There were two views on Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's speech at the World Economic Forum Wednesday evening (text posted below). The first, expressed in this morning's International Herald Tribune, was that Putin "struck a conciliatory tone" with the West, talking about "mutual interests" and "mutual dependencies" rather than pounding the drum against the West. The second is that the speech was essentially a pack of lies coming from a man who has proved time and again that any talk of mutual dependence and foreign investment masked the vast human rights abuses in his own country, a history of pushing foreigners out and his aggression toward neighbors and other world leaders. According to the Financial Times, he "mocked the American delegates" in attendance.
Both views are wrong. If anything, Putin's speech yesterday was surprising because he had an audience of some of the most important people in the world, yet managed to say virtually nothing that hadn't been heard before. He sounded familiar themes about energy security, the need for regional reserve currencies and his desire to build new international structures that are better equipped to deal with the crises like the one now at hand. Indeed, his only tough remark was aimed at Michael Dell, in response to a question from Dell about how his company (and the technology sector more broadly) could help Russia. "We don't need help. We are not invalids," Putin said.
But those who walked away with the view that Putin's tone was either conciliatory or mocking missed the point of the Russian prime minister's speech altogether. What he was stating in bold, sometimes blunt terms, is his view that Russia is a big, confident player in the world and therefore ought to receive respect from other sovereign nations. In this view, what's needed to solve Russia and the world's problems is more cooperation among all the big countries -- Russia included. In other words, as Putin told Dell, Russia does not want "help"; it wants its interests to be understood and taken into account. A simple message, and those who try to read more deeply into it do so at their peril.
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s speech at the
opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum
Davos, Switzerland
January 28, 2009
Good afternoon,
colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,
I would like to thank
the forum’s organisers for this opportunity to share my thoughts on
global economic developments and to share our plans and proposals.
The world is now facing
the first truly global economic crisis, which is continuing to develop at an
unprecedented pace.
The current situation is
often compared to the Great Depression of the late 1920s and the early 1930s.
True, there are some similarities.
However, there are also
some basic differences. The crisis has affected everyone at this time of
globalisation. Regardless of their political or economic system, all nations
have found themselves in the same boat.
There is a certain
concept, called the perfect storm, which denotes a situation when
Nature’s forces converge in one point of the ocean and increase their
destructive potential many times over. It appears that the present-day crisis
resembles such a perfect storm.
Responsible and
knowledgeable people must prepare for it. Nevertheless, it always flares up
unexpectedly.
The current situation is
no exception either. Although the crisis was simply hanging in the air, the
majority strove to get their share of the pie, be it one dollar or a billion,
and did not want to notice the rising wave.
In the last few months,
virtually every speech on this subject started with criticism of the United States.
But I will do nothing of the kind.
I just want to remind
you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum
emphasised the US
economy’s fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects. Today,
investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In
just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the
last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism.
The time for
enlightenment has come. We must calmly, and without gloating, assess the root
causes of this situation and try to peek into the future.
In our
opinion, the crisis was brought about by a combination of several factors.
The existing financial
system has failed. Substandard regulation has contributed to the crisis,
failing to duly heed tremendous risks.
Add to this colossal
disproportions that have accumulated over the last few years. This primarily
concerns disproportions between the scale of financial operations and the
fundamental value of assets, as well as those between the increased burden on
international loans and the sources of their collateral.
The entire economic
growth system, where one regional centre prints money without respite and
consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures
inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a
major setback.
I would like to add that
this system has left entire regions, including Europe,
on the outskirts of global economic processes and has prevented them from
adopting key economic and financial decisions.
Moreover, generated
prosperity was distributed extremely unevenly among various population strata.
This applies to differences between social strata in certain countries,
including highly developed ones. And it equally applies to gaps between
countries and regions.
A considerable share of
the world’s population still cannot afford comfortable housing, education
and quality health care. Even a global recovery posted in the last few years
has failed to radically change this situation.
And, finally, this
crisis was brought about by excessive expectations. Corporate appetites with
regard to constantly growing demand swelled unjustifiably. The race between
stock market indices and capitalisation began to overshadow rising labour
productivity and real-life corporate effectiveness.
Unfortunately, excessive
expectations were not only typical of the business community. They set the pace
for rapidly growing personal consumption standards, primarily in the industrial
world. We must openly admit that such growth was not backed by a real
potential. This amounted to unearned wealth, a loan that will have to be repaid
by future generations.
This pyramid of
expectations would have collapsed sooner or later. In fact, this is happening
right before our eyes.
* * *
Esteemed colleagues,
One is sorely tempted to
make simple and popular decisions in times of crisis. However, we could face
far greater complications if we merely treat the symptoms of the disease.
Naturally,
all national governments and business leaders must take resolute actions.
Nevertheless, it is important to avoid making decisions, even in such force
majeure circumstances, that we will regret in the future.
This is why I would
first like to mention specific measures which should be avoided and which will
not be implemented by Russia.
We must not revert to
isolationism and unrestrained economic egotism. The leaders of the
world’s largest economies agreed during the November 2008 G20 summit not
to create barriers hindering global trade and capital flows. Russia shares
these principles.
Although additional
protectionism will prove inevitable during the crisis, all of us must display a
sense of proportion.
Excessive intervention
in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence is
another possible mistake.
True, the state’s
increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks.
Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state
economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.
The concentration of
surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis
measures in virtually every nation.
In the 20th century, the
Soviet Union made the state’s role
absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive.
This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.
Nor should we turn a
blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the
principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and
shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There
is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting
responsibility onto the state.
And one more point:
anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal
to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of
the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as
destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing.
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen,
Unfortunately, we have
so far failed to comprehend the true scale of the ongoing crisis. But one thing
is obvious: the extent of the recession and its scale will largely depend on
specific high-precision measures, due to be charted by governments and business
communities and on our coordinated and professional efforts.
In our opinion, we must
first atone for the past and open our cards, so to speak.
This means we must assess the real situation and write off all
hopeless debts and “bad” assets.
True, this will be an
extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such
measures, fearing for their capitalisation, bonuses or reputation. However, we
would “conserve” and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance
sheets. I believe financial authorities must work out the required mechanism
for writing off debts that corresponds to today’s needs.
Second. Apart from
cleaning up our balance sheets, it is high time we got rid of virtual money,
exaggerated reports and dubious ratings. We must not harbour any illusions
while assessing the state of the global economy and the real corporate
standing, even if such assessments are made by major auditors and analysts.
In effect, our proposal
implies that the audit, accounting and ratings system reform must be based on a
reversion to the fundamental asset value concept. In other words, assessments
of each individual business must be based on its ability to generate added
value, rather than on subjective concepts. In our opinion, the economy of the
future must become an economy of real values. How to achieve this is not so
clear-cut. Let us think about it together.
Third. Excessive
dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy.
Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of
creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we
launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and
irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert
their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be
convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting
currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states.
This highlights mutual
interests and interdependence.
Consequently, it is
important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary
policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally
recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion,
this demand is not excessive.
At the same time, the
global financial system is not the only element in need of reforms. We are
facing a much broader range of problems.
This means that a system
based on cooperation between several major centres must replace the obsolete
unipolar world concept.
We must strengthen the
system of global regulators based on international law and a system of
multilateral agreements in order to prevent chaos and unpredictability in such
a multipolar world. Consequently, it is very important that we reassess the
role of leading international organisations and institutions.
I am convinced that we can build a more equitable and efficient
global economic system. But it is impossible to create a detailed plan at this
event today.
It is clear, however,
that every nation must have guaranteed access to vital resources, new
technology and development sources. What we need is guarantees that could
minimise risks of recurring crises.
Naturally, we must
continue to discuss all these issues, including at the G20 meeting in London, which will take
place in April.
* * *
Our decisions should
match the present-day situation and heed the requirements of a new post-crisis
world.
The global economy could
face trite energy-resource shortages and the threat of thwarted future growth
while overcoming the crisis.
Three years ago, at a
summit of the Group of Eight, we raised the issue of global energy security. We
called for the shared responsibility of suppliers, consumers and transit
countries. I think it is time to launch truly effective mechanisms ensuring
such responsibility.
The only way to ensure
truly global energy security is to form interdependence, including a swap of
assets, without any discrimination or dual standards. It is such
interdependence that generates real mutual responsibility.
Unfortunately, the
existing Energy Charter has failed to become a working instrument able to
regulate emerging problems.
I propose we start
laying down a new international legal framework for energy security.
Implementation of our initiative could play a political role comparable to the
treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community. That is to say,
consumers and producers would finally be bound into a real single energy
partnership based on clear-cut legal foundations.
Every one of us realises
that sharp and unpredictable fluctuations of energy prices are a colossal
destabilising factor in the global economy. Today’s landslide fall of prices
will lead to a growth in the consumption of resources.
On the one hand,
investments in energy saving and alternative sources of energy will be
curtailed. On the other, less money will be invested in oil production, which
will result in its inevitable downturn. Which, in the final analysis, will
escalate into another fit of uncontrolled price growth and a new crisis.
It is necessary to return to a balanced price based on an
equilibrium between supply and demand, to strip pricing of a speculative element
generated by many derivative financial instruments.
To guarantee the transit
of energy resources remains a challenge. There are two ways of tackling it, and
both must be used.
The first is to go over
to generally recognised market principles of fixing tariffs on transit
services. They can be recorded in international legal documents.
The second is to develop
and diversify the routes of energy transportation. We have been working long
and hard along these lines.
In the past few years
alone, we have implemented such projects as the Yamal-Europe and Blue Stream
gas pipelines. Experience has proved their urgency and relevance.
I am convinced that such
projects as South Stream and North Stream are equally needed for Europe’s energy security. Their total estimated
capacity is something like 85 billion cubic meters of gas a year.
Gazprom,
together with its partners – Shell, Mitsui and Mitsubishi – will
soon launch capacities for liquefying and transporting natural gas produced in
the Sakhalin area. And that is also Russia’s
contribution to global energy security.
We are developing the
infrastructure of our oil pipelines. The first section of the Baltic Pipeline
System (BPS) has already been completed. BPS-1 supplies up to 75 million tonnes
of oil a year. It does this direct to consumers – via our ports on the Baltic Sea. Transit risks are completely eliminated in
this way. Work is currently under way to design and build BPS-2 (its throughput
capacity is 50 million tonnes of oil a year.
We intend to build transport
infrastructure in all directions. The first stage of the pipeline system
Eastern Siberia – Pacific Ocean is in
the final stage. Its terminal point will be a new oil port in Kozmina Bay
and an oil refinery in the Vladivostok
area. In the future a gas pipeline will be laid parallel to the oil pipeline,
towards the Pacific and China.
* * *
Addressing you here
today, I cannot but mention the effects of the global crisis on the Russian
economy. We have also been seriously affected.
However, unlike many other countries, we have accumulated large
reserves. They expand our possibilities for confidently passing through the
period of global instability.
The crisis has made the
problems we had more evident. They concern the excessive emphasis on raw
materials in exports and the economy in general and a weak financial market.
The need to develop a number of fundamental market institutions, above all of a
competitive environment, has become more acute.
We were aware of these
problems and sought to address them gradually. The crisis is only making us
move more actively towards the declared priorities, without changing the
strategy itself, which is to effect a qualitative renewal of Russia in the
next 10 to 12 years.
Our anti-crisis policy
is aimed at supporting domestic demand, providing social guarantees for the
population, and creating new jobs. Like many countries, we have reduced
production taxes, leaving money in the economy. We have optimised state
spending.
But, I repeat, along
with measures of prompt response, we are also working to create a platform for
post-crisis development.
We are convinced that
those who will create attractive conditions for global investment already now
and will be able to preserve and strengthen sources of strategically meaningful
resources will become leaders of the restoration of the global economy.
This is why among our
priorities we have the creation of a favourable business environment and
development of competition; the establishment of a stable loan system resting
on sufficient internal resources; and implementation of transport and other
infrastructure projects.
Russia is already one of the major exporters of a number of food
commodities. And our contribution to ensuring global food security will only
increase.
We are also going to
actively develop the innovation sectors of the economy. Above all, those in
which Russia
has a competitive edge – space, nuclear energy, aviation. In these areas,
we are already actively establishing cooperative ties with other countries. A
promising area for joint efforts could be the sphere of energy saving. We see
higher energy efficiency as one of the key factors for energy security and
future development.
We will continue reforms
in our energy industry. Adoption of a new system of internal pricing based on
economically justified tariffs. This is important, including
for encouraging energy saving. We will continue our policy of
openness to foreign investments.
I believe that the 21st
century economy is an economy of people not of factories. The intellectual
factor has become increasingly important in the economy. That is why we are
planning to focus on providing additional opportunities for people to realise
their potential.
We are already a highly
educated nation. But we need for Russian citizens to obtain the highest quality
and most up-to-date education, and such professional skills that will be widely
in demand in today’s world. Therefore, we will be pro-active in promoting
educational programmes in leading specialities.
We will expand student
exchange programmes, arrange training for our students at the leading foreign
colleges and universities and with the most advanced companies. We will also
create such conditions that the best researchers and professors –
regardless of their citizenship – will want to come and work in Russia.
History has given Russia a unique
chance. Events urgently require that we reorganise our economy and update our
social sphere. We do not intend to pass up this chance. Our country must emerge
from the crisis renewed, stronger and more competitive.
* * *
Separately, I would like
to comment on problems that go beyond the purely economic agenda, but
nevertheless are very topical in present-day conditions.
Unfortunately, we are
increasingly hearing the argument that the build-up of military spending could
solve today’s social and economic problems. The logic is simple enough.
Additional military allocations create new jobs.
At a glance, this sounds
like a good way of fighting the crisis and unemployment. This policy might even
be quite effective in the short term. But in the longer run, militarisation
won’t solve the problem but will rather quell it temporarily. What it
will do is squeeze huge financial and other resources from the economy instead
of finding better and wiser uses for them.
My conviction is that
reasonable restraint in military spending, especially coupled with efforts to
enhance global stability and security, will certainly bring significant
economic dividends.
I hope that this
viewpoint will eventually dominate globally. On our part, we are geared to
intensive work on discussing further disarmament.
I would like to draw
your attention to the fact that the economic crisis could aggravate the current
negative trends in global politics.
The world has lately come to face an unheard-of surge of violence
and other aggressive actions, such as Georgia’s
adventurous sortie in the Caucasus, recent terrorist attacks in India, and
escalation of violence in Gaza Strip. Although not apparently linked directly,
these developments still have common features.
First of all, I am
referring to the existing international organisations’ inability to
provide any constructive solutions to regional conflicts, or any effective
proposals for interethnic and interstate settlement. Multilateral political
mechanisms have proved as ineffective as global financial and economic
regulators.
Frankly speaking, we all
know that provoking military and political instability, regional and other
conflicts is a helpful means of distracting the public from growing social and
economic problems. Such attempts cannot be ruled out, unfortunately.
To prevent this
scenario, we need to improve the system of international relations, making it
more effective, safe and stable.
There are a lot of
important issues on the global agenda in which most countries have shared
interests. These include anti-crisis policies, joint efforts to reform
international financial institutions, to improve regulatory mechanisms, ensure
energy security and mitigate the global food crisis, which is an extremely
pressing issue today.
Russia is willing to contribute to dealing with international priority
issues. We expect all our partners in Europe, Asia and America, including the new US
administration, to show interest in further constructive cooperation in dealing
with all these issues and more. We wish the new team success.
* * *
Ladies and gentlemen,
The international
community is facing a host of extremely complicated problems, which might seem
overpowering at times. But, a journey of thousand miles begins with a single
step, as the proverb goes.
We must seek foothold
relying on the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilisation.
Integrity and hard work, responsibility and self-confidence will eventually
lead us to success.
We should not despair.
This crisis can and must be fought, also by pooling our intellectual, moral and
material resources.
This kind of
consolidation of effort is impossible without mutual trust, not only between
business operators, but primarily between nations.
Therefore, finding this
mutual trust is a key goal we should concentrate on now.
Trust and solidarity are
key to overcoming the current problems and avoiding more shocks, to reaching
prosperity and welfare in this new century.
Thank you.