Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of May 6, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 6, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 5:33 p.m. to study on the rise of China, India and Russia in the global economy and the implications for Canadian policy.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The committee is examining the emerging economic influence of China, India and Russia and Canada's policy response.
Appearing before the committee today is His Excellency Georgiy Mamedov, Ambassador of the Russian Federation, a gentleman we have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions over the last few years. His Excellency has told me, like Mike Duffy, that I have been talking only about when the next election will be. Hopefully, it will be within your term, Mr. Ambassador, which is for another year or so. I suspect the election will occur in October 2009.
Mr. Ambassador, welcome to the Senate of Canada. We will always be extremely respectful and understanding. We look forward to your opening remarks. You are the only witness this evening so, out of respect for your position, you may take a few more minutes for your presentation that the normally allotted seven or eight minutes, after which we will move to questions from members of the committee.
His Excellency Georgiy Mamedov, Ambassador, Embassy of the Russian Federation: Mr. Chair and esteemed members of this committee, I wish to tell you how privileged I am to appear here today. I want to tell you how sorry I am about the loss of Canadian lives in Afghanistan today. I extend my sincere condolences to you and to all Canadians. I sent a letter to my friend Peter MacKay telling him that we are all in the same boat and that we will stand by your side and support you in this war against terrorism. Again, my deepest condolences, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Mamedov: Now, down to the nitty-gritty. I was a bit concerned when you told me that you will be very respectful toward me. It means that we will lose a lot of fun. I am hugely privileged to be here. Before today, I have testified only before my Senate and before the American Senate. It was a difficult experience because for 30 years I dealt with the United States. For 15 years, I was in charge of relations with the United States at the foreign ministry and my head file was nuclear arms. When I testified on new treaties to cut nuclear arms in the Russian Senate, the communist opposition called me a CIA agent. When I testified in the American Senate, naturally they believed I was a KGB man.
It was an exciting life in the fast lane but 10 years ago when I quit my American file, I decided the only place I wanted to be was Canada. I have eyewitnesses here working with your Foreign Affairs who heard me say loud and clear that I would go to one place only — Ottawa. My four years here have been the happiest of my professional career and during that time, a number of things have come to fruition, have come to life.
As Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation I was in charge of relations with North and South America arms control in the G8. In 1992, I arrived here with then President Yeltsin to sign a Declaration of Friendship and Cooperation with Canada and many other agreements, including the agreement on the North. If people were to read the treaty, it would put to rest many of the worries about Russia grabbing the Arctic because we have a special agreement. Unfortunately, no one has heard about the agreement except for a few people working at Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. There were other things. We were ready to go full speed ahead but after the collapse of the Soviet Union we did not have an established order of society in Russia, including the business community. There were years of tumult. In 1993, during the time that I travelled abroad for meetings, the streets of Moscow were crowded with people rallying and demonstrating, and tanks rolled down the streets. You will remember when Mr. Yeltsin ordered troops to fire on the then Russian Parliament. We were on the brink of Civil War. There were many good intentions in our relations as they were established in 1992. Only recently were we able to begin to put them into practice.
I am very happy to report to you that unlike your trade with some other countries, trade with Russia is expanding and booming. In the first months of this year, it expanded by more than 60 per cent. Trade and investment are well balanced.
Thanks to the good offices of my friend — and I do not know whether he is your friend — the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Charest, we had an excellent summit of leading bankers from both Russia and Canada in Quebec for the first time last year. We started a number of programs that are important for us. Before that, unfortunately, the Canadian stock exchanges in Toronto and Montreal were not on our radar screen. However, particularly after that meeting, there are special people in Toronto to look after Russian investors because they believe it is a booming market.
We also had the first business summit in Ottawa last March under the auspices of the Russian President and the Canadian Prime Minister. Current deals total $10 billion involving not only Russian and Canadian businesses, but also your partners from the South, which I believe is important.
When I was working for the Soviet foreign ministry, one of my top tasks was to drive a wedge between Canada, the United States and other NATO allies. Now that we are no longer in the Cold War-mode, my job in this country is to build multilateral structures that will provide for greater stability in our economic and political relationships.
We are now striving for a trilateral energy relationship with Canada and the United States. We have important people amongst both Republicans and Democrats vouching for our oil and gas industry. Therefore, I am not terribly concerned with who will win the American presidential race. My bet is that it will be Mr. McCain, but who am I to judge what the American people will decide.
The political dialogue between our leadership is of great help. We recently elected our new President, a young guy who is as old as my son. He is 42-years-old, four years younger than the famous Mr. Obama. While Americans are still thinking about whether to entrust their future to the next generation, Russians have already tossed the coin and decided to make the move, calling it either generation X, Y or Z.
The inauguration of the new Russian President will take place tomorrow. This, again, shows the brilliance of your thinking and your timing. I think our two leaders will hit it off. Prime Minister Harper sent a warm congratulatory letter to President-Elect, Dmitry Medvedev, who responded in kind.
I am happy that the importance of a growing political dialogue and economic relations with Russia has a lot of support in your Parliament. I believe parliamentary relations between Russia and Canada trail blazed our new relations in general. I am always happy to quote my good friend and your Speaker, Senator Kinsella, who sent me a letter saying that he found our conversations on economy and security and defence to be stimulating and informative because of our similar geographic characteristics and common interests. That letter was one of the great encouragements for me to appear before your committee as a witness.
We have a sound foundation and many agreements that can now be implemented because we have people in Russia who are not afraid to invest their money, effort and political careers into getting closer to Canadians by investing here.
There are a number of pillars or priorities to our current cooperation. First, the United Nations is important in each of our dealings with foreign affairs. The UN represents the pillar of current order. I do not know whether Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada will tell you the same, but I believe they are fairly close. We always seek the blessing from the United Nations in our different actions toward third-world countries, whether it is Iraq or other countries.
Second is Afghanistan. For nine years, I was the Russian Political Director in the G-8. Unfortunately, for many years before 9/11, I spoke in vain, I was a voice in the wilderness saying that we must pay attention to Afghanistan and the terrorists gathering there and establishing training camps, et cetera. I was ignored and my friends across the table — Americans, Canadians and others said, ``It is your bloody Soviet history; we do not have much to do with that.''
Unfortunately, history proved that we all have a lot to do with it. That is why we now provide Canada with intelligence information, which General Hillier told me, saves a lot of Canadian lives in Afghanistan. We provide you with special equipment without making much ado of that. We have regular consultations between our military and share experiences.
We also support the Karzai government although he was installed in Afghanistan, not by Russia, but by the United States. According to Cold War logic, we should have opposed him all the way. However, we know better and we support that government. We write off all their debts and provide them with help. We will do everything to support him short of sending troops, which is politically impossible in Russia; we lost thousands of lives during this very unfortunate adventure of the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan.
I am proud to tell you that we have an excellent working relationship, not only with your military, but with CSIS and the RCMP on this subject. While we may still be embedded in some Cold War stereotypes on other issues and all these cloak and dagger games, on the subject of Afghanistan, we work closely together and to our mutual benefit.
Last, but not least, I would like to mention disarmament. Unfortunately, it does not have much prominence in your reports, research or hearings. Canada has all the moral rights on disarmament because you gave up nuclear weapons while having and possessing all the technology for missiles and nuclear warheads, et cetera. You gave it up voluntarily. You always fought for disarmament and are doing the same now.
Again, I believe we are forging a very natural partnership now that we are trying to convince the new American President, whomever it might be, to go back to the negotiating table to resume the reduction of strategic nuclear arms. Without that, we have feeble chance of convincing the Iranians, Indians, Pakistanis and others to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if we do not set an example and get rid of all this unnecessary excess of nuclear weapons in both Russia and the United States.
You are a great country, fighting against the arms race in space. We signed an agreement with you when my president was visiting Canada several years ago. I hope that we will renew these efforts in the Conference on Disarmament and prevent this crazy arms race.
As to the economic pillars of our relationship, they are also quite obvious. The first is diversification. Yesterday, with great interest I watched on Mike Duffy's program Minister Emerson, the Co-Chair of the Canada-Russia Intergovernmental Economic Commission saying that we must diversify our economy and that Americans are great friends and partners and nothing can be closed in terms of economic importance of the United States. However, we must diversify. Therefore we must as well because our emphasis thus far has been on the European Union and on China. However, current economic and other conditions make it imperative for us not to put all our eggs in one basket.
As I said, our trade is flourishing. However, we have much more happening than trade. It is geography. Together, we encompass 12 time zones, 5 in Canada and 7 in Russia. We are bordering on the northern infrastructure which is fragile and causes climate changes. It is also very important, and not only for our indigenous population. We have the same challenges with our indigenous population as you have here, ladies and gentlemen. I travelled to your North and had an opportunity to compare. I know that, working together, we can create quite a reliable environmental and economic structure for the North.
Aside from that, of course, it is what you call commodities. You have everything and we have everything. Let us not forget that one-third of the world is undernourished; one-fifth of the world's population has to subsist without sufficient quantities of fresh water. Also, climate change is terrible. Therefore, when we speak about resources, it is not only oil, gas and uranium but it is also our forests and our great lakes.
Our teamwork is important, not only from the standpoint of competitiveness of Russia and Canada but also for the survival of mankind and for healthy environments — ecological and otherwise — that our children and grandchildren will inherit.
I see a lot of untapped potential in this infrastructure cooperation between Russia and Canada. I mentioned the Arctic Bridge that we legally created in 1992. Last year, for the first time, there was a shipment from Murmansk to Churchill. I think the Arctic Bridge will dwarf the importance of the Panama Canal sometime soon.
I want to put some of your fears to rest. We have no quarrel with your Arctic. We are not inclined to make an Arctic grab because both of us are part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That convention sets out all the rules and how the competition should be channelled. We made our application for what we believe can be an extension of our economic zone; you are due to post your application no later than 2012. I hope it will be out there in time. It will then be up to the special committee of the United Nations — an unbiased committee — to decide who has which rights.
Therefore, all these discussions about Russians planting a flag on the bottom of the Arctic are a lot of rubbish. It is nice; it gives everyone a sense of achievement. However, the fact that the Americans planted a flag on the moon does not mean that the moon is American. As I said, we have strict rules for cooperation and we put our emphasis and our practical discussions with your Prime Minister and with your government on cooperation. Even if you consult legal advisers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, you will find out that we have no legal problems over the Arctic. Whatever may emerge as a problem of competition for economic zones will be resolved by the United Nations. It is in our common interest to advise the next American President to join the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Otherwise, Canada and Russia both will have problems with the Americans if they will not abide by the rulings of the road created by the United Nations.
Last but not least is agriculture. We are both huge agricultural countries. We can learn a lot from you because Stalin and the totalitarian Soviet state destroyed Russian farmers and our agriculture. We are starting from scratch. We can use a lot of your experience.
We now have people with money in Russia who can invest in your food processing industries and otherwise. My good friend Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba, is quite interested in inviting Russian investment. No one is afraid of Russians coming or going. In fact, we are being asked to come. Other entities sometimes play hard to get. We must show them that they can make a huge advance in Canada. Canada, of course, has access to the market of the United States and Mexico; the sky is the limit.
The fringe benefit of our business relations with Canada brings a strong sense of social responsibility in the best representatives of Canadian business. I am not saying ``all'' because you have different representatives. However, in the best representatives of Canadian business that I have encountered they demonstrate a very strong sense of social responsibility.
For the new generation of Russian business leaders, if they want to grow out of the image of robber barons, it is important for you to show, in a pragmatic practical way, that you can make money, at the same time, remain honest, and make a huge input in the building of your social safety net. Our totalitarian social safety net was destroyed; our people suddenly found out that, together with the freedom, they do not have free education, free medicare, cheap housing and so on.
We must prove to them that democracy is much better than what they had before, not only because they no longer have gulags and firing squads. I am speaking from experience; Stalin shot my grandfather. My second grandfather was imprisoned and saved by the bell because the war with Hitler started; he was a tank commander and they could not deal without professionals like him.
People understand why freedom and democracy is better than tyranny. However, they must also see that in the market economy, they will not be let alone by the government and the business community. That is why when your business people come to Russia — whether it is Kinross or Bombardier — they come with a social package. They build a small school, a small medical centre or a small skating rink. I know that Senator Mahovlich will be glad to hear that soon many of our hockey players will remain back home and not come to Canada. He will finally face the real competition like back in 1972.
We are going through this very important social and economic exchange. First, the bill was footed solely by the generous Canadian government in the early 1990s. Now we are prepared to foot it ourselves. Therefore, we are discussing the new arrangements with Canadian International Development Agency. Export Development Canada already saw the light and opened an office in Moscow because they know it is in their interest when we enter the World Trade Organization that Canadians have a foothold already in Moscow and in other major centres.
Therefore I think our arrangements are proceeding in a good way. I see a hopeful future for them. I do not believe we have any problems or insurmountable obstacles, ideological or otherwise.
We are two great federations. We have 100 nationalities in Russia and all kinds of religions. We face the same challenges of social and religious tolerance. We are prepared to learn from you, whether it is the introduction of Sharia law in Ontario or Russia or Kazakhstan or anything else. We share it in common. As I said, I was happy to stay here for four years, to learn from your achievements and your mistakes. I think these hearings are very timely.
I do not want to compete with China or Brazil or anyone else. I think it is self-evident that two great neighbours like Russia and Canada have a lot in common and must promote the relationship for the good not only of our two peoples, but mankind in general. I think we can do that. If we meet in a competitive mode again, hopefully it will be just in the finals of the hockey championship in Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. That was an interesting discussion.
First of all, welcome once again to Canada. You told us that you chose to come here. That makes it doubly important. On behalf of Senator Mahovlich, he does not need a little rink, he needs a big rink. The next time we go, we will build a big rink.
I have a long list of members who want to engage you in some questions and answers. I will begin with our Deputy Chair, Senator Stollery.
Senator Stollery: The committee, as you probably are aware, did a Russia study some years ago. We had several of the prime ministers come before us and some of us met with President Putin. The thing that impressed all of us most was the youth of the prime ministers. There was a bit of a revolving door going on, but nevertheless they were impressive.
Mr. Mamedov: Unfortunately, they are getting older.
Senator Stollery: We are all getting older.
I say that only in the sense that the veterans of the committee have a slight knowledge of Russia — not much, but a slight knowledge — and we are aware that there are 11 time zones. As you know, at this point, we are looking at foreign affairs and trade. The question was brought to us in the meeting last week, when we had very interesting testimony that Russia — and I do understand this because I do know Russia a little bit privately —
Mr. Mamedov: Are you still cycling in Russia?
Senator Stollery: I have cycled 2,200 kilometres in Russia. I know European Russia.
Mr. Mamedov: Safely.
Senator Stollery: Yes, this is all nonsense, all those people talking about dangers.
Mr. Mamedov: Say more about that on TV and elsewhere, because people believe Russia is hell reincarnated.
The Chair: We are on TV right now, Mr. Ambassador.
Senator Stollery: I was interested in finding out what the situation was on the ground. I have spent several years doing that, as you know.
The issue that the committee is seized with, and what was brought up at the last meeting, was that Russia sees itself as a European country. As I say, I understand that. I do not see why there is any difference between the people on the west side of Lake Pskov and the people on the east side of Lake Pskov.
Nevertheless, there are 11 time zones. When you look at much of the Russian land mass, my own personal view is if you go east of the Volga, where it drops south, which is the border with Kazakhstan at the lower end, you are dealing with Eurasia. You are really into Asia.
In terms of the economics that the committee has been seized with, I have been told that Russian grain exports recently were 6 million tonnes.
Mr. Mamedov: We are third in grain exports.
Senator Stollery: They are going up quite dramatically. Russia will be a major competitor.
Would you like to enlighten us as to what progress is being made as a realization that Russia does have an enormous neighbour in Mongolia and China — we will leave Kazakhstan out of it — and is the world's largest producer of natural gas? The last time I looked, it was about the sixth or seventh producer of oil, but none of the pipelines, we were told last week, go to China.
I recall that recently there was a bit of a kerfuffle over the pipeline toward Sakhalin, which I guess was going to go to Japan or China, as I recall. I do not remember the details. It seemed to some of us that there is a natural partnership between the manufacturing industry of China and the production of the necessary energy by Russia. However, that connection does not seem to have actually taken place.
Mr. Mamedov: I have just one correction. When you discuss the importance of different Asian countries for Russia, Kazakhstan is a close second to China. Mongolia is a very distant third, fourth, fifth or whatever. We have central Asia on top of it — Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan et cetera. Do not forget that just 15 years ago, there was one nation state. They were all part of it. It was a very painful divorce procedure with central Asia. Many of our state industries that were created suddenly collapsed because the links collapsed. Now they are newly independent states who plan their own relationships with China, Kazakhstan, Europe, Japan and so on.
Much of what was created for decades now must be corrected. We were a centralized economy. We never thought of the Russian Republic dealing with China. We thought of the Soviet Union dealing with China, through Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, et cetera.
Imagine the unimaginable; that Quebec goes away and all of your links that you have through Quebec with other countries, you have to think about them anew. It was a very painful readjustment in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Now we are building, finally, a huge pipeline from Western Siberia, from the oil fields, all the way to the forest. It will supply oil to the United States, China and Japan.
Yes, there were some ideas about building a pipeline to China, but out of common sense, we decided that we had better diversify. Who knows what will happen in China tomorrow? They have not yet gone through the transformation that the Soviet Union went through before it collapsed. They still have one kind of political leadership and quite another kind of economic foundation. Who knows what will happen tomorrow?
We decided it would be smarter for us to plan something big and make the huge investment for a great transformation. The Chinese suggested that they send their own labour to build our pipeline. You are laughing but some very important people in our government gave this some serious consideration because the idea was cheap.
Senator Stollery: The area is not heavily populated.
Mr. Mamedov: We found sufficient resources, but it was not easy. It is a very important project for the reasons that you outlined, and we hope that it will bring about social infrastructure by attracting people to the good salaries. Russia will have its oil sands along the way. Many natural resources in Eastern Siberia are untapped because of the lack of infrastructure. Again, we relied on some republics in Central Asia for connecting us with China, Japan and others, and now we must replace that.
We are working on it and we already have a timetable. We have a resolute date of May. I am sure that President Putin will become our Prime Minister. He is a very tough guy and will be able to provide results with this difficult project. We are thinking about it.
As to our being a European country, we are Europeans culturally. As I said to some of your colleagues, our greatest national poet, Aleksandr Pushkin, wrote poetry in French before he started writing poetry in Russian. There is a certain cultural influence but geographically and geostrategically, even for the sake of our population east of the Ural Mountains, we are an Asian country. I am not an ethnic Russian. My father was borne in Azerbaijan. It may be a joke but I want to lighten up your difficult day: When Putin became President and he wanted to have a first meeting with the American President, he did not want many people around, just those who were directly involved in the security negotiations. He had a short list, and on it was your humble servant in charge of the American file. My deputy is ethnic Georgian and his deputy is ethnic Armenian. You see, we are a multi-ethnic country. We are surprised that only people from the Caucasus seem to be able to deal with the Americans. They asked if we had any Russians capable of finding a common language with the Americans.
We are working on what we are talking about but it is a huge task. Do not forget that we paid a huge price for our ties with Asian countries. I do not want to scare you but we lost 60 million people in 70 years — 30 million in the war and 30 million during Stalin's terror. Part of this terror was to send prisoners to populate the forest in Siberia and build it up. You can no longer do that, thank God. It will take us some time to readjust and to build relations with these newly independent countries to our east, but we are doing okay. Our trade with China tripled during the last five years. Japan is anxious and getting what they want from Sakhalin Island. They are also anxious to be a part of this new project that likely will be in place by 2010-11, which is not far away.
Senator Stollery: I mentioned that because I know there is a railroad from Peking to Ulan-Ude through Mongolia.
Mr. Mamedov: You can take a train from Moscow to Vladivostok.
Senator Smith: I admit I have always been fascinated by Russian history and I even studied it in university. I managed to travel to Russia for the first time 40 years ago. I became good friends with Alexander Yakovlev one of your predecessors over 25 years ago; I have some good stories to tell you one day.
Mr. Mamedov: I know the former ambassador very well because he was one of my father's closest friends.
Senator Smith: From Russia's perspective, outline the relationship that you think makes sense vis-à-vis both NATO and the EEC.
Mr. Mamedov: Can I give you my personal opinion or do you want me to give the party line?
Senator Smith: Perhaps a bit of both.
Mr. Mamedov: I am in a difficult situation because I signed an agreement with NATO. I participated in all of those discussions, beginning with the fact that we wanted to be a member of NATO.
Senator Smith: I know.
Mr. Mamedov: The Americans told us that it was just a matter of time. Unfortunately, they had second thoughts. You know how difficult American politics are.
Senator Smith: We understand.
Mr. Mamedov: We did not hold a grudge against them. Then, they reneged on an official understanding between Russia and the United States during the unification of Germany; there are official documents. Russia had a very unfortunate experience with Germany over the years. Of course, it was not easy for us to agree to the reunification of Germany in the early 1990s. I was present when the deal was agreed to. Unfortunately, appearances are deceptive. I am a very old man and I know my facts. I participated in all Soviet-American and Russian-American summits starting in 1972. I participated in that one as well, which was near the beautiful island of Malta, when George Bush Senior and my good old friend Jim Baker gave us a solemn promise that if we agreed to the reunification of Germany, then first, Eastern Germany would not have any troops from NATO; and second, there would not be any new members of NATO from Eastern Europe.
When everything turned around, it was a nasty surprise because Yeltsin believed that he effectively killed communism. He had received a standing ovation from the American Congress and so he did not understand why the Americans suddenly turned around and under the very sweet young former American President Bill Clinton, decided to take some Eastern European countries, which had harsh experiences under Czarist Russia, into NATO.
The argument is always simple. If Georgia, Ukraine, or another country wants to become a part of the West and live like the West, they must first join the European Union. NATO is not a governmental organization; it is a military alliance with a paragraph 5 that says if there is any conflict with any of the states, all of the others will go to war with a certain third country. Unfortunately, NATO was created not to improve environmental conditions in Europe but to deter and contain the Soviet Union.
This unexpected increase of NATO membership at the expense of the democratic rule of Mr. Yeltsin, et cetera, really took us aback. We asked NATO at least to have a treaty so that we could be guaranteed that nothing bad would happen. They turned us down.
What we have now is not a treaty, but a declaration and declarations are slightly different. I participated in this negotiation and it was hard to work with the American pressure. I know. I did not learn it from books, I was an eyewitness. I can sign everything I say in blood because I was there. The Americans were not prepared to have the treaty. We, at least wanted to have some commitments, for example, that they will not post nuclear weapons on the territory of former Soviet republics or that they will not have large contingencies of troops on our borders. However, we received only vague assurances.
Now, we see airfields in the Baltic states built by the Soviet Union for our nuclear aviation many years ago being used by double purpose NATO aircraft. There are new American military plans to move troops from Germany into Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary, closer to our borders. I would understand if they moved the troops to Afghanistan or even to Iraq. Why are they moving their troops and changing their formations? Are they preparing for war with us?
It is not an idle question. As I said, I negotiated nuclear arms with the Americans and it was Bill Clinton's initial proposal to have a limited anti-ballistic missile system in the United States. That would contravene our treaty signed in 1972 to ban all ABMs. Bill Clinton was a gentle guy. He did not want to rush it and said let us negotiate.
While we were negotiating, the American military decided to put the squeeze on us. I understand it was a negotiating technique. It was in the mid-1990s. They invited us to the Pentagon where they have a special room they call a war room or a tank and showed us a map of Russia, not the Soviet Union. This was at the height of our love and friendship with the United States that we called a ``strategic partnership.'' Every day, Bill Clinton would say how he was going to prop up Boris Yeltsin against the communists in Russia, et cetera. I had studied this issue for some time and I was surprised because I saw more nuclear targets for American strategic forces on this Russian map in the war room of the Pentagon than I remembered having seen on the map of the Soviet Union. I asked my friend the general from the General Chiefs of Staff how does that happen. Now we are friends and are no longer communists prepared to conquer the United States and destroy Washington. Why are there more nuclear targets in Russia than there were in the Soviet Union? I never received an answer.
We want to have a reasonable relationship with NATO, but we have our concerns and suspicions.
Senator Prud'homme: Rightly so.
Senator Dawson: First, I have an invitation. Mr. Ambassador, as you would probably know, the Russians beat the Canadian team in Quebec City in the preliminaries.
Mr. Mamedov: That does not amount to much. Senator Mahovlich knows.
Senator Dawson: There is a final game on May 18. We will all be there. You, hopefully your honourary citizen, Senator Prud'homme, maybe Senator Mahovlich and other members of the committee so that you may see Canada beat Russia in Quebec City.
The Chair: Senator Stollery will take his bicycle.
Mr. Mamedov: Do not take the wind out of our sails, senator.
Senator Dawson: Mr. Ambassador, this committee will have to make recommendations down the road. You have been very complimentary about the fact that things are going well. However, we will have to make recommendations on what we should be doing better. We have closed trade missions in Russia.
Mr. Mamedov: You did not close trade missions, but consuls general. I think it is a stupid decision.
Senator Dawson: That is a very constructive comment.
How many of those stupid decisions can we improve?
Mr. Mamedov: I am afraid the Prime Minister's Office will criticize me for interfering in your domestic affairs. They already did it once when I made my position clear on Kosovo and why it is wrong for a federal country like yours to support Kosovo.
Senator Dawson: Mr. Ambassador, we will need recommendations and I would like you to think about it. You do not have to answer tonight.
When team Canada went to Russia about five or six years ago, 70 deals were signed for close to $400 million. Is that something that was useful? Is it something we should repeat in the future?
Are there efforts like that by Canada that can help us invest in your country and are there things you can do so that Russians can invest in Canada?
Mr. Mamedov: I think it is useful. I speak regularly with people such as Mr. Beaudoin, Mr. Munk and others. I know they want to feel they have the support of the government. Of course, they are independent people and can move themselves and influence government, but they would prefer to have the auspices of the government.
I think the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and others support this. I have never heard from anyone, including Mr. Dion that they are against such things. When Mr. Dion met with my Prime Minister, he said that he believes our trade should be expanded and that we should use the Team Canada initiative again.
The most important thing now, I believe, is for our businessmen to get together and not for our pinstriped bureaucrats to lead the way any longer. It is probably our fault mainly because we still have a Soviet psychology. We lived under the Soviet Union; we knew that the bureaucrat came first and then told the businessman what to do. You probably adjusted to our bad style. Many of our commercial and bilateral meetings were really fruitless.
Over the last two years, I hope we have been able to turn things around. I personally have teleconferenced with your businessmen and asked them what they want me to report to my President before he meets your Prime Minister. Of course, I do not make any secret of that communication and your Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Prime Minister's Office knows that.
I wanted direct input from business because business has come of age. They are interested and they understand the potential. You do not need to push them very much. Let business lead the way.
In regard to what we can do, we are now working on the new investment agreement in space technologies and things that will make you competitive. Your business people say that they are not competitive with Europeans and Americans on our market.
I am biased, of course. I put Canada first when I argue with my bosses who say that Germany, Japan or China are better partners. I believe we can create a very competitive and good environment for Canadian business because Canadian business brings to Russia something that we have not seen from businesses of other countries. I have experience with the Americans and other G8 countries. Therefore, I am not just talking from my experiences as ambassador in Canada.
Let the business lead us. It is capable, it is prepared and they make fantastic deals. Let us not scare the daylights out of business, politically, by saying, for example, why are you letting Russians in. Why are you letting Gazprom in? Through Gazprom, they will undercut Canadian democracy and influence our foreign policy. This is important. Let the businesses have their way.
Senator Massicotte: Thank you, Your Excellency, for being with us today and highlighting issues, educating us and clarifying our opinions.
As you know, I am a big believer in your country and what your country can do with ours and what our combined business people can do together. You are an emerging country. You have similar growth. We have a lot of similarities and we are neighbours with the same concerns, and so on. I am very optimistic. I want to do my part to better that relationship and our mutual interest.
I would like you to comment on this, however. The Western press still often comments about what they see to be a lack of democracy or openness in your system. Personally having been in Russia four or five months ago, I must admit that Mr. Putin has done a great job in creating institutions, stability, looking after the welfare of the people. However, many people see his continuing presence and significant power structure to be less democratic than they would desire. I want to give you a chance to help us clarify what is happening there.
What is it that the Western press and the Western world should not see as negatively as we often read?
Mr. Mamedov: My first suggestion is to send more Canadian journalists to Russia. What I read about Russia is reprints from the Daily Telegraph, The Washington Times and so on. That is all very nice but I think you are intelligent people and can make decisions based on your own information.
When I arrived in Canada and found out that some of the position documents for your government were drafted in Oxford, I was scared to death because I never imagined that, frankly. It is like us going to Belarus or North Korea for a position paper on the United States. I have nothing against the British. I like them and respect them. I majored in Great Britain when I was at the university. I would have worked in London if it were not for some problems during the Cold War.
I think Canadians can find out for themselves what is happening in Russia; like you are doing, senator, and like everyone else. You can go there as a tourist; that is no problem. However, you must have your own correspondents there. I would then be glad to comment on what Canadians say is happening in Russia. I know what the Americans and the British say; we have some problems with both of them because they are not very complimentary.
This is a small part of the problem. The major part of the problem is there were never democratic traditions in Russia before the October Revolution or Bolshevik Revolution and certainly not much after.
I can make a comparison because, as I said, my father ran the Soviet television, not one station but all the television. That tells you about centralization, propaganda and everything else there. Remember, that was just 15 years ago.
By the way, the most liberal gentlemen whom you like so much and whom I admire — the late Alexander Yakovlev — was in charge of my father's production. He was the chief censor of the ideological committee of the Communist Party. He was not your ironclad liberal as some people say.
It is a heavy legacy. It will take time. It took time for your forbearers in Great Britain. I am a professional historian; I am not a diplomat. I come from the academic community. I read a bit about Great Britain and about the French Revolution and how people were skinned alive, and so on. It takes some time for civilization to take root.
The task for us is to make it quicker and not to wait for 100 years. I believe that, with a partnership with countries like Canada and learning both from your achievements and your problems, we can certainly catch up.
Our first priority in the late 1990s was stability and security. You tend to underestimate the threats and challenges that we felt. We had five wars on our territory; there was blood running in the streets. People wanted some order. Then Beslan happened and the killing of innocent children by Chechen terrorists was like 9/11 for Americans, but no one understood that. People thought that it was terrible because children were killed but they did not know about the traumatic effect it had on our people. We had in our extraordinary legislation in place and immediately we were criticized, unlike Americans or Canadians who introduced their legislation after 9/11.
The governor who had to handle this case with Beslan failed miserably. It was decided that the President must have more command of the government. It is not because Mr. Putin is a control-freak or a secret admirer of Stalin. It was because he was concerned about the country coming apart while we were under attack. Probably there was over- dramatization of certain things but you must take that into calculations when you given the general picture of Russia.
I think that when our critical friend Condoleezza Rice, who majored in the Soviet Union, recently, said Russia is not the Soviet Union. However, we are not moving at quickly as the Americans expected. Yet they did not help us.
Senator Nolin: Thank you, Ambassador, for being present with us tonight.
You are a historian and I am sure you read about the history of your new country, Canada. I am sure you learned that trade was at the heart of the pragmatic decision.
Mr. Mamedov: And the railroads.
Senator Nolin: That came after, yes, but trade was at the heart of the pragmatic decision to create a new country. Trade is still a very important part of our future.
What do you think Russian business people can do for Canadian direct foreign investment? What can we do to promote direct foreign investment in your country?
Mr. Mamedov: I think you are doing much better now. Some big top guns — let us face it, you also have top guns, not only medium- and small-sized businesses — that have influences on the political environment. Mr. Beaudoin and Mr. Munk are convinced — and I listened to them on many occasions, both when I arrived and lately — they are convinced that Russia is the place to go. Even in comparison with China, Brazil, Mexico and so on, they still say that.
They are entering into deals; some of them are risking big money. For example, Kinross Gold had to invest $3 billion in a new gold mine in Russia. Since most of their shareholders are Americans who are naturally suspicious toward Russia, the CEO asked me to make a presentation before his American shareholders because he thought I knew something about American psychology. Probably his head was on the block. He is a young, ambitious guy and he was prepared to risk $3 billion. I did it.
Already the big ships are moving; the business man o' wars are moving. First, it gives an example to smaller businesses here and, second, it helps to find the match for your businesses.
You should not expect Russia to be full of small- and medium-size businesses. Our history is different than yours. We are a centralized economy and large chunks of it were privatized. I will save the topic of how legal or illegal it was for a different discussion, but large chunks were privatized. You have big owners there. They are looking for big partners.
My major problem was always, when I said that this is good for us to invest in and this is good for us to take, they would say how does it compare with Mitsubishi, Exxon and Siemens, because those are household names like Pepsi and Coke. Our young businessmen know these names.
Once your big top guns started to move and invest money and show an interest, it created certain interest in Russia. Let us not shy away from it. We are not talking about the moral characteristics of these large Russian businessmen; we are talking about their business acumen and political clout. They are the best PR people for Canadian business over there.
This is how we will play it because some Russian businessmen have access to the government. They can say that Canadians are excellent, the quality of their product is excellent and they are more competitive in many respects than Americans. Americans think by size, by surge and by money whereas the Canadian economy is better equipped to survive the current financial crisis, just like Russia — for different reasons, but we are better equipped to survive the current mortgage bubble and other fluctuations in the world market.
Let business lead the way; they are doing fine. We are encouraging them and we are factoring them into negotiations between our trade officials, whether it is about new trade offices or agreements between EDC and our main bank — but it is largely secondary. An important thing is to keep Russia on the radar screen, like you are doing right now.
Senator Johnson: You talked about getting more Canadian journalists to Russia to get the story out, with which I fully agree. Russia has a tremendous tradition of writing and literature. My favourite writers are from Russia. How would you characterize the freedom of the press and human rights in Russia in terms of getting the story out from there, too?
My second question relates to cultural relations. We have been told that we do not have very good cultural relations with Russia. I would like you to comment on that also.
Mr. Mamedov: We have cultural relations. The problem, again, is the major change. Before, everything was sponsored by the state. I did not have to look for money or beg Petro-Canada or anyone else; that was not in my job description. I would simply write a request to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and they would give me $2 million for the ballet and $2 million for a major exposition in Toronto for a book fair.
Now, you now have to go and find the money. Fortunately, you have generous businessmen here in Canada. In my country, young businessmen are just in the process of making money. They have not yet come to the realization that there is more to that than just making money. Give them some time. Already, those who are investing in Canada, like Russian railroads and others, are giving us money. Without that, we would not be able to do anything to bring ballet troupes or orchestras here.
As to the freedom of the press and expression, there are unique channels now. It is probably because I had a teaching job before entering into the foreign diplomatic core, but I believe in the young generation very much. That is why I saluted the election of Mr. Medvedev. I would be excited, although I do not believe it, if the Americans decided to elect Barack Obama.
Senator Johnson: Me, too.
Mr. Mamedov: Probably I am a bit naive, but I think it will bring us excitement and fresh air.
Let us look at what young people in Russia use now to get information; it is the Internet. There is no censorship. If you compare the growth of the Internet users in Russia, they are in record numbers everywhere, including the Far East and Siberia. Mr. Medvedev calls himself an Internet freak because it was part of his job to introduce the Internet in all the secondary schools in Russia. This is what freedom is about today.
When I start my working day, I start it with the Internet. I go to The Globe and Mail, the National Post, Maclean's and other fine publications only later when I have free time. I browse the Internet.
If you browse the Russian Internet, you will see that 70 per cent or 80 per cent of daily publications — not analytical stuff, but about corruption and what they think about Putin, Chechnya and Georgia — is critical. I feel safe about the young generation.
As to how you might help them, do what Medvedev is doing — introduce more Internet. There is no censorship whatsoever there.
The Chair: The three times that Valery Gergiev has come to Toronto at Roy Thomson Hall, I have had the pleasure of having dinner with him; he is one of your greatest cultural ambassadors.
Senator Mahovlich: You touched on the environment. We have a big problem here in Canada. Last week, in northern Alberta —
Mr. Mamedov: The ducks.
Senator Mahovlich: The ducks came down. We are cleaning up the Great Lakes. We have a big problem with the Great Lakes but we are working on cleaning them up. The world is very concerned about China as it is becoming industrialized. The pollution that will take place there in the next 10 years, all the emissions, will create a big problem. However, I never hear anything about Russia. Where Russia in the world, as far as the environment goes?
Mr. Mamedov: I know there are some Liberals here so I am treading on very thin ice. During the last conference on the environment, Russia was approximately in the same place where Canada is. You want to have Americans aboard; we want to have the Chinese aboard. We do not believe that post-Kyoto without the Americans or the Chinese is worth a dime.
Everyone criticized us, including the European Union, for not being revolutionary enough, but it is a huge problem for us. Our main rivers in Siberia are being poisoned by the Chinese ight now. Compensation is just pennies compared to the damage done to the very fragile ecological systems of the Far East.
In parallel with criticizing our neighbours, we can do a lot. Where we can do a lot and where we can make a difference that no other country in the world can do is in the North. I am not a great scientist. Like you, I read many reports about the reasons for global warming and I cannot find my way through them; but I understand that something is happening in the North. The two major northern countries that look to the North also in terms of exploration and so on must think about that and must do something.
For example, when I learned that some of your navy's ships have more lax regulations about taking their residue away, I was concerned because we waged this same battle with our navy in the North. The North was always the preserve of the navy. During the Cold War, the concept was that we and the Americans would attack each other with nuclear weapons in the North. The infrastructure was there; however, it has since collapsed and it is changing. We are trying to use it for peaceful purposes but environmental problems remain the same. Whether you bring missiles or anything else by ship, you must think about the environment. Of course, we face the same challenge as you face. You have a national program to deal with the Aboriginals; we have such a national program. Teaming up through the Arctic Council, of which we are both members and where everyone is concerned about environmental issues, is a sure way for us to make some difference. We are on almost on the same page in terms of post-Kyoto. It is a rather conservative position, like your government takes. I understand that I might have made myself unpopular with my Liberal friends.
The Chair: Mr. Ambassador, I will give the last word, from the standpoint of the members, to your honourary citizen.
Mr. Mamedov: He is not just our honourary citizen; he was presented with a high decoration. This is also reflective of our relationship. Two major decorations were presented: One to your Governor General and one to the founding father of your Parliamentary democracy. In the old days, I would have presented it to some underground communist gentlemen who were here gloating over the overthrow of the Canadian government. So things change, Mr. Chair.
Senator Prud'homme: Congratulations to your new President, who will be sworn in tomorrow, and the new Prime Minister. Thank you, again, for your words of sympathy in the death of our soldier in Afghanistan. You have greater experience than we have.
It seems that at times the world needs whipping boy, an unpopular cause. I came to the conclusion that the cause is Iran, and I am very concerned. I read what Germany, the U.K., the United States and France tried to say. I do not hide the fact that I am happy that China, and especially Russia, are there to temper the situation both at the United Nations and elsewhere. I am concerned because it seems that we are trying to create a new global paranoia about Iran, which is very bad. We only have to listen to the stupid, unbelievable statement by Ms. Clinton talking about wiping out Iran if certain events were to take place.
Mr. Mamedov: I know her personally and she did not mean it.
Senator Prud'homme: The problem is that people who are unaware believe that she means it. That is the problem. She would act responsibly if she was in a different position but people listen.
I will most likely be very involved in trying to develop a plan for parliamentarians for the better understanding of Iran. It will be by invitation. The time has come for parliamentarians to touch upon that subject and no longer avoid it, to the point of saying that their President is a big mouth. Maybe he talks too much, but he is not alone. Will you kindly clarify the situation for me?
Mr. Mamedov: We are concerned about Iran. When the former Soviet Union collapsed, the only country that crossed our borders and grabbed some of our territory was Iran, which is a little-known fact. We had to fight them back because they decided that we were easy prey in the Caspian Sea area. We are quite unbiased toward Iran. Do not believe those who say that Russians are soft on Iran and that they are prepared to sell their souls for Iranian money or gas or oil, and so on. Moreover, we live in the neighbourhood so we must be smart about it. I always explain to my American friends, including the previous administrations, that we are in a kind of containment mode over Iran but a smart one that complements stakes and military means with some incentives.
We were able to convince the Clinton administration to open up direct channel communications with Iran, and that is why I do not believe what Hillary Clinton is saying right now. It helped Iranians and the President at the time, who is now on a lecture tour of the United States. There are two opposites: Either you bluntly threaten people and encourage the right wing to take command because there is no way to promote democracy by threat or military means, which we saw on numerous occasions, or you engage them in dialogue, which will encourage the common sense of the Iranian elite, who have built economic interests. Traditionally, they were very much a trade nation with countries such as Lebanon. It was only after Ayatollah Khomeini took over that things took a turn for the worse. I believe that we must have a complicated, comprehensive and coordinated policy vis-à-vis Iran. We must not simply respond to any stupid, outrageous statement by making stupid outrageous statements of our own, which only serves to encourage the fanatics.
I am encouraged by the fact that people such as Jim Baker and George Bush Sr. support this opening to Iran. I believe in the wisdom of the American establishment. We had many problems with them in the past and continue to have some problems with them but that does not deny our recognition of the wisdom and the depth of the Americans. When there is a new President of the United States, one of his or her main priorities will be to resolve Iraq one way or another. Absolutely it is a foregone conclusion for everyone, including the Republicans, that you cannot do that without opening up to Iran and talking to them, not just threatening them. It is a complex issue.
The Chair: Mr. Ambassador, I thank you kindly and congratulate you on your presentation to the committee, in particular with regard to the cooperation between our two countries. The Arctic was a perfect example of that. You are aware that Canada strongly supports Russia's accession to the WTO. We are working together on a number of initiatives that will continue to benefit both nations.
Mr. Ambassador, you are an engaging and forthright gentleman.
Mr. Mamedov: It is only because I am about to retire and go back to the academic community, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: I suspect you will not retire, sir, but will continue to spread your wisdom and your knowledge. Thank you for joining us today and helping us to move along on this issue.
Mr. Mamedov: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the interest you are taking in Russian-Canadian relations because it is part of the solution. Without interest, there can be no solution.
The committee adjourned.