note: just one brief reference to Romania ('s NATO bases) - but pretty
interesting though, taking into account current context...
Transcript: Sergei Ivanov
Neil Buckley, Moscow bureau chief, and Catherine Belton, Moscow
correspondent, interviewed Sergei Ivanov, First Deputy Prime Minister
of the Russian Federation, in his Moscow office on April 12 2007.
FINANCIAL TIMES: What are your main aims in your new role responsible
for diversifying industry?
SERGEI IVANOV: My main task is the real sector of the economy minus
energy. I don't get involved in energy apart from the nuclear sector,
because the nuclear industry is a scientific sector. It isn't just
extracting oil and gas and sending it down a pipeline to the west or
the south or wherever. According to the agreement with the [prime
minister], I have been given the brief of looking after everything
connected with innovation and diversification sectors of the economy.
Of course we are very strongly dependent upon the oil and gas price.
The West, in my opinion, has a slightly distorted impression that this
situation completely suits Russia, that having amassed oil and gas
dollars we allow ourselves a different policy, including energy
imperialism that we could not afford to do before. This is not the
case. High oil prices most of all are more of a minus than a plus for
our economy. Because this postpones - voluntarily or not - even
psychologically, the push for energy saving technology and to move
towards innovation and a knowledge economy. If everything is good then
the psychology of a person... everyone has the same psychology,
whether it's an official, the government or the state... and it's
difficult to break this trend. If the price was now $18 everyone would
be running around like crazy. But when it's $65, and the prognosis,
because of the well-known situation in the Persian Gulf, could be
$100, why worry.
Of course the country's senior leadership understands that it's in
Russia's strategic interest to develop a more diversified economy. And
what I am doing in transport infrastructure - because I am involved
with all aviation sea, rail and cars, roads…nuclear power, space,
telecommunications and Glonass [Russia's global satellite positioning
system]...which has potential commercial uses that are huge and not
developed in Russia. So perhaps this is the main thing, the real
sector of industry. And the defense industry, not just for defending
the state's interests and creating new types of weapons but because
I'm sure that defense can stimulate civil sectors of the economy. If
you noticed I always insist that even successful enterprises like
Sukhoi, or our helicopters, which are very good, should expand further
into the civilian market. I say that if you just come and ask me for
money to increase production for state needs I won't give you any
money until you bring a business plan and show not just how you will
produce civilian goods that are competitive but also to whom and for
how much you will sell them on the market. Because many directors of
major Russian enterprises preserve a Soviet mentality. "I could
produce thousands of diesel locomotives," let's say. OK. And who are
you going to sell them to? Will anyone buy them? First study the
market and then come [to me].
Of course we live in conditions of globalization. And there are
competitive sectors of the Russian economy like nuclear power and
space, of course, which are competitive on world markets, without
international cooperation or creating joint ventures. We're ready to
spend money on buying technology and we are openly and pragmatically
asking for your technology in exchange for our markets. You give us
technology and we will give you access to our markets in exchange.
This is absolutely acceptable - not everywhere, of course. I hope that
we will soon pass the law on strategic sectors of the Russian economy.
It has already gone through its first reading in the government. It's
important for foreign investors. I meet with western politicians and
businessmen, and they say "Whatever the rules are, just pass them. So
that we have some certainty. If you say you'll let us into 30 per cent
of the market then let it be 30 per cent and tell us which sectors and
[let it be] for a long time. But we have no complaints about the level
of foreign investments. They are big. We have problems with our own
investments in many other countries. We see that our investment is not
very welcome. This is a question of psychology. This is not our
problem, it's Europe's problem and we experience different problems in
different European countries. Here, please forgive me, I don't see
European unity. There are different approaches in different countries.
Several countries welcome our investment and open their markets but
others sit like closed fortresses.
FT: Do you think this is anti-Russianism?
MR IVANOV: No, I think this is psychological, or perhaps because of
the political situation.
FT: Are there differences, for example, between Germany, Italy, and the UK?
MR IVANOV: There is a certain difference. I'm not complaining or
accusing anyone. But our business, I feel, is freer in the German and
Italian markets, perhaps these two countries. And France, partly.
France has its own fairly wise policy. There are sectors where they
don't allow people in., but there are sectors where there is open
access. In the US and Great Britain, it is more closed for us. But I'm
not making accusations, I underline, we don't have complaints.
FT: What should be the role of the state in diversification, and what
should be the extent of the state's reach?
MR IVANOV: Here it's very difficult to draw a line but I will tell you
how I see it. There are sectors of the economy where the state's share
will be higher than 75 per cent by definition – and not because we
want to leave everything under the control of the state. You know the
services sector has been almost completely handed over to the
commercial sector. We're now at the third stage of modernising Russian
Railways. There will be competition, there will be several freight
companies that will compete with each other, and at the end of the day
we will have competition in passenger traffic on the railways. In
airlines we have an almost open market. There are many Russian
airlines and the shipping market is also commercial. But there are
also markets, such as nuclear power, which in all countries, in the
US, the UK and France where it is controlled by the state, because
there it is not possible to divide the civilian sector from the
military sector. The same enterprise works partly in defence and
partly in the civil market. But even here we are now creating the
Atomprom company...which, in line with liberalisation of electricity
prices, will enter the market and in 2015 new nuclear stations will be
built not out of the state budget but from the company's own funds.
Now I know that people often say, as a reproach, that Russia is
creating huge holdings in aerospace, shipbuilding, nuclear power,
space – supermonsters, monopolies that are suppressing the market. But
the private sector does not go into these markets. In aerospace, the
private sector doesn't go into this. We waited for 15 years and
understood that the private sector will not go there. The private
sector goes into mobile phones. But wherever there's a need for huge
resources and long-term credits with subsidised interest rates,
because it takes five or seven years to build a modern ship, and when
it will make a return on investment…well you understand. Private
business just doesn't invest in this and we need to create such
holdings. In aerospace, for example, for aircraft engines there is
competition and I am against there being one monopolist that would
create all aircraft engines. I think there should be two or three so
that at this level they compete. But when it's the whole airplane then
there should be single company. But we're creating all these companies
not just for the sake of it but so that they can develop themselves,
raise funds and loans themselves and spend money on scientific
research out of their own budget and not the federal budget. It's the
same thing as British Aerospace, or British Telecom.
FT: Is it impossible to diversify the economy without the state?
MR IVANOV: It's not possible because you need capital investment, for
example in transport infrastructure. If there isn't mobility of the
population and the labour market there will be no diversification. And
don't forget Russian specifics. You have it good, with your territory.
But we have 10 time zones, between the Urals and the Pacific Ocean
there are only 20m people. Only 20m people live in two thirds of the
area of the country. This is a demographic problem, obviously and so
there is a national project to help this. And we will not do without
immigrants. We need them, but we want to bring order to this process
so that immigrants go not where they want, around Moscow, but where we
need them to go.
FT: In energy, what's the role of the state and of private business,
including foreign firms?
MR IVANOV: I am not involved in the energy sphere. But as far as I
understand, we have private companies in oil extraction, there's
Lukoil, for example, which is a major player. From the point of view
of developing new fields, where big investment is needed, there is
participation by foreign companies. Perhaps it's limited, and I
understand that western countries are not completely happy with the
degree of access to our resource market. But understand us, they are
our resources and how to develop them and where to get funds from is
our business. We allow foreign investors as contractors, for example.
We allow them in from the point of view of investment in technology.
But for major fields I don't think that in the foreseeable…future we
will allow any foreign company to own any major field on the territory
of the Russian Federation. A more realistic formula is the exchange of
assets. We will partly let you into our resources in exchange for your
letting us into distribution networks on your territory, including the
electricity network and the gas network. Energy distribution networks.
Such an exchange seems to me more just.
FT: In economic policy are you a liberal?
MR IVANOV: Liberal enough, yes. On the whole, yes, but understanding
there are sectors of the economy that just as in other countries
should and have to be controlled by the state for a long time. But on
the whole I see myself as a fairly liberal person, mainly because I
spent a large part of my life living in European cities. Russia has
one objective advantage, you can't compare us with fast- developing
Asian markets. Because on the one hand the level of education is much
higher. On average it is higher. I'm in charge of science and
technology, not education as Dmitry Anatolievich Medvedev heads that.
But I'm in charge of science and technology and such spheres as
biotechnology and nanotechnology. I consider that the state must also
invest funds, but not just handing out money. It should invest money
in production of nanotechnology and energy saving technology, but
understanding this all should go to the market. You can give money
when you see that money will stimulate new profits. Not science for
the sake of science. Yes, there are sectors of fundamental science
which are funded only by the state, everywhere, and here too. About 20
per cent of all science funding, to use military language, is an
unreturnable loss. But this is only in a sense unreturnable because
often in fundamental science innovations are born that later bring
huge profits, such as nuclear power or space. But as a whole of
course, I'm a supporter of market relations.
FT: Some say Russia has become a "corporate state", with the
government closely tied in with state companies, and ministers and
senior officials sitting on their boards…
MR IVANOV: It's possible there's a certain amount of objectivity in
this criticism, I admit. State officials of course should not be
connected with any commercial interests. If you want to make a lot of
money go into business. It's the same across to the world. Even in
Britain where state officials get a lot less than a private
businessman. But at the same time I have to say there are sectors…I am
chairman of one company, United Aircraft Corporation, that was
recently created. Today the state's share is 90%. I hope it will
decrease soon to 75%, but for now it is 90%. The state should control
it, if there is budget money there and plants, factories and
intellectual property that belongs to the state. There needs to be
some kind of account. As an official I have full right to ask what are
you doing, what are you spending budget money on, and I have to give
an answer to society. Therefore in such spheres the presence of state
officials is necessary because there is noone else you can ask. But
this should be gradually limited, and clearly outlined in which
spheres there should be an official on the board. Gas, yes. Gas is a
100 per cent monopoly here. So the state has to be there and the whole
board should be state representatives, although there are minority
investors represented and even foreign ones. I don't rule out that in
United Aircraft Corporation, private shareholders will appear fairly
soon, and possibly also representatives of Boeing or of EADS, if we
find a common language. [Private shareholders] will be in the minority
but they will be on the board of directors. The Sukhoi superjet was
created together with Boeing and with Finmeccanica of Italy. And there
are foreign orders for this plane. This is normal globalisation.
FT: What's your reaction when people talk about "Kremlin Inc"?
MR IVANOV: It's just a nice phrase, a journalistic turn of phrase. But
I would say that you need to understand our history, our mentality.
Russia is a huge country and mentally, unfortunately, the majority of
the population, as before, relies on the tsar. Our civil society is
still weak. It can't be strong because only 15 years have passed since
it began to be created. Before then, you'll agree there was not the
slightest condition for it to be created. It is still very young.
Therefore you can't see questions of concentration of management in
Russia only through the prism of Anglo-Saxon political culture. Russia
will never take its model of management completely, 100 per cent, from
that Anglo-Saxon political elite. Whether you like it or not is a
different question but I am telling you how it is.
FT: Do you think that the 1990s were a collapse for Russia, and that
weakened the country?
MR IVANOV: Of course, the economy was destroyed. I don't think there
are any other countries in the world that could have survived what
happened in 1991 relatively – relatively - peacefully. We did not have
civil war, as opposed to Yugoslavia. Undecided problems remain but
they are problems that Russia inherited from the Soviet Union. I mean
TransDniestr, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But Russia did not create
these problems. As regards our territorial integrity, there isn't any
problem, we only need to keep it secure, guarantee our external
security, because of course we understand what world we are living in
and what is around us.
FT: Some people say that the centralization of political and economic
power in Russia - hypercentralisation of power - is putting brakes on
economic growth?
MR IVANOV: This is a debatable question in my view. The fundament of
everything is the economy. If you agree with that, then the economy
over last few years has developed fairly dynamically. We have stable
growth of the economy. I would dare to express a very undemocratic
thought, but for the majority of citizens of the Russian Federation,
the most important thing is the economy. Civil society is also
important, and practically many initiatives on development are coming
from the top and not from the bottom. This shows what I said in
beginning, that the majority of the people are apolitical, and I don't
see anything terrible about this.
How many come and vote in your country? Thirty-eight per cent? On
average over the last 10 years. We have 50 per cent turnout, sometimes
even more. Those that don't come, they don't care, everything suits
them. They don't go and vote, and this is normal. Therefore, yes,
there needs to be political competition, indisputably. Monopolism of
state power is harmful and we don't even need to discuss this. But in
conditions of weak political culture, when demonstrations easily turn
into fights, when they close down roads, this just arouses aversion
among the apolitical population, for whom it's not important what
slogans people are going around with, it's important for them to be
able drive along the road, and the rest they couldn't care less about.
There is a thin line between political freedoms and extremism. And in
Russia extremism was always fairly strongly-developed, beginning with
the so-called narodovoltsy, if you know our history, who today would
be called terrorists. Then they were terrorists who fought for high
ideals and the people's will. They fought using terrorist methods,
extremist methods. Now they would all get a life sentence without any
talking about it and that would be it.
FT: What do you think about the marches that are due to happen this weekend?
MR IVANOV: I don't even know about them, I don't really follow them. I
know they happen from time to time, where about 100 people take part
in the march and 2,000 police guard them. I think too much attention
is paid. The only aim of the organisers of the marches is to attract
the attention of the media. Why do municipal authorities ban marches,
but allow meetings? Say whatever you want. We have freedom of speech.
This is a free country. Read our newspapers. They write such things,
sometimes you could say it's total garbage. But print what you want,
say what you want. But as for the marches, which you asked about. Here
you are, here's a place. Stand there. For a week if you want. Shout
there, like in Hyde Park - Speakers Corner. Go ahead. But if you
insist that you want to close down all the traffic in the centre of
Moscow, if the interests of 10m people don't concern you at all, if
you couldn't care less about them…any authority would say no because
the majority of people are against this. And this really is the case,
and there is no politics in this. If you want to demonstrate your
opinion of the authorities, to criticise them and complain, stand here
and shout. But don't block the traffic. This is the principal
contradiction.
FT: You've said before that you don't think Russians would want 100
per cent western democracy, but want Russian democracy. What is
Russian democracy, and why do Russians not want western democracy?
MR IVANOV: The mentality is slightly different. You've been living
here for a long time probably. You see there is a difference in
culture and traditions. At the same time, I admit that on the whole we
are Europeans and not Asians, by culture and by language. We are
eastern Europeans, that's the right way to describe it. But Russians
on the whole love to criticise their authorities, but they don't like
it when foreigners do it. We can say whatever we like but when
foreigners start doing this it makes us unite immediately. Plus
there's our geography, our history. What does western democracy mean,
what does eastern democracy mean? Is there democracy in Japan? Yes.
How many years has the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan been in
power? 60 years, without change. Is anyone going to say there is no
democracy in Japan? No. Is there Indian democracy? Yes. In general
there are few democratic countries in the world. You can count them as
being 25 or 30 out of 200.
MR IVANOV: What does democracy mean – a free vote. There are
principles that are indisputable. Without these principles there will
be no democracy. The free will of the people, a parliament,
changeability of power, all this is clear. How it is applied - in
Japan there is one model, in India another and in western Europe
another, and there are nuances also. In the US there is democracy. But
in the US is it possible that the minority of the people can elect the
president? It is possible. What would you say or write about about
Russia if the same thing happened in Russia? You would vilify us. But
in America it's possible.
Therefore, standards of democracy, general principles, should be the
same everywhere. But you can't rake everything in and write in a UN
charter what democracy is, and force everyone have the same democracy.
Egypt is also a democratic country, but there are many nuances there.
FT: So is the optimal form of democracy for Russia one where there are
no elections for regional governors?
MR IVANOV: There are elections for governors, but they're not direct.
It's not the population that elects them but the local parliament
confirms or does not confirm the candidate that is forwarded by the
president. And as far as I remember there were two cases in a very
short period of time, three years, when a local parliament refused to
look at the candidate put forward by the president, and he was forced
to withdraw them. And that doesn't mean the president just says,
here's your candidate. There have already been two cases when they
were rejected.
And don't forget we have a very young democracy, it is only 15 years
old. You have been living with your democracy for centuries. And
democracy is not a frozen process, but an eternal process. You can't
just plant democracy like a potato. And I'm not going to even begin
talking about Iraq and other beacons of democracy that we see around
our borders, like Georgia and Ukraine – which is, by the way, a total
undermining of democracy. Because people, having have seen this total,
excuse me for the rude word, bardak, this total mess, will say we
don't need any democracy at all. Appoint us a tsar, give us our wages
and stop bothering us with your democracy. It's a total undermining
[of democracy]. And when we are told that this is an example of
democracy, then excuse me this just prompts Homeric laughter among 90
per cent of the population here in Russia, and in Ukraine too.
FT: Turning to international affairs, do you think there is a risk of
new cold war between Russia and the US?
MR IVANOV: I don't see such a risk because in any case, absolutely any
scenario for the development of Russia we will not enter into another
cold war. We stepped on this rake once and we will not repeat our
mistake ever again. For one, security is secured not just through
military methods, and secondly, yes, we will develop our army mainly
through creating effective forms of weapons that do not need such
funds and such expenditures that were carried out in the Soviet Union.
The defense budget in any case will be lower than 3 per cent of GDP.
In the Soviet Union it was 30 per cent. How that all ended we saw in
1991. When the Soviet Union's army was the most powerful, 5m, everyone
was frightened of it. It was a scarecrow for the outside world. And
what happened? Therefore we will ensure our defence capability through
technology and through intellect. It is not possible to defend the
world's biggest country by area with sheer weight of soldiers. We
understood this a long time ago.
FT: Last year in Izvestia you wrote that there were three national
values for Russia - sovereign democracy, a strong economy and military
might. What does military might mean? Why does Russia need military
might?
MR IVANOV: Military might in the contemporary understanding of the
word, relying on technology and on conventional types of weapons. We
need this so that no one has the temptation to pressure us. If we did
not have contemporary armed forces then I think the situation in
Chechnya could have been repeated in another region of the Russian
Federation. Now such a scenario is practically ruled out. Our troops
are situated on our national territory or on the territory of our
allies. I mean the Organization of Collective Security. And Russia now
has few military political allies. Few. And this is good. Because many
allies that you consider to be your allies are not allies but
satellites. Satellites which, if they receive enough money, on the
very next day will turn from being your allies into your opponents.
And we are developing our defence within the limits of our territory
and not globally. We don't have fiefdoms across the world and we don't
need them. We don't need them, as opposed to the Soviet Union. We're
not spending any money on ideological support of regimes that suit us,
and satellites, using the language of the cold war: proxy states. We
don't spend money on feeding NGOs in other countries, unlike others.
This still happens. But we don't spend money on this. I'm talking
about us, leaving aside others.
Going back to defense and security, in the mid 1990s we counted on the
fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union would lead to the end of
the cold war. That Nato would not move towards the east, that they
would not establish their military bases where they promised us they
would never be placed. But we see that everyone deceived us. The
question arises, what is this all for? We don't understand this. If
we, as our political leaders declare, have to join forces in the fight
against the common enemy, terrorism and the terrible threat of
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – and these are real
threats - then why have these new Nato bases in Romania and Bulgaria,
for example? How will this help the fight against terrorism and
proliferation? In no way. In absolutely no way.
As for missile defence, you know our position. We can't understand why
this is needed. If we are honest then, yes, this does not pose a
direct threat to our security now, I admit. Now, and for the next 3 to
5 years. But the question is why? As a shield to intercept North
Korean missiles? This is ridiculous. The last time a North Korean
missile took off and in 30 seconds…only we noticed the launch, because
we are watching this closely. This is worrying for us and not for you.
We have a common border with North Korea. You're in a good situation.
You have the Channel as a border with France and the Atlantic as a
border with the US. And that's it. But look at who is on our borders
and everything will be clear to you, and why why we need a capable
army. For some reason, you think we are looking at Europe as before,
through the prism of targets. No. We have other problems to the south
and the east, which you don't have and won't have. Believe me. North
Korean missiles will never reach Great Britain. I can guarantee to
you.
FT: But what about Iran?
MR IVANOV: Iranian medium-range missiles also won't reach central
Europe in the foreseeable future. Yes, Iran has medium-range missiles.
And this arouses concerns for us because their rockets, medium-range,
and not intercontinental, will reach us. They won't reach you, but
they will reach us. And we proposed to Nato five years ago that we
create a joint anti-missile defense system,. There's the S-300 and the
Patriot. Now we have the S-400. We could ward off this threat this
way. But Iran says publicly that Europe is not the enemy. Israel is
the enemy. They say this openly, and we are categorically against
this. We say consider this a deeply incorrect policy of the leadership
of Iran. But look at where Israel is and where Poland is. Any military
man would tell you the ends just don't meet.
During this public polemic, one argument appeared that was absolutely
incorrectly interpreted in the west - on medium range missiles.
Firstly, we had said earlier, before the appearance of US plans to
create a strategic anti missile defense in east Europe, that we don't
like the situation with the Soviet-US agreement on liquidating
medium-range missiles. We said this before. Why don't we like this?
Because in the past 15 years these missiles have appeared in many
countries. And in Munich, the president named them for the first time:
[North] Korea, China, Pakistan which has nuclear weapons, Iran, Israel
- and all of them are close to us. And the misinterpretation lay in
the fact that you think we said that if that's the case, then we will
leave the agreement and create our own medium range missiles and
direct them at you. We don't need this. We have different threats. At
the end of the day, what is happening? Now any country in the world,
whether it's Vanuatu, or whether it's Fiji, if it wants, and has
money, it can produce a medium- range missile. And only two countries
in the world - we and the US - don't have the right. This is an
injustice. If noone had the right, this would be a different
conversation. This was how it was in 1987. The Soviet Union and US
liquidated them and noone had them. But 20 years have passed and what
do we have now? This is what worries us.
FT: That's clear, but General Baluyevsky [head of the Russian armed
forces general staff] gave the impression that he was linking possible
withdrawal from the INF Treaty to US missile defence plans?
MR IVANOV: There is no connection. I want to clarify this. I know the
president's Munich speech and there was no connection between the
plans of the US to create a missile defense station and our plans to
leave the agreement on medium-range missiles. There was no connection.
We are not going to break our necks producing them, still less aim
them at Europe. We have – I underline – other problems and other
threats. Apart from this, you know the US openly said that in future
it wants to put not just nuclear warheads on its intercontinental
missiles but conventional ones – in order to use these missiles,
hypothetically, against terrorist targets. We consider that
medium-range missiles are a cheaper and more effective way than using
ICBMs. And at the same time we're not entering into any confrontation
with the US and we don't want to. We are not making any anti-us
statements, as you may have seen.
FT: What do you consider might be the real or hidden aim of siting the
missile defence system in eastern Europe?
MR IVANOV: The question occurs to us and our military that if there's
no need to intercept medium-range missiles from Iran or even more so
from North Korea - and Iran is definitely not going to have ICBMs in
the foreseeable future that's for sure. Believe the specialists.
Creating ICBMs needs a totally different level of economic and
technical development of the country. Dozens of sectors need to be
highly contemporary to make a single ICBM – that means guidance
systems, space [technology], it's a lot. It's new materials that they
don't have. Because medium-range missiles are much more primitive
technically. Since there aren't and won't be ICBMs, then against whom,
against whom, is this system [system] directed? Only against us.
And 10 anti-missile [interceptors] won't solve the problem if it is
aimed at us and at keeping us in check. But understand that it starts
to undermine the strategic balance of forces. Today, a balance exists
between us and the US, and no longer in the number of missiles. We
stopped a long time ago using the Soviet method of calculating, that
if the US has 10,000, for instance, China has 1,000, Great Britain
500, France 500, then we put it together and decide we should have
15[000]. The Soviet Union counted this way. The Soviet Union
considered we should have the same number of weapons as the whole of
the rest of the world together. We have stopped thinking this way a
long time ago. The main thing is quality, and guaranteed
non-interception of missiles. Let's have 1,000, and not 15,000. This
is cheaper, but they should be absolutely reliable and technically
perfect, impossible to intercept by any means. Philosophically,
whenever the shield is strengthened, the sword is strengthened
afterward. This is the eternal competition. And here there is never
going to be a winner.
FT: Do you fear that the US intends to launch air strikes against Iran?
MR IVANOV: I hope this will not happen. So far the situation remains
within the diplomatic framework and Russia has twice voted. Unity of
the UN Security Council exists. The last two resolutions were passed
by the Security Council unanimously. And the main thing is to preserve
the unity of the Security Council. Because if there is no unity the
same thing will happen as we see in Iraq.
This is a complicated problem – the Iranian nuclear dossier. I think
the ideal way of solving this problem is that Iran should have access
to peaceful nuclear energy, this is without question. We think that
enrichment on an industrial scale is not necessary. There is fuel on
the international market. Please, but it, use it under international
control and export it back. But this has not happened yet. I hope the
situation will stay within diplomatic bounds because the consequences
of air strikes, missile strikes -and understand me correctly we are
not planning any thing of the kind - are totally unpredictable. [They
could be dangerous] for the whole world.
FT: Have you in fact told Iran you will stop working on the Bushehr
reactor if Iran does not suspend uranium enrichment?
MR IVANOV: No, no. Bushehr has no relationship at all to the Iranian
nuclear dossier. Because what does the Bushehr project foresee?
Construction of the plant, and by the end of the year construction
will be completed - if iran pays us. Russia a long time ago stopped
doing anything for free. We won't lift a finger - And it's the same
with prices for energy. There is no energy imperialism. Oil and gas
have a price. In the mid-1990s you taught us how to be a market
economy. We learnt our lesson [in English]. Now we hear criticism that
you are acting wrongly, you are using energy prices for political
aims. We sell to all according to market prices. - Back to Bushehr.
We will build the plant if we are paid. We will finish construction.
After this, IAEA inspectors will tell us: "We continue to monitor the
situation, though on-site inspections, and you may deliver the fuel."
After we get such a permission, we will deliver on condition that the
IAEA monitors continuously the whole cycle of the fuel's existence and
the fuel is shipped back to Russia. So not a single gram of industrial
uranium, which is not military grade, of course, will get into Iranian
hands. So there's nothing to worry about here [in English].
FT: Does it seem to you that US policy towards Russia and the Middle
East is creating instability? What is the aim? And why, as you claim,
are there attempts to influence NGOs?
MR IVANOV: They probably want people live according to one set of
rules, one set of laws. Returning to Mr Putin's speech in Munich, he
spoke of what many had been whispering, including in Europe. Believe
me, I heard this in unofficial conversations with my European partners
and friends. They were whispering in their offices. And [in Munich] he
said this aloud but he did not say it confrontationally. And we
consider that whether we want it or not, the world will be
multi-polar. It is naïve to think that in China there will be
Anglo-Saxon democracy, that in the Arab world it will be the same.
Democracy is best. I very much respect and read Churchill and remember
his quote that democracy is a very imperfect thing but the problem is
that noone has thought up anything better. Here the drive for a
unipolar world, and for planting democracy like a potato, is a road to
nowhere. This leads only to more aversion. And when the state
department publicly says, "We will disburse money to NGOs," this is
practically interference in our internal affairs.
FT: But Russia can do this too?
MR IVANOV: No it can't, because of the laws of the US. We haven't been
able to open a radio station there for the last ten years. They won't
let us. Mayak, I think, wanted to. But their laws won't allow us, or
any broadcasts by foreign media. And I know the laws of France on
NGOs, there is such a big tax - almost 80 percent of funds transferred
for fighting diseases, for humanitarian purposes. And there's a check
every month on whether it is being used properly. If just one centime
did not go towards buying medicine then it is immediately closed. We
have normal laws. They are democratic laws. But when [foreigners]
begin to finance the political process - imagine if foreign capital
financed any US political party, or in Britain, how this would be
seen. You would say you don't like this. And we don't like it either.
FT: In a newspaper article last year you wrote that new threats had
emerged to Russia's security, chief among them being interference in
its internal affairs by foreign countries, directly or through
structures they support. Is this happening?
MR IVANOV: There are attempts. We see them. You remember the scandal a
year ago with the stone? An employee of your embassy – with black cash
- gave out money. I was a diplomat for 15 years and I know very well
what this is and what this is called and who is doing this.
I don't want to go into this subject, it is perhaps not pleasant when
any secret service is caught by the hand, it's not very nice. But in
this case we caught them and showed the entire world what the embassy
of Her Majesty is up to.
FT: Do you think there will be attempts to destabilise the country
before the election?
MR IVANOV: There could be attempts, or the desire to do so. But
nothing will come of this. The economic and political situation in
Russia today is very stable. There could be attempts, but this will be
money thrown into the wind. It will be spent in vain. There will be no
dividends.
FT: And what happened with Litvinenko? Was this an attempt to
destabilize the country?
MR IVANOV: I don't know. I already said everything possible about
Litvinenko. I have nothing to add, apart from what I said before, that
he was never a carrier of secrets.
FT: We have to ask this question – do you intend to participate in
elections as a presidential candidate?
MR IVANOV: I have not thought about it. I have been asked this
question for the last five, not five, two years. I've been in my new
job for, what, two months. Believe me, if I started thinking seriously
and started preparing for elections - we have parlimentary elections
too but, thank goodness, I'm not a member of any party - then what
would I be doing here? The first vice premier of Russia is a rather
responsible position. What I'm doing, I told you at the beginning.
It's not possible to do both at the same time. Apart from this, I am
glad, to be honest, that right now there is no election campaign for
the presidency. In the US it's going on, but here we don't have them
even though the terms are about the same - 2008. We are saving
enormous amounts of money. We're better spending this money on new
airports, on new roads, and on funding science. I am saying this a
little bit cynically but I think it is better. To organise a yearlong
campaign, spending hundreds of millions of dollars - if some people
like this then why not? We think, no. I think if there is no such
campaign, then this is good for Russia. I mean not now, it will happen
in the future but this is for later, and now we can get on with our
affairs. Apart from this, you understand that during a pre-election
campaign the government functions extremely [inefficiently]. Everyone
is thinking about where I will be, will I stay as minister or not. Do
you want to disrupt the work of the government of the Russian
Federation? I don't want to.
FT: But isn't everyone thinking about this anyway?
MR IVANOV: This is your work. I'm not offended by your question. I
don't know where I will be when the time comes, in one year; we will
see. I personally don't like all this talk about a successor. I have
good relations with Dmitry Anatolievich Medvedev. We meet and
sometimes laugh about [what] papers write. We giggle. This does not
have any impact. But sometimes when they write really unpleasant
things and open lies, then for him and me it is clear that this is an
attempt to poison our relations and make us rivals, which in fact we
are not and will not be. I can assure you of that.
FT: So the main thing is to ensure continuity of power?
MR IVANOV: Yes. I can't foretell the opinion of the Russian people.
But my feeling is, it seems to me that the majority of Russians will
be for continuing the course of Putin. Because no matter what you say
there are concrete results. Look at the economy. Look at the gold and
hard currency reserves; and look at the stabilization fund. Look at
industry, the army and judge [for yourselves]…And any person with
common sense will judge on objective criteria. Of course there are
many problems in Russia. There is a huge gap in incomes between the
rich and the poor, there is a huge gap between the regions. I
travelled a lot across Russia as defense minister and now as vice
premier and of course people in the Far East and Siberia and even
300km from Moscow live very badly, and the gap is even visible, you
have probably seen it. The gap is colossal. There is such a saying,
"Moscow is not Russia," and this is correct.
FT: So in your opinion even if the president does not remain in power
there is no risk that the next president can change the course of the
country completely?
MR IVANOV: There are always risks. You can't gurantee this 100 per
cent. This is democracy. The people will decide how much one candidate
or another will convince the people of something or not. You can't
foretell this. But I have the feeling that any candidate who will run
for the presidency will hardly speak from the platform that everything
Putin did was bad, and everything needs to be done differently, and
everything needed to be different. Such a candidate wouldn't have the
slightest chance. There could be some kind of marginal figure, a
clown. But they would get 1 per cent or half a per cent of votes.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007 "FT" and the "Financial
Times" are trademarks of The Financial Times.
*** sustineti [romania_eu_list] prin 2% din impozitul pe 2006 - detalii la
http://www.doilasuta.ro ***
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania_eu_list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/romania_eu_list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
