Question: Mr. President, we are aware that you know Finland well. How many times have you been to Finland and what are your impressions?

Answer: It is even hard for me to say how many times I've been to Finland. Many times. I have the best of impressions. As you know, I was born and reared in Petersburg. The city has always had close links with Finland historically.

I know that before 1917 members of the Finnish intelligentsia enjoyed going to Petersburg at the weekends. We have always had many Finnish tourists. In general, we have formed a very kind idea of the Finns over the years, very kind feelings toward the Finnish people in that region of Russia as very good neighbors and reliable people. On the one hand, they belong to the European culture and on the other hand, they are people who understand the Russians well and quickly find a common language with them.

Question: Against this background, do you think there needs to be a special relationship between Russia and Finland, as, for example, in the times of the Cold War? How is your relationship with our President shaping up?

Answer: I think that during the Cold War Finland played a very important role in Europe due to its neutral status. At that time it was indeed to some extent a bridge between West and East. It is not by chance that the Helsinki Act was signed in Helsinki. It was a significant role at the time and Finland has not lost this role today. And if you ask me if it makes sense to create some kind of special relationship, I would say that the relationship is already in place. And the question is to preserve these relations and develop them in the necessary and in the right direction.

If we look at the economy, it can be noted that in spite of a decline, especially after 1998, our economic ties have been significantly on the rise recently. We increased our trade by 48 percent within a year. Russia accounts for quite a significant part of the Finnish foreign trade, about 7 percent. Our mutual trade amounts to 5 billion dollars. Russia is approximately the fifth largest economic partner of Finland. And Finland ranks about the same in the relations with Russia.

As for my relations with the Finnish leadership, I must say that I had a good enough relationship with the previous president and with his predecessor. I have very good relations with the current President of Finland, Mrs. Halonen. She is a recognized European politician very highly regarded in Europe. And I am proud that I have good comradely relations with her.

Question: The sharpest border as far as living standards are concerned is said to be in Vyborg. Can the Finnish economic experience be of use to Russia, for example, in the forestry industry and so on?

Answer: Yes, of course. We know that forestry and wood-working are highly developed in Finland. But there are other ways in which Finland is also interesting to us. We have many opportunities in other spheres, for example, in telecommunications. We know that Nokia and other leading Finnish companies have evinced an interest in cooperation with Russia in this sphere. We know that major financial companies are doing some good work in the metallurgical industry and there too we have something to discuss and to work on together.

I must tell you that the Russian economy and the Russian laws passed recently offer some opportunities for Finnish business people. You must have heard or read that today Russia has a flat income tax rate of 13 percent for everyone regardless of the level of income. As far as I know, in Finland the income tax for those in the high-income bracket reaches 60 percent. This is the first opportunity to use the favorable investment climate.

Secondly, we have recently passed a law that fixes the tax on the profit of legal entities, of enterprises at 24 percent. In Finland that tax, I think, is over 40 percent today. All this offers major opportunities for direct investment and for the Finnish companies' production on the territory of the Russian Federation.

If we follow that path, the difference in living standards between the people of Vyborg and the adjoining territories of Finland will change rapidly as the living standards of Russian citizens rise.

Question: A few words about our neighbor, Karelia. You have just been there and we have seen a video of your trip there. You even sang in Karelian language there. How do you assess the cooperation with Finland in Karelia? And another question. What do you think about the small languages in Russia? For example, the Karelian language?

Answer: I think this is an area of activity, in the humanities sphere in this case, where the countries of Northern Europe and Finland in particular have achieved good results and have proved the validity of their approaches to these questions that are not always simple. The right of the languages of small peoples to develop and to be supported is a priority in the Nordic countries and in Finland. And I think that this is absolutely correct. We will do the same not only in the north of our country, not only in Karelia, but in other parts of the Russian Federation.

You may have noticed that the students at the Petrozavodsk University performed songs in Finnish, Karelian and other languages of the peoples of the Russian North. I must say that these territories were being developed simultaneously by the Scandinavian peoples and by the Russian people from Novgorod. These territories were developed approximately at the same time. A unique situation has emerged in that part of Europe. There have never been any ethnic conflicts, never. This is a very interesting experience which is very important to us, to Russia which is a multinational state.

As for cooperation between Karelia and Finland, and not only Karelia, but all the other territories of the Russian Federation adjacent to the Finnish Republic, it is an important area. When I worked as vice mayor of Petersburg, I headed a government commission on cooperation between Petersburg and Finland. I was the Russian co-chairman. And it was clear to me even then that the development of regional cooperation between Finland and the adjacent territories of the Russian Federation was very important because at the regional level you can see more clearly what problems exist in the development of bilateral ties and what are the effective ways of solving these problems. This goes not only for humanitarian issues, but, of course, issues of economic development.

Question: A very important topic is ecology. What is Russia going to do or what can Russia do to make the Finnish Gulf cleaner? We in Finland are particularly concerned with the new Primorsky port.

Answer: As you know, an environmental study preceded the decision to build the port and the results of that environmental study were presented to our Finnish colleagues. No specialists have any fears on that score at present.

I would speak not about the building of a port, but about the need to pool the efforts of all the Baltic states -- and Russia currently holds the chairmanship of the association of Baltic states -- in making navigation in the Baltic Sea and in the Finnish Gulf more safe.

Question: There is a complicated problem in the Baltic region: NATO is in the process of expansion. Is Russia changing its position on the issue?

Answer: No. Our position has been stated quite clearly. We do not regard NATO as a hostile organization as was the case at the time of confrontation between the Warsaw Pact and the NATO Pact. Neither the Warsaw Pact, nor the Soviet Union exist any more. Democratic Russia looks at NATO in a very different way. I repeat, we do not consider it to be a hostile organization, but neither do we see any point in the expansion of that organization because there is no threat for European countries, especially no threat coming from the East, from the Russian Federation. This is a fact obvious to everyone.

So, it would be more correct to speak about creating a single security system in Europe. This is a fundamental issue because if there is no equal security for all, then the main thing will be missing -- confidence. A mere shifting of NATO borders to the East will not, unfortunately, solve the problem.

As for Finland specifically, we have said at the beginning of our talk that Finland has managed to play a unique role in the recent history of Europe due to its neutral status and besides accession to NATO demands that new members substantially increase their military budgets to 2 percent of the GDP. What for?

Secondly, it requires a transition to new standards, NATO standards of armaments, which in fact means replacement of all the military equipment. What for?

I don't think this is prompted by the objective realities of life in Europe today. The objective realities are that we really have common threats which we must oppose together. What do they consist in? The spread of terrorism, the spread of fundamentalism, the spread of narcotics and organized crime. These are the real threats. But these problems cannot be solved within the framework of NATO. They can only be solved by the pooling of efforts of all the European states.

Let us take the Russian-Finnish border. If Russia weakens the protection of its border, let us take a realistic view of things, let us speak honestly, Finland may face the problems that are currently experienced by the region of Central Asia, odd though it may seem and however far it is removed from the Finnish borders. Finland will instantly become aware of the problems connected with drug smuggling, organized crime and even fundamentalism.

Question: There is another international organization -- the European Union -- which is also in the process of expansion. What is your reaction or the reaction of Russia to this?

Answer: We support the strengthening of a united Europe, including by way of expansion. Russia is itself a European state if only because it is in Europe. And not only because of that, but primarily because it has become what it is as a result of being a center of European culture.

As for the expansion of the European Union, our approach to it is very different from that to the expansion of NATO. We believe it is a positive process and we support it.

Today more than 35 percent of our trade is with Europe. If the potential members of a united Europe are adopted, it would be more than 40 percent. The main thing is that in accepting new members in a united Europe, no obstacles should be erected and no complications created for the economic ties that they traditionally have had with the Russian Federation. This is in our interests and in the interests of the future members of the united Europe from Central Europe and the Baltic countries.

There is another range of problems, purely humanitarian. You have just mentioned the importance of the languages of small peoples and I would like to again cite the very positive experience of the Scandinavian countries and Finland in supporting the languages of ethnic minorities. That experience and these standards should be spread to the Russian-speaking population in the Baltic states. There should be a common European standard. We do not demand anything for the Russians living in the Baltics that goes beyond that standard. I think this is absolutely fair.

But we can discuss another thing. We can discuss European standards in the humanitarian sphere. If, for example, the Albanian population in Macedonia that accounts for 20 percent in some regions of that country is currently pressing for the recognition of their language as an official language, if proportional representation of the Albanian population in the bodies of power and even in the police -- and I am not now discussing whether this is good or bad -- if this is thought to be fair then there should be common European standards. Then we can speak about the right of the Russians living in the Baltic countries. There should be no double standards for the North and South of Europe. Just like there should be no different standards in solving humanitarian problems.

Question: And the last question with your permission. How is preparation going for the lifting of the Kursk? Is everything normal?

Answer: Everything is normal there. As you know, our European partners, including from Holland, are taking an active part in it. The first task that would be solved in the course of lifting is, of course, nuclear safety and environmental safety. Indeed, one of the motives for lifting the Kursk is to solve environmental problems, not to speak about military and moral obligations we have assumed before the families of the dead sailors.

If a nuclear reactor can be lifted from the sea bottom, it should be done. Specialists, including European specialists, claim that it is possible. And in doing it Russia is guided partly by our obligations to maintain the environmental situation in that region of Europe. Water samples are constantly recovered near the boat and from inside the boat. These samples are studied by our specialists and sent for study to Holland. There are no signs that could give cause for concern.


___________________________________________________________
© Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.