On 15 June 2010, IDC was honoured to host the former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Mr. Evgeni Primakov, who spoke on the subject “Russia in the contemporary world”.

The president of IDC, Natalia Narochnitskaya, opened the evening by thanking Mr Primakov for his presence and by emphasising how his political record is appreciated by all sections of political opinion in Russia.  “You are a brilliant researcher,” she said, and your profound knowledge of world politics and contemporary geopolitical problems, especially in the Middle East but ultimately in the world as a whole, and without even mentioning your expertise in economics.  These qualities make you one of the leading intellectuals in Russia and one of the preeminent statesman in the world today.  With your panoramic vision and your human qualities, you enjoy the deep respect of the whole world and of the great majority of Russian people.  Indeed, the Russians are very well aware how much they owe to their former Prime Minister.  I therefore salute your courage and your ability to combine intellectual strength and clarity in the positions you have taken on the great political and moral questions of the day.”

Evgeni Primakov replied by saying that he feared he would fall short of the lavish praise Mrs Narochnitskaya had heaped on him.  He went on as follows:

“I would like to start by discussing the world in which we live.  Most people agree that we are currently experiencing a trend towards a multi-polar world.  If we look back at the history of the 20^th century, we realise that we first experienced a multi-polar world and then a bi-polar one.  The uni-polar system existed only in various people’s minds.  Hitlerite Germany wanted to create a uni-polar world based on fascism; at the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution, the idea of world revolution was all the rage, which also corresponded to a uni-polar vision.  After the end of the Cold War, there was a tendency to move towards a uni-polar world with one single centre, the USA.  This was the doctrine of unilateralism supported by the neo-conservatives.  According to this doctrine, the USA determined by itself what are the threats at international level, without any consultation with international organisations or even with their own allies.

We can see how far the Americans have got with this attempt today.  The war in Iraq has shown clearly where such ideas lead.  It is obvious that the intervention in Iraq in 2003 corresponded to no international agreement.  Today it is stuck in a blind alley.  I say this while emphasising that I am in no way an admirer of Saddam Hussein, whom I met for the first time in 1979.  During the 2003 Gulf War, I met him twice and communicated to him the messages of President Putin, which encouraged him to resign and convoke the Parliament.  But it is also obvious that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was secular, whereas today all the parties represented in the Iraqi parliament are Islamic.  Before the American invasion, there was no merciless civil war between Sunnis and Shiites such as we see today.

I do not believe that the Americans will succeed in introducing federalism to Iraq.  Long before the invasion, Brent Scowcroft and George Bush Senior had published their book (“A World Transformed” New York: Vintage Books, 1999) in which they explained by the First Iraq War was limited to Kuwait alone and why the Americans and their allies did not go to Baghdad.  All well-informed experts explained that if the Iraqi regime was overthrown, the balance of power between Iran and Iraq would be destroyed.  Their book predicted the chaos which has now ensued.  But Bush Junior, surrounded by neo-conservatives, took no account of this message.

The situation has changed since Barack Obama’s arrival to power.  It is difficult to say that Obama does not aspire to world leadership but at the same time, it is clear that for him leadership does not mean imposed hegemony.  He behaves differently, saying that the USA should pursue good relations with other countries including Russia and China.  Important steps have been taken in this direction.  But it is clear that it will not be difficult for him to impose his policies if the people in his entourage, through inertia, continue on the old paths of the Cold War.

As far as I know, the Russian government wants to take advantage of this new situation.  In any case, one way or another, the theory of a uni-polar world will get nowhere.  The idea of exporting democracy is also a dead end, as the Afghan example shows.  Yesterday I told an old joke from the 1970s to Le Monde: an American colonel during the Vietnam war goes to have his hard cut and the barber asks how things are going in that country.  “Stable,” he replied.  The barber asks again.  “Stable,” repeats the colonel.  The barber keeps asking the same question and getting the same response until the colonel gets fed up and asks the barber why he keeps putting the same question.  The barber replied, “Because every time you say ‘stable’ your hair stands on end and it’s easier to cut.”  Well, that’s the situation in Afghanistan today.  I say it with great regret because Russia supports America’s policy in Afghanistan.  We have our own experience in that country.

Today, everyone knows that there are secret negotiations with the Taliban.  It is obvious that the Afghan government wants a direct colution, without the Americans.  The ministers of Defence and the Interior have recently been removed from power precisely because they were linked to the Americans.  If it is clear that the Afghan government wants to negotiate directly, it is also clear that any such negotiation would have catastrophic consequences.  In my opinion, the Americans will start to withdraw their troops in 2011 because Afghanistan is an insoluble problem.

Concerning the fight against terrorism, we have to understand that there is a dilemma.  There is no doubt that the use of force is necessary to fight terrorism.  But it is not sufficient on its own.  In the Middle East, I think that we are entering a period of extreme danger.  Iran is expecting Israel to attack its nuclear sites.  It is no secret that Iran is intending to send an armed humanitarian flotilla.  If there is a conflict at sea between Iran and Israel, then Israel will use force.  Iran will exploit this to gain sympathy at the international level.  In any case, we cannot rule out this possibility.

What is happening with Iran’s nuclear programme?  According to the information available, which were confirmed while I was still in charge of the foreign information services of Russia, Iran has not yet taken the political decision to obtain a nuclear weapon.  Iran is currently pursuing the same path as Japan, developing nuclear technology but without obtaining the bomb.  What should be done?  Some say yes to sanctions but not to very harsh sanctions.  Sanctions which are too harsh can have negative consequences.  As far as Russia is concerned, she has economic relations with Iran.  To be sure, harsh sanctions would affect us, and the Iranian people, but we are also afraid that harsh sanctions might push the Iranian government further towards extremism.  In any case, the worst scenario would be an Israeli strike.  It could have disastrous consequences.

On the financial crisis:  the present crisis in the euro zone is the second wave of the financial crisis.  In my opinion, this crisis in the euro zone is systemic.  By creating European Monetary Union, the countries which joined it delegated to the supranational level power over interest rates and exchange rates.  But at the same time, the EU is built on countries which remain economically autonomous.  Furthermore, there has been a rapid enlargement of the EU.  I do not believe in the domino effect but the situation in Spain, Greece and Hungary is worrying.  The measures being taken today to create a support fund could perhaps extinguish the fire but I think that the EU will continue to suffer from considerable difficulties in the long term.  Recently I had a very interesting conversation with Helmut Schmidt.  He is a very wise man although of course very old now.  His view is that there a hard core will be formed between France, Germany and other countries.  Outside this hard core, the other European countries would be in a second division.  I think it is important to take account of this view which may indeed prove to be an accurate prediction.

And Russia in all this?  According to traditional indicators, Russia remains the largest country in the world, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Russia has up to 40% of the world’s natural resources.    The only country which can be compared to Russia in nuclear matters is the United States of America.  These facts alone show what Russia’ place is in the world.  However, our economy is weak.  We are suffering major difficulties with the crisis.  Russia has been affected worse by the crisis than the other countries of the G20.  We entered the crisis with two major imbalances.  First, our exports of primary materials represent 40% of our gross domestic product.  Obviously, when prices fall, Russia gets into finds herself in a difficult situation.  Let us compare Russia to China, for whom exports also represent a large part of GDP.  Chinese exports are of manufactured products, and this means that China has a greater room for manoeuvre than Russia.  China has been able to re-direct her exports towards the domestic market and therefore she has hardly suffered from the crisis at all.  We cannot do the same thing.  The second imbalance is linked to the debts of our businesses towards foreign banks.  These are huge – roughly equivalent to the whole of Russia’s gold reserves.  These debts were run up because our entrepreneurs were unable to borrow on the domestic market.  The situation is made worse by the fact that these companies are often publicly owned, which means that their debts are state debts. When the debt matures, the state will have to pay them off.

I would like to mention two topical issues, the price of hydrocarbons and the necessity to modernise.  The price of hydrocarbons has started to rise again and, as a result, some people in Russia say that we should go back to the model we had before the crisis.  Incomes were rising, unemployment was falling: “What was wrong with that?” they ask.  The government has done what was necessary during the crisis to protect the banking system and unemployment has been kept under control.  It is mainly financiers and conservatives who favour this return to the status quo ante.  But the statistics have just been published for the reform years: the population of Russia fell by 10 million, the number of civil servants rose by 17%, and while the standard of living rose, so did inequalities.  The difference between the richest 10% and the poorest 10% is of the order of a factor of 17, as compared to a factor of 7 or 8 in many other countries.  The number of research institutes fell by 40%, the number of researchers by 50%, yet the number of theses rose by a factor of 3 !  The number of maternity establishments halved.

In other words, it is imperative that the Russian economy modernise.  This is not just a slogan but a political decision which must be taken in view of the difficult situation in which our economy finds itself.  Many good decisions are simply not implemented.  I will give but one example.  Everyone understands that it is important to re-equip our factories with new technology.  Our Chamber of Commerce and Industry has put on the table the idea of reducing to zero the duties payable on the import of such equipment, including VAT.  But a recent poll has shown that only 13% of companies are taking advantage of this and importing high technology.  Perhaps they don’t have the money; perhaps they are saving up.  Either way, modernisation is not taking place.  And to understand why our state must be involved in the economy, I will give you another example.  In France, in the West in general, an entrepreneur is always looking for profit and that is why he invests.  Our market economy does not have enough competition.  As a result, our entrepreneurs do not have the internal impetus which would push them towards technological renewal.  This is not a slogan – it is a real necessity.  We must hope that this process will get under way because at least the political situation is stable in our country.

Questions :

Jean-Pierre Chevènement , senator, former minister:  Mr Primakov, I would like to thank you for your panoramic account which, I am sure, will encourage many questions because it was extremely interesting.  I would like to ask you and even more panoramic question.  How does Russia position herself between China, with her rapid growth, and Europe, which has been developed for a long time and which is rich and varied?  You expressed some fears about the euro zone and you mentioned the possibility of a deeper integration between France and Germany.  But what is in Russia’s interest?  Does it lie in integration between France and Germany – an integration which may be unequal – or does it like in broader cooperation with the individual countries?  Is there not a greater degree of complementarity between Russia and Europe at the level of individual states?  Would it not be better to organise a truly pan-European development instead of concentrating on a Franco-German hard core?

Evgeni Primakov: I agree with you.  Russia is interested in the maximum rapprochement with the whole of Europe.  We are a part of Europe after all !  No doubt we would never be accepted as a member of the European Union but that does not mean that we should not work towards the creation of a large economic space on the European continent.  Our attitude towards Europe is not just a geopolitical attitude based on security considerations, it is also based on economic motives.  Our request for visa-free travel shows this.  We do not want to be surrounded by a Berlin Wall and by the Great Wall of China !  As far as Russia and China are concerned, I have always been in favour of a Russia-India-Chian triangle.  This idea has helped establish excellent relations with India and China and it is still valid today.  At the same time, the most powerful country in the world is the United States.  We cannot ignore the Americans – but at the same time, Russia does not have to be dragged along in their wake.

Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Perpetual Secretary of the Académie française:  I would also like to thank Mr Primakov for his talk.  Mr Primakov, you mentioned Russia’s economic difficulties.  Would you like to say something about her difficulties in the Caucasus too?

Evgueni Primakov.  Thank you, dear Hélène, for your question, which does indeed concern a very difficult matter.  Chechnya is currently calm because it is now Chechens who take care of their own stability.  But that is not the whole story.  The situation in the North Caucasus is linked to the economic situation.  Unemployment there favours Islamist extremism.  This extremism is also a counter-reaction against the Soviet period when mosques were forbidden.  Wahhabis are very active in this region, but often the people who support Wahhabism do not even know what it is.  The founder of Wahhabism called for a return to the original sources and hardly even mentioned the Prophet.  In any case, these are tendencies which come from abroad.  The situation in Daghestan is also very difficult.  The use of force against terrorism and the struggle to improve living standards must go hand in hand.

David Mascré, diplomat and university lecturer:  The imperial eagle, as everyone knows, has two heads.  What are the factors which might encourage Russie to turn towards the East?  Might Japan one day distance herself from the United States?  What role is played by the construction of oil pipelines towards China and Japan?

Evgeni Primakov:  People used to ask whether we should build an oil pipeline towards China or towards the Pacific Ocean.  Today we are doing both.  There is no dilemma.

Natalia Narochnitskaya:  This is just what our great Tsarist prime minister, Piotr Stolypin said !  He defended the idea of the two heads, saying that if ever one cut off the head which is turned towards the West, then the eagle would bleed to death !

Pierre Lévy, editor of “Bastille-République-Nations”:  I would like to ask you a question about the EU and NATO.  Surely they are twin organisations.  They have the same origins and they support the same values.  Washington is always trying to make the borders of both the same.  The political personnel often passes from one organisation to another, the most common example being that of Javier Solana, the former Secretary General of NATO who later became High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union.  But Moscow seems to have a different attitude to these two bodies.  Is Russia more indulgent towards the EU than towards NATO?

Evgeny Primakov:  Allow me to say that I do not agree with you.  When Natalia Narochnitskaya and I worked together and the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, our job was to fight against the simplistic ideas of Soviet propaganda.  According to this propaganda, the European Union was nothing but a platform for NATO.  However, NATO was created to defend Western countries during the Cold War.  Today, its doctrine permits it to operate out of area.  In spite of the peaceful declarations of NATO leaders, we know that the Alliance’s military preparations are continuing.  The same is not true of the European Union.  It is a different organisation.  As a result, our attitude is different.

Prince Jean de France, Duke of Vendôme:  Mr. Primakov, this year is the year of Russia in France and France in Russia.  What are the main axes of cooperation between our two countries?

Evgeny Primakov:  There are many such axes – economic, cultural and political.  Let us build on all of them!  France is extremely popular in France!

Natalia Narochnitskaya:  It is important to understand that France has extremely positive connotations for Russia, as indeed Europe does generally.  “Europe”, for us, signifies all that is best in world civilisation.  By contrast, the concept of “the West” is more political and even, to a certain extent, negative.

Serge de Pahlen, businessman and director of Editions des Syrtes publishing house:  It is my honour to have published not only Evgeny Primakov but also Natalia Narochnitskaya !  Mr Primakov, could you tell us something about the Shanghai Cooperation Council?  In my view, it is an organisation about which too little is known.

Evgeny Primakov:  Yes, it is a very promising organisation.  Its members are Russia, China and the states of Central Asia.  According to its charter, any country which is not under international sanctions can join and, indeed, Pakistan, India and Iran, who currently have observer status, want to become members.  This is a good sign.

François-Xavier Coquin, emeritus professor at the Collège de France:   Can you say something about the domestic situation in Russia?  You spoke about modernisation and customs duties and about the fact that entrepeneurs are not taking up the challenge.  Perhaps Russia has too many billionaires and not enough millionaires !  But how can Russia develop beyond her status as an exporter of primary materials, a status which is now nearly two centuries old?

Evgeny Primakov:  We hare quite capable of doing that.  Our billionaires are the consequence of privatisation.  But I do not think they do not want technological development.  The state does a lot to support small businesses, even more than it does for medium sized ones.  Large and medium sized businesses often have their holdings abroad and this shows that they are competitive.

Bernard Owen, lecturer at the University Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris I):  What do you think about the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe)?  What do you think of its role in democratisation and security?

Evgeniy Primakov:  We have always strongly supported the OSCE, to the extent that we are sometimes accused of preferring it to NATO.  We will continue to support it in the future.

David Teurtrie, Centre for Russian and Eurasian Research: Will it help modernisation if Russia joins the World Trade Organisation?

Evgeny Primakov.  Russia must join the WTO.  We cannot afford to ignore an organisation through which so much trade passes.  But we want to join it under the same conditions as the other member states.  We want to protect our businesses with the same rules.  For example, many WTO member states continue to protect their agricultural sector.  Why should Russia not do the same?

Colonel Alain Corvez, consultant :  I would like to ask you about a recent event, the solution proposed to the Iranian nuclear question by Turkey and Brazil.  Do you consider this as a decisive step towards the creation of a multi-polar world?

Evgeny Primakov.  It is a very good question.  Everything depends on Iran.  If Iran accepts this solution without conditions, then it could win general support.  But the Iranians have reacted immediately and said that they will continue to enrich uranium.  The Iranian government is very unreliable.  Often one has the impression that the country is simply playing for time.  So it is a very important moment: Iran has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes but the Iranian government itself is not homogenous.

Natalia Narochnitskaya.  I would like to ask a question which our guests here this evening have been too polite to put.  Do you think that Russia is more or less democratic now than she was in the 1990s?

Evgeny Primakov.  I believe in a democracy which guarantees the rule of law for everybody.  In order for law to apply equally, one must not simply allow everything which is not anarchy.  At the same time, I do not like certain slogans like “sovereign democracy” for instance.  The state is sovereign but democracy is based on universal principles, applied to particular circumstances.