Security for all Vladimir Putin on the "43. Munich conference for security politics "

Security for all

Documented. The speech of Russian president Vladimir Putin on 10 February on the "43. Munich conference for security politics "for the role of its country in the world

I am very grateful for the invitation to this representative conference, which meets politicians, military, entrepreneur and expert from more than 40 countries. The structure of this conference gives me the possibility of avoiding "excessive politeness" and the necessity to speak in describing, nice, but empty diplomatic empty phrases. The structure of this conference permits to say, what I actually think of the problems of international security. And if my discussions our colleagues excessively polarize-mix, exaggerated or inaccurate appear, I ask, not to be annoyed at me - finally this is only one conference. And I hope that Mr. Teltschik does not switch on the "red light" there in two to three minutes.

Thus. It is well-known that the problem of international security is many broader than the questions of military-political stability. In addition belong the firmness of the world economy, the overcoming of the poverty, economic security and development of the dialogue between the cultures. This universal, indivisible character of security comes in the fundamental principle "security for everyone is security for all" to the expression. Or like Franklin D Roosevelt in the first days of the Second World War beginning said: "one breaks somewhere if the peace, is the peace of all countries everywhere in danger." These words remained current. Occupies e.g. also the topic of our conference, which stands here written: "global crises - global responsibility".

Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically split, and their security was ensured by the enormous strategic potential of the two superpowers. The global confrontation pushed the most burning economic and social questions to the edge of the international relations and their agenda. And like each war the "cold war" left "not-ignited ammunition" to us - figurativy spoken. I refer to ideological stereotyped ones, double standards and other templates of the block thinking.

Unipolar model

The unipolar world suggested after the "cold war" did not develop. The history of mankind knows naturally periods of a unipolar condition and striving for world-wide supremacy. What didn't happen in the history of mankind? However which is a unipolar world? If someone described this term, he would have to come inevitably to only one result: That means only one center of power, only one force center, only one decision center. That is the world of only one Mr., only one sovereign. And that is dangerous in the long run not only for all, which are within this system, but also for the sovereign, because that destroys it from the inside.

And that has to do naturally nothing with democracy. Because: Democracy is, like you knows, the power of the majority, whereby the interest and the opinions of the minority are considered. Clearly spoken: We, Russia, are instructed continuously over democracy. But those, which instruct us, do not want to learn even particularly much. I believe that for the present world the unipolar model is not only unacceptable, but at all not possibly. And not only because with single leader shank in the present - and particularly in the present world - neither the military-political nor economic resources are sufficient. Which is still more important - the model appears nonfunctioning, because it offers and also offer cannot no moral-moral basis in its basis for the present civilization.

In addition comes: Which happens in the today's world - and we begin straight only to discuss -, that is the consequences of the attempt to introduce evenly this conception to the international relations - the conception of a unipolar world.

Hypertrophierte force

And with which result? One-sided, often not legitimized actions did not solve only one problem. More than that, it caused new human tragedies and created new sources of tension. Judge: The number of the wars, the local and regional conflicts did not become smaller. Mr. Teltschik mentioned this in very gentle way. And not less humans die in these conflicts, but even more than in former times. Importantly more - importantly more!

Today we observe one nearly by nothing restrained, hypertrophierte use of force in the international relations - military force -, a force, which pushes the world into an abyss of successive conflicts. In the result the strength is not enough for the complex solution of only one of them. It will also impossible to find a political solution.

We see more and more an excess of fundamental principles of international law. More still - i.e. naturally exceeded and becomes individual standards, in addition, the entire juridical system of an individual state, the USA, the national borders in all spheres - in economics and politics as well as within the humanitarian range - other countries forced upon. Whom could please? Whom does that please? In the international relations we encounter ever more frequently striving to solve these or that question due to so-called political experience justified on the current political economic situation.

That is naturally extremely dangerous. And it leads to the fact that nobody feels more safe already. I would like to underline that - nobody feels in security! Because nobody can rely on the international right as on a schutzmauer. Such a policy is naturally catalyst of an arms race. The dominance of the force factor encourages inevitably a set from countries to the acquisition of massenvernichtungswaffen. More than - new in principle threats developed, which admits also in former times was, but today, such receive a global character like the terrorism. I am convinced that we concerned on a crucial moment, in which we seriously the entire architecture of global security consider must. And here it is necessary to continue with the search for a reasonable reconciliation between the interests of all subjects of the international community. All the more, as the "international landscape" changes so variously and so fast at present - changes in the light of the dynamic development of a whole set of states and regions.

Mrs. Bundeskanzlerin already mentioned this. Like that the sum of the gross national product of India and China is already larger in kaufkraftparitaet than that of the United States. And a computation of the gross national product of the BRIC Laendergruppe - Brazil, Russia, India and China - exceeds the accumulated gross national product of the European Union. According to opinion of experts in historical perspective this gap will still grow. It is idle to doubt that the economic potential of the new world centers of growth changes inevitably to political influence and will strengthen the multi-polarity. In connection with it the role multipole arene diplomacy grows importantly. Openness, transparency and predictability in the policy are alternativeless and the use of force must actually an extraordinary measure remain, like that as the application of the death penalty in the juridical systems of some states. Today we observe however turned around the situation that countries, which forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other criminals - dangerous criminals - that regardless of its such countries participate very easily in military operations, which one can call heavily legitimate. But in these conflicts humans die - hundreds, thousands of peaceful humans!

At the same time the question develops: Are we to look participateless and indifferently on different internal conflicts in certain countries, in actually authoritarian Regimen, tyrannies, on the spreading of massenvernichtungswaffen? That was the basis the nature after also the question, which our dear colleague Mr. Liebermann of the Bundeskanzlerin asked. Did I understand your question correctly (itself turning at dear man)? And naturally this question is serious! Can we look participateless on, which happens? I try to also answer to your question. Naturally, we may not watch participateless. Naturally not. But we have the means, in order to resist these threats? Naturally, we have them. It is sufficient to remind of recent history. What happened with the peaceful transition in our country? It took place a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime - a peaceful transformation! And which regime! With which number at weapons, including the nuclear weapons! Why has to be gebombt and shot now with each erdenklichen opportunity? Is it missing to us when being missing the threat of a mutual destruction at political culture, at the respect for democratic values and for the right?

I am convinced that the only mechanism for decisions is over the use of military force as last way out the Charter of the UN. And in connection with it I did not understand, what our colleague said recently, the Secretary of Defense of Italy, or whether he expressed himself inaccurately. In each case I understood that use of force can be regarded only in the case as legitimate, if the decision of NATO or of the European Union or from the UN pleases became. If he means that actual, then we have different opinions in addition. Or I did not hear it correctly. Legitimate one can consider the use of force only if the decision pleases in the context of the UN became. And it does not have necessary to replace the UN by NATO or the European Union. If the UN in the reality unites the forces of the international community, which can actually react to events in individual countries, if we leave the excess of the international right behind us, then the situation can change. In the opposite case the situation in a dead end will end, and those number of heavy errors is multiplied. One must secure that international law keeps a universal character both the view after as well as with the application of its standards. And one may not forget that the democratic sample for actions in the policy requires necessarily discussions and an exact treatment of the decisions.

Nuclear disarmament

The potential danger of a destabilization of the international relations is connected with the obvious stagnation in the area of the disarmament. Russia occurs for the renewal of the dialogue in this extremely important question.

Is important to ensure the firmness of the international-law foundation of the disarmament too received and the durability of the process of the reduction of nuclear weapons.

We agreed upon the reduction of our nuclear potential on strategic carriers with the United States of America contractually on 1700 to 2200 atomic sprengkoepfe up to the 31.Dezember 2012. Russia is decided to fulfill the obligations strictly which it took over. We hope that also our partners will act likewise transparency and not for all cases, for a "black day", some remaining hundred nuclear sprengkoepfe aside put. And if today the new Secretary of Defense of the United States us here avowedly that the United States do not store these surplus weapons, "unterm pillows" and "under the blanket" will not hide, do not strike I everything forwards to rise and that standing welcome. That would be a very important explanation.

Russia keeps strictly the contract over the nichtweiterverbreitung of nuclear weapons and intends to keep it also in the future just as the multilateral control regime for rocket technologies. The principles, which are laid down in these documents, carry a universal character.

In this connection I would like to remind gladly of the fact that the USSR and the United States signed a contract in the 80's over the removal of a whole class of rockets of middle and small range, but no universal character was lent to this document. Today a whole set of countries possesses such rockets: The Korean people-democratic Republic of, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan, Israel. Many other states of the world work on such systems and plan to take up it to its armament. Only the United States and Russia have obligations to create no weapon systems of this kind. It is clear that we are forced under these conditions to think about the guarantee of our own security.

At the same time emerging of new destabilizing high-technological kinds of weapon may not become certified. I do not speak already at all about measures for the prevention of new confrontation spheres, in particular in the universe. The "war of the stars" is as well known no fantasy, but reality. In the middle of the 80's of the past century were already our American partners in a the position to intercept their own satellite.

The militarization of the universe can provoke unforeseeable consequences for the world community according to opinion of Russia - not smaller than at the beginning of the nuclear era. And we stepped out not only once with initiatives, a whose goal was it to prevent the use of weapons in the cosmos.

Today I would like to inform you about the fact that we prepared a draft agreement for the prevention of the spreading of weapons in the cosmic area. In the next time it will be sent to our partners as official suggestion. Let us on it together work.

New confrontation

Likewise plans must worry us for the development of elements of the antirocket defense systems. Who has the next step of an arms race inevitable in this case necessarily? I doubt deeply that these are the Europeans. Missiles, which actually threaten Europe, with a range of action of 5000 to 8000 kilometers, exist in to the not one so-called problem states. And in the visible future - and the visible perspective - they will not emerge and are not foreseeable even. A hypothetical start e.g. North Korea niches a rocket in the direction of the territory of the USA over Western Europe away contradicts obviously the laws of the ballistics. As one says with us in Russia, just as, as if one is "with the right hand the left ear affected".

Since I am in Germany, I do not know to mention the crisis of the contract over conventionally armed armed forces in Europe. The adapted contract of over conventionally armed armed forces in Europe was signed 1999. It considered the new geopolitical reality - the dissolution Warsaw block. Since then seven years passed, and only four states ratified, included this document the Russian federation. The countries of NATO explained openly that they will not ratify the contract, including the definitions over delimitations of the flanks, over the distribution of a certain number of armed forces at the flanks, up to that time, since Russia withdraws its bases from Georgien and Moldavia. Led back from Georgien our troops, even after an accelerated timetable. We solved these problems with our Georgian colleagues, and everything is well-known. In Moldavia remains a grouping of 1500 military members, who fulfill peace-receiving functions and guard ammunition camps, which originate from USSR times. And we constantly discuss this question with Mr. Solana; it knows our position. We are ready to continue to work also in this direction.

But which happens at the same time? In this same time so-called light American advanced bases with up to 5000 men develop in each case in Bulgaria and Romania. It turns out that NATO shifts its foremost forces to our state borders, but we, since we fulfill the contract strictly, in no way on these actions react. I think, it am obvious - the process of the NATO expansion stands in no relationship with the modernization of the alliance or with strengthening security in Europe. In the opposite, that is a seriously provoking factor, which lowers the level of the mutual confidence. And we have the indisputable right to ask openly: Against whom is this extension directed? And which happened with the explanations, which delivered the western partners after the decay Warsaw Treaty? Where are these explanations now? It possibly someone does not even remember. But I take the liberty to remind before this auditory of it what was said. I would like to quote gladly from a speech of NATO Secretary-General Woerner in Brussels from 17 May 1990. He said at that time: "the fact that we are ready to station no NATO troops beyond the borders of the territory of the Federal Republic gives firm security guarantees to the Soviet Union." Where are these warranties?

The stones and concrete blocks of the citizens of Berlin wall are already long distributed as souvenirs. But one may not forget that their case became possible also owing to a historical choice also our people - the people of Russia -, a choice for democracy and liberty, for openness and genuine partnership with all members of the large European family.

Today one tries to force upon to us new dividing lines and walls - they may be virtual, but they separate nevertheless, cut our entire continent. Do we need again long years and decades, the change of some politician generations "to tear off" over these new walls and "dismantle"?

Nuclear weapon check contract

We occur without reservation for the stabilization of the regime of the nicht-Weiterverbreitung. The existing international-law basis makes it possible to create technologies for the treatment of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries want to produce nuclear energy for good reasons themselves - as basis for energetic independence. We understand to receive also that these technologies can be transformed fast, in order nuclear weapon materials.

That causes serious international tensions. A clear example is the situation around the Iranian nuclear program. If the international community for this clash of interest does not find a reasonable solution, the world will experience also in the future similar destabilizing crises, because it gives more developing countries than Iran, and we all together know that. We will fight steadily against the threat of the further spread further of massenvernichtungswaffen.

In the past year Russia seized the initiative for the creation of multilateral centers for uranium enrichment. We are open for it that such centers are formed not only in Russia, but also in other countries, where peaceful nuclear energy on legal basis exists. States, which would like to develop atomic energy, it could be guaranteed that they receive fuel by the direct participation in the work of these centers, naturally under strict control of the IAEA.

With the Russian suggestions also the last initiatives of the president of the United States of America George Bush agree. I think that Russia and the USA are interested to their acquisition objectively and on same stage in the stabilization that regime for the nicht-Weiterverbreitung by massenvernichtungswaffen and the means. In particular our countries, which are prominent in their nuclear and rocket-technical potentials, must become also prominent during the elaboration of new, more exact measures in the sphere of the nicht-Weiterverbreitung. Russia is ready for this work. We stand in consultations with our American friends.

Altogether it must concern to stimuli, according to which states would not be interested in it the creation of a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli -, to create own abilities for the nuclear fuel cycle but the possibility would have of developing the atomic energy and its energetic potential of strengthening.

Co-operation

In connection with it I would like to talk somewhat more in detail about international energy co-operation. Mrs. Bundeskanzlerin spoke already briefly about it, mentioned, affected this topic. In the energy sector Russia orients itself at the creation of uniform market principles and transparent conditions. It is obvious that the price must be intended for sources of energy by the market and the subject of political speculations, economic pressure or extortion are not.

We are open for co-operation. Foreign societies participate in our most important energy projects. According to different estimates come to foreign capital up to 26 per cent of the oil production in Russia - consider you please this number -, up to 26 per cent of the oil production in Russia. If you try, try, to call me an example of a similarly broad participation of Russian enterprises at schluesselsektoren of the economy of western countries. There are not such examples! There are not such examples!

I remind also of the relationship between investments, which are transacted in Russia, and those, which go out of Russia into other countries in the world. The relationship amounts to fifteen to one. There they have a clear example of openness and stability of the Russian economy. Economic security is a sphere, in which to all uniform principles must apply. We are ready to compete fair.

For this reason there are more and more possibilities in the Russian economy. Experts and our foreign partners evaluate this dynamics objectively. Thus the Rating Russia in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Euro was recently increased: From the fourth group of risks ascended our country into third. I would like to use gladly the opportunity to thank here today in Munich our German colleagues for the assistance with the acceptance of this decision.

Further. As you know, the process of the entry of Russia to the World Trade Organization stepped into its final stage. I mark the fact that we in the process of long, not simple negotiations not only once words over the liberty of the word, over which, over same possibilities heard liberty of the trade but exclusively for any reason with reference to ours, the Russian market.

And still another important topic, which affects directly global security. Today many speak about the fight against poverty. What here actually happens? On the side for aid programmes for the poorest countries financial resources are sufficient - and sometimes considerable financial resources. But is connected to be over honest - and many know here also -, with the Geberlaenden with "its" societies. At the same time, on the other side, in the developed countries the farm subsidies are maintained, limited the entrance to the high technology for other countries.

Let us the things with the name call: It presents itself in such a way that with the hand "barmherzige assistance" is distributed, but with the other not only economic backwardness is conserved and also still profit is driven. The increasing social tension in such depressive regions causes inevitably growing radicalism and extremism, feeds terrorism and local of conflicts. And if all in, we say, in the Near East happen with its course-sharpened perception of the external world as unfair, then the risk of a global destabilization develops.

It is obvious that the prominent countries in the world should to have to recognize this threat and accordingly a more democratic, fairer system of the economic relations carry out - a system, which offers all the chance and the possibility for the development.

Interference

In a speech to a conference for security, my admired ladies and gentlemen, the activity of the organization for security and co-operation in Europe may not be gone around and concealed. As admits it was created, in order to observe all - I underline - all, all aspects of security: military-political, economical, humanitarian and particularly their interrelations.

What do we see today in practice? We see that this balance was clearly destroyed. One tries to make the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Euro into a vulgaeres instrument the penetration of the interests with regard to foreign policy of an individual country or a group of countries in the relations with other countries. And for this task one "tailors" the bureaucratic apparatus of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Euro, absolutely with the founder states in no way is connected to which. One "tailors" for this task of decision procedures and the use of so-called "non-government organizations". , formally, they are independent, but they are financed and are called purposeful - they are controlled.

In accordance with the fundamental documents the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Euro is called to help the member states on their requirement with the attention of international standards in the area of the human rights. That is an important task. We support that. But that means interference into internal affairs of other countries, and above all not to prescribe for these states how they are to live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference is not under any circumstances suitable to carry the development of really democratic states. In the opposite, it makes dependent and in the Konsquenz unstable on political and economical level.

We expect that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Euro is led by its direct tasks and relations with sovereigns states on the basis of respect, confidence and transparency arranges.

To the conclusion I would like to notice the following. We hear frequently, I personally hear very often appeals of our partners, under it also the European partners to play at Russia, a importantly more active role in the world.

In this relationship I take the liberty a small note. It is hardly necessary to encourage us for it. Russia is a country with one more than 1000jaehrigen history and had practically always the privilege to be able to operate an independent foreign policy. We do not intend to change today this tradition. We see good at the same time, like the world changed, we evaluate realistically our own possibilities and our own potential. And naturally we would like to have to do a prospering with responsible persons and independent partners, with whom together we can work on the building of a fair and democratic world order, in we security to ensure and not for chosen one, but for all.

I thank for the attention.

http://www.jungewelt.de/2007/02-14/012.php