2 мая 2016
Москва: 02:05
Лондон: 00:05

Консульские вопросы:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 

SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES

18.06.2012

Article by President Vladimir Putin, published by the Mexican daily El Universal

The G20 and global economic challenges

An unprecedented crisis hit the global economy four years ago, sending visible ripples around the entire world and affecting every country to some degree.

To meet a challenge of this scale the world’s leading countries had to radically change their approach. For the first time in history, the leaders of the countries that account for almost 90 percent of global GDP showed genuine desire and ability to coordinate economic policy. Most importantly, they prevented the world from taking the dead-end road of trade wars and all-out protectionism, and began putting the international currency and financial system in order.

Thus, the G20, which before 2008 existed only through the format of regular meetings of finance ministers, gained the status of a leading global forum for addressing economic and financial issues.

It was thanks to the G20 that measures were taken at the height of the crisis to increase the capital of all of the multilateral development banks and bolster the IMF’s resource base, thus enabling these institutions to support the countries worst affected by the crisis. The G20 proposed a long-term agenda for reforming the financial regulation system and outlined principles for protecting the rights of consumers of financial services. The G20 leaders’ decision in 2009 to establish the Financial Stability Board as the coordinating body for drafting new rules of the game in the financial sector was without question a significant event.

But the systemic problems are still far from all solved. The effects of the 2008 crisis are still visible today. The imbalances that have built up are evident in budget shortfalls, troubled banks, and a debt-to-GDP ratio in developed countries that has clearly gone beyond reasonable limits. Moreover, recent months have brought us negative trends on the markets and other worrying signals that now have the analysts making very pessimistic forecasts.

These developments are unfolding against a backdrop of change throughout the entire global country. The experts predict that growth in developing markets will outstrip growth in the established developed countries more than 3.5-fold right up until 2017, and more than 2-fold over the 15 years to follow. Not only are the powerhouses of global growth shifting in location, but the geography of goods and financial flows is changing too.

What position does Russia take in this situation? Over recent years, Russia, which is the world’s sixth-biggest economy in terms of purchasing parity power, has strengthened its financial and budget system. We have the third-biggest currency and gold reserves in the world. With a growth rate of 4.3 percent, Russia’s economy is one of the fastest growing big economies in Europe. Unlike in 2008, Russia’s banking system is now much better protected against fluctuations on the global financial market.

Russia is not burdened by dangerously high debt levels. Household debt levels in Russia are considerably lower than that of other countries. Total household debt came to 10.6 percent of GDP as of April 1, 2012, compared to approximately 60 percent of GDP in Germany and France, 87 percent in Spain, and 92 percent in the USA. As for Russia’s public debt, at 9.2 percent of GDP as of May 1, 2012, it is minimal compared to the other countries in the G8, G20, and the BRICS Group. For comparison, public debt is 81 percent of GDP in Germany, 86 percent in France, and 104 percent in the USA. Last year we succeeded to get a deficit-free budget and to even make a small profit of 0.8 percent of GDP, we therefore earned more money than we spent. Russia’s trade surplus stood at $198 billion.

At the same time however, if revenues received due to favourable oil and natural gas market situation are deducted, we will see high budget deficit figures. Such deficit resulting from oil and gas revenues deductions has grown over the years of the crisis to the maximum level which may be allowed.

We are very much aware that we need to speed up the pace of change. We need to do this in order to guarantee sustainable development and reduce our dependence on raw material exports. We are therefore working on radically improving the investment climate, making Russia a globally competitive place to do business, reducing infrastructure bottlenecks, building up our human capital, and modernising the economy in general. At the same time, we are continuing to respect all of our social commitments. These reforms are all a crucial part of the agenda of the Russian authorities at all levels.

This upcoming G20 summit takes place at a time of growing uncertainty. Aside from taking measures to correct the serious financial situation in individual European Union countries, most of the world’s countries also need to strike a reasonable balance between fiscal consolidation and strict budget discipline on the one hand, and job creation, economic growth, and tackling social problems, including maintaining pension system stability on the other hand.

The problems that have emerged in the banking sector and the scale of speculation that has brought down markets show that the global financial architecture is still in need of reform and still contains many internal risks and contradictions. It has yet to gain a firm foundation and be tied to real assets and values. Indeed, recent trends on the financial markets show an ever-growing divergence with the fundamental indicators in the real sector of the economy. This only serves to further fuel the general lack of confidence and instability that, as we know, can easily lead to outbreaks of financial panic.

The need for new steps is evident. Above all, we need to tighten regulation of derivatives trading. We need to ensure consistent implementation of the new Basel III financial regulation that reduces the risk of bubbles arising. I believe it is in our common interest to facilitate the emergence of new reserve currencies and expand their use in global trade and investment. Finally, the G20 must fulfil its commitment to reform the international financial institutions, including the IMF and the World Bank, in particular by moving from talk of increasing the developing countries and ‘new’ economic powers’ role in these institutions’ management to actually taking practical steps in this direction and giving them a greater say in drafting and adopting the major basic decisions.

In this context I want to stress one point in particular. We all know that financial instability inevitably leads to increased trade protectionism. In 2009, global trade fell by 12 percent, the biggest slide in the entire post-World War II period. This was largely because, despite the public statements to the contrary, some countries made extensive de-facto use of tough protectionist measures to protect their own markets. It is time to recognise that governments are on the one hand declaring protectionism unacceptable, but on the other hand are devising ever more sophisticated ways to protect their own economies, disguising protectionist measures as environmental or technical restrictions, for example.

It is time to stop pretending and come to an honest agreement on the acceptable level of protectionist measures that governments can take to protect jobs in times of global crisis. This is particularly important for Russia as our country will join the WTO this year and we intend to take an active part in the discussions on the future rules for global trade. In particular, we will make every effort to break the deadlock in the Doha Round.

All of these various issues will be on the agenda at the summit in Mexico. They will be among our priorities when Russia takes over the presidency in the G20 next year, as will global energy security issues. We realise how important it is to maintain confidence in the G20. Confidence in the organisation will be devalued if our joint decisions remain nothing but lofty declarations, suspended in mid-air, without real implementation and oversight.

It is equally important to ensure that the G20 does not become just another elite club that selfishly looks after its members’ interests alone. The sense and purpose of our work together is to lay down fair rules for sustainable development throughout the entire global economy. This is the line that Russia will offer its partners at the upcoming summit in Los Cabos.




LATEST EVENTS

18.04.2016 - UNESCO resolution on preserving Palmyra - approved 8 April

UNESCO’ Role in Safeguading and Preserving Palmyra and other Syrian World Heritage Sites


13.04.2016 - Syrian future implies all-inclusiveness (By Ambassador Yakovenko for RT)

On 31 March, Russia circulated in the UN Security Council a draft press statement, emphasizing the need to ensure that the Syrian talks in Geneva are inclusive. The main purpose of this document was to underline that all opposition groups should join the negotiations, including the Kurds. Unfortunately the Western members of the UNSC, including UK, blocked the draft by proposing amendments that run counter to the spirit of the statement. Such a position is regrettable, especially as it contradicts the International Syria Support Group's decisions and provisions of the UNSC Resolution 2254. This step is even harder to understand, since it came from our Western colleagues. Probably it was a result of the pressure by regional players, some of whom still prioritize their ambition to have a Sunni government in Syria.


06.04.2016 - "Russia’s strategy based on diplomacy backed by force" (Letter to the Editor, FT)

Sir, In his otherwise brilliant analysis “The self-induced twilight of the west” (April 4), Edward Luce has got some things wrong. Particularly, he is uncritical of the US military’s allegation of the Russian Air Force “weaponising refugees” with no evidence provided. It is well known that the exodus of refugees from Turkey to Europe started well before we intervened militarily on September 30 2015.


23.03.2016 - Letter to the Editor of The Times, sent on 22 March

For quite a while the British Government has been referring to perceived Russia/the Kremlin’s interest in the Brexit debate. Unfortunately, Oliver Kamm makes the same point in the Times (“Brexit would play into the hands of Putin”, 21 March). What all the pronouncements of this sort have in common is the claim to know better than the Russian Government where our national interest lies and what our policies are. By the way, the “Pravda” hasn’t been speaking for the Russian Government for the past 30 years.


14.03.2016 - Talking points of Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets at the launch of exhibition "Russia and the Arts"

Dear Friends, It gives me pleasure to congratulate you on the opening of the “Russia and the Arts: The Age of Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky” exhibition dedicated to the 160th anniversary of the State Tretiakov Gallery. This exhibition is yet another evidence of a profound connection between our cultures. Russia and Great Britain gave the World a plethora of great artists and works. In our country, works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, Arthur Conan-Doyle and other British classics are widely known. I know that in Britain they take no lesser interest in writings of Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Anton Chekhov or music by Piotr Tchaikovsky and Dmitry Shostakovich. The new BBC version of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is a great example of such continuing mutual fascination.


15.02.2016 - Russian Embassy representative’s comments on Prime Minister David Cameron’s statements on Russia in Hamburg

Media question: Speaking the other day in Hamburg, Prime Minister D.Cameron referred to the perceived "Russian threat" as a reason for Britain to stay in the European Union, whatever the outcome of the alleged "sham" talks on EU reform and terms of British membership. What would you say on such a disingenuous attempt to win the upcoming EU referendum on Russia’s back? ' Answer: It became fashionable ever since the Bush Administration’s "axis of evil" to juggle with such a "troika" of threats to meet domestic and foreign policy objectives. As to our British partners, they made us part of the construction comprising "Islamic State" and Ebola. Now, like in the Lego kids game, the Ebola brick is replaced with North Korea. And the reason is our differences over Ukraine. As to the Crimea, it is a reunion. As to East Ukraine, the people are fighting a nationalistic regime for human rights of the minorities and an autonomy. All of it is about Ukraine and has nothing to do with the Baltic or any other states. So, the notion of a "Russian threat" to Europe is a false one. The real and immediate threats to Europe are different, those are the Eurozone and migration crises. Russia has not got anything to do with neither of them. The attempts to drag Russia into the British domestic debate on whether to stay in the EU does not make credit to the present Tory Government. We just wonder what other domestic problems the Government would wish to resolve at Russia’s expense.


12.02.2016 - Alexander Yakovenko for RT

Russia and the United Kingdom - these two powers, for centuries, have been tied into the most complicated relations: enemies at one time, and yet allies and cooperators at another. But now the temperature between the two is steadily going down, with Britain leading the anti-Russian sanctions and, just recently, coming out with allegations of Moscow’s involvement with a death of former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko. What’s pushing London to make such statements? Does the Cold War-like vector of Cameron’s policy resonate with public opinion? How much is this public opinion is shaped by the voice of mainstream media? And, finally, is there a hope for a thaw? We ask the Russian Ambassador to the UK. Alexander Yakovenko is on Sophie&Co today.


12.02.2016 - Opinion: credibility of British Litvinenko Judgment Doubtful (Eurasia Review, By William Dunkerley, February 10, 2016)

A dark cloud of suspicion still hangs over a 2006 British murder mystery. The Litvinenko affair started as a London spy mystery. It made top headlines back in the day. Riveting allegations claimed Alexander Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning ordered by Russian president Vladimir Putin. Now almost ten years later, the mystery has evolved into a government political scandal. After years of false starts and inaction, an official inquiry was finally called in 2015. Getting to the bottom of things was its ostensible purpose.


11.02.2016 - Opinion: Litvinenko and the Demise of British Justice (by James O'Neill, Dissident voice)

The publication on 21 January 2016 of the report by British Judge Sir Robert Owen on the death of Alexander Litvinenko was predictably seized upon by anti-Russian elements as confirmation of their conviction that Russia in general and President Putin in particular were the personification of modern day evil.


05.02.2016 - Opinion: six reasons you can't take the Litvinenko report seriously (by William Dunkerley, the Guardian)

Inquiry points the finger at Vladimir Putin and the Russian state, but its findings are biased, flawed and inconsistent. An inquiry into the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko in the heart of London in 2006 has concluded that he was “probably” murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin. This is a troubling accusation.



all messages