*******
VLADIMIR PUTIN TALKS WITH AMERICAN JOURNALISTS
Kommersant
No. 206
November 12, 2001
[translation from RIA Novosti for personal use only]
Verbatim record of the November 10, 2001 meeting of President
Vladimir Putin of Russia with Moscow chiefs of the leading US
media in the Kremlin
Putin: Good evening. I am very glad to see you here in the
Kremlin. I will be happy to answer your questions before going
on an official visit to the USA.
I would not like to squander time on general introductory
phrases and so I suggest that we get down to business
immediately. Your questions, please?
Question: Mr President, you supported the USA in this
difficult and responsible time of war against terrorism without
any preliminary conditions. What would you like to get in
return and what result do you want to achieve? This is my first
question.
My second question is concerned with the statement by bin
Laden to the effect that he had nuclear weapons, which the
media reported. Do you think this may be true? And a related
question:
Are you sure of the reliable safety of the Russian nuclear
arsenal?
Putin: Let's begin with our vision of the results of our
joint efforts in the struggle against terror and what we would
like to see at the end of this joint work. To begin with, we
would like to see positive results of the joint efforts against
terrorism, to attain a joint positive result, with terrorism
eradicated, routed, liquidated not only in Afghanistan but also
throughout the world.
We would like to root out the conditions that engender
extremism of different stripes. We would like to liquidate the
channels of financing extremism in all its forms. We would like
the people of our countries to feel safe.
And lastly, the derivative result of this joint work. We
would like to create such new relations between Russia and the
USA that would enable us to develop relations in all other
spheres of collaboration. We would like to create a new quality
of our relations. And we certainly would like to see the USA as
a reliable and predictable partner.
This strategic task is much more important, as I see it,
than any short-lived material advantages.
As for the international terrorists' threats of using mass
destruction weapons, we have had this in the Caucasus. As a
rule, these threats are made and used to engender fear and
uncertainty in the people, to influence the political
leadership of the countries that are struggling against
terrorism.
In the Caucasus this ended in an attempt to use home made
jury-rigged devices, which could have an adverse effect on the
environment. Indeed, they made such attempts, but they were
ineffective. I think that in this sense the man you mentioned
differs little from his disciples who are operating in the
North Caucasus, in Russia. I would not overestimate the danger.
But it would be likewise wrong to underestimate it, above all
because we know about bin Laden's connections with some radical
quarters in Pakistan. And Pakistan is a nuclear power after
all.
And we certainly should extend all possible support to
General Musharraf in all his undertakings designed to
consolidate the public forces in the country, support his
attempts to ensure the involvement of Pakistan in the struggle
of the international community against terror.
Question: Mr President, when you had put forth your
position on ABM, you said it was more flexible than before. But
can you give details to show where it became more flexible? In
particular, will this have a bearing on the US possibility of
creating ABM stations in Alaska? And if this is really so, can
you explain then where is your position more flexible now than
it was before?
Putin: I don't think I will break a secret if I repeat
here what I said to President Bush during our recent meeting in
Shanghai. I told him that our stand really had been much
tougher when we talked with the previous administration. I will
repeat this thesis here now, saying absolutely frankly: It was
indeed so, because we proceeded, among other things, from the
belief that we would seriously talk with the man who will be
the chief executive for the next four, and maybe eight years.
It is very pleasant for us - and for me - that this man is
President Bush, with whom we have established very good
personal contact. And we say now: We are prepared to discuss
the parameters of the 1972 ABM Treaty. But to do this we should
know the initial stand of our US partners. What exactly do they
want changed? What exactly hinders the implementation of the
project devised by the US administration?
We used to say, and I stressed it during my talks with the
US president, that we think it correct to discuss defensive
systems in combination with offensive weapons, that they are
the two sides of the same medal. And we are pleased to say that
our relations today are noted not only by good personal
contacts between the presidents, but also by a desire to accept
a compromise. And today we know about the ideas of the
president and his belief that offensive weapons can and must be
slashed.
This is a kind of compromise, a compromise move in the right
direction.
Politics is the art of compromises. We are ready for
compromises, too. The only question is what we are invited to
discuss and what compromises we are expected to make. We need
to see this in the practical proposals of our American partners. This is
for specialists to decide - lawyers, military experts
and diplomats. And after certain variants are suggested, the
political leaders will only have to choose from a number of
variants that will be found. And I am greatly optimistic about
the possibility of finding such variants.
Question: I would like to ask you about possible changes
in Russia's role in the campaign waged by the USA. I mean the
role of your country as a partner of the USA in the military
part of the operation.
The second part of my question is concerned with bin
Laden's statement on the possession of nuclear weapons. Can you
say confidently in this connection that the Russian nuclear
potential is safely protected and that there is no connection
between bin Laden's statement and Russia's nuclear arsenal?
Putin: As for the possible increase of Russia's
contribution to the counter-terror operation in Afghanistan, I
will remind you of what we are doing now.
We provided our air corridors for the flights of American
aircraft; the air corridors. We are also supplying intelligence
information and I can assure you that this is vital information. We have
coordinated our stand on providing assistance to the
USA with our partners and allies in Central Asia. We are
providing military-technical assistance to the tune of tens of
millions of dollars to the Northern Alliance.
And our contacts with the legitimate, internationally
recognised government of Rabbani are very close. I can assure
you that they are not limited to weapon supplies only. We are
helping them in many other spheres, too.
We are ready, and I have said about this before, to help,
if necessary, save American citizens and American crews (I
repeat, if this is necessary), including by using our
possibilities we have now in the territory of Afghanistan.
Where we can do this.
There is one more circumstance and one more sphere of
operation which cannot remain unnoticed. We are waging a ground
operation against international terrorism in the territory of
the North Caucasus. The problem of Chechnya is much more
complicated than just a problem of international terrorism. But
it is a fact that there are international terrorists there.
Various countries are providing a thousand or two thousand
troops for the ground operation. We have lost over 3,000 troops
in the North Caucasus to this day. And this is not just a word,
not propaganda. As of now, we have liquidated about 500
mercenaries from Arab countries. Our special services have
lists of people whose identity we have established. This list
comprises over 100 people and more than 300 others whose
identity are being established now.
According to our information, there are 500 to 700
mercenaries from different Islamic states fighting there, many
of them nurturing the intention to return to Afghanistan (and
some of them had come to the Russian Federation from
Afghanistan) to kill Americans, as they themselves say. Our
Armed Forces are keeping back this potential. If we slacked our
efforts there, they will go back to Afghanistan and start doing
there what they have been doing in the North Caucasus in
Russia.
I must correct the interpreter. They are not talking about
the liquidation of American servicemen. In the radio
conversations intercepted by our special services they talk
about killing Americans. I showed these documents to President
Bush during our recent meeting in Shanghai. This is the first
thing I wanted to point out.
There is one more aspect we should ponder when we talk
about Afghanistan. First, I want to say that events there are
developing just as we thought they would.
Regrettably, we cannot erect an insurmountable barrier to
the movement of the fundamentalist forces in the North Caucasus
or in Chechnya. By and large, I think our special services will
be ready to hand over the lists of persons who have left the
North Caucasus via Georgia and Turkey and are now preparing to
be taken to Afghanistan. Lists of names.
As for the development of the situation in Afghanistan, I
should say once more that it is developing by the scenario
which we envisaged. As you see, at present the Northern
Alliance is launching the operations that had been planned. In
point of fact, it is assuming control of the northern part of
Afghanistan.
I repeat, this is how we expected the situation to develop. In
principle, this is what we agreed on with President Bush.
This is exactly what I discussed with the leadership of
Afghanistan, the Islamic State of Afghanistan, when I stopped
over in Dushanbe on the way from Shanghai.
At the same time, when we speak about the future of
Afghanistan, we should take into account the experience of the
past years, including the negative experience of the Soviet
Union. By the way, it is frequently said that the Soviet Union
was defeated in Afghanistan. But if we look at what happened in
Afghanistan in those years from the professional and not
propaganda angle, we will see that the Soviet Union did not
suffer a military defeat there. It attained everything there,
all goals it set itself. In the military sphere.
But gross political mistakes were made. The military
results were so good that after the Soviet troops were pulled
out of Afghanistan - and the withdrawal was carried out
extremely successfully from the military viewpoint - the
Najibullah regime remained in power for three more years. This
is very long in conditions of such unstable country.
The political mistake was that the Najibullah government
did not establish broad support on all political forces and all
ethnic groups of Afghanistan and did not enjoy broad
international assistance.
But the former Soviet leadership was bound to make that
mistake. That mistake was predetermined by the split of the
international community for ideological reasons. Thank God, the
split has been mended since then and we can neutralise that
mistake now. We can avoid such mistakes. This is, in fact, the
main virtue of the international counter-terror coalition.
As for mass destruction weapons which terrorists may have
in Afghanistan, I have already said that I think this
improbable.
Yet we must not neglect the possibility that the terrorists may
acquire weapons of mass destruction. But it will certainly not
be Soviet- or Russian-made weapons. Of this I am absolutely
sure.
Absolutely!
I think this is another valuable aspect of the situation
that developed in the civilised world, in the whole of
humankind after the Cold War. This is the main value. In point
of fact, the current situation gives us the hope that the
leaders of the world's major countries, including President
Bush and I, will manage to create conditions in which people
will feel much safer than they did yesterday or do today.
Question: Mr President, all of us are witnessing the
incredible warming of relations between Russia and the USA
after September 11. You said in your replies to preceding
questions that you would like this improvement and these good
relations to become lasting and that you would want to see the
USA as a reliable partner for years to come.
I want to ask you in this connection what issues other
than strategic weapons and ABM are especially important to you?
Which issues do you spotlight? And, in this connection, how do
you regard issues related to NATO, cooperation with NATO and
the enlargement of NATO? In particular, what would you do if
the USA decided after all to heed the request of three Baltic
states for admission to NATO?
Putin: There are many questions of special importance to
us.
The first of them is the solution of problems of international
security with due consideration for the national interests of
the Russian Federation. Another is concerned with economic
cooperation on at least standard, non-discrimination conditions.
As for NATO, it is a separate subject. That organisation
was created as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union, which no
longer exists. And one should have seen at the time when the
Soviet Union collapsed that the nature of NATO should change,
too. I am sorry for those who do not understand this, because
this means that they are lagging behind the events. Those who
do not understand this will certainly make mistakes. And they
are apparently making them.
We proceed from the belief that NATO is a serious
instrument of modern international realities and are trying to
develop cooperation with NATO.
I think that the agency we created - the NATO-Russia
Permanent Joint Council - was useful on the whole at a certain
stage. But today it is not enough to change the quality of
Russia-NATO relations.
I think all of us understand the idea that we will act
effectively, energetically and persistently to attain the goals
and to fulfil the tasks to the elaboration of which we will
contribute. And when we do not take part in the elaboration of
these tasks, you can consequently expect the Russian Federation
to behave in a certain way. I think this is obvious to any
person and any country.
One of the first issues was our participation in tackling
the problem of combating terrorism in Afghanistan. You know, we
pledged such quality and scale of assistance which we never
extended before and it was difficult to imagine that we could
do this. But I can also tell you that we can also think about
building up joint efforts. But this will depend on changes in
the quality of Russia's relations with the leading Western
countries, our relations with the USA and certainly with such
organisation as NATO.
We are speaking about the struggle against terrorism now. But there
are other modern challenges, which are no less
dangerous and they have been mentioned here today. One of them
is the proliferation of mass destruction weapons and I think
that it is no less important and no less - and probably more -
dangerous than the problem of terrorism. It is not by chance
that we more than once linked these two problems here today.
Today any ordinary man, any citizen understands that we
can effectively stand up against these and other modern threats
and challenges only if we pool efforts. And we can join efforts
for effective work only if we raise the standards of trust for
each other, and do it dramatically.
In this sense, it is not only Russia but also, and to no
smaller degree, our Western partners - the USA and other
leading NATO countries and the organisation as a whole - that
are interested in changes in the quality of Russia-NATO
relations.
I will tell you frankly that I have general ideas but I am
not prepared to formulate them here. I believe President Bush,
British Premier Tony Blair (we discussed this), and several
other leaders of the major NATO countries also have highly
attractive ideas.
As for the potential admission of Baltic countries to
NATO, here is what I will say. What was NATO created for? It is
a defensive organisation. It was created for the purpose of
raising the level of security of at least its member countries.
Go out in the streets of New York, Washington, Paris,
Berlin or Rome, stop any passer-by and ask him or her: will the
security of his/her country and his/her own security grow after
the admission of Baltic countries to NATO? The answer will be
apparently "No." I am absolutely sure that no matter what my
colleagues from the Baltic countries may say, this will not
improve their security either. On the other hand, any country
has the right to make its own choice of ways of ensuring its
security; nobody questions this.
But if we think in the new categories, and not the Cold
War ones, we must understand and determine what threatens us
today and what we can do to resist these threats. And when we
understand this, we will quickly come to the conclusion that we
should change the nature of the organisation, involve Russia
because Russia can do much to make, along with everybody, its
considerable contribution to ensuring international security,
including the security of the leading NATO countries.
We are prepared for this work with our NATO partners, we
are doing it now and we have grounds to think that, in view of
the positive mood of our partners, we can attain positive
results.
A mechanical enlargement of NATO without due consideration
for the national interests of Russia - I don't think this is
movement in the right direction. This is what we are certainly
protesting against.
Question: Russia maintains and expands its contacts with
Western countries, also maintaining warm-hearted relations with
such countries as North Korea, Iraq and particularly Belarus.
All these countries hardly boast a full-fledged democracy.
How can Russia, which maintains rather close-knit
relations with such countries, facilitate their movement toward
democracy, so that they could become a more substantial part of
the entire international system, also moving in unison with the
international democratic community? What can you say on this
score?
Putin: Do you remember a Soviet leader, who said Somoza
was a son-of-a-bitch, but that he was our son-of-a-bitch? Am I
wrong here? That statement was made by a US leader, rather than
by Soviet leaders. Still let's not discuss history once again.
I don't think that was a correct thesis. There are no rogues
among our partners. However, each country has its own involved
history of previous development. Moreover, Russia has its own
history of relations with such countries.
Russia has changed a lot over the last decade. Surely
enough, our relations with these countries have changed, as
well. Only those, who don't want to see this, are unable to
notice such things. Still we don't intend to renounce any
positive aspects of inter-state relations.
Frankly speaking, partners should be treated with respect.
An outsider always thinks that any specific country has no
trouble doing something. However, an in-depth study of any
particular state's problems shows that everything is not so
simple. Playing it tough is not the best way of settling
inter-state relations.
Attempts to isolate any specific country from the
international community would constitute the most erroneous
option. This concerns any country, including those countries,
which were mentioned by you. True, we maintain absolutely open
relations with all of them. We are not hiding anything. But our
relations with each of these countries are specific.
Moreover, as you know, we maintain permanent contacts with our
partners in other countries of the world, the United States
included.
As far as North Korea is concerned, that country borders
on Russia, which has a large Korean diaspora. Russia, as well
as the United States, would like peace to be established on the
Korean Peninsula; moreover, we would like favorable conditions
to be formulated for the positive development of the country
and the entire Korean nation.
As you know, I had visited Korea prior to the G-8's
Okinawa summit. My observations, my meetings with the North
Korean leader, as well as information that I shared with my G-8
colleagues, met with a very positive response, also entailing
great interest. Moreover, I personally think that this had
largely facilitated the development of relations between Korea
and some countries of the world, e.g. Canada in the Western
hemisphere and some European countries, too. To my mind, North
Korea's involvement in global processes constitutes a highly
positive trend.
As far as we know, the US Department of State is also
trying to expand relations with North Korea. It is taking an
active part in the North Korean -- South Korean dialogue. As I
see, Russia can play an extremely positive role here.
As far as Iraq is concerned, Russia has its own opinion
and approach to local developments. This absolutely
non-confrontationist Russian position (as regards subsequent
developments doesn't run counter to the international
community's opinion and that of the Western world. We have
essentially common goals here. Most importantly, we must see to
it that Iraq no longer has any mass-destruction weapons, that
such weapons are not being produced, that their production is
not being planned, etc. We also want this to happen; this
amounts to our common goal.
How can this be accomplished? Should we impose tougher
sanctions? I don't think that tougher sanctions against any
specific country and even its political establishment can
always prove effective while dealing with some particular
country. We can opt for different approaches; still I think
that the Russian approach is not the worst one.
Here's what Russia suggests. On the one hand, the Iraqi
leadership must allow international observers to visit specific
facilities of interest to the international community. On the
other hand, though, anti-Iraqi sanctions should be lifted.
Unfortunately, we have so far failed to strike a deal on this
issue with the Iraqi leadership.
Consequently, this is seen as a difficult process.
The situation with Belarus is absolutely unique. All of us
understand that Russia maintains special relations with
Belarus, which is a former Soviet republic. The people of
Belarus and the Russian Federation are quite eager to establish
some joint institutions of state authority. It would be
downright stupid to disregard this process. The people of
Belarus and Russia have similar ethnic roots, also boasting
similar cultures and languages. Moreover, they have a largely
common history, also voicing great mutual sympathies.
Question: Russia's Defense Minister, Sergei Ivanov, has
said not so long ago that the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile)
Treaty is not something inviolable, and that the sides could
study the possibility of revising this document.
In this connection, don't you think that the ABM Treaty
has become really obsolete? Besides, what can you say in
connection with the fact that Sergei Ivanov has modified his
position on previous months and even years? The Russian side
used to say back then that the ABM Treaty constituted the
corner-stone of the entire security system.
Second. Speaking of various accords that you and President
Bush intend to reach during your forthcoming US visit next
week, will these amount to some formal accord, or will you say
that you have agreed on everything?
Putin: We still believe that the 1972-vintage ABM Treaty
is the corner-stone of international security. How can our
position be explained? An entire system of other
international-security agreements is linked with the ABM
Treaty. Consequently, Ivanov's position hasn't changed in the
slightest. I assure you that I know his position well enough. We have
quite a few Ivanovs; still the other Ivanov's position
hasn't changed either. However, this doesn't mean that we don't
recognize the US Administration's justified concerns as regards
a future system of international security.
President Bush has agreed that offensive and defensive
systems can be examined on a par with each other. Moreover, he
keeps saying nowadays that the United States is ready to reduce
strategic offensive arms. For its own part, Russia is ready to
examine those specific problems now confronting the development
of America's ABM system. Still I want to repeat that we should
receive a military-technical inquiry from our US partners;
however, such an inquiry is still lacking.
In other words, we know that the US Administration can
strike a deal with Russia, which can also do the same. We
simply have to comprehend specific military-technical aspects
of America's requests.
As far as specific accords are concerned, we have a number
of specific proposals concerning various objectives that could
be accomplished together with President Bush. If you allow me,
I'd like, first of all, to tell President Bush personally,
rather than through your paper, which I, nonetheless, deeply
respect.
Question: I represent The Wall Street Journal, which
specializes in economic affairs. Therefore I'd like to find out
about how will long-term or projected oil-price trends affect
Russia's subsequent economic performance. And one more
question. Doesn't the Russian state plan to suggest that oil
exporters export less oil?
Putin: This country tends to consume more oil and
petroleum each winter. As far as I know, US oil consumption
tends to shrink somewhat in winter because fewer air
conditioners are being used. Meanwhile Russia, which is a
northern country, consumes more boiler oil and other petroleum
products.
Therefore we don't have to curtail exports, which are reduced
all on their own. This is the first thing.
Russia, which is not an OPEC member, coordinates its
actions with OPEC. In other words, we closely follow all
developments, also holding consultations. Still I'd like to
emphasize the fact that Russia is not an OPEC member.
And now a few words about our attitude toward oil prices. We
advocate an equitable oil-price corridor. In our opinion,
the relevant OPEC oil-price corridor is quite equitable --
something like between $21, $26 and $27 per barrel. In a
nutshell, such a price corridor would facilitate a
cost-effective economic performance of oil-consuming countries.
Moreover, it would enable oil-producing countries to tackle
their own socio-economic problems.
Oil prices tend to influence the Russian economy. As you
know, this influence wasn't created by us; nor did it emerge
over the last few years. Such an influence was created by the
entire Soviet economic history. I find it hard to disagree with
those economists, who believe that the USSR had lost all
economic-development incentives after the discovery of the
Samotlor oil deposit, and that everyone started living off
petro-dollars. That situation had more drawbacks, rather than
pluses, in the context of Soviet economic development.
Monies being derived as a result of oil-and-petroleum
sales still account for 40 percent of the federal budget's
hard-currency proceeds. Therefore one can say that Russia's
social sector, rather than its economy, relies heavily on oil
and petroleum. Unfortunately, we did little to overhaul the
Russian economy and to rid it of such excessive dependence on
the fuel-and-energy sector over the last decade; nor did we try
and create a genuinely modern and cost-effective economy.
However, much was done over the last 12-18 months to get
rid of such dependence. The tax sphere was revolutionized; the
same can be said of economic de-bureaucratization. Other
market-oriented bills were passed, thus, in my opinion,
facilitating development to a considerable extent. The Russian
GDP swelled by 8.3 percent last year; however, this increase
should not be attributed to oil-price hikes alone. The light
industry chalked up the most impressive economic-growth rates
of them all.
I don't think plunging global oil prices will negatively
affect our economy because the federal budget has been
calculated in line with the pessimistic oil-price scenario. Declining
oil prices (well below the lowest budgetary margin)
would compel us to take additional action and to improve the
administrative practice, as well as other aspects of our work.
Nevertheless, it's our intention to implement liberal reforms. If need
be, we'll be cooperating with international financial
institutions. As you know, we are now repaying our IMF debts
ahead of schedule. On the whole, we don't panic on this issue. Surely
enough, we are concerned; we continue to discuss this
issue, studying possible scenarios all the same.
The fuel-and-energy sector continues to develop. We are
actively cooperating with our US partners in this sphere. As
you may know, Exxon-Mobil has decided to implement an ambitious
$12-billion investment project that might eventually cost an
estimated $15 billion. Total expenditures might well run into
$30 billion. In my opinion, this is a highly correct economic
and political decision because global economic risks should be
diversified; besides, multiple fuel-and-energy sources are
essential. Russia can tackle such tasks at this stage.
Question: The people of Russia have changed their attitude
to the United States, and vice versa. Some people inside your
administration, in Russia may think and say that Putin
continues to follow in the wake of Mikhail Gorbachev, who had
embarked on this road during the Soviet period, and Boris
Yeltsin, who met the United States halfway, but who received
little in return. On the other hand, some Americans apparently
think that America, which is now helping Russia, might well
create an enemy some 10-15 years from now. What can you say on
this score?
Putin: First of all, I'd like to say a few words about our
incentives for cooperating with the United States. We don't
want to obtain short-term advantages alone; any time-serving
motives should also be ruled out. Naturally enough, we expect
the United States to change its Russian policy in real earnest.
By all looks, this is distinctly possible.
This reaction is not the most important thing that
matters. Our actions and our decision-making process with
regard to various aspects of international life are not
motivated by the fact that we expect any US or Western approval
whatsoever. All this implies that, in our opinion, such moves
tally with Russia's national interests.
Some people think that the Russian Federation might
eventually offer some competition to the United States. But the
thing is that all countries keep vying with one another on the
international scene. Some people believe that Russia can once
again become an enemy of the United States. To my mind, such
people have failed to perceive global and Russian developments;
they don't know, what kind of a country Russia has become today.
The Russian leadership's current actions are not motivated
by its political philosophy alone. Present-day Russian actions
are motivated by its inner state and popular moods.
Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of Russian
citizens want to live in conditions of effective democratic
institutions. An overwhelming majority of our people want to
live in conditions of a full-fledged market economy. Moreover,
they want to perceive Russia as a natural component part of
modern civilization. They want to feel this at inter-state,
everyday and personal level. People want to travel freely all
over the world; they also want to use all advantages being
offered by a normal modern democratic society.
This doesn't mean that Russia lacks its own national
interests. Mind you, every country has such interests. Take
NATO countries, for example. Don't they argue with each other
on the protection of their national interests? Meanwhile WTO
countries face different problems in the free-market sphere and
those dealing with the movement of goods. Quite a few similar
situations tend to emerge in inter-state relations, too. It
goes without saying that the Russian Federation will clearly
formulate such national interests, defending them all the same.
As I see it, a time when we used to think that this had to be
accomplished in line with the confrontationist principle is
long gone. This is already history.
As far as present-day challenges are concerned, it will
become clear that the Russian Federation can become an
effective partner, if not ally, for the entire civilized world,
including the United States, during the neutralization of
current and future threats. This is an established fact.
Question: Mr President, will you please specify the
statement you made at the beginning of our meeting. You said
the Islamic terrorists who are fighting in Chechnya plan to go
over to Afghanistan and kill Americans there. Can you say in
greater detail if these are chance threats or you have exposed
collusion, a practical plan?
My second question concerns Chechnya. Do you have
intelligence information about the so-called Chechen connection
in the September 11 terrorist attacks?
Putin: I will begin with the second part. We have no
information to prove that the terrorists who are operating in
the Russian Federation, in particular Chechnya, have any
connection to those terrorist acts. We here know only what you
know very well: the suspects in the September 11 crimes told
their relatives they were going to Chechnya.
What we know for sure - it is an established fact that is
not questioned by US special services - is the fact that some
international terrorists operating in Chechnya are connected
with international criminal terrorist organisations, including
bin Laden's Al-Qaeda. This is a fact.
These people are virtually members of the same
organisation.
They trained in the same terrorist camps. They see bin Laden as
their teacher. He trained them at his bases in Afghanistan.
They jointly fought against Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the
past, and so on.
After Russia withdrew from the Chechen territory, as you
know, in 1995, according to modest calculations, over 2,000
bandits, fighters were trained in Chechnya and later took part
in fighting in other hot spots of the planet - in Kosovo,
Kashmir, Sudan and Afghanistan. In fact, this is one system,
one network.
It is difficult to say even what is its centre and what are its
branches. These are the same people, who know each other well
and have the same sources of funds. This is not a big secret
either;
we have provided this information to our American partners. We
know relatively certainly from what sources each group gets the
funds. There is nothing secret about this, already now.
As for the information about the potential transportation
of bandits from the Russian North Caucasus to Afghanistan, it
is reliable operational data. I repeat, we even have the lists,
lists of names of those who are moving to Turkey via Georgia
now.
We also know about the reaction of the Turkish authorities. I
don't want to go into details, because frankly speaking this
issue is not at the presidential level, although we know about
the nuances of talks on this issue held by Georgian and Turkish
authorities.
You asked me about their intention of going over to
Afghanistan. But I have nothing to add to what they themselves
say on this issue. And they say: "Enough of fighting here. We
will return here in two or three years and bring the matter to
conclusion, in Chechnya and in the North Caucasus. Today they
need us in Afghanistan." And they simply search for the means
of going there, that's all. Of course, this is not easy to do
because our troops and special services have blockaded the area
rather well.
Question: The Soviet Union and the USA used to be rivals
in South Asia.
Putin: Yes, and here is what we have come to in the end.
We should have stopped. But we didn't understand that we must
stop.
Question: In particular, in the 1990s there was rivalry
over oil in Central Asia. And many critics in Russia say in
this connection that the current alliance with the United
States could give the USA strategic advantages, that the USA
would use the situation to earn strategic benefits, in
particular in Central Asia. How can you prevent this,
especially in view of the fact that the USA will probably get a
chance to establish bases in Tajikistan and possibly
Uzbekistan? In other words, where do you think can be the limit
to the current Russia-USA cooperation?
Where do you draw the line from the viewpoint of your strategic
interests?
Putin: You know, what happened in the old system of
coordinates is largely losing sense now. If Russia becomes a
full-fledged member of the international community, it should
not and will not fear the development of relations between its
neighbours and other countries, including the development of
relations between Central Asian states and the USA.
To begin with, they are independent states. Of course, we
have traditional ties and mutual influence. They influence the
situation in Russia and we, I think, can influence the
situation there for specific historical reasons. But I repeat,
these are independent states and they make their choice
independently.
Of course, the position of Russia is important to them and
their position is important to us when determining a policy and
the stand which we have assumed in support of the USA. There is
a large number of ethnic Russians in these countries. And we
greatly depend on each other economically. Of course, what is
happening there now is a stand that has been coordinated by all
of us, by Russia and its Central Asian partners.
If we continue to be guided by old fears when elaborating
our foreign policy, nothing good will come of such policy. The
United States will have problems with international terrorism,
and we have seen its extreme expression. We must promptly react
to everything that happens in those parts of the world that are
actually occupied by fundamentalists and the people we call
radicals, and both Russia and Central Asian states will have
the same problems.
Consequently, you should understand that if we want to get
rid of this, we must forget old fears, build up mutual trust
and act jointly, act jointly and effectively.
The same goes for the economic side of cooperation during
the development of natural deposits, if you want to ask about
specific issues.
If Russia becomes a full-fledged member of the
international community, it will draw benefits from such
cooperation while upholding its national interests in this
sphere. I mean the joint work in the Caspian Pipeline
Consortium, which we have recently finished with our American
partners, or the development of the Sakhalin deposits; I have
mentioned the project on which we are working jointly with
Indian partners and Exxon Mobile. I spoke about this company's
investments before.
Eventually, both the United States and Russia will benefit
from raising the level of trust and cooperation.
What is the alternative to this policy? It is exactly what
you mentioned at the beginning of your question: more rivalry.
We both know what the results of such rivalry can be. The
United States created - or at least did not do anything to stop
the creation of the Taliban movement in the struggle against
the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union also did many "good" things
for the USA by supporting all of its opponents and enemies. We
have forgotten that such policy becomes uncontrollable sooner
or later. As a result, we have international terrorist training
bases in Afghanistan, terrorists who had been regularly sent to
Russia, in particular Chechnya, while the USA suffered from an
unprecedented terrorist attacks in Washington and New York on
September 11.
I think we must stop this bad practice and I feel that
President Bush and I can do this.
Question: A short and clear question. You have just said
about the transportation of fighters from Chechnya to
Afghanistan via Georgia and Turkey. Did I understand you
correctly that the government of Georgia is deliberately and
actively facilitating this transportation?
Putin: It is difficult for me to say how deeply the top
leaders of Georgia are involved in this. But it is clear that
this is taking place with the connivance of the Georgian
authorities.
As of now, we know for sure that many wounded fighters
receive medical treatment in Georgian hospitals, including in
the main military hospital of the Georgian army in Tbilisi. And
then, how can one explain the free movement of large bandit
groups numbering several hundred people from one part of
Georgia to another (I mean, as you know, their movement from
the Pankisi Gorge to the Kodor Gorge) across the country? It is
impossible to do this covertly, stealthily. Simply impossible.
All this prompts the conclusion that certain quarters in
Georgia are at the very least pandering to the operation of
international terrorists on their territory.
Question: Did you discuss this problem with the Georgian
government?
Putin: Yes, we spoke about this more than once. And when
we speak about these problems, we get the following answer:
"Yes, we know very well what terrorists are."
"We remember," they tell us, "how these international
terrorists killed Georgians and (forgive me for supplying these
details) played football with the heads of people they killed.
We remember all of this."
They say one thing and then we hear they say quite
different things in their public statements. For example, I was
extremely surprised when I heard the Georgian president say
that he does not regard as terrorists some people who have been
put on the international wanted list for numerous sanguinary
crimes.
I think the attempt to use any armed formations, let alone
terrorist ones, to resolve political problems in any country,
including Georgia, is an extremely dangerous method of
resolving internal political problems, a method that is
absolutely unacceptable in international affairs and, most
importantly, a useless one. This is how our experts saw the
attempt to use the fighters who came from Chechnya - and there
are international terrorists, foreigners among them there - to
resolve the problem of Georgia-Abkhazia relations. An
absolutely useless and extremely dangerous idea.
And this is an unpartner-like, to put it mildly, attitude
to Russia because by refusing to warn us they created a threat
to us on a rather serious stretch of the border, the border of
Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachayevo-Cherkessia, which was poorly
protected at that time. As you know, several kilometres
separate the border from the main Black Sea resorts of Russia.
I don't think our Georgian colleagues behaved as partners
should. But our latest contacts with the Georgian president
give us grounds to think that he wants collaboration, that he
is set for collaboration.
And I am absolutely sure that the problem created by the
presence of international terrorists in Georgia (and the
presence of terrorists there has really grew into a problem for
Georgia) can be resolved only and solely through collaboration
with other countries, above all Russia, through the rallying of
efforts in the struggle against terrorism.
Thank you.
Serbian News Network - SNN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.antic.org/
