Byzantine Blog

The 21st Century Politician: Common Decency, Honesty and Fair Play

Covering the wide range of issues in the interview given to the G8 nations’ reporters, published in full Monday on the official Kremlin web site, the most popular man in Russia — President Vladimir Putin — demonstrates the level of personal integrity and wisdom the international political stage has been devoid of during the entire century, if not longer.

In the world of international politics polluted by the intrigue, colonial instincts, aggressive wealth accumulation, pathological pursuit of expansion and disregard for the basic human values, where the quality of a politician is measured by the trickster-capabilities, Vladimir Putin brings moral standards and the human touch that was all but purged from the international relations: decency, honesty, common sense, compassion and fair play.

Kosovo is Integral Part of Serbia

Responding to the question of Italian Corriere Della Sera correspondent, Mr Putin said:

“Regarding Kosovo, you mentioned that we support the idea of dialogue between Kosovo’s Albanian population and the Serbs. But that does not fully sum up our position. I would like to say a bit more on this point.”

“First, our position is based on the principles of international law, and one of these main principles is that of a state’s territorial integrity.”

“Second, our position is also based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which, I want to stress, was voted for unanimously, and which no one has repealed. This resolution sets out clearly, black on white, that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia.”

“If we want to place the principle of a people’s right to self-determination — the principle behind the Soviet Union’s policy during the time when peoples were struggling to free themselves from colonialism — above the principle of territorial integrity, this policy and this decision should be universal and should apply to all parts of the world, and at least to all parts of Europe. We are not convinced by our partners’ statements to the effect that Kosovo is a unique case. There is nothing to suggest that the case of Kosovo is any different to that of South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester. The Yugoslav communist empire collapsed in one case and the Soviet communist empire collapsed in the second. Both cases had their litany of war, victims, criminals and the victims of crimes. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Trans-Dniester have been living essentially as independent states for 15 years now and have elected parliaments and presidents and adopted constitutions. There is no difference.”

Why Does the West Need to Humiliate and Force Entire Nation on Its Knees?

“We do not understand why we should support one principle in one part of Europe and follow other principles in other parts of Europe, denying peoples in the Caucasus, say, the right to self-determination.”

“I do not rule out that gradual work on the Serbian side could eventually transform their view on Kosovo. I do not want to speak for the Serbs, but ongoing and tactful work could result in some kind of compromise being reached.”

“I do not understand the need today to force an entire European people to its knees and humiliate it so that an entire nation will then look upon those who have brought about this situation as enemies. These kinds of issues should be settled only through a process of agreement and compromise, and I think that we have not yet exhausted our possibilities in this respect.”

“We are told that there is a need to hurry, but hurry where? What is taking place to make so urgent to leap about like, excuse the expression, a flea in a lasso?”

“[...] It used to be the fashion in the Soviet Union to make events coincide with the November 7 or May 1 holidays, and when we are told that a decision on Kosovo should also be made to fit in with some specific timeframe or other, this is also the Soviet style of doing things. We should not try to fit events into rigid timeframes but should let life take its natural development course.”

On NATO

“They were made in the same way in the Warsaw Pact. There was a joke in East Germany: How can you tell which of the telephones on Honecker’s desk is the direct line to Moscow? Do you know this joke?”

DER SPIEGEL: No.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The answer is: it’s the one with only a receiver and no mouthpiece. (Laughter).

“The same goes for NATO, except that the telephone line goes not to Moscow in this case but to Washington [...]”

On Russian Public Opinion and His Presidential Duties

“You talked about public opinion. Public opinion in Russia is in favour of us ensuring our security. Where can you find a public in favour of the idea that we must completely disarm, and then perhaps, according to theorists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, that we must divide our territory into three or four parts.”

“If such a public did exist, I would argue with it. I was not elected President of the Russian Federation to put my country on the brink of disaster. And if this equilibrium in the world is finally broken then it will be a catastrophe not only for Russia but also for the whole world.”

“Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, irregardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardising our relations with anyone. But we must respond.”

On British PR Stunt With Seeking Lugovoi Extradition

“Are there circumstances in which Russia would extradite Lugovoi? There are. The Constitution of the Russian Federation would have to change. That is the first thing.”

“Second. Even if the Constitution were to be amended, one would need, of course, valid reasons to do so. Based on the information I received from the Prosecutor General the British party has not yet provided us with sufficient grounds to do so. There is a request for the extradition of Mr Lugovoi but no materials documenting the grounds on which we should do so. As diplomats say, this request has no substance: it is not supported by the materials that constitute the grounds on which our British colleagues asked us to extradite Lugovoi.”

“Finally, the third thing. As you know a criminal investigation into Litvinenko’s death is proceeding in Britain. And if our law enforcement agencies gather enough evidence to take anyone to court, if there is enough material in connection with any citizen of the Russian Federation to bring this evidence to court, this will certainly be done. And I very much hope that our British colleagues will assist us effectively. Not simply by demanding the extradition of Lugovoi but also by sending enough evidence so that we could put the case before a court. We will do this in Russia and convict any person found guilty of Litvinenko’s murder.”

British Government Responsible for Consequences of Harboring Criminals and Terrorists

“And now about the request itself. I have very mixed feelings about this request. If the people who sent this request did not know that the Russian Constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign countries then their level of competency must certainly be questioned. In general the heads of such high-ranking law enforcement agencies should know this. And if they do not know this then their place is not in law enforcement agencies but somewhere else. In parliament, for example, or in journalism. But on the other hand, if they did know this but made the request anyways, then it is just a publicity stunt. In other words, you can look at the problem from any way but in all cases you see stupidity. I do not see any positive aspects to what was done. If they did not know then they are incompetent and we have doubts about what they have been doing there. And if they did know and did it anyway then that is pure politics. Both options are bad.”

“One last point. I think that after the British government allowed a significant number of criminals, thieves and terrorists to gather in Britain they created an environment which endangers the lives and health of British citizens. And all responsibility for this lies with the British side.”

On World-Wide Human Rights Violations and Hypocrisy

“I would be very happy if someone were to focus on the problem of human rights. I just read Amnesty International’s report and there are many issues that apply not only to Russia but also to our partners, including within the G8. The criticism is very harsh: issues such as violations of the rights of the media, torture, police that mistreat detainees, migration legislation. I think that we should all pay attention to these issues.”

“[...] Let us not be hypocritical about democratic freedoms and human rights. I already said that I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report including on the United States. There is probably no need to repeat this so as not to offend anyone. If you wish, I shall now report how the United States does in all this. We have an expression that is perhaps difficult to translate but it means that one can always have plenty to say about others. Amnesty International has concluded that the United States is now the principal violator of human rights and freedoms worldwide. I have the quote here, I can show you. And there is argumentation behind it.”

“There are similar claims about Great Britain, France or the Federal Republic of Germany. The same could be said of Russia. But let us not forget that other countries in the G8 have not experienced the dramatic transformations that the Russian Federation has undergone. They have not experienced a civil war, which we, in fact, had in the Caucasus.”

“And yet we have preserved many of the so-called common values even better than some other G8 countries. Despite serious conflicts in the Caucasus, we have not abandoned our moratorium on the death penalty. And, as we know, in some G8 countries this penalty is applied quite consistently and strictly enforced.”