Reading over the actual transcript of the press conference has been a lot more interesting than just reading the news articles about that. I guess those in the press just haven’t caught on to my tastes yet, but I can forgive them for now.
At the beginning of the press conference, both President Bush and Putin give their littles speeches. The action didn’t start until the newspeople started asking their loaded questions… something that made for even better answers. You’ve got to love it. I’ve put in bold some parts of interest; things that many of us have wondered about. Interestingly enough, Putin talks about the way the regional governors are now appointed, though I doubt the harmless way he describes it as is as it actually is.
QUESTION: Mr. President, four years ago, when you first met with President Putin, at a time some in the world were questioning his commitment to democracy, you reassured a lot of those (OFF-MIKE) into his soul and saw a man that you found trustworthy.
You’ve just listed some concerns here today. I’m wondering if you could unequivocally and without reservation repeat that statement today.
And, Mr. Putin, I’d like to ask you to address critics in the United States and elsewhere who saw Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin as taking early steps on the path to democracy and worry that you have reversed course.
BUSH: One thing gave me comfort in making the statement I made in Slovenia was that Vladimir said, “When I agree with you, I’ll tell you; and when I disagree with you, I’ll tell you.” In other words, we’ll have a very frank and candid and open relationship.
And that’s the way it’s been.
BUSH: There was no doubt in my mind what his position was on Iraq. He didn’t, kind of, hedge, he didn’t try to, you know, cloud up the issue. He made it abundantly clear to me that he didn’t agree with my decision.
And that’s an important part of having a trustworthy relationship, a relationship where when a person tells you something, you know he means what he says, and yes means yes and no means no.
Sometimes in politics yes means maybe. And no means if. This is the kind of fellow who when he says yes, he means yes, and when he says no, he means no.
And we had a discussion about some decisions he’s made. He’s had some interest in decisions I’ve made. That’s a very important dialogue.
As I said, I’ll say it again, I think it’s very important that all nations understand the great values inherent in democracy: rule of law and the protection of minorities, viable political debate. And when I brought that — I don’t want to put — Vladimir can speak for himself on that issue. But all you can tell you is he said yes meant yes when we talked about values that we share.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): First of all, I’d like to say that we discussed these issues at length, face-to-face, just the two of us.
Russia has made its choice in favor of democracy. Fourteen years ago, independently, without any pressure from outside, it made that decision in the interest of itself, in the interest of its people, of its citizens.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): This is our final choice and we have no way back. There can be no return to what we used to have before. And the guarantee for this is the choice of the Russian people themselves.
No guarantees from outside cannot be provided. This is impossible. It would be impossible for Russia today. Any kind of turn toward totalitarianism for Russia would be impossible due to the condition of the Russian society.
As far as the questions that are being discussed among our partners in the media, I can only repeat what has been said by the president of the United States.
First, we are not going to make up, to invent any kind of special Russian democracy. We’re going to remain committed to the fundamental principles of democracy that have been established in the world.
But, of course, all the modern institutions of democracy, the principles of democracy, should be adequate to the current status of the development of Russia, to our history and our traditions.
There nothing unusual here either. In every country, these overall principles are embodied that way, in electoral law. We can compare the United States and a number of European countries in the operation of major democratic institutions. There may be some differences, but the main fundamental principles are going to be implemented in the form in which they’re developed by the modern, civilized society.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As far as the preceding period in our development, no doubt the credit that can be given to that period in the development of the Russian Federation for the fact that the previous generation of politicians — despite all the difficulties that have arisen due to changes in Russia, they have given the main thing to the Russian people: That is freedom.
But I believe that — and a lot of people will agree with me — the implementation of the principles and norms of democracy should not be accompanied by the collapse of the state and impoverishment of the people.
We believe — and I, personally, believe that the implementation in the strict new democracy on the Russian soil should not jeopardize the concept of democracy. It should strengthen statehood and it should improve living standards for the people. ÄDrama queen alert! Socialist-Authoritarian talk at its best.Å
It is in this direction that we’re going to act.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): First of all, I wanted to ask another question, but we have an interesting conversation now, therefore I’m going to ask about the following.
It seems to me that you have nothing to disagree about. The regimes in place in Russia and the U.S. cannot be considered fully democratic, especially when compared to some other countries of Europe, for example; for example, the Netherlands.
It seems to me that, as far as Russia is concerned, everything is clear more or less. But as far as the U.S. is concerned, we could probably talk at length.
I’m referring to the great powers that have been assumed by the security services due to which the private lives of citizens are now being monitored by the state.
QUESTION (TROUGH TRANSLATOR): This could be explained away by the consequences of September 11th, but this has nothing to do with democratic values.
How could you comment on this?
I suggest that you can probably agree, that you can probably shake hands and continue to be friends in future.
BUSH: I live in a transparent country. I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open and people are able to call people to me to account, which many out here do on a regular basis.
Our laws and the reasons why we have laws on the books are perfectly explained to people. Every decision we have made is within the Constitution of the United States. We have a constitution that we uphold.
And if there’s a question as to whether or not a law meets that constitution, we have an independent court system through which that law is reviewed.
So I’m perfectly comfortable in telling you, our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I’d like to support my American counterpart. I’m absolutely confident that democracy is not anarchy. It is not a possibility to do anything you want. It is not the possibility for anyone to rob your own people.
Democracy is, among other things, and first and foremost, the possibility to democratically make democratic laws and the capability of the state to enforce those laws.
You have cited a curious example, the Netherlands. The Netherlands is a monarchy, after all. I have no doubts about the democratic nature of that country.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): It is certainly a democratic nation, but this is very different from the United States and Russia. There are great differences between Russia and the U.S. as well.
If we talk about whether we have more or whether we have less democracy is not the right thing to do. But if we talk about how the fundamental principles of democracy are implemented in this or that historic soil, in this or that country, is an option — it’s possible. This does not compromise the dignity of the Netherlands or Russia or the U.S.
QUESTION: President Bush, were you satisfied with (OFF-MIKE) that President Putin gave you today on some of the decisions he has made on his democratic institutions, or have you just agreed to disagree?
And, President Putin, did anything President Bush said to you today prompt you to reconsider some of those decisions?
BUSH: I think the most important statement that you heard and I heard was the president’s statement when he declared his absolute support for democracy in Russia and they’re not turning back. To me that is the most important statement of my private meeting and it’s the most important statement of this public press conference.
I can tell you what it’s like dealing with the man over the last four years: When he tells you something, he means it. He asked what some of my concerns were, and he explained answers.
I told him it was very important that capital see a rule of law, that there be stability, there not be a doubt about whether or not somebody invests or whether or not the laws change.
BUSH: And I think Vladimir heard me loud and clear, and he explained why he made decisions he made.
We had very frank discussions about a variety of issues, and the operative — again, the operative statement, the summary statement that I think is important for people to hear in our country is precisely his opening statement to King’s question, speaking about monarchies, anyway. Get it? Was…
(LAUGHTER)
It’s late in the trip — was his firm belief in democracy, and I appreciate that.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): I have already mentioned that we have paid a lot of attention to these issues. I get the impression that sometimes the public in our partner countries do not have the full knowledge and consequently do not have the full understanding of what is taking place in the Russian Federation.
Naturally, within our country there are people who are in favor and there are those who are opposed to the decisions that are being made; for example, the decision on the new procedure for the election of regional leaders in the Russian Federation.
But those who are opposed are richer than those who are in favor. They have the opportunity to spread their opinion in the media and we often do not pay the attention to that.
I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that the leaders of the regions of the Russian Federation will not be appointed by the president. The candidates will be presented — will be submitted to regional parliaments that are elected through secret ballot by all the citizens.
This is, in essence, a system of the electoral college which is used on the national level in the United States. And it’s not considered undemocratic, is it? ÄActually, this isn’t like the electoral college at all. Yes, while the regional parliaments are elected through secret ballot, Putin just reaffirmed that the candidates for the seat of regional governor will be picked by the president. No, they will not be directly appointed, but the candidates will all be so similar and so controlled that it won’t matter. If anything, this sounds more like senators before being directly elected. Except, senators are legislators, and regional governors manage entire provinces. There’s a big difference. It is also worth noting that most of the parties represented in Russia are pro-Putin, so the choice isn’t exactly strong there either.Å
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): We discussed these issues at length, and some of the ideas — I wouldn’t say advice, but some of the ideas that I heard from my partner who I respect a lot. And I believe that some of his ideas could be taken into account in my work. And I will pay due attention to them, that’s for sure.
Some other ideas I will not comment on.
Thank you.
QUESTION (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): To follow up on the issue of democratic institutions, President Bush recently stated that the press in Russia is not free. What is this lack of freedom all about?
Your aides probably mentioned to you that our media, both electronic and our printed media, have full coverage on the manifestations and protests in our country. Our regional and national media often criticize the government institution.
What about — why don’t you talk a lot about violation of rights of journalists in the United States, about the fact that some journalists have been fired or do you prefer to discuss this in private with your American colleague?
BUSH: I don’t know what journalists you’re referring to.
Do any of you all still have your jobs?
Look, I think it’s important any viable democracy has got a free and active press.
Obviously, if you’re a member of the Russian press, you feel like the press is free.
Feel that way?
That’s good.
But I’ve talked to Vladimir about that. And he wanted to know about our press. It’s a nice bunch of folks. And he wanted to know about, as you mentioned, the subject of somebody getting fired. People do get fired in American press. They don’t get fired by government, however. They get fired by their editors or they get fired by their producers or they get fired by the owners of a particular outlet or network.
But a free press is important.
BUSH: And it is an important part of any democracy.
If you’re a member of the press corps and you feel comfortable with the press in Russia, I think that’s a pretty interesting observation for those of us who don’t live in Russia to listen to.
But no question, whether it be in America or anywhere else, the sign of a healthy and vibrant society is one where there’s an active press corps.
Obviously there’s got to be constraints. I mean, there’s got to be truth. People’ve got to tell the truth. And if somebody violates the truth — and those who own a particular newspaper or those who are in charge of a particular electronic station need to hold people to account. The press, the capacity of the press to hold people to account also depends on their willingness to self-examine at times when they’re wrong.
And that happens on occasion in America. And that’s an important part of maintaining a proper relationship between government and press.
I can assure you that the folks here are constantly trying to hold me to account for decisions I make and how I make decisions. I’m comfortable with that. It’s part of the checks and balances of a democracy.
And so I’m glad to hear your editorial comments, so to speak, on your comfort with the situation of the press corps in the Federation of Russia.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): First of all, what do you mean when you say I keep silent or we keep silent about this or that problem?
First of all, I’m not the minister of propaganda.
Second, we discuss all issues in absolute openness.
PUTIN (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): As George said, today we discussed this issue as well with regard to Russia and the United States.
But what is absolutely obvious is that in the United States there are a lot of mechanisms to uphold the freedom of the press. And as far as the fact that there is some kind of friction between the media and the government, there is an ongoing debate, an ongoing critical debate going on, there is a lot of criticism coming from the media with respect to the government. This is a manifestation of democracy.
What you mentioned about the comments in the media of the actions of the Russian government is testimony to the fact that we do have a freedom of the press, although we’re being criticized often that this is not the case.
When we discuss these issues, absolutely frankly, we — and I, in particular — do not think that this has to be pushed to the foreground; that new problems should be created from nothing. And I do not think that we should jeopardize the Russian-American relationship, because we’re interested in the development of this relationship. ÄFrankly, it should not be Putin’s decision whether new problems should arise from the press or not. The way he talks even just reeks of his statist attitude.Å
We are paying close attention to all the comments of the press or opposing forces, but our responsibility is to, in spite of all these problems, of which there are plenty, positively develop the Russian- American relationship.
I’d like to thank the president of the United States for this constructive dialogue that we’ve had today.
Thank you very much.
BUSH: Good job. See you in May — early May.
(APPLAUSE)
END
I need some Tylenol.