Views: 5119|Replies: 8

Great leader mr Putin has attended opening of Russian-Japapanese joint venture [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-9-6 13:29:03 |Display all floors
Russian President Vladimir Putin has attended the opening ceremony for a Russian-Japanese car assembly plant in the Russian Far Eastern city of Vladivostok.
Putin left his signature on one of the first vehicles produced by the Sollers-Mazda joint venture.
The agreement on the establishment of a joint car assembly plant (Mazda Sollers Manufacturing Rus) on a parity basis was signed by Russia’s Sollers and Japan’s Mazda Motor Corporation in late April. At the first stage, the plant will produce 50,000 cars annually. Later its capacity will be increased to 70,000.
Putin praised the project and said it will be profitable to both Russian carmakers and their Japanese partners, adding that it is also “good for the budget system as it creates jobs and ensures that taxes are paid.”
Sollers is a Russian company providing a range of services, including car manufacturing, sales and maintenance.
Startup investment in the new venture will total $350 million, Sollers chief Vadim Shvetsov said.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-9-6 13:37:10 |Display all floors
Since we are at Vladivostok and in prosperous and wealthy Russia it is worth mentioning APEC that is currently going on in Vladivostok.............

_____________
APEC Secretary General: Russia's Far East can prevent food crisis in Asia
Mamonov Roman Sep 5, 2012 15:44 Moscow Time     

  
A string of regional forums of the Asia-Pacific Economic Organization (APEC) continues in Vladivostok. On Thursday, top APEC businessmen will gather to discuss a host of economic matters, and Saturday will be the first day of the organization’s annual summit with food security expected to be among the highlights as Russia emerges as a key player in food crisis prevention.
APEC Secretary General Eduardo Pedrosa believes that Russia has every opportunity to become Asia’s chief food supplier. A more efficient use of its agricultural potential will, in Mr. Pedrosa’s opinion, enable Russia to help Asian countries tackle their food problems. Experts agree that agriculture may become a springboard to growth for far-eastern Russia. Boris Heyfets, a researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, feels that many businessmen would be willing to invest in large-scale agrarian projects in the Far East.

"Without a doubt, soy and grain crops, and vegetables may be grown there, contributing to alterations in the structure of the food market and satiating Asian markets with food. If this agricultural production is tax-free, if it enjoys some privileges, it will be very attractive for investors. All the more so, since many Asian countries need more food - not only Asian-Pacific nations, but Central Asian countries as well. They too should benefit from lease opportunities. As for Asian-Pacific nations – these are, above all, China, Vietnam, and North and South Korea."

The APEC secretary general reminded reporters that food security would dominate the APEC summit’s agenda. One of the burning issues is how to create logistics circuits that would bring food costs down. Yet, perfect as though the future transport-logistic infrastructure may be, one question will remain – what to transport and where food will come from. Analysts are warning of a looming food crisis, while on the other hand, pointing to plenty of land, uncultivated but fit for farming, in the Russian Far East. A number of agrarian projects have already been launched there in cooperation with China and North Korea. But they are a drop in the ocean, compared to the existing cooperation potential. Alexei Kuzmin, Chairman of the National Prospects Expert Council, thinks that a climate factor should not be disregarded.

"Russia is a fairly big player on the global food market. It would only be quite natural if it focuses on Asian markets. Certainly, from the agrarian point of view, the Far East is not an ideal region. So I would recommend focusing more on Western and Eastern Siberia where higher productivity and higher crop yields may bring about a sharp increase in production."

APEC Secretary General Eduardo Pedrosa is convinced that cooperation with Russia will be extremely helpful to Asian countries in addressing their food concerns. It remains to be seen what the APEC leaders have to offer each other on these and other topics when the meet in Vladivostok this weekend

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2012-9-6 13:49:21 |Display all floors
{:soso_e179:}
Life is mostly froth and bubble, but two things stand like stone. Kindness in anothers trouble, and .courage in your own. Annon.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-9-6 15:01:26 |Display all floors
warrigal Post time: 2012-9-6 13:49

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-9-6 16:15:19 |Display all floors
seneca Post time: 2012-9-6 15:16
Tiny flickers made by candles are finally emerging from the Black Hole that is Russia's economy ...  ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-9-6 16:50:12 |Display all floors
Russian President Vladimir Putin gives exclusive interview to RT TV channel.


Vladimir Putin w/ Kevin Owen



Hello, you're watching RT with me, Kevin Owen. We're very pleased to say today that we're joined by the president of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. Now, we're very pleased because this is his first major interview since his inauguration and he's granted it to us. So, Mr. President, thank you very much for making the time to talk to us.

What I want to talk about first of all is the ongoing at the moment APEC summit. You'll be going there very shortly - in Vladivostok because it's the first time that Russia has held it, a prestigious event. But it always begs the question - what's actually achieved at these events, events like that, like the G8, G20?

Now, though APEC is primarily an economic vessel, there's a lot of politics involved as well. And of course a lot of the key players including you, including America, a lot of key players disagree on some very key issues. I'm thinking about Syria, I'm thinking about missile defense, I'm thinking about Iran. Is there a danger that the politics may stifle, get in the way of the big economic deals that the very same key players are hoping to sign at this summit or at least talk about signing?

That is true. But in fact – and you’ve just said it yourself – APEC was originally conceived as a forum for discussing economic issues. And as this year’s host country, we also intend to focus on economic and socio-economic challenges.

APEC was originally established with the overall objective of liberalizing the global economy. And we intend to make this a key issue on the agenda in Vladivostok.

When I invited our counterparts, five years ago, to meet for this forum particularly in the Russian Federation, my rationale was to acknowledge the importance of this area for Russia, given that two-thirds of Russia’s territory are located in Asia, and yet the bulk of our foreign trade – more than 50 percent – is with Europe, whereas Asia only accounts for 24 percent. Meanwhile, Asia is developing rapidly and intensively. You and I know it, and everybody knows it. Therefore, we are planning to focus primarily on economic challenges, transport, global food security and the task of liberalizing the global economy. It’s a well-known fact that the past year has seen a dramatic increase in the number of people affected by starvation, which has grown by 200 million. This means that 1 billion people worldwide are currently suffering from food shortages or famine. I believe this is the kind of issue that will be the focus of attention, along with a number of other challenges that are highly sensitive and significant for millions of people.

As far as Syria and other hot spots are concerned – issues that are currently in the limelight – we will certainly address them in our deliberations at the forum, in bilateral discussions or otherwise. They won’t be overlooked.



Do you think there should be more practical outcomes though? Is it too much of a talking show - events like APEC?

You know, I attended the G20 meeting in Mexico just recently. As a rule, such meetings are pre-arranged and pre-discussed by our aides and ministers and high-ranking experts, and still there are certain issues that eventually come into focus for the heads of states attending. And in fact, that’s how it was in Mexico. I was very interested to follow discussions and look at conflicting opinions, and I participated in some of those discussions. I think the coming forum will see just as many debates. But it’s only through this kind of meticulous, hard work – year after year and quarter after quarter, if not day-by-day, if you excuse my officialeese – that we can eventually arrive at acceptable solutions to sensitive issues such as, say, liberalizing trade. Because this is an issue that affects millions of people. You know the issues debated within the framework of the World Trade Organization, and the coming APEC summit are so immensely important for us, partly because Russia is now a full member of the WTO. We have also established a Customs Union and a Common Economic Space in the post-Soviet territory jointly with Belarus and Kazakhstan. And dialogue is very important for us, so that we can explain to our partners and help them realize how this kind of association in the post-Soviet area could be beneficial and helpful.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2012-9-6 17:04:51 |Display all floors
Ok, thanks for explaining that. We're going to come back to APEC a little bit later if we may, but you touched on another big subject in headlines, the horrendous events that have been unfolding in Syria over the last 18 months now. Russia' position has been steadfast all the way along the line. Here you've said there should be no foreign intervention and it should be the Syrian people who do the deciding and it should be done through diplomacy. However, that's a great idea, but day in day out innocent lives are being lost on both sides. Is it time for something more than talking? Should Russia be reassessing its position maybe now?

How come Russia is the only one who’s expected to revise its stance? Don’t you think our counterparts in negotiations ought to revise theirs as well? Because if we look back at the events in the past few years, we’ll see that quite a few of our counterparts’ initiatives have not played out the way they were intended to.

Take the examples of the numerous countries ridden by escalating internal conflict. The US and its allies went into Afghanistan, and now they’re all thinking about how to get out of there. If there’s anything on the table, it’s the issue of assisting them in withdrawing their troops and hardware from Afghanistan through our transit routes.

Now, are you sure that the situation there will be stable for decades to come? So far, no one is confident about it.

And look at what’s going on in Arab countries. There have been notable developments in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, etc. Would you say that order and prosperity have been totally ensured for these nations? And what’s going on in Iraq?

In Libya, there are armed clashes still raging among the country’s various tribes. I won’t even mention the way the country had its regime changed: this is a separate topic. What concerns us, and I want to emphasize this once again, is the current hostilities in Syria. But at the same time, we are just as concerned about the possible consequences of certain decisions, should they be taken.

In our opinion, the most important task today is, ending the violence. We must urge all the warring parties, including the government and the so-called rebels, the armed opposition, to sit down at the negotiating table and decide on a future that would guarantee security for all stakeholders in Syria. Only then should they get down to any practical measures regarding the country’s future governance system. We realize that this country needs a change, but this doesn’t mean that change should come with bloodshed.



OK, well, given the facts regarding Syria that you see on the table now, what is the next step? What do you realistically think is going to happen next?

We told our partners we would like to sit down together at the negotiating table in Geneva. And when we did, together we charted a roadmap for further action that would help bring peace to Syria and channel developments down a more constructive path. We received almost unanimous support and shared the talks’ results with the Syrian government. But then the rebels actually refused to recognize those decisions; and many of the negotiating parties have also quietly backed down.

I believe that the first thing to do is to stop shipping arms into the warzone, which is still going on. We should stop trying to impose unacceptable solutions on either side, because it is a dead-end. That’s what we should do. It is that simple.

Luckily, we generally enjoy friendly relations with the Arab world, but we would like to stay away from Islamic sectarian conflict, or interfere in a showdown involving the Sunnis, the Shia, the Alawis and so on. We treat everyone with equal respect. We also get on well with Saudi Arabia and other countries; I have cultivated a warm personal relationship with the custodian of two Islamic shrines. The only underlying motive behind our stance is the desire to create a favorable environment for the situation to develop positively in years to come.



What are your thoughts about the United Nations and the way the United Nations has reacted particularly in Syria. There's been criticism that it's failed to deliver a unified front if you like and has become more of a figurehead organization. Do you share that view?

Quite the contrary, I would say. My take on the issue is the absolute opposite of what you have just said. If the United Nations and the Security Council had indeed turned into a mere rubberstamping tool for any one of the member states, it would have ceased to exist, just like the League of Nations did. But the reality is that the Security Council and the UN are meant to be a tool for compromise. Seeking to achieve it is a long and complex process, but only hard work can yield us fruit.



Understood. Mr. President, another question I'd like to ask you - a number of Western and Arab nations have been covertly ... with supporting the FSA, the Free Syrian Army - indeed, some of them are doing it openly now. Of course the catch here is that the FSA is suspected of hiring known Al-Qaeda fighters amongst their ranks. So the twist in this tale is that a lot of those countries are actually sponsoring terrorism, if you like, in Syria, countries that have suffered from terrible terrorism themselves. Is that a fair assessment?

You know, when someone aspires to attain an end they see as optimal, any means will do. As a rule, they will try and do that by hook or by crook – and hardly ever think of the consequences. That was the case during the war in Afghanistan, when the Soviet Union invaded in 1979. At that time, our present partners supported a rebel movement there and basically gave rise to Al Qaeda, which later backfired on the United States itself.

Today some want to use militants from Al Qaeda or some other organizations with equally radical views to accomplish their goals in Syria. This policy is dangerous and very short-sighted. In that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and bring them to Syria to do the fighting – it's practically the same kind of people. But what we should bear in mind is that one day these people will get back at their former captors. On the other hand, these same people should bear in mind that they will eventually end up in a new prison, very much like the one off the Cuban shore.

I would like to emphasize that this policy is very short-sighted and is fraught with dire consequences.



I'd like to broaden that a little bit now, a little bit wider from Syria. You touched upon Syria. Syria is in the middle of a civil war, we're seeing conflicts in Bahrain and in Saudi Arabia. Ok, things are a bit calmer in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, you mentioned it just now. But standing back from it overall, all the troubles that we've seen in the Middle East, all the turmoil there - has it been at all for the good or for the bad, where does it put that region now?

You know, we can discuss this into the small hours and still run out of time. For me, it’s a clear that these events have a historic logic. The leaders of these countries have obviously overlooked the need for change and missed ongoing trends at home and abroad, so they failed to produce the reforms which would have saved the day. All these events simply logically stem from this background. Whether this is a blessing or a curse with many negative implications, is now too early to say. In any case, the lack of a civilized approach, the high level of violence has so far stood in the way of any sustainable political structures which would help solve economic and social problems in societies hit by those events. This is what causes a lot of concern for the future. Because the people in these countries, who have had enough of their previous regimes, clearly expect the new governments to begin with tackling their social and economic problems in a competent way. But with no political stability, these problems cannot be solved.



Let's turn now to the United States, the upcoming election there, which we are all looking forward to very much. Of course now the re-set button with Russia was firmly pushed by Barack Obama over the last 4 years, but its saw its ups and downs, and there's still that missile defense shield that's a headache for Russia in the East of Europe. If Obama does win a second term, what's going to define the next chapter of Russia and America's relations and is it chapter you can do business with?

I believe that over the last four years Presidents Obama and Medvedev have made a lot of progress in strengthening Russia-US relations. We have signed the new START treaty. Backed by the US, Russia has become a full-fledged member of the World Trade Organization. There have been more reasons to be optimistic about our bilateral relations: our strengthened cooperation in combating terrorism and organized crime, in the non-proliferation of weapons of mass-destruction and others. In other words, we have accumulated quite a lot of positive experience.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.