 |
| President Vladimir Putin (right) and RT anchorman Kevin Owen |
Russian
President Vladimir Putin yesterday
gave his first post-inauguration interview to Russia Today (RT) TV Channel.
He spoke in
depth with RT anchorman Kevin Owen ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) summit in Vladivostok.
The whirlwind interview
covered military, political, economic and social issues of domestic and
international concerns. They ranged from Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, to U.S.
plans for a missile defense system in Europe and the global economy, to
corruption and drugs, to Pussy Riots and group sex.
You can read the full
English transcript of President Putin’s wide-ranging interview with RT by pressing here.
But here is what he
said about the different aspects of the Syria crisis:
KEVIN OWEN: Ok, thanks for explaining
that. We're going to come back to APEC a little bit later if we may, but you
touched on another big subject in headlines, the horrendous events that have
been unfolding in Syria over the last 18 months now. Russia' position has been
steadfast all the way along the line. Here you've said there should be no
foreign intervention and it should be the Syrian people who do the deciding and
it should be done through diplomacy. However, that's a great idea, but day in
day out innocent lives are being lost on both sides. Is it time for something
more than talking? Should Russia be reassessing its position maybe now?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: How come Russia is the only
one who’s expected to revise its stance? Don’t you think our counterparts in
negotiations ought to revise theirs as well? Because if we look back at the
events in the past few years, we’ll see that quite a few initiatives of our
counterparts have not played out the way they were intended to.
Take the examples of
the numerous countries ridden with escalating internal conflicts. The US and
then its allies went into Afghanistan, and now they’re all looking forward to
getting out of there. If there’s anything on the table, it’s the issue of
assisting them in withdrawing their troops and hardware from Afghanistan
through our transit routes.
Now, are you sure that
country has been stabilized for decades to come? So far, no one is confident
about it.
And look at what’s
going on in Arab countries. There have been notable developments in Egypt,
Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen. Would you say that order and prosperity have been
totally ensured for these nations? And what’s going on in Iraq?
In Libya, there are in
fact armed clashes still raging among the country’s various tribes. I won’t
even mention the way the country had its regime changed: this is a separate
topic. What concerns us, and I want to emphasize this once again, is the
current hostilities in Syria. But at the same time, we are just as concerned
about the possible consequences of certain decisions, should they be taken.
In our opinion, the
most important task today is ending the violence. We must urge all the warring
parties, including the government and the so-called rebels, the armed opposition,
to sit down at the negotiating table and decide on a future that would
guarantee security for all of the stakeholders within Syria. Only then should
they get down to any practical measures regarding the country’s future system
of governance. We realize that this country needs a change, but this doesn’t
mean that change should come with bloodshed.
KEVIN OWEN: OK, well, given the facts
regarding Syria that you see on the table now, what is the next step? What do
you realistically think is going to happen next?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We told our partners we would
like to sit down together at the negotiating table in Geneva. And when we did,
together we charted a roadmap for further action that would help bring peace to
Syria and channel the developments into a more constructive path. We received
almost unanimous support and shared the results of the talks with the Syrian
government. But then the rebels actually refused to recognize those decisions;
and many of the negotiating parties have also quietly backed down.
I believe that the
first thing to do is to finally stop shipping arms into the warzone. We should
stop trying to impose unacceptable solutions on either side, because it is a
dead-end. That’s what we should do. It is that simple.
Luckily, we generally
enjoy friendly relations with the Arab world, but we would like to stay away
from sectarian conflicts in Islam, or interfere in a showdown involving the
Sunnites, the Shiites, the Alawites and so on. We treat everyone with equal
respect. We also get on well with Saudi Arabia and other countries; I have
cultivated a warm personal relationship with the guardian of two Islamic
shrines. The only underlying motive behind our stance is the desire to create a
favorable environment for the situation to develop positively in years to come.
KEVIN OWEN: What are your thoughts about
the United Nations and the way the United Nations has reacted particularly in
Syria. There's been criticism that it's failed to deliver a unified front if
you like and has become more of a figurehead organization. Do you share that
view?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Quite the contrary, I would
say. My take on the issue is the absolute opposite of what you have just said.
If the United Nations and the Security Council had indeed turned into a mere
rubberstamping tool for any one of the member states, it would have ceased to
exist, just like the League of Nations has. But the reality is that the
Security Council and the UN are meant to be a tool for compromise. Seeking to
achieve it is a long and complex process, but only this hard and tedious work
can yield us fruit.
KEVIN OWEN: Understood. Mr. President,
another question I'd like to ask you - a number of Western and Arab nations
have been covertly ... with supporting the FSA, the Free Syrian Army - indeed,
some of them are doing it openly now. Of course the catch here is that the FSA
is suspected of hiring known Al-Qaeda fighters amongst their ranks. So the
twist in this tale is that a lot of those countries are actually sponsoring
terrorism, if you like, in Syria, countries that have suffered from terrible
terrorism themselves. Is that a fair assessment?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, whenever someone
aspires to attain a much-desired end, any means will do. As a rule, they will
try and do that by hook or by crook – and hardly ever think of the consequences
that will follow. That was the case during the Afghan war after the Soviet
Union in 1979 sent its troops to Afghanistan. At that time, our current
partners supported a rebel movement there and basically gave rise to Al Qaeda,
a United States pet project that later targeted its creator.
Today some people want
to use militants from Al Qaeda or some other organizations with equally radical
views to accomplish their goals in Syria. This policy is dangerous and very shortsighted.
But in that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and
bring them to Syria to do the fighting – it's practically the same kind of
people. But bear in mind that one day these people will get back at their
patrons and eventually end up in a new prison, one that will very much resemble
the camp off the Cuban shore. I would like to emphasize that this policy is
very shortsighted and is fraught with dire consequences.
KEVIN OWEN: I'd like to broaden that a
little bit now, a little bit wider from Syria. You touched upon Syria. Syria is
in the middle of a civil war, we're seeing conflicts in Bahrain and in Saudi
Arabia. Ok, things are a bit calmer in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia -- you
mentioned it just now. But standing back from it overall, all the troubles that
we've seen in the Middle East, all the turmoil there - has it been at all for
the good or for the bad, where does it put that region now?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, we can discuss this
into the small hours and still run out of time. For me, it’s a clear fact that
these events are historically logical and follow from these states’
development. The leaders of these countries have obviously overlooked the need
for change and missed the ongoing trends at home and abroad, so they failed to
produce the reforms which would have saved the day in due time. All these
events simply logically stem from this background. Whether this is a blessing
or a curse with many negative implications, is now too early to say.
In any case, the lack of
a civilized approach, the high level of violence has so far stood in the way of
building any sustainable political structures, which would help solve economic
and social problems in societies hit by those events. This is what causes a lot
of concern over the future situation, because the people in these countries,
who have had enough of their previous regimes, clearly expect the new
governments to begin with tackling their social and economic problems in a
competent way. But with no political stability, these problems cannot be
solved.
