Home   Finance    Power Engineering    Metallurgy    Technologies    Insurance    Transports    Property    Health care  Right  Ru  
The Valdai - 2017: forum


The annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club was held in Sochi from October 16 to 19. The general theme of "Valdai-2017" this year was called "Creative destruction: will a new world order arise from conflicts?"
 
The Valdai - 2017: forum
 
Over four days, more than 130 experts from 33 countries discussed global, political and social conflicts of the day, the opportunities for society to adapt to new factors and conditions. Through the analysis of contemporary conflicts, experts and political scientists predicted the outlines of the world of the future. The final session was also attended by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, former President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai, scientific director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute Asley Toye and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Alibaba Group, Jack Ma.

The participants of the first two Sochi sessions discussed today, perhaps, two key conflicts of our time, affecting to one degree or another all the processes of world politics. Their result can be called the spread of populism in Europe and the United States, and the unexpected results of elections in democratic countries, and outbreaks of wars in several regions.

The first session was devoted to the conflict of geopolitical world pictures. Participants shared their vision of the modern world order and made suggestions as to what kind of world order could come to replace it. The most pessimistic picture was presented by Sergey Karaganov, dean of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics of the Higher School of Economics, Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy. In his opinion, we are experiencing a new cold war, which is much more dangerous than the war of the twentieth century. The new system, he said, will be based on a new military balance of nuclear states.

Theo Sommer, a columnist for the German newspaper Die Zeit, noted that the world is again split ideologically. Nevertheless, all countries without exception face the same challenges: population aging, urbanization, climate change. According to Sommer, it is not worthwhile to wage ideological struggle - we need to jointly solve common problems. As for the relations between Russia and the West, Sommer proposes to preserve what remains of cooperation and build trust.

Fu Ying, chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the National People's Congress, said that with the change in the geopolitical configuration, the opposition "center-periphery" is no longer relevant: we all live in the same economic space. In her opinion, there is a clear need for a global governance system and a global security system adequate to the existing global economic system.

Unlike other speakers, William Wolfforth, professor of public administration at Dartmouth College (USA), believes that the existing world order is quite stable and it is not worth waiting for the emergence of something new from the current conflicts. Wahlfort explained this, in particular, by the fact that all world orders are born after major wars. The current situation is not suitable for such a definition. There are fewer wars in the world than in other historical periods, and the possibility of a major war is prevented thanks to the nuclear potential of the leading powers.

It is noteworthy that during discussions no mention was made of a unipolar system, which can be regarded as a statement of its final departure into the past.

The second session, dedicated to the conflict between the rich and the poor, was held in the format of Chatham House, which stipulates that the participants in the discussion can use the information received, without naming the speaker at the same time. According to panelists, inequality is turning into the most acute social problem - and globally, between countries, and on the local, within states, and it is important to diagnose the causes of stratification of society in order to enable politicians to take the right measures.

The Westphalian system of state structure no longer supports the world order. Global governance does not provide for the elimination of inequalities within and between regions of the world. Many countries are disappointed by the international financial system. As one participant noted, developed countries have built ties among themselves, which are dishonest in relation to other players. For example, the US created swap lines only with those states that were of interest to them.

In developed countries, the problem of inequality is primarily related to the improvement of technology. One of the main drivers of the growing social inequality in them is computerization and automation. According to one of the western experts, despite all the advantages that new technologies bring with them, in the long term the consequences of their development will be negative: more than 57% of existing jobs in developed countries will be replaced by robots within two generations.

Experts also agreed that the most important aspects of inequality are the demographic situation and migration. At the same time, rich states can reduce the severity of the migration problem, first of all, by creating conditions for the development of those countries from where migration takes place.

Overcoming poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor, both within countries and between regions of the world, must be based on the demilitarization of international relations, taking into account the serious reform of the UN Security Council: it is necessary to reduce military spending and channel funds for sustainable development and assistance to poor countries.

In addition to the main sessions, two special sessions in closed format were held on the margins of the Valdai Annual Meeting. One of them was devoted to the problems of interaction of the USA with other world powers and the prospects of resolving the country's internal political crisis. The participants of another special session discussed the influence of the Russian revolution on the global structure - outlook, social structure, economic approaches, geopolitical alignment of forces.

The most expected event of the last day of the XIV Annual meeting of the Valdai Club was undoubtedly the meeting with the President of the Russian Federation. The traditional session with the participation of Vladimir Putin summed up the four-day Valdai discussions, in which over 130 experts from 33 countries took part. Scientists discussed global, political and social, today's conflicts, the possibility of society's adaptation to new factors and conditions. Through the analysis of contemporary conflicts, the contours of the future world were predicted.

Plenary session of the 14th conference of the Valdai Club:

F. Lukyanov: Dear friends! Dear guests!

I am very glad to greet you today at the plenary, final meeting of the 14th conference of the Valdai Club.

We, as always, before this meeting, held three interesting days in discussions on the most important and relevant topics. The title this year may be a little bit pretentious. We borrowed it from the famous economist and sociologist of the 20th century, Joseph Schumpeter, recalling his term "creative destruction", from which, according to his version, a new order and a new world are born. We tried to understand these days, nevertheless, in this phrase, which part should be emphasized - on creation or destruction, well, very different points of view were expressed.

First of all, I would like to ask the chairman of the Valdai Foundation Council, Andrei Bystritsky, to tell very briefly what we actually talked about and what we came to. Andrei Georgievich.

A. Bystritsky: Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich! Dear Mr. Karzai, Mr. Ma and Mr. Toye! Dear colleagues!

It is an honor to be with you today in the final panel discussion of the 14th Annual Valdai Conference. The conference, in my opinion and not only in my opinion, is very successful. In any case, almost everything with whom I happened to talk, spoke about our conference in the most superlative degree.

To some extent it seems to me that the annual large Valdai conferences with their increasing, in my opinion, quality resemble the music sheets of the composer Franz Liszt, who wrote notes for musicians on them. On the first he wrote: "To play fast", on the second - "Even faster", on the third - "As quickly as possible", and on the fourth - "Even faster". So for the next Valdai conference we need to come up with something special.

The name of the current conference is "Creative destruction: will a new world order arise from conflicts?" This topic became a natural development of the previous Valdai conferences, where the world order was discussed, and whether there are any rules for the world game, and much more.

The idea that, by destroying, you can create, of course, is not new. Back in antiquity they said that struggle, conflict is the basis of everything. It is another matter that development through a contradiction is possible if and only if people are able to rationally approach conflicts and act reasonably.

Unfortunately, and this was noted in the preliminary report of our club, rationality is now in short supply. It seems that the appearance of the actually new term "strategic frivolity" can now be attributed to the achievements of our club, which means the readiness to create extremely risky situations for the sake of momentary, tactical, often even absurd interests. And in general, the conference was full of very different and very vivid statements, which to some extent reflected the general mood, the general feeling that, perhaps, the end times are coming. One of the participants said that the most important thing was to avoid war in the next 15 years, while the other generally estimated the probability of war on the Korean Peninsula at 20 percent.

In general, during our conference, we tried to cover the widest possible range of conflicts that determine the fate of mankind. So, it was a question of the conflict of geopolitical pictures of the world, that the elites of different countries see the world differently. And this means that there is no general idea of ??what kind of future mankind needs. But at the same time, it is impossible to do without these general ideas, since the world is much more united and its parts are closer together than ever before.

The trouble is also that the current world is not so much producing security as consuming and wasting the old, accumulated by many cautious politicians of the past. In the opinion of some members of the club, it is necessary to revise the once unshakable concepts of geopolitics, such as dividing into a center and periphery or continental and maritime powers.

The conflicts related to humanism and technology were also discussed. More recently, technology has in fact strengthened, developed the existing qualities of a person, helped him to meet his needs, for example, in fast driving. The locomotive was, of course, invented just for this. But now new technologies actually modify the structure of human needs, impose on him new, previously never existed models of behavior. In the end, in one form or another there will be an artificial mind, and robots will replace a person in many professions. But what will people do with it, what will be their reaction - a big question. Especially if artificial intelligence, as one of the participants noted, will appear in the image of a charming blonde.

But it is quite obvious, besides this, that the new information technologies have led to the fact that the information space has become as valuable as the simple land in the time of Columbus, and the invasion of another's information space is now perceived as the most important threat to national security.

We could not not discuss the conflict between man and nature. If only because, let even with an artificial mind in an embrace, people must live somewhere, and the territories of the wild nature are rapidly shrinking. Today, the number of tigers, for example, living in captivity, exceeds the number of those who stayed in the taiga or in the jungle. We discussed that our attitude to nature should be radically revised, that the economy should to some extent be subordinated to environmental dominants. And above all because the power of man has increased many times, but whether responsibility for peace has increased and our ability to regulate world processes is a matter.

In addition, literally yesterday was presented Valdai "Index of countries' readiness for the future", developed with the support of VTsIOM. This index, while embracing the "G20" countries, should show the readiness of countries, states to various challenges of the future, which, apparently, are unpredictable.

One more thing. We presented for the first time a new Valdai Prize, the first one: for contributing to understanding modern world processes, explaining what is happening. And, according to the decision of the jury, this year it was received by the Russian academician, Orientalist Vitaly Naumkin. Thank you so much.

F. Lukyanov: Thank you, Andrei Georgievich. As you can see, the agenda was very rich and covered almost everything that is possible.

When experts gather, they can afford alarmism and even some kind of pessimism, look to the future with fear. But this is their advantage over politicians, because politicians and statesmen can not afford such a thing: they must be optimists. Therefore, I want to give the floor to the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin for a charge of optimism.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much!

I do not know how optimistic this is, but I know that you had very active discussions for these three days. I'll try, as we have already developed, to express my point of view on some issues. If I repeat something, then, please, do not be angry, because I did not follow all the discussions.

First I would like to welcome both Mr. Karzai, Mr. Ma, Mr. Toye, all our colleagues and friends, I see a lot of familiar faces in the hall. I am glad to welcome everyone to the meeting of the Valdai Club.

Traditionally this forum is devoted to discussions on the most pressing issues of global politics and economy. This time the organizers, as it was just said one more time, proposed a very difficult task - to try to look beyond the horizon, to reflect on what the coming decades will be for Russia and the entire international community. Of course, it is impossible to foresee completely and take into account all the opportunities and risks that we will face. But we need to understand, to feel the key trends, to seek non-trivial answers to the questions that the future poses and will surely put before us. And the pace of events is such that it is necessary to react to them constantly and quickly.

The world has entered an era of rapid change. The reality, everyday life, is something that has only recently been referred to as fantasy, as something unrealizable. Qualitatively new processes are simultaneously unfolding in all spheres. The tense dynamics of public life in different countries, the technological revolution - all this is intertwined with changes in the international arena. The competition for a place in the world hierarchy is becoming more acute. At the same time, many of the old recipes for global governance, overcoming conflicts and natural contradictions are no longer suitable, they often do not work, and new ones have not yet been worked out.

Of course, the interests of states are far from being the same. It's normal, of course, it's always been like this. The leading powers have different geopolitical strategies, a vision of the world. This is the invariable essence of international relations built on the balance of interaction and competition.

True, when this balance is violated, when compliance is challenged, and even the very existence of generally accepted rules of conduct, when their interests are being pushed at any cost, the contradictions become unpredictable and dangerous, lead to violent conflicts.

At the same time, no real international problem under such conditions and with such a statement of the issue is being solved, the relations between the countries are only degrading. Security in the world is getting smaller. Instead of advancing progress, democracy, the freedom of the hands is given to radical elements, extremist groups that deny the very civilization, seek to plunge it into archaism and chaos, into barbarism.

The history of recent years visually demonstrated all this. It is enough to see what happened in the Middle East, which some players tried to reformat, reformat themselves, impose another's development model through outwardly directed coups, or even directly by force of arms. Instead of jointly correcting the situation, delivering a real blow to terrorism, and not imitating the fight against it, some of our colleagues are doing everything to make the chaos in the region permanent. Someone seems so far, that you can control this chaos.

But some recent experiments of the last time still show positive examples, I mean - probably, you expected that I will say this, - the Syrian experience. It just shows that such an arrogant and destructive policy is an alternative. Russia opposes terrorists, along with the legitimate government of Syria and with other states of the region, acts on the basis of international law. And I would like to say that these actions, a positive movement, are not easy for us. There are a lot of contradictions in the region. But we got patience and with this patience very carefully, weighing every step and word, working with all participants of this process, respecting their interests.

And our efforts, the effectiveness of which was once, more recently, colleagues questioned, I will say neatly - still inspire hope today. They proved to be very important, correct, professional and by the time.

Or another example - a clinch around the Korean peninsula, for sure you talked about this too much today. Yes, we certainly condemn the nuclear tests conducted by the DPRK, fully comply with all the decisions on North Korea adopted within the UN Security Council - I want to emphasize this, my colleagues, so that there is no double interpretation here: we fulfill all decisions of the UN Security Council. But to solve this problem, of course, it is necessary through dialogue, and not to drive North Korea into a corner, not to threaten the use of force, not to sink to frank rudeness and abuse. Like it or not, like someone like the North Korean regime or do not like it, we must not forget that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a sovereign state.

Any contradictions must be resolved in a civilized way. Russia has always been in favor of this approach. We are firmly convinced that even the most complex knots, be it a crisis in Syria or Libya, on the Korean peninsula or, say, in Ukraine, must be unraveled and not hacked.

The situation in Spain clearly shows how fragile stability can be even in a prosperous, held state. Who else more recently could expect that the discussion on the status of Catalonia, having a long history, will result in an acute political crisis ?!

Russia's position here is known. Everything that happens is an internal affair of Spain and must be settled within the framework of Spanish law in accordance with democratic traditions. We know that the leadership of the country is taking steps in this direction.

In the situation with Catalonia, we saw a unanimous condemnation of the supporters of independence by the European Union and a number of other states. You know, in this regard, I can not help but note: it was necessary to think about this before. What, no one knew about such contradictions that existed for centuries inside Europe itself? You knew, did not you? They knew. However, at one time they actually welcomed the disintegration of a number of states in Europe, without hiding their joy in this matter.

And why was it so thoughtlessly, proceeding from the current political situation and the desire to please - "I'll tell you directly" to my older brother from Washington, unconditionally support the secession of Kosovo, provoking similar processes in other regions of Europe, and in the world?

I recall that when the Crimea, for example, also announced its independence, and then as a result of the referendum on joining Russia, for some reason it did not like it. And now, please, - Catalonia. In another region - Kurdistan. And this, perhaps, is far from an exhaustive list. And the question arises: what will we do, how to treat this?

It turns out, in the opinion of some of our colleagues, there are "right" fighters for independence and freedom - and there are "separatists" who can not defend their rights, even with the help of democratic mechanisms.

Similar, as we say all the time, double standards - that's the brightest example of double standards - are fraught with a serious danger for the stable development of Europe and other continents, for promoting integration processes in the world.

At one time, the apologists of globalization urged us that a guarantee of conflicts and geopolitical rivalry would be universal economic interdependence. Alas, this did not happen; Moreover, the nature of the confrontations has become more complicated, they have become multi-layered and non-linear.

Yes, the relationship is a deterrent, stabilizing factor. But at the same time, we are seeing more and more examples, when politics roughly interferes in economic, market relations. Most recently, it was said that this is impossible, counterproductive and this can not be tolerated. Now those who said this, they themselves do it. Some do not even hide that they use political pretexts and occasions to promote their own purely commercial interests. Thus, the recent sanction package adopted by the US Congress is openly aimed at pushing Russia out of the European energy markets, forcing Europe to switch to more expensive liquefied gas from the United States. And the volume is still there is not enough.

We are trying to obstruct the construction of new energy routes, the "Southern" and "Northern" streams, despite the fact that such a diversification of logistics is cost-effective, beneficial to Europe, serves to strengthen its security.

I repeat, each state, of course, has its own political, economic and other interests - the question is how, what means to protect and promote them.

In today's world, strategic gains are impossible at the expense of others. Such a policy based on self-confidence, selfishness, claims to its own exclusivity, neither respect, nor true greatness will not bring, but a natural, just rejection and opposition will inevitably cause. And as a result, we will get further growth of tensions, contradictions instead of trying to form a stable, stable world order together, to respond to the technological, ecological, climatic and humanitarian challenges that all mankind is facing today.

Dear colleagues! Scientific and technological progress, robotization, digitization already lead to profound economic, social, cultural, value shifts. We have before us unimaginable prospects and opportunities. However, you will also need to find answers to many questions. What will be the place of man in the triangle "people - technology - nature"? How will states behave in which, because of climatic and environmental changes, the conditions for a normal life can simply disappear? How to provide employment in robotics? How will the Hippocratic oath be interpreted in the era when the doctor will have the capabilities of an almost all-powerful wizard? Finally, will not the human intellect lose the ability to control an artificial intelligence? And will not artificial AI become an independent subject independent of us?

Earlier, assessing the role and influence of states, talked about the importance of the geopolitical factor, the size of the territory, the possession of military force, natural resources. Of course, this is still the most important factor today. However, now another important factor, without any doubt, is scientific and technological, and its significance will only increase.

Strictly speaking, this has always been the case, but today it will be of a breakthrough nature and will very decisively influence the sphere of politics and security very quickly. Thus, the scientific and technological factor acquires universal political significance.

It is also obvious that no modern technologies alone will ensure sustainable development. A harmonious future is impossible without social responsibility, without freedom and justice, without respect for traditional ethical values, for human dignity. Otherwise, "a beautiful new world" instead of prosperity and prospects for everyone can turn into totalitarianism, caste society, conflicts and the growth of contradictions.

Already today, growing inequality forms among millions of people, entire nations have a sense of injustice and deprivation. And as a result - the radicalization, the desire to change the state of things in any way, even violent.

By the way, this has already happened in the history of many countries, including in the history of our country, the history of Russia. When, following a successful technological and industrial breakthrough, dramatic upheavals followed and revolutionary breakdowns followed, because accumulated social contradictions were not resolved in time, and obvious public anachronisms were not overcome.

A revolution is always a consequence of a lack of responsibility, like those who would like to conserve, freeze the obsolete order of things that obviously requires reorganization, and those who seek to spur change without stopping at civil conflicts and destructive confrontation.

Today, referring to the lessons of a century ago, to the Russian revolution of 1917, we see how ambiguous its results were, how closely the negative consequences of those events are closely intertwined. And let us ask ourselves: was it not possible to develop not through a revolution, but by an evolutionary path? Not at the cost of destroying statehood, the ruthless breakdown of millions of human destinies, but through a gradual, consistent advance.

At the same time, the social model and ideology, largely utopian, which at the initial stage after the 1917 revolution attempted to realize the newly formed state, gave a powerful incentive for transformations around the world (this is quite obvious, this must also be acknowledged), caused a serious reassessment of models development, gave rise to competition and competition, the benefits of which, I would say, to a greater extent the so-called West.

What do I mean? This is not only geopolitical victories following the so-called Cold War. The answer to something quite different, many Western achievements of the twentieth century have become the answer to the challenge on the part of the USSR. I mean raising the standard of living, forming a powerful middle class, reforming the labor market and social sphere, developing education, guaranteeing human rights, including the rights of minorities and women, overcoming racial segregation, which, I recall, a few decades ago was a shameful practice in many countries , including the United States.

After the radical changes that took place in our country and the world at the turn of the 80s-90s, a really unique chance arose to open a truly new page in history. I mean the period after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.

Unfortunately, the Western partners, having divided the geopolitical heritage of the USSR, believed in their own undeniable rightness, declaring themselves winners in the "cold war", which I just mentioned, began to openly interfere in the affairs of sovereign states, export democracy in the same way as in its time The Soviet leadership tried to export the socialist revolution throughout the world.

We were faced with a redivision of spheres of influence and expansion of NATO. And self-confidence always turns into mistakes. The result is sad. It's a lost two and a half decades, a lot of missed opportunities and a heavy load of mutual distrust. The global imbalance has only intensified.

Yes, we hear declarations of commitment to solving world problems, but in fact we see an increasing manifestation of selfishness. Erosions are exposed to international institutions designed to harmonize interests and formulate a joint agenda, the basic multilateral international treaties and the most important bilateral agreements are devalued. I was just told, just a few hours ago, the President of the United States on social networks spoke out about the cooperation of Russia and the United States in one of the very important areas - nuclear cooperation. Indeed, this is the most important sphere of interaction between Russia and the United States, bearing in mind that Russia and the United States have a special responsibility to the world as the two largest nuclear powers.

But I, using this, still would like to say in more detail what happened during these years, in these decades in this crucial area, to give a more complete picture. You do not have to borrow more than two minutes.

In the 1990s, several significant bilateral agreements were concluded. The first - June 17, 1992, this is the program of Nunn-Lugar. And the second - on February 18, 1993, the HEU-LEU program. Highly enriched uranium was transferred to a low-enriched uranium, so HEU-LEU.

The projects under the first agreement related to the modernization of control systems, accounting and physical protection of nuclear materials, dismantling and utilization of submarines and radioisotope thermoelectric generators. As part of the fulfillment of Russian obligations, the Americans have done, I ask you to pay attention (it's not secret information, but just about that, who knows), 620 verification visits, and to the holy of holies of the Russian nuclear weapons complex: to the enterprises engaged in developing nuclear warheads and ammunition, plutonium and weapons grade uranium. The US received access to all top secret facilities of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the Agreement was virtually one-sided.

As part of the second agreement, the Americans made 170 more visits to our processing plants, and to their most restricted areas: mixing points and storage facilities. At the most powerful nuclear enrichment plant in the world, the Ural Electrochemical Combine was even equipped with a constantly operating American observation post, and directly in the workshops of this combine permanent jobs were created where American specialists went to work every day, as if not, but went to work work. And in their premises, as usual in this case, on the top secret Russian facilities there were American flags. In addition, a list of 100 American specialists was compiled from ten different US organizations that were given the right to conduct additional inspections at any time and without any warning. And all this lasted for ten years. Under this agreement, 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium were withdrawn from military circulation in Russia, which is equivalent to approximately 20,000 nuclear warheads. The HEU-LEU program has become one of the most effective measures of real disarmament in the history of mankind, I can say this with full confidence. Each step of the Russian side was scrupulously controlled by American specialists, while the US itself limited itself to much more modest reductions in its nuclear arsenal, and purely in good faith.

Our specialists visited the enterprises of the US nuclear weapons complex, too, but only at the invitation and on terms determined by the American side itself.

On the Russian side, as you can see, absolutely unprecedented openness and trust was demonstrated. By the way, we will probably talk about this - we are also aware of this: we completely ignore our national interests, support separatism in the Caucasus, act bypassing the UN Security Council in a forceful manner, for example, the bombing of Yugoslavia and Belgrade , the introduction of troops into Iraq and so on. Well, it is understandable: we looked at the state of the nuclear complex, the Armed Forces, the economy - international law was already unnecessary.

In the 2000s, in our cooperation with the States, a new phase of truly equitable partnership began. It was marked by the conclusion of a number of strategic treaties, agreements in the field of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, known in the United States, as "Agreement 123". However, in 2014, the US side unilaterally virtually ceased work within the framework of the Agreement.

The situation around the agreement on disposition of weapons-grade plutonium from August 20 (in Moscow it was signed) and on September 1 (in Washington) in 2000 causes confusion and concern. In accordance with the protocol to this Agreement, the parties mirrored actions on the irreversible transfer of weapons-grade plutonium into a state that does not allow it to be used for military purposes by manufacturing from it the so-called MOX fuel and subsequent combustion in reactors. Any changes to this method were allowed only with the agreement of the parties. So it is written in the Agreement, in the minutes.

What did Russia do? We developed this fuel, built a serial production plant and, as agreed in the agreement, built a BN-800 reactor, which allows us to burn this fuel safely. Russia has fulfilled everything, I want to emphasize this, all the obligations undertaken.

What did our American partners do? They began to build a plant in Savannah River, the original cost of 4.86 billion dollars, spent, almost 8 billion, brought the readiness of this enterprise, construction, up to 70 percent, and then the building was frozen. But, as far as we know, in the budget application for 2018, 270 million dollars are requested for the curtailment and conservation of this facility. The question arises as usual: where is the money? They stole, probably. Or something was incorrectly calculated when the construction was planned. It happens. And we have this happens very often. But we are not interested in this, it's not our business. We are interested in what is the matter with uranium, what about plutonium, how the utilization of plutonium itself. And this is supposed to be done by the method, it turns out, dilution and geological disposal. But this completely contradicts both the spirit and the letter of the Agreement, and most importantly, does not guarantee the impossibility of returning weapons-grade material. All this is very sad and causes bewilderment.

Further. Russia more than 17 years ago ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The US has not done this until now.

A critical mass of problems in the field of global security is growing. In 2002, as is known, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And being at one time initiators of the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and International Security, they themselves initiated this agreement. They do not fulfill their obligations. To this day, they remain the only and most powerful possessor of this type of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the United States has moved the deadline for the liquidation of its chemical weapons from 2007 already as far back as 2023. For a state proclaiming itself a champion in the field of non-proliferation and arms control, this is not solid.

In Russia, on the contrary, this process was completely completed on September 27 this year. Thus, our country has made a serious contribution to strengthening international security. Incidentally, the leading Western media preferred to silence this fact, they did not notice, in Canada somewhere there flashed once - and everything, all was quiet. But after all the accumulated earlier Russian, Soviet arsenal of chemical weapons could be repeatedly destroyed all life on our planet.

I am convinced that it's time to refuse, of course, from the obsolete agenda. I'm talking about what happened. But we, without any doubt, need to look forward, we must stop looking back, it's clear. I say this in order to understand what the current situation is.

For a long time, a frank conversation has arisen, the participants of which would be not only a certain group of the elected, like the most worthy and advanced, but the entire global community. Representatives of different continents, cultural and historical traditions, political and economic systems. In a changing world, we can not afford not to be flexible, open, capable of a quick and accurate reaction. Responsibility to the future is what should unite us, especially in times like today, when everything is changing at once.

Mankind has never possessed such power as now, such power over nature, space, communications, over one's own existence. But this power is dispersed: its elements are in the hands of states, corporations, public and religious associations and even individual citizens. It's clear that putting all these elements together in a single, efficient, manageable architecture is not easy, it will take hard, painstaking work. I want to note: Russia is ready to participate in it together with all interested partners.

Dear colleagues!

How do we see the future of the world order and the global management system? For example, in 2045, when the centennial will be celebrated by the United Nations. Her creation has become a symbol of the fact that humanity, in spite of everything, is able to develop common rules of behavior and follow them. When these rules retreated, they inevitably faced crises, negative consequences. However, in recent decades, there have been several attempts to belittle the role of this organization, to discredit it or simply to put it under its control. All these attempts predictably failed or reached a dead end. In our opinion, the UN, with its universal legitimacy, must remain the center of the international system, and the universal task is to raise its authority and effectiveness. The UN has no alternative today.

As for the right of veto in the Security Council, which is also sometimes challenged, I recall that this mechanism was conceived and created in order to avoid a direct clash of the most powerful powers, as a guarantee against arbitrariness and adventures, that none, not even It was not possible for an influential country to give the appearance of legitimacy to its aggressive actions.

Of course, what is a sin, all the experts here, they know that some of the actions were such that the UN backdrop legitimized the actions of individual participants in international communication. Well, at least that, but it also does not lead to anything good.

Reforms are needed, the UN system needs improvement, but reforms can only be gradual, evolutionary and, of course, they must be supported by the overwhelming majority of the participants in the international process within the organization itself, by a broad consensus, as the Foreign Ministry says.

The guarantee of effectiveness of the UN is in its representativeness. It has an absolute majority of the sovereign states of the world. And in years, decades, the basic principles of the UN should be preserved, since there is no other structure capable of reflecting the entire palette of world politics. Today, new centers of influence and growth patterns are emerging in the world, civilizational alliances, political and economic associations are taking shape. This diversity does not lend itself to unification. Therefore, we must strive for harmonization of cooperation. Regional organizations in Eurasia, America, Africa, the Asia-Pacific region should act under the auspices of the United Nations and coordinate their work. At the same time, each association has the right to function according to its own ideas and principles that correspond to their cultural, historical, geographical features. It is important to combine global interdependence and openness with the preservation of the unique identity of each people and each region. We must respect the sovereignty as the basis of the whole system of international relations.

Dear colleagues!

No matter how amazing the peaks the technique reaches, history is created, of course, by man. And it is such a story, as it is done by people with their achievements and weaknesses, exploits or mistakes. Our future can only be general, separate future - for someone, it does not happen separately, it will not, in any case, in the modern world. And the responsibility for ensuring that this world is conflict-free and prosperous lies today in the entire world community.

As you know, these days in Sochi is the XIX World Festival of Youth and Students. Young people from dozens of countries communicate with peers, discuss problems that concern them. They are not hampered by cultural, national or political differences, and they all dream of the future, they believe that their lives, the lives of new generations will be better, more just and safer. And our task, our responsibility today, is to do everything to make these hopes come true.

Thank you very much for your attention.

 
Read also:

  • APEC 2017 Summit in Vietnam
  • World Economic Forum in Davos 2018
  • Summit Brix in Xiamen 2017
  • VEF-2017: results
  • Gold and currency reserves of the countries of the world 2017


  • The most innovative economies of the world 2017


    World Economic Forum in Davos 2018

    APEC 2017 Summit in Vietnam

    Valday - 2017: forum

    VEF-2017: results

    Summit BRICS in China 2017
             Calendar
    «    Июнь 2018    »
    ПнВтСрЧтПтСбВс
     
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
    29
    30
     

    GDP of the world's countries 2017
    List of the IMF in trillion. $.

      1 USA - 19,284
      2 China - 12,263
      3 Japan - 4,513
      4 Germany - 3,591
      5 Great Britain - 2,885
      6 France - 2,537
      7 India - 2,487
      8 Italy - 1,901
      9 Brazil - 1,556
      10 Canada - 1,530
    GDP per capita world countries 2017 (table)

    List of the IMF in $

      1 Luxembourg - 108004.9
      2 Switzerland - 79347.76
      3 Norway - 72046.29
      4 Qatar - 67269.64
      5 Macao - 61365.29
    The state debt of the countries of the world 2017

    Public debt of 2017 countries as a percentage of GDP

      1 Japan - 250,91
      2 Lebanon - 147,62
      3 Italy - 131,71
      4 Eritrea - 127,5
      5 Portugal - 127,33
      6 Cape Verde- 122,25
      7 Bhutan - 122,12
      8 Jamaica - 116,07
      9 USA - 107,48
      10 Barbados - 106,58
    Gold and currency reserves of the countries of the world 2017

    International reserves, billion USD

      1 China - 3080,7
      2 Japan - 1260,0
      3 Switzerland - 773,1
      4 European Union - 745,9
      5 Saudi Arabia - 492,9
      6 Taiwan - 444,4
      7 Russia - 419,9
      8 Hong Kong - 413,3
      9 India - 393,6
      10 Republic of Korea - 383,8

    Home   Finance    Power Engineering    Metallurgy    Technologies    Insurance    Transports    Property    Health care  Right  Ru  





    Economy news
       Copyright 2015 © econominews.ru