On the sidelines of the G20 summit, Russian President Putin shares his views about its significance, Russia’s relations with the US and its trilateral ties with India & China
Russian President Vladimir Putin has restored the primacy of the eastern axis of power alignments by endorsing a trilateral meeting organised at India’s initiative on the sidelines of the G-20 summit. Said he, “The joint work in the Russia-India-China format is obviously beneficial both in terms of developing and strengthening relations directly between our countries and in terms of the contribution our three countries make to resolving acute international and regional problems. The trilateral foreign policy coordination has been growing. In February our foreign ministers had another, now the 16th round of consultations. The dialogue of our security councils, financial intelligence agencies and other sectoral institutions has been developing concurrently. Representatives of the scientific, academic and young people’s communities are interacting closely. In this context, I note that Russia will host a festival of young diplomats from the RIC countries this autumn. It is important that Russia’s, India’s and China’s positions are close or coincide on most issues of the world economic and political agenda. Our countries stand for the preservation of the system of international relations with the UN Charter and international law at its core. We assert such fundamental principles of international ties as respect for sovereignty and non-interference in countries’ internal affairs. Russia, India and China are jointly working for stronger global stability, combatting the terrorist threat, extremism, drug trafficking and cybercrime, and thus are laying the foundation for equal and indivisible security architecture in Eurasia. I think our countries, for example, could jointly advocate greater authority of the World Trade Organisation and the preservation of its role as a universal entity regulating international trade. Joint support of the efforts to reform the International Monetary Fund is another important task.”
Earlier, the Kremlin official site also released a transcript of Putin’s interview with The Financial Times Editor Lionel Barber and Moscow Bureau Chief Henry Foy, where he talked of Russia’s role in the Asia-Pacific, every nation’s commitment to strengthen international trade and China. Excerpts:
Do you believe that the world now has become more fragmented?
During the Cold War, the bad thing was the Cold War. But there were at least some rules that all participants in international communication more or less adhered to or tried to follow. Now, it seems there are no rules. In this sense, the world has become more fragmented and less predictable. This is the most important and regrettable thing.
Tell us what you want to achieve in Osaka, in terms of your relationships with other parties? What are your main goals for the summit?
The G20, in my opinion, is a key international economic development forum today. So I would like all the G20 members to reaffirm their intention — at least an intention — to work out some general rules that everyone would follow and show their commitment and dedication to strengthening international financial and trade institutions. Everything else is details. We certainly support Japan’s presidency. As for the development of modern technology, the information world, the information economy, as well as our Japanese colleagues’ attention to matters such as longevity and the environment — all this is extremely important and we will certainly support it. Even though it is hard to expect any breakthroughs or landmark decisions in the current conditions; we can hardly count on it today. But in any case, there is hope at least that during these general discussions and bilateral meetings, we will be able to smooth out the existing disagreements and lay a foundation, a basis for positive movement forward.
You have observed four American presidents at close quarters and have had direct experience. So, how is Mr Trump different?
On the whole, I maintained good-natured and stable relations with all the leaders of the US. The first US President I came into contact with was Bill Clinton. Generally, I viewed this as a positive experience. We established sufficiently stable and business-like ties for a short period of time because his tenure was already coming to an end. I recall how he established partner-like relations with me. There have been different times and we had to address various problems with all other colleagues. Unfortunately, this often involved debates and our opinions did not coincide on some matters that, in my opinion, can be called key aspects for Russia, the US and the entire world. For example, this includes the unilateral US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that, as we have always believed, and as I am still convinced, was the cornerstone of international security system.
We debated this matter for a long time, argued and suggested various solutions. In any event, I made very energetic attempts to convince our US partners not to withdraw from the Treaty. And if the US side still wanted to withdraw from the Treaty, it should have done so in such a way as to guarantee international security for a long historical period. I did this because I consider this matter to be important. I suggested working jointly on missile-defence projects that should have involved the US, Russia and Europe. They stipulated specific parameters of this cooperation, determined dangerous missile approaches and envisioned technology exchanges, the elaboration of decision-making mechanisms, etc. Those were absolutely specific proposals. I am convinced that the world would be a different place today, had our US partners accepted this proposal. We can see that the situation is developing in another direction; new weapons and cutting-edge military technology are coming to the fore. Well, this is not our choice. But today, we should at least do everything so as to not aggravate the situation.
With Mr Trump, we have seen something new, something much more transactional. He is very critical of alliances and allies in Europe. Is this something that is to Russia’s advantage?
It would be better to ask what would be to America’s advantage in this case. Mr Trump is not a career politician. He has a distinct world outlook and vision of US national interests. I do not accept many of his methods when it comes to addressing problems. But do you know what I think? I think that he is a talented person. He knows very well what his voters expect from him. Russia has been accused, and strange as it may seem, it is still being accused, despite the Mueller report of mythical interference in the US election. What happened in reality? Mr Trump looked into his opponents’ attitude to him and saw changes in American society and he took advantage of this. You and I are talking ahead of the G20 meeting. It is an economic forum and it will undoubtedly have discussions on globalisation, global trade and international finance. Has anyone ever given a thought to who actually benefited and what benefits were gained from globalisation, the development of which we have been observing and participating in over the past 25 years, since the 1990s?
China has made use of globalisation, in particular, to pull millions of Chinese out of poverty. What happened in the US and how did it happen? In the US, leading companies made use of these benefits. The middle class hardly benefitted from globalisation; it was left out when this pie was divided up. The Trump team sensed this keenly and clearly and used this in the election campaign. It is where you should look for reasons behind Trump’s victory. He believes that the distribution of resources and benefits of globalisation in the past decade was unfair to the US. I am not going to discuss whether it was fair or not, and I will not say if what he is doing is right or wrong. I would like to understand his motives. Maybe this could explain his unusual behaviour.
Here you are, the President of Russia, defending globalisation along with President Xi whereas Mr Trump is attacking globalisation and talking about America First. How do you explain this paradox?
I don’t think that his desire to make America first is a paradox. I want Russia to be first and that is not perceived as a paradox; there is nothing unusual there. As for the fact that he is attacking some manifestations of globalisation, I made that point earlier. He seems to believe that the results of globalisation could have been much better for the US than they are. These globalisation results are not producing the desired effect for the US and he is beginning this campaign against certain elements of globalisation. This concerns everyone, primarily major participants in the system of international economic collaboration, including allies.
Mr President, you have had many meetings with President Xi and Russia and China have definitely come closer. Are you putting too many eggs in the China basket?
First of all, we have enough eggs, but there are not that many baskets where they can be placed. This is the first point. Second, we always assess risks. Third, our relations with China are not motivated by time-serving political any other considerations. Let me point out that the Friendship Treaty with China was signed in 2001, long before the current situation and long before the current economic disagreements, to put it mildly, between the US and China. We do not have to join anything, and we do not have to direct our policy against anyone. We are just consistently implementing our plans for expanding cooperation. We have not done anything that transcends the framework of these accords.
The G20 has accomplished many useful things for stabilising the global financial system, for developing global trade and ensuring its stabilisation. I am talking about the tax aspect of the global agenda, the fight against corruption, and so on. Both China and Russia adhere to this concept. The G20 has accomplished a lot by advocating quota changes at the IMF and the World Bank. Both Russia and China share this approach.
Do you think that there is a risk of a military conflict in your time between you, America and China?
You know, the entire history of mankind has always been full of military conflicts, but since the appearance of nuclear weapons, the risk of global conflicts has decreased due to the potential global tragic consequences for the entire population of the planet. I hope it will not come to this. However, of course, we have to admit that it is not only about China’s industrial subsidies on the one hand or the tariff policy of the US on the other. First of all, we are talking about different development platforms, so to speak, in China and in the US. They are different. They have different philosophies in both foreign and domestic policies, probably. But I would like to share some personal observations with you. China is showing loyalty and flexibility to both its partners and opponents. Maybe this is related to historical features of Chinese philosophy, their approach to building relations. Therefore, I do not think that there would be some such threats from China. I cannot imagine that, really. But it is hard to say whether the US would have enough patience not to make any rash decisions, but to respect its partners even if there are disagreements. But I hope, there would not be any military confrontation.
You have seen what the Chinese are doing in terms of their buildup of their Navy and their maritime strength. How do you deal with those potential security problems, territorial disputes in the Pacific?
You mentioned the build-up of naval forces in China. China’s total defence spending is $117 billion, if memory serves. The US defence spending is over $700 billion. And you are trying to scare the world with the build-up of China’s military might? It does not work with this scale of military spending. No, it does not. As for Russia, we will continue to develop our Pacific Fleet as planned. Of course, we also respond to global developments and to what happens in relations between other countries. We can see all of this, but it does not affect our defence development plans, including those in the Russian Far East. We are self-sufficient, and we are confident. We are also primed for cooperation in the Asia- Pacific region.
What has the return been like on the risk taken in Syria?
I believe that it has been good and positive. First of all, many militants planning to return to Russia were eliminated. This implies several thousand people. Second, we have managed to stabilise the situation in a nearby region. We have established sufficiently good business-like relations with all regional countries, and our positions in the Middle East region have become more stable. We have managed to preserve Syrian statehood, no matter what, and we have prevented Libya-style chaos there.
(Courtesy: en.kremlin.ru)