Medvedev on Serbia-Russian Relations

Prior to his official visit to Serbia, President Dmitry Medvedev gave an interview to the Serbian newspaper Evening News.

Yahoo StumbleUpon Google Live Technoratidel.icio.us Digg Reddit Mixx PropellerEvening News: The Serbian leadership is already calling your visit to Belgrade historic. You are the first Russian president to go to Serbia as an independent state. What do you view as important in your talks in Belgrade, and what prospects are there for the relations between the two countries?

Dmitry Medvedev: The upcoming visit to Belgrade is indeed very important for me. I count on further promoting our intergovernmental cooperation and improving brotherly relations between our peoples.


Read more

This visit is timed to coincide with the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Serbian capital from fascist occupiers. This is an event of huge significance, because it’s filled with our common historical memory and pride for the courage of our fathers and grandfathers who defeated fascism.

This is the first visit of a Russian president to Serbia after its return to the international arena as an independent, sovereign state. At the same time, we are not building our relations from scratch. We have accumulated very rich experience of cooperation, based on the centuries-old traditions and mutual sympathy of our peoples. We are united by similar goals and mutually pragmatic interests.

In our upcoming contacts we hope to be able to discuss, in detail, plans for the implementation of huge joint projects, including those in energy, transport, cultural, humanitarian, science and technology cooperation. In other words, we have serious work to be done, not only to fortify the foundations of cooperation through our joint efforts, but also to help realize its huge potential to a fuller extent.

E.N.: Russia’s leadership and people have lent efficient and sincere support to the Serbs in the past decades in their struggle for maintaining the integrity of their territory, Kosovo and Metohija. Both Belgrade and Moscow share the opinion that the struggle for preserving Kosovo should be done within international law. What prospects do you see for the Kosovo problem when the big Western powers are ignoring international law?

D.M.: Unfortunately, the past decade – which has critical in the story of settling the Kosovo problem – has seen many tragic mistakes made. Some of them were made deliberately as part of the plan of intruding into the international practice of unilateral relations.

Despite the efforts by the champions of Kosovo independence, it appears impossible to present it as an irreversible process and to close the case. We believe it’s crucial to prove, step by step, that there is an alternative to unlawfulness. Without Serbia’s final word, no one will argue that the Kosovo question is settled.

It is up to Belgrade to put forward an initiative and it is up to us to back it consistently. This approach – with adjustments, given that the problem is very complicated – has proven efficient.

E.N.: Not long ago you said in New York that the period of a unipolar world was over. Obviously, President Barack Obama does realize there should not be a single “master” in the world. However, this process is not promising to be either fast or easy. What do you think should be done to bring more justice to the world and make it so that less force will be used? Can a reformed UN regain the respect it lost in the world?

D.M.: No one calls into question the fact that the world is undergoing profound transformation. Quite a new geopolitical situation is being developed and defined by the emerging multipolarity, new points of economic growth and political influence.

It became obvious that the strategy of unilateral relations only destabilizes the international situation, provokes tension and an arms race and aggravates interstate differences, as well as brings about more tension in inter-civilization relations. International security and cooperation will no doubt only gain from our US partners’ becoming aware that one country’s domination is unacceptable – which is what Obama told the UN General Assembly.

Adaptating to the new reality will not be fast by any means. The important thing, though, is that the US administration is inclined toward multilateral diplomacy and is realizing the necessity of relying on the UN’s potential.

Such a unifying agenda is being formed in international relations on a wide range of issues, which is caused by global challenges common to all the states. They are seeking ways out of the world financial crisis, and ways to counteract the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and means of their delivery, and to fight international terrorism. This trend increases the significance of so-called network diplomacy and a multilateral mechanism to the secure involvement of all states into the global processes.

Today the need for the expanding authority of informal collective leadership, such as in the case of G20, is higher than it has even been before. Demand is also growing for the United Nations as a time-tested tool of balancing the interests of different nations in compliance with the international laws and regulations. The significance of the UN in addressing such global issues as overcoming the economic crisis and settling conflicts has by no means decreased. The UN Charter was in fact originally developed in view of a multi-centered world. Recent years have supplied us with abundant examples proving that bypassing the UN Charter and Security Council is not only inefficient in terms of problem solving, but in fact can expand the conflict zone.

Certainly, the changing world requires the United Nations as a global organization, together with all of its institutions, to adjust to the new reality. Yet we should bear in mind that UN reform (including the expansion of Security Council) is not an objective itself. Any reforms and changes should be targeted at increasing the UN’s efficiency and securing its central role in international affairs. Reform-related decision-making should be governed by the task of maintaining the unique international nature of this organization. Achieving this is conditional on obtaining as wide a consensus as possible among the member states on all aspects of reform.

E.N.: Russia’s success is always good news for the majority of Serbians. The progress is striking compared to the times of Boris Yeltsin’s rule. Yet you and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin believe that Russia should upgrade manufacturing plants and move away from relying on the proceeds from the export of raw materials. How do you plan to encourage upgrading the manufacturing facilities on the federal level? How realistic are your plans to have the manufacture output volumes dramatically increased and the volumes of import significantly decreased by 2020?

Today we are working on the transition from raw materials-oriented economics to economics relying on innovations, upgrading and technological progress. This should secure Russia the place it deserves in the modern world, the world of the 21st century.

D.M.: As much as the political, social and economic changes in the 1990s were painful and dramatic, they laid the groundwork for the market model of economic development in Russia. Throughout the following years, we pursued measures to strengthen the private property institution, encourage entrepreneurship, and improve the conditions for business activities and investments.

We have recently defined five key priorities which are being developed under direct presidential control. These priorities are the energy-saving and efficient energy use issues (which includes development of new types of fuel), nuclear technologies, pharmaceutical and medication production industry, cutting-edge information and software technologies, as well as outer-space development and telecommunications. I am chairing the relevant commission in charge, whose staff includes state officials, representatives of big and medium-sized business, prominent scientists and researchers, experts, and public representatives.

I’d like to add that we are alert to any incoming signals and feedback indicative of the necessity to introduce changes to institutional, tax, depreciation, and budget policies. And I think we are quite capable of achieving significant progress in terms of upgrading and modernization within the next 5 to 10 years.

E.N.: In many of your interviews you and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin admit quite honestly that you have achieved little results in fighting Russia’s biggest evil, corruption. What is the major obstacle in the way of eradicating bribery?

D.M.: It is well known that all states, even the most developed ones, face the problem of corruption, to a larger or smaller degree. In Russia, it is indeed a very acute problem. According to polls, over half of the country’s population considers corruption to be the major hurdle in the way of Russia’s economic advancement.

It may seem unexpected at first glance that one of the major difficulties in fighting corruption is technological underdevelopment. The state of things can be dramatically changed by building an informed society, and by increasing the quality and transparency of public services (many of which should be conducted in electronic format). Wide public access to information about the state institutions’ activities and minimizing the necessity of direct personal contact between a citizen and a public official will not let the “corruption links” build up. So it is not accidental that computerization of public affairs and economy, together with implementing the “electronic government” principles on all levels of power, are among our top priorities in drive for modernization.

Of course, it is by no means the only way of fighting corruption. The main measures are captured in our “National Anti-corruption Action Plan,” which primarily focuses on preventive measures. We have already developed the required legal framework using international best practices.

I am sure that all these measures will be successful, including those that we introduced recently – I mean controlling the income and property records of state officials.

The political will of the country’s leadership is quite clearly stated. Fighting corruption should not deteriorate into red tape or a fanatical campaign. The results cannot be achieved immediately, so the major thing for us is to follow consistently all the planned actions, not to give up and to promote intolerance to corruption in our society.

E.N.: When you were in the government, you were in charge of one of the most important issues of Russia’s future: demography. Before the beginning of the financial crisis there were a lot of ideas regarding birthrate stimulation plans, as well as fighting alcohol addiction. What are you going to do in the next years to resolve the problems, to prevent the situation in which many Russia’s regions will be deserted in several decades?

D.M.: Really, the problems of demography are among the most complicated for our country. The population increase ceased to grow at the beginning of the 1990s, and then the death rate began to exceed the birth rate.

Two years ago the Russian Federation adopted a demographic policy for the period up to 2025, including principles and priorities, as well as the main working guidelines in that sphere. Apart from birthrate stimulation and fighting alcohol addiction, which you’ve mentioned, there are also measures aimed at mortality reduction (including citizens of working age). Moreover, the concept provides for measures regulating the migration process.

This is a long-term document, well prepared and well thought. Our task is to follow its guidelines and fulfill all the previously made decisions; first and foremost, the social obligations taken by the state. And we are to do it in spite of the economic crisis and reduction of the budget income.

Just a year after the beginning of the demographic program’s implementation, we received the first results. The demographic results for the year 2007 reveal that in Russia, 1.6 million children were born, which is 8% more than in 2006. It was the highest rate since 1991.

The birth rate increase continued in 2008 and 2009. For the period of January-August of this year, the mortality has decreased by 4%, and the birth rate has grown by 3.6%. I admit, these rates are not very high so far, but they do demonstrate a positive trend. Today we are working on fixing it and developing the support system – first of all for young families.

Over a million young mothers yearly use “birth allowance certificates” to choose medical institutions which would provide the most qualified assistance. Unemployed mothers – about 1.2 million – started receiving allowance for baby care for children aged up to one and a half. The system of maternity (family) capital became a strong stimulus for birth rate growth. When the second child is born into a family, the boy or girl is eligible for an allowance that can be used for the child’s education, improvement of the living conditions, or it is possible to transfer the money to the cumulative part of the mother’s pension. All in all in 2007, about 1.5 million such certificates were issued.

An important practical solution was the implementation of the “Residential Property for Young Families” sub-program within the framework of the “National Residential Property Program for the Years 2002–2010.” Thanks to this sub-program, thousands of young families moved into new, modernized and comfortable apartments.

The following number speaks in support of the fact that we are on the right track: this August, the natural population increase has reached 1,000 people.

Our experience tells us that positive results are achieved when very specific and clear measures are undertaken. The key things here are consistency and a systematic approach, as well as alignment in actions of all levels of power.

E.N.: Recently you were very optimistic in one of your interviews about the possibility of reaching agreements with the Americans on missile defense and reduction of nuclear arms. Many Russian generals say that at present, significant reduction of nuclear potential is more beneficial for the US than for Russia, because the US is already testing new types of arms. According to your experts, how many nuclear warheads are necessary to provide undisturbed sleep for your citizens?

D.M.: Let’s proceed from the fact that unfortunately there is no treaty on missile defense with Americans so far. However, I gave a positive assessment of President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon the plan of strategic missile defense deployment on the territories of Poland and the Czech Republic.

As for the new American project of creating a global missile defene (including its European segment), here we will have detailed negotiations on the level of experts. We need to assess it from the point of view of Russia’s national security interests.

When we speak of nuclear disarmament, we assume that nuclear arms cannot be applied in practice. And we remember that its existence has been serving as a guarantee for strategic stability and security in the world for many decades. At present we think it necessary to keep the balance of forces with the US. On our part, we are geared to keep nuclear arms at the minimum level necessary to provide Russia’s and our allies’ national security.

We announced several times that we are ready to reduce the number of strategic offensive arms bearers more than threefold. At present, negotiations are held in Geneva to work out a new legally binding Russian-American treaty for reductions and limitation of strategic offensive arms, and to fix that level. We are doing the utmost to sign the corresponding document in December.

I am sure that resolving the issues of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are among our mutual interests. That would be a strong factor for formation of a favorable international atmosphere.