Official website of the President of Russia

Transcripts   /

Question From Ntk Tv Company: Our region is not only the country’s breadbasket, but also the frontline of the fight against illegal migration. One has the impression that the majority of new arrivals from the whole of Russia choose either Moscow or the Kuban area for their destination point. But as soon as the regional authorities take resolute measures to combat migration there is immediate talk about human rights violations. What to do?

Vladimir Putin: To comply with the law. To begin with, migrants go not only to the Kuban area, they also go to Moscow and the Moscow Region, to St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region and, strange though it may seem, to Tyumen and other parts of Siberia. They go to the places where the climate is good or where there is money to be made. And the reason is obvious. As a Russian proverb or saying goes, “the fish looks for where it is deeper and man looks for where life is better”.

In general, attracting migrants into the country is not such a bad thing, it is necessary and good for Russia, just like it is for other industrialised countries. Some of them have a deliberate policy of attracting migrants in order to solve their demographic problems and the problems of employment. As we have lived within a single state, that is much easier to do here since the people who live in other CIS countries are practically no different in terms of their mentality, command of the Russian language and culture from those who live here, and they find it very easy to adapt.

I have talked with many of my colleagues in Western Europe and they told me that they have to invite migrants, and it takes decades for some of them to adapt to new conditions. It is a real problem.

This is not to say that we have no problems here. Take for instance the problem of Meskhetian Turks, or the problem of the Armenian diaspora we have been hearing about more and more often. It is not the question of migration per se, but of illegal migration. As regards illegal migration, we must, first, combat it, and second, on the whole we must work out a government policy on migration, something that in my opinion we did not have until now. We did not have the necessary legal framework. We were guided not by the interests of the state, but by political considerations. The right-wingers have been speaking about human rights and continue to do so. Their claims, by the way, are not always reasonable, as I will explain later on. And the left-wingers keep calling us to restore the Soviet Union.

It is my great wish that the former ties in the territory of the former USSR, the personal ties between people, industrial cooperation, links in the fields of culture, science and education – that all this should not be lost and, on the contrary, should be restored. But we have to be realistic and look around us at the world in which we live. Are we going to restore the Soviet Union tomorrow? Who wants that? Would any of the former republics want to restore the Soviet Union? I don’t know of any. And how will we live in the future? We cannot permit to solve others nations’ problems at the expense of those who live in the Russian Federation today.

Take the Meskhetian Turks. If movement were free they could go back to Georgia, to the place where they traditionally lived. Georgia does not let them in. Why should we assume that social and economic burden? OK, the people who live there now are a special case. But one cannot ignore this problem indefinitely. The main laws – the Law On Citizenship and the Regulations on Foreign Citizens have been passed in order to create the basis for a normal policy in that field.

As regards the Law On Citizenship, as you know, it has been attacked from the right and from the left, I mean both the right-wing parties and the representatives of the Communist Party. They all opposed it and voted against it. The centre parties managed to have their way and secure the adoption of the law. What’s wrong about that? Is there anything there that violates human rights?

If a person wants to live in Russia and has chosen this country for permanent residence, let him come and work here and pay taxes. As it is, up until now everyone could come and acquire citizenship under a fast-track procedure. As a result half a million people obtained Russian citizenship but none of them actually moved to Russia for permanent residence. And the flow is swelling, while the social burden rests on the Russian budget, including the payment of pensions, for example. And those who live here permanently do not always have enough money to ensure a decent life for their own pensioners. And secondly, a person who has not yet obtained citizenship does not face any infringements upon his or her rights: he/she gets a residence permit, can live here and get a job and has the right to acquire an apartment or a house. He or she has no right to be elected to the State Duma or to become the President. But he/she does have the right to be elected to the municipal government bodies.

All our laws have been assessed by the Council of Europe and have received approval. We have worked in close contact with our West European partners.

As regards the second law on the statute of foreigners, it has introduced some rules, fairly strict ones, and many of these fundamental rules apply to the regions.

One of the key issues is migration quotas. It defies how many people and where can be received over a certain period of time. These quotas must be approved by a decision of the Government of the Russian Federation on the advice of the heads of regions. For example, if the Kuban Region believes that next year it needs so many migrants in certain sectors of its economy, it has to formulate its proposals, send them to the Federation Council and the Government will issue a corresponding resolution as proposed by the Krasnodar Administration.

This only provides the legal basis on which the state can work out its policy in this sphere. The laws passed today enable us, within their framework, to effectively address the problems in this sphere, including in your region.

<…>

Question From Ntk Tv Company: It is the mellow season in Sochi. While for the nation Sochi is a symbol of holidays, to us, the people in the Kuban area, it means jobs and a big contribution to the regional budget. Unfortunately, again this year the majority of Russians preferred overseas holiday resorts. Our press reports that Turkey spends $14 million to advertise its resorts compared with a little over $100,000 spent by Russia. To top it off, deliberate misinformation is sometimes fed about earthquakes, sea pollution and so on. Maybe it makes sense to launch a national programme to promote the holiday resorts in the Krasnodar Region?

Vladimir Putin: You know, if I were to give you a formal answer which could hardly be challenged, I would have said the following: the tourist product offered must match its price in terms of quality and range of services. If a Russian citizen sees that the quality of accommodations, food and services, the ease of traveling somewhere and the price you have to pay over a certain period of time is more favourable abroad than here, then he goes there. You can’t force him to come here by administrative methods. But that is only part of the truth. Of course, as you have rightly said, Turkey spends money on advertising. But it has something to advertise.

It is hard to sell a product if a person comes and takes out his wallet and counts how much he has to pay for this or that service and looks at what he will get in return and sees the discrepancy. In that case, advertising or no advertising will make little difference. Still, advertising drives trade. The state must pay the required attention to it. Previously it was totally neglected. Last year a small sum was allocated, and by the way, it was allocated by the government and not by legal entities. A small sum has been earmarked for next year. But the key problem lies elsewhere. We must see if we can adopt a programme for developing our holiday resorts, not only in the coastal areas but other parts of the country as well. The main provision for these programmes must be creating a favourable investment climate, i.e. conditions that would attract investments into the development of the infrastructure, into reducing prices and ultimately into diversifying the product you offer here.

Question From Ntk Tv Company: Will Krasnaya Polyana become a federal holiday resort?

Vladimir Putin: I think Krasnaya Polyana can be not only a federal, but an international resort. It offers a unique combination of the sea and the mountains. In France, I think, it takes two or two and a half hours to travel from the coast to the ski resorts. Here it is just 40–45 minutes.

I think the government must do several things. First, solve the infrastructure problems. I hope the motor road from Adler to Krasnaya Polyana will be completed next year. We are working on the issue of power supply and gas supply. All that combined, as well as joint work with the regional administration on the issues of land tenure and property, should create conditions, I repeat, for attracting private and government investments. I would very much like to see all this materialise. And the main thing is to make the resort accessible for ordinary Russian citizens.

And secondly, this work has to be monitored by environmental organisations.

A Question From Vesti Programme: Sochi, where we are now, recently bid farewell to the three officers who died in Khankala on August 19. Unfortunately, this is a permanent feature of life in our region, which has been a frontline territory for 7 years now. What to do about Chechnya?

Vladimir Putin: It is a sensitive and complicated question. We talk about it a great deal, but I will repeat myself. The choice facing us is: either to chicken out and pretend that we have done our job there. That is the worst option for Russia. I think it is absolutely unacceptable. We have already done it once. We dropped everything and left. You know very well what the result was: the attack in 1999. If we do the same again we will get what we got then with a vengeance.

What can and needs to be done there? First, it is necessary to restore the social sector of the economy so that people have jobs, sources of income, so that they are not destitute; so that they are not forced to plant mines for 10 dollars apiece risking their lives. But that is not all. Political problems have to be addressed. What problems? The Chechen Republic must become a normal constituent member of the Russian Federation with the broad autonomy that the Russian Constitution offers. We are moving along that track now. The administration of Chechnya and the non-governmental organisations in that republic are preparing a draft Constitution of Chechnya. We hope that the debate will be completed and Chechnya will adopt the constitution. That will be the first stage.

The second stage will be electing the head of the Republic. Unfortunately, as we witness today, members of the Administration and ethnic Chechens get killed (civilians died in a recent terrorist attack). Clearly the thugs and terrorists will not easily leave this long-suffering land alone. And clearly it will take some time to put the law enforcement component in order. But I see a solution there too. Law enforcement structures must be formed inside Chechnya. The Russian Interior Ministry is actively working on this and I hope that the Chechen Republic will have its own Interior Ministry by the end of the year, and that would make it possible to hand over to the Chechens not only the weapons, but essentially the fate of their republic. But that does not mean that the Russian troops will leave. They will stay there for good. They are stationed there. I am referring to the units of the Defence Ministry and Interior Ministry troops. But they will not engage in law enforcement, they will not interfere, they will support their Chechen colleagues only if necessary.

But of course, ordinary people are anxious to know what will happen to our servicemen. I think we will gradually come to recruit only professionals for those military units which are deployed in various hot spots, above all in the Caucasus and in the Chechen Republic. If we want to have a professional army, it must be manned by people who make a voluntary and conscious choice and they must be well armed and equipped, and well paid. Unfortunately, that cannot be done overnight. But we will move in that direction.

Question From Ntk Tv Company: Let us stray away from migration issues and from Chechnya and speak about the wealth of our region. There was a time when local people were proud of the sturgeon caught in the Sea of Azov. Now a moratorium has been imposed on its commercial fishing. But our Ukrainian neighbours continue to harvest surgeon by the ton. What can the authorities do to protect the natural wealth of the Azov Sea?

Vladimir Putin: The decision on the sturgeon, clearly, was prompted by the need to preserve sturgeon populations. For our part we try to comply with all our obligations in that area. As for our colleagues, we will act accordingly within the working group that we have, the intergovernmental working group. We will urge them to do more and to make our joint work more transparent.

A Question From The Newspaper Volnaya Kuban: The Kuban Region, like many other Russian regions, has forged a special relationship with Belarus. You have stated the Russian position on the unification of the two countries. From Alexander Lukashenko’s reaction one gathers that none of the options proposed are acceptable. Where do we go from here?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t think we have reached a dead end. As far as I can see and feel, Alexander Lukashenko has made unification the cornerstone of his policy. The unification process between Russia and Belarus is first in line. One cannot help seeing it, supporting it and accepting it. First of all, we must have a single and common terminology. My colleague put it this way: “We must build a single union state while preserving the sovereignty of the two countries.”

In principle, we can consider any option. I don’t believe that we have any conflict with Belarus. The thing is that we should move on from discussions and conversations with him to practical measures. As I have said many times, in my opinion if we are thinking in terms of creating a single union state, what could be simpler? Elect a single president, elect a single parliament and a single government. I can imagine that for various reasons the use of the scheme of accession of regions under the Russian Constitution is not acceptable. OK, I can adjust my position. I spoke about the right to accede at a press conference, but I don’t mind adjusting that position. The whole of Belarus may be united with Russia. I repeat, only in accordance with the Russian Constitution. This need not offend our Belarusian friends, because they have the constitution of a unitary state and we have the constitution of a federative state, and the future union state cannot be anything but a federation.

Why should we dissolve the Russian Federation and scrap our constitution and then start everything from scratch? It was only in the last year and a half or two years that things have begun to be put right, the nation has rallied and things have begun working. Imagine what would happen if we started dissolving everything and then uniting all over again. It would throw us ten years back. We will do nothing but discuss and debate and march with posters. And who will work? Who will pay pensions and wages? And what will happen to labour productivity in agriculture? We will lose everything. We will slide again into street protests and demagogy.

I think the proposal is absolutely in line with common sense and partnership and comradeship. If something about it does not suit you we are ready to talk. I would not dramatise things, I repeat, I think we will find a common language with our colleagues. But of course, the decisions are not easy for us, in certain ways, and for our Belarusian colleagues.

One of the talking points is the creation of a single currency. We have agreed that starting in 2005 the single national currency of Russia and Belarus will be the Russian rouble and by 2008 there will be some other common currency. OK, in 2005, Russia and Belarus are to introduce the Russian rouble. But can you imagine another centre that will be printing money? Money must be printed in one place. If there are two or three centres for emission of cash that would instantly ruin the economy. No matter how much sovereignty the European countries have retained, and they have a great degree of sovereignty despite the high level of integration within the EU, the European currency is printed in one place. They had argued whether the place should be London or Frankfurt, and eventually they settled for Germany. We know that Britain has not yet joined the euro zone. But to believe that when we adopt the Russian rouble we will have another emission centre, with all due respect for Minsk (an excellent city, I like it, honestly, without any irony, it is indeed a wonderful country, with wonderful people and it is a wonderful city), it is impossible from the economic point of view.

Either we accept the rouble as the single currency or we do not. If we accept it, let us agree that there will be a single centre, and it must be, frankly, I think it must be in Moscow. But I repeat, I don’t want to overdramatise things and move towards a deadlock, and most of all I would not like to take our Belarussian colleagues and friends up on their words; we shouldn’t make them feel embarrassed. I take this opportunity to appeal to you and your colleagues. Our aim is not to look smarter, our aim is to seek unification.

Question From The Vesti Programme: What about Abkhazia? The border runs within 30 km from us. Many of its citizens have Russian passports. What is the outlook for the development of relations with Sukhumi? And what to do about Georgia? Gelayev’s fighters were planning to stage a raid on Sochi… Has Georgia changed its position after your statement?

Vladimir Putin: First, regarding the Russian citizens in Abkhazia. You are aware that many people there recently applied for Russian citizenship. The reason is obvious. It is not connected with us, with the policy of the Russian Federation. It happened in anticipation of the passage of the Law on Citizenship of the Russian Federation. Those who wanted to obtain citizenship all along and those who were hesitating simply became more active because after the law comes into force it will be more difficult for them to get Russian citizenship. So they hastened and obtained the corresponding documents. Of course, we must be mindful of this factor, we must think about our citizens.

Second, you asked what to do about Abkhazia and Georgia. I wouldn’t separate them because we cannot and must not use double standards in this situation. We cannot demand others to respect the territorial integrity of Russia if we do not abide by these principles ourselves. So for us the relationship between Georgia and Abkhazia is an internal Georgian matter. We were present there as CIS peace-keepers and we are ready to act as mediators between Abkhazia and Georgia. We very much hope that agreements will be reached that take into account the interests of all those who live in Georgia and Abakhazia, and that we will have good and friendly neighbours.

I think your question “what to do about Georgia?” is not correct. Georgia is an independent country, an independent state and it is not for us to raise the issue of what to do about it. They will themselves decide what to do. We have just one request, I can even say, demand for them. I believe that this demand is legitimate. And it is to ensure that no attacks against the Russian Federation are launched from their territory. That is a legitimate demand.

I hear from my Georgian colleagues: let Russia strengthen its border itself. We are doing it and will continue to do it. But it is up to you to prevent attacks on us from your territory. Isn’t that a legitimate demand? It is elementary. We are told: Georgia is a small country. It can’t do it. Well, if it can’t do it itself, let it come and ask for help and we will give a helping hand. No, they say, we will do it ourselves. Well, if you say so, then do it. What has brought about this situation in the first place? It seemed to us that Georgia was not quite coping, that it didn’t have enough strength as it was in the process of emergence. But over time more and more information came which confirmed that the Georgian authorities, far from cooperating with us, are cooperating with the terrorists. This is the problem. And there is more and more evidence to this effect.

But that is not all. Georgia is not only collaborating with terrorists but seems to be interested in perpetuating this situation. One wonders why. There can be only one explanation. Frankly, I myself was wondering and could not find an explanation. There is only one variant: perhaps some quarters inside the country want to take advantage of this factor to pursue their internal political ends? The situation in the country is complicated, the economy is in dire straits, and the population’s standard of living is very low. In this case external threat stabilises the situation. If that is so (I am not asserting it, but it very much looks to be the case) then it is a mistake.

You have asked what is to be done. I have instructed the Defence Ministry and all the other security-related agencies to strengthen the border. It will be manned not only by border guards (although the border guards, of course, will be on the frontline), but the number of troops from other Russian security agencies will increase. The special forces of the GRU (Main Intelligence Department) and other security agencies will increase their presence. We will beef up the forces all along the Russian-Georgian border. Number one.

Number two: we hope to be able to come to an agreement with our Georgian colleagues. It may come as a surprise to you, but we don’t need anything from them. We offered to send our units. They turned it down. OK. We offered our aviation. No thanks. OK. And now we are asking them for just one thing: the exchange of information, as we would like to know exactly who is moving where. That is enough. But we are not getting even that. So, how can we speak about cooperation? We are not even getting that. It is an elementary thing if people really want to get rid of terrorists on their own territory. There are people from Arab countries there, they even detained one Japanese. They are a motley crowd. And of course it is a worry.

You have asked me whether I am satisfied with the current situation. I looked at the letter from Eduard Shevardnadze. I don’t think it goes far enough. What was our wish? We want a guarantee that there will be no attacks from Georgia. I have not found such statements or pledges or guarantees in this letter. I repeat, I pin great hopes on a personal meeting with Eduard Shevardnadze in Chisinau.

Question From Ntk Tv Company: Georgia keeps turning everything down, and we have to strengthen the border. Perhaps we should build our relationships with Georgia not as brothers, but on the basis of fair play, for example, sell gas at world prices?

Vladimir Putin: First, Georgia is not turning everything down. It has to admit many things and it cannot backtrack. There are some obvious facts.

As regards using the “fair play” principles in building our relations, by and large we try to adhere to fair play. We have a special feeling for the Georgians. That is true. They are a fraternal people not only in terms of religion and history, but probably in terms of mentality. We are proud of our national heroes who were Georgians. History offers many examples. A lot of Georgian intellectuals have settled in Russia. The number of Georgians in Russia is estimated between 700,000 and 1 million. We have ordinary Georgians who work here and send about $200 a month to their families back home every month. We are creating favourable conditions for these people. The Georgian Government should also think about their fate.

As regards the economic and formal relations, including energy and fuel trade, I can say that we charge Georgia less for gas than we charge Ukraine. There is no such thing as “the world gas price” in reality. There is no such concept because gas is not traded at a commodity exchange, it is sold depending on the source and on transportation. Gas is sold to Georgia not by Russia, but by a commercial group called Itera, and it sells at the market price. It is another matter that Georgia, unfortunately, does not pay. That is a question mark. If my memory does not fail me, their debt stands at $87 million and is growing fast. It increased by $7 million during the course of the year. We are worried about the state of pipelines and gas distribution networks because they are not being repaired. That may lead to certain problems. But I hope things won’t come to that. I hope that experts at the working level will agree among themselves and solve these problems.

In general I think that we in the CIS should above all seek to create optimal conditions for economic cooperation. I wouldn’t like to resort to sanctions, abrupt moves of any kind that would destroy the fundamentals of our relationship in Central Asia.