yes, independent, but purposefully financed, and therefore controlled.
According to the fundamental documents in the humanitarian sphere, the OSCE is called upon to assist member states, at their request, in observing international human rights norms. This is an important task. We support it. But this does not mean interference in the internal affairs of other countries, much less imposing on these states how they should live and develop.
It is obvious that such interference does not contribute to the maturation of truly democratic states. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, unstable in political and economic terms.
We expect the OSCE to be guided by its immediate tasks and to build relations with sovereign states on the basis of respect, trust and transparency.
Conclusion: Russia’s Role in World Affairs
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
In conclusion, I would like to note the following. We very often, and I personally very often hear calls for Russia from our partners, including European partners, to play a more and more active role in world affairs.
In this regard, I will allow myself to make one small remark. It is unlikely that we need to be pushed and stimulated to do this. Russia is a country with more than a thousand years of history, and it has almost always enjoyed the privilege of pursuing an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we clearly see how the world has changed, we realistically assess our own capabilities and our own potential. And, of course, we would also like to deal with responsible and also independent partners, with whom we could work together to build a fair and democratic world order, ensuring security and prosperity in it not for the chosen few, but for everyone.
