Vlad:

[perk]

Thank you very much dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr Teltschik, ladies and
gentlemen!

I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has
assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more
than 40 nations.

This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the
need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This
conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about
international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical,
pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry
with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first
two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light
over there.

Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more
than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the
stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and
developing a dialogue between civilisations.

This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic
principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D.
Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was
breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries
everywhere is in danger.”

These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference –
global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and
it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global
security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the
margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just
like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively
speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and
other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take
place either.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen
aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at
the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of
authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the
day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for
the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know,
democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions
of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But
for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also
impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was
individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the
military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even
more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there
is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to
discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into
international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

And with which results?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems.
Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of
tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts
have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less
people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before.
Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military
force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an
abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength
to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a
political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of
international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact,
coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of
course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national
borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and
educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is
happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given
question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the
current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one
feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can
feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of
course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire
weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they
were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as
terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must
seriously think about the architecture of global security.

And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the
interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since
the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in
light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.

Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in
purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already
greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP
of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the
cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase
in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of
global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence
and will strengthen multipolarity.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly
increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and
predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a
really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the
judicial systems of certain states.

However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in
which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other,
dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are
difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are
killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!

But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent
and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian
regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction?
As a matter of fact, this was also at the cen

[perk]

As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear
colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood
your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can
we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer
your question as well: of course not.

But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is
sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful
transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the
Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number
of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting
now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of
mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for
democratic values and for the law?

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using
military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in
connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the
Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I
understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is
taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have
different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only
be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not
need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the
forces of the international community and can really react to events in various
countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then
the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result
in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with
this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal
character both in the conception and application of its norms.

And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along
with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is
connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.

Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to
weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing
nuclear weapons.

Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear
strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31
December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken
on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will
refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a
rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the
United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one
might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise
and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision
regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents
are universal ones.

In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and
the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and
medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and
Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them
as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear
the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.

It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own
security.

At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new,
destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to
prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no
longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American
partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.

In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable
consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the
beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with
initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.

Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement
on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it
will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe
cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this
case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that
really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem
countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not
even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean
rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the
laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand
to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It
took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the
Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this
document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including
the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed
forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia
and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated
schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as
everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying
out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over
from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows
our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible
frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that
NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly
fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the
modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the
contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual
trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?
And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the
dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even
remembers them. But I will allow myself to

[perk]

But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to
quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May
1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO
army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security
guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as
souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was
possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the
people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a
sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these
walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through
our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and
decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and
dismantle these new walls?

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation.
The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to
manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good
reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy
independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly
transformed into nuclear weapons.

This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the
Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international
community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of
interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises
because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this.
We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.

Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres
for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres
not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a
legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop
their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct
participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under
strict IAEA supervision.

The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in
conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are
objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is
precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that
must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures.
Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American
friends.

In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political
incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to
establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still
have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy
capabilities.

In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in
more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she
mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create
uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that
energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of
political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major
energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil
extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of
the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a
similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic
sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such
examples.

I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia
makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious
example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles.
We are ready to compete fairly.

For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian
economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these
changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia
passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to
use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above
decision.

Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its
final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words
about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but,
for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global
security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually
happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for
programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial
financial resources. But to be honest

[perk]

According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is
designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms
at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not
mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not
imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of
democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a
consequence, politically and economically unstable.

We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with
sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and
personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European
partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in
world affairs.

In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is
hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that
spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege
to carry out an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well
aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own
opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with
responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in
constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and
prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

Thank you for your attention.

[perk]

www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts195.html

"The United States," Putin said, truthfully, "has overstepped its borders in all
spheres" and "has imposed itself on other states."

Putin’s words of truth fell on many deaf ears. US Senator John McCain, America’s
most idiotic and dangerous "leader" after Bush and Cheney, equated Putin’s
legitimate criticism of the US with "confrontation."

The solution is nonmilitary challenge.

The Bush Regime’s ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The
Regime’s wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of
dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn
on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.

The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade
deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the
Bush Regime’s military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime’s two largest
lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to
experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares
a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead
dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime
would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant
hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it
is.

The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government’s ability to subvert
other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America’s will.

The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world
from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush
Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.