2019.11.24.
11月20日にロシアのプーチン大統領は、ロシアへの投資を呼びかけるフォーラム（the plenary session of the 11th VTB Capital Russia Calling! Investment Forum）で演説するとともに、会場からの質問に答えました。私が特に注目したのは、プーチンが、ソ連経済システムの崩壊原因に関する認識とも関連させながら、中国の社会主義市場経済システムについて高く評価する発言を繰り返したことです。私は11月17日のコラムで中国をどう見るかについて私の認識を述べましたが、プーチンも中国の経済システムについて高い評価を行っていることに我が意を得た思いがしています。以下にプーチンの発言要旨を紹介するゆえんです。英文の関係部分も末尾につけておきます。
ソ連崩壊については、バルト諸国におけるナショナリズムの台頭とはほとんど関係ない。基本的な原因は不効率な経済政策であり、そのことが社会の崩壊を促し、政治分野においても持続的な影響をもたらしたのだ。ちなみに、中国は集権化された管理と市場経済とによって提供された可能性を極めて巧みに活かしている。我々はその成果を分析している。（Regarding the breakup of the Soviet Union, it had little to do with the rise of nationalism in the Baltics. The basic reason was, of course, an ineffective economic policy, which promoted a social collapse and also had a prolonged effect in the political sphere. Incidentally, the People's Republic of China has used the possibilities offered by centralised management and the market economy very wisely. We are analysing its achievements）…
ソ連はそうしたことを何もしなかった。非効率な経済政策の結果が政治領域を痛撃したのだ。ソ連崩壊の結果は、人々が予想した最悪の結果をも遙かに超えるものだった。（The Soviet Union did nothing of the kind, and the results of an ineffective economic policy hit the political sphere. The consequences of its collapse were much worse than people could imagine in their worst dreams. ）…
中国経済の根本的な安定性は明らかなことだ。その利点についてはすでに述べた。中国指導部は、経済運行レベルにおいて中央の計画と市場経済との間のユニークな共生を創造することに成功している。これは世界のどこにも先例がないことだ。私が大きな確信を持って言えることは、このユニークな方式が非常に良い結果を生み出しているということだ。中国経済は全体として、アメリカを含めた世界の多くの経済体よりも遙かに効率的に機能している。私が思うに、このことがアメリカの主要な懸念の所在であり、アメリカが中国に制限を課している理由である。貿易不均衡が理由なのではなく、このこと（浅井注：中国経済の効率性）が理由なのだ。（The fundamental stability of the Chinese economy is obvious.I have already mentioned its advantages. The Chinese leadership has successfully created a unique symbiosis between central planning and a market economy at the level of economic operators. This is something that has no precedent anywhere in the world. And I can say with a great degree of certainty that this unique phenomenon is producing very good results. The Chinese economy as a whole functions much more efficiently than many other large economies in the world, including the American one. I think this is a major concern for our American friends and explains the restrictions imposed on China. This is the reason – not a disparity in the trade balance.）
（参考）
Russia Calling! Investment Forum
Vladimir Putin attended the plenary session of the 11th VTB Capital Russia Calling! Investment Forum that focused on building bridges over the waves of de-globalisation.
November 20, 2019
Raymond Zucaro: Thank you, my name is Ray Zucaro from the United States, from RVX Asset Management.
Thank you VTB Capital and, more importantly, thank you, President Putin, for showing up.
Now I say look at the world today. I can't help but see some parallels with what was the Soviet Union and what is the European Union today. I see a fusion of different peoples, of different cultures, with different languages, all unified under a common banner, with a single currency supported by a central entity, supporting the satellite nations of the European Union with the idea of a greater good.
I see the Europeans' essential bank creating money out of thin air, out of pixy dust, trying to buy the member states together. Artificial rates have replaces what cheap energy and military presence was for the Soviet Union. I can't help but wonder if Brexit is similar to what happened in the Soviet Union in 1988 with the rise of nationalism in Kazakhstan, in the Baltics – a precursor to its eventual falling apart.
So my thoughts are, and my question specifically is, what are your views on the European Union given your pre-imposed Soviet Russia?
Vladimir Putin: Regarding the breakup of the Soviet Union, it had little to do with the rise of nationalism in the Baltics. The basic reason was, of course, an ineffective economic policy, which promoted a social collapse and also had a prolonged effect in the political sphere.
Incidentally, the People's Republic of China has used the possibilities offered by centralised management and the market economy very wisely. We are analysing its achievements, as our Chinese colleague will tell you. We see that when tenders are held there [for the allocation of funds] from the central sources to micro-level, people are fighting for these contracts. Why? Who is involved? These are economic operators who are working in market conditions, and who are very effective.
I will not go into detail now regarding the US and China accusing each other over the yuan rate and so on, but these are the instruments that are being used very effectively. The Soviet Union did nothing of the kind, and the results of an ineffective economic policy hit the political sphere. The consequences of its collapse were much worse than people could imagine in their worst dreams. I am not going to talk about this now. This is not the place or the time to do this.
As for the European Union, you can draw parallels, although there are some multinational EU countries. I mentioned this before, and these are not my own data but information provided by my colleagues from some EU countries. Here it is: the European Parliament adopts more decisions that are binding on all the EU countries than the USSR Supreme Soviet ever adopted decisions regarding the union republics. A comparison is possible in this sense, although the greatest difference is that the Soviet Union was an integral and strictly centralised country, unlike the European Union.
Back during WWI, there was a scenario for creating the United States of Europe, or the European Federation, but it never came to fruition. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was created after WWII, and so it went on and on. And now we have the European Union.
However, differences have developed practically overnight, based on practical problems. I do not believe that British taxpayers like paying their taxes when they know that the bulk of their money, and we are talking about tens of billions of euros, will be used to pay for the basic needs of societies that have not reached a certain level of economic development. There are other factors. The decisions taken by the European Parliament ultimately affect all the EU member states. Of course, not everyone likes this.
I do not think I have the right to make any assessments, but I would like to draw your attention to the following: somewhere on the threshold of 2028, some Eastern European countries will have already reached the economic development level and will not receive grants or various kinds of support from the pan-European budget. They will have to pay, like Britain has to this day. And I am not sure they will not have the same ideas as Britain does now.
So, of course, for the European Union to keep going… Incidentally, we are interested in this. We in Russia want to deal with a predictable and understandable partner. We watch with concern what is happening there. A considerable part of our gold and currency reserves are in euros. Despite the decline in trade after various sanctions (trade dropped from $450 billion to about $300 billion) it has started to rise, and the EU is still a major trade and economic partner. So we are interested in everything being maintained and functioning normally.
That said, we are analysing what is happening there and, of course, what will happen there in the future.
Your question: can the EU be compared to the USSR? I think the answer is "no." This is a completely different thing but some parallels are possible. I do not know whether it will be possible to save the EU in its current form, taking into account a few trends I mentioned. But I know that European leaders are aware of this and are certainly thinking about this problem. They have different scenarios aimed at consolidating the EU and making integration more sustainable. I do not know if they succeed but in any event I wish them success.
There is yet another variable there, which is very important for ensuring security. Until now the United States used to say: "We are an umbrella saving you from the Soviet threat and you must pay for this."
Now this idea is not very viable despite the problems with Crimea and games involving Crimea and Donbass. It is clear to everyone that Russia will not attack anyone. Do you understand how many people live in the EU and NATO and what their aggregate economic and military potential is?
This is simply nonsense, total stupidity. The Russian threat is the invention of those who want to profit from their role of the vanguard unit fighting against Russia, to receive perks and preferences. But all this has time limits and that's obvious to all. This is clear to the leaders of Europe's major countries.
So, the United States will also have to take some steps to change the quality of its relations with its allies even in NATO. It is no longer enough to say: "We are protecting you, so pay us." Why would they wish to pay for the upkeep of the defence sector and jobs in the United States? They will develop their own defences. This is what they are saying now. So, you should be more thorough in this respect.
Lei Teng: Thank you, Mr President. My name is Lei Teng. I am working for Russia-China Investment Fund.
Early this year, I have seen both nations' prime ministers witness the signing [of an agreement] between China Investment Corporation and the Russian Direct Investment Fund to set up a direct fund for the technology development. And recently, I have seen the Russian Direct Investment Fund raise another $2 billion from their international partners to sponsor Russian development of artificial intelligence.
So, my question is, do you think it is important for Russia to use the Direct Investment Fund to fund the digital technology development, such as artificial intelligence? That is the first part of my question. And the second part of my question would be very simple. Do you think Russia may open to use the currency such as RMB, so called Chinese yuan, as dominant currency to set up such fund? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: The fundamental stability of the Chinese economy is obvious.
I have already mentioned its advantages. The Chinese leadership has successfully created a unique symbiosis between central planning and a market economy at the level of economic operators. This is something that has no precedent anywhere in the world. And I can say with a great degree of certainty that this unique phenomenon is producing very good results. The Chinese economy as a whole functions much more efficiently than many other large economies in the world, including the American one. I think this is a major concern for our American friends and explains the restrictions imposed on China. This is the reason – not a disparity in the trade balance.
The yuan, as you know, is included in the list of IMF currencies, and is confidently taking its rightful place in the world financial market. There are certain exchange limitations on the use of the yuan in global transactions. But our Chinese friends believe that it is too early to make any liberalisation decisions.
But the stability of the Chinese currency is obvious. And this, of course, creates the prerequisites for its wider use in mutual settlements.
In this regard, I would like to note that in Russia the ruble is a fully convertible currency and can be exchanged in any amounts and at any time, and it is very convenient for use. The combination of these positive factors on both sides makes it absolutely realistic to increase mutual payments in national currencies. We are now focusing on this at the level of finance ministries and central banks. The volume of settlements in national currencies is still small, but it is growing. And I hope that it will grow faster. We have every reason to believe it will.
As for the use of investment funds and joint platforms for the development of such a promising area as artificial intelligence, it is not even about the money, not the amount of resources invested. We are in touch with our Arab friends (you may know that I recently visited Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates); we are conducting a dialogue, and they are ready to invest any amount of resources as well.
It is not about money, but about common interest.
When a joint platform is created, the resources begin to be used jointly and in areas where one of the parties has a competitive edge – Russia with its the fundamental science and development of fundamental components such as mathematics and related subjects (we have absolutely obvious competitive advantages in this area), or China with its level of development of industry, with the economic component based on the organisation of the industries.
When we combine these competitive advantages on both sides, and make them complementarily useful and interesting, then we will get the greatest effect. This is the purpose of joint investment – finding common interest and increasing common competitiveness.