1891-13-10-2016
- 210
years of the Foreign Ministry’s information support
- Death
of the King of Thailand
- Sergey
Lavrov’s participation in a ministerial meeting on Syria
- Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Paraguay Eladio
Loizaga
- Sergey
Lavrov’s forthcoming talks with Foreign Minister of Guatemala Carlos
Morales
- Alexey
Meshkov to join the Fifth Eurasian Forum
- Developments in Syria
- Humanitarian situation
in Afghanistan
- South Sudan
- New
unfriendly steps taken by the US
- Accusations
against Russia of hacking US websites
- Russians
denied entry into South Korea
- Answers to media
questions:
- Possible
elimination of visas for Turkish business people
- Reports
on an escalation of tensions between Iraq and Turkey
- Talks
on the withdrawal of ISIS militants from Mosul
- Drafting a resolution
on DPRK
- Meeting
on Russia-Japan strategic cooperation at the level of deputy ministers
- The situation in
Ukraine
- The upcoming meeting
in Lausanne
- President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Germany
- The situation in Syria
- The EU’s possible new sanctions against Russia
- The situation in Yemen
- The situation in Western Aleppo
- A possible corridor for ISIS
- Tajikistan’s possible enlistment to promote
settlement in Syria
210 years of the
Foreign Ministry’s information support
I’d like to start with a
detour through some of the history of information support for Russian foreign
policy.
This history is long. Way
back the Ambassadorial Prikaz (Office) began to issue hand-written sheets (the
first prototype of a Russian newspaper), using foreign publications as one of
the sources. This “newspaper” began to be issued on a regular basis in Moscow
in 1621 although its periodical versions appeared as early as in June 1600. It
existed until the start of the 18 century.
At the Public Department of
the Foreign Office established by Peter the Great, two copies of every major
foreign newspaper and magazine of that time were brought in for its heads. Once
read they were filed away in the archives.
Systematic information
coverage aimed primarily at explaining Russia’s position on various
international issues dates back to the times of Alexander I. Soon after its
establishment in 1802, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs faced the challenge of
countering Napoleonic propaganda in Europe and with this aim in view began to
issue its own newspaper in French – Journal du Nord. Later on it was renamed
Conservateur Impartial. This experience was considered successful and the
ministry began to issue a second newspaper in French – Journal de
S.Petersbourg. This was the start of information support for Russia’s foreign
policy.
I wanted to mention this
because the first issue of this weekly in French, which was primarily directed
against Napoleonic propaganda in Europe, appeared on October 1 in the old style
and October 13, 1806 in the new style.
Steady as she goes for 210
years!
Tragic news came from
Thailand on the death of his Majesty the King. In this context we’d like to
express deep condolences to the people of that country. Condolences to Thailand
and its people will follow at all levels.
On October 15, a limited
attendance ministerial meeting on Syria will take place in Lausanne. It will be
attended by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. It will be based on the
corresponding agreements between Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State John
Kerry. The heads of foreign policy agencies of the US and a number of
influential states in the region also plan to attend. Considering that the
agreement was reached with Mr Kerry, the US side is also expected to
participate.
The main topic will be the
prospect for a Syrian settlement with an emphasis on the need to resume the
ceasefire regime based on the agreements reached between Russia and the US on
September 9 in Geneva. To this end, it is necessary to ensure the separation of
the “moderate” opposition from the militants of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham
(previously known as Jabhat al-Nusra) and other groups affiliated with it,
primarily in Aleppo. This is a key point for the normalisation of the situation
with humanitarian access to those in need, taking into account the obstacles
created by terrorists along aid convoy routes, and for the de-escalation of
hostilities in Aleppo and Syria in general. As we stated previously, terrorists
there use civilians as a human shield, and regularly and repeatedly stage
military provocations.
To ensure the success of the
Lausanne meeting, all the key players will need to assume certain obligations
and, of course, duly work with the forces on the ground to ensure that all
parties unconditionally adhere to the ceasefire terms.
If successful, the meeting
will create effective prerequisites for the resumption of the internal
political settlement process in Syria. There is a need and a necessity to
proceed from this prerequisite. Of course, there is a growing realisation in
the world and in the Middle East region of the need for an internal Syrian
settlement, as well as its practical organisation along these lines. The
effective eradication of the terrorist hotbed in Syria is directly related to
the consolidation of the Syrian government’s efforts and the efforts of all of
Syria’s constructive internal and external opposition forces advocating a
sovereign, independent and reborn Syria. This is the kind of state that will
ensure comfortable and safe living for all ethnic and religious groups of the
population. This is our starting point. This, as you know, is our principled
position.
Russia is open to close and
effective cooperation with its international and regional partners in the
interest of the speedy restoration of peace in Syria, the eradication of the
hotbed of terrorism in that country and the facilitation of an end to the
internal crisis based on existing international legal documents and the entire
international legal foundation.
On October 18, 2016, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov will hold talks with Foreign Minister of Paraguay Eladio
Loizaga during his working visit to Moscow. This event will continue the
course towards developing practical cooperation between Russia and Latin
American countries.
Our two countries are
actively developing political dialogue. In February of this year Patriarch
Kirill of Moscow and All Russia made a historic pastoral visit to Asuncion.
Last April President of the Senate of Paraguay’s Congress Mario Abdo
Benitez visited Russia for the first time in history.
Asuncion is playing a major
role in promoting region-to region dialogue, in particular between EAEU and
MERCOSUR.
Paraguay is an important
trade and economic partner of Russia and one of its biggest meat suppliers.
There are prospects of developing cooperation in the scientific-technological
and cultural-humanitarian areas.
It is common knowledge that
our peoples are united by close historical ties. Immigrants from Russia have
made a meaningful contribution to developing science, education and culture and
consolidating the defence capability of Paraguay.
On October 21, Sergey Lavrov
will hold talks with Foreign Minister of Guatemala Carlos Morales during his
working visit to Moscow.
We are linked by long-term
friendly relations with Guatemala as well. It was in that country that the IOC
chose Sochi to host the 2014 Winter Olympics at its session attended by
President Vladimir Putin. This was a very memorable moment that will go down in
the history of our bilateral relations and the history of Russia. Let me recall
that the capital of that country – Guatemala – and Sochi are now sister cities.
This is indeed important and really promotes cultural contacts between our
peoples and countries. The Orthodox Monastery of the Holy and Life-Giving
Trinity, the “Lavra of Mambre,” has become the centre of spiritual and cultural
life of Russian compatriots living in Guatemala. Its Mother Superior
Abbess Ines was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship for her selfless
service.
The Yury Knorozov
Russian-Guatemalan Centre for the Study of Mayan History and Culture has been
actively working since its founding in 2012.
Our countries aim to deepen
constructive political dialogue at the bilateral and multilateral level, in
particular with the Central American Integration System (SICA), and to develop
trade, economic, scientific and technical cooperation, as well as cultural and
humanitarian contacts. Mr Lavrov and his Guatemalan counterpart will focus on
practical steps in these areas at their forthcoming talks.
On October 20-21, Deputy
Foreign Minister Alexey Meshkov will attend the Fifth Eurasian Forum in Verona,
Italy.
The forum has been held
annually since 2012 by the Italian association Conoscere Eurasia. It has become
a respected venue where government representatives, experts and business people
from Eurasia share opinions on key issues on the global political and economic
agendas. The co-organiser of the upcoming Fifth Eurasian Forum in Verona is the
Roscongress Foundation.
The themes to be discussed
this year include Geopolitical processes in Greater Eurasia, Economics and
finance and the global crisis, The energy market outlook for 2020, New models
of economic cooperation in the context of global crisis, Innovation
infrastructure in Greater Eurasia, Agriculture and agribusiness: new frontiers,
and Interregional cooperation as an engine of development.
The forum will be attended
by delegates from Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Great Britain, Italy,
Kazakhstan, China, Mongolia, South Korea and several other countries.
We are watching with concern
the military and political developments in Syria. Tensions are especially high
in Aleppo. The illegal armed groups that are closely connected to the Jabhat
al-Nusra terrorists are desperately trying to unblock the extremists who have
been surrounded in eastern Aleppo by the Syrian Army, maintain their positions
and deliver reinforcements, weapons and munitions from the back areas to the
conflict line. The terrorists are shooting at the local neighbourhoods with
small arms, home-made and captured multiple launch rocket systems and mortars.
Civilians die every day in these indiscriminate attacks.
The Syrian Army is advancing
in several directions, liberating eastern Aleppo from the terrorists, one
building after another. Humanitarian corridors have been established to help
civilians leave the city. Tragically, the terrorists mined the approaches to
these corridors. As we said before, they are using civilians as a live shield
because everyone, including the terrorists, know that the political and
information screen, which their Western sponsors are trying to throw by
fuelling hysteria over the developments in eastern Aleppo, meets their
[terrorists’] interests not because the situation is clear and close to a
settlement, but exactly because it is complicated. Western media and political
analysts provide a distorted picture of the situation. This distortion is
definitely playing into the terrorists’ hands. In line with this logic, the
terrorists are hindering the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians. They
want to see people suffer because it provides a backdrop that attracts public
attention around the world. Local residents held demonstrations in some
districts of Aleppo such as Saliheed, Marjeh, al-Fardos and Bab an-Nayrab to
demand that the al-Nusra terrorists who control these districts immediately
allow the delivery of food.
The Syrian Government has
issued an official statement that the army will guarantee the safe exit from
eastern Aleppo for everyone, including fighters who are willing to surrender
their weapons and depart to any other region of the country of their choice. We
see that Damascus has indicated an openness to any initiative that can ease
tensions and normalise the situation in the city.
The Russian military have
established stations where hot meals and basic necessities are issued to local
residents. Humanitarian aid is distributed in the Aleppo and Deraa provinces,
including baked goods, sugar, flour, rice, tea, and canned meat and fish.
Unfortunately, CNN has not shown any footage of this. They do not seem to
be interested.
Individual conflicts between
terrorists have been reported, marking yet another aspect of the Syrian
conflict. The jihadists are fighting over foreign financial assistance, spheres
of influence and power. Ahrar ash-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa are fighting each other
in the Idlib province, reportedly because Ahrar ash-Sham has accused Jund
al-Aqsa of assisting ISIS and even of helping the transit of ISIS terrorists.
Jund al-Aqsa has accused its terrorist “brothers” of subversive activities that
have allegedly allowed the Syrian Army to regain control over several towns in
the north of the Hama province.
On October 10, the terrorist
organisations Jabhat Fateh al-Sham (former Jabhat al-Nusra) and Ahrar ash-Sham
signed an agreement, which concerns the incorporation of Jund al-Aqsa into
Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. It is supposed that all disputes between Ahrar ash-Sham
and Jund al-Aqsa should be settled peacefully, within a special dispute
settlement commission. This agreement is yet more evidence of close ties
between ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, Jund al-Aqsa and Ahrar ash-Sham. This document
is available on the internet to anyone. It is in Arabic, but some media outlets
have translated it.
On the morning of October 8,
a Russian Mi-8 helicopter, which was delivering humanitarian aid in the Hama
province, was attacked by ISIS from a shoulder-fired rocket system. The
helicopter took measures to evade the strike. None of the Russian military on
board the helicopter were injured. We have taken note of the statements made by
some Syrian opposition members, who demanded that their regional sponsors
supply air defence systems to the armed extremist groups. We hope that our
regional and other partners will have the good sense to disregard these
appeals. Russia will not allow anyone to endanger the lives of its citizens,
including military personnel. Any unfriendly actions taken against Russia will
not remain unanswered.
At the same time, Russia
will continue its consistent and uncompromising struggle against terrorists and
all kinds of terrorism. We reaffirm our willingness to engage in a dialogue
with our foreign partners, based on equality and mutual respect, to help reach
a settlement in Syria.
We are seriously concerned
about the serious deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan,
another country with complicated issues. On October 11-12, terrorist attacks on
Shia mosques in the cities of Kabul and Balkh killed over 30 people and wounded
about 100 more. We resolutely condemn these terrorist attacks, and offer
condolences to the families and friends of the deceased, and wish a speedy
recovery to the wounded.
For two weeks, the Taliban
has been carrying out attacks in several provinces, including Kunduz, Baghlan,
Faryab and Badhgis in northern Afghanistan, and in the southern provinces of
Urozgan, Kandahar and Helmand.
The humanitarian situation
has deteriorated drastically against the backdrop of more intensive
hostilities. Several dozen civilians have been killed during clashes in Kunduz
alone, and up to 250 have been wounded. Over 32,000 people have been
temporarily displaced. Over 5,000 families have lost their homes as a result of
intense fighting near the city of Tarinkot. Over 40 schools have been closed in
the province of Ghazni, and about 7,000 children are therefore unable to study.
Let’s turn to the situation
around South Sudan. We are concerned with the continuing dire domestic
political situation in this country. We are confident that there is no
alternative to a political peace settlement there. We are urging belligerents
in South Sudan to immediately stop hostilities and to once again honour the
provisions of the 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the
Republic of South Sudan. We are closely following the implementation of the
provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2304 on deploying the Regional
Protection Force as part of the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS),
and creating favourable conditions for the operations of “Blue Helmets.”
Official Juba has expressed its willingness to honour the provisions of this
resolution. South Sudan and UN representatives are now discussing specific
issues in the resolution, including within the framework of a specially
established technical working group.
On May 31, 2016, the UN
Security Council passed Resolution 2290 extending targeted sanctions against
South Sudan for another 12 months. Russia has supported this resolution and
firmly opposed the inclusion of provisions for essentially predetermining
expanded UN Security Council sanctions against the Republic of South Sudan,
including the introduction of an arms embargo.
We have repeatedly voiced
apprehensions that excessive pressure, all the more so with sanctions, can make
it harder to accomplish these tasks and compel South Sudan warring parties to
toughen their positions. Russia resolutely rejects a situation where, instead
of engaging in serious political and diplomatic work, someone is trying to
arbitrarily apply sanctions, especially in the UN Security Council. Let’s not
forget what the Government of South Sudan needs to maintain security, law and
order in the country. By the way, the UN Secretary-General has not recently
urged the UN Security Council to expand sanctions against South Sudan. Nor have
we heard any conclusions from his Secretariat that official Juba hampers the
deployment of the Regional Protection Force. It turns out that there is no
reason to “punish” South Sudan so far.
This is proved by the
September 30 letter from the Government of the Republic of South Sudan to
Samantha Power, the US Ambassador to the UN. Unfortunately, this letter was
circulated among members of the UN Security Council on October 11 only.
On the whole, we advocate
well thought-out political and diplomatic moves in support of the peace process
in the Republic of South Sudan. We support the initiative of the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in Eastern Africa to
strengthen security in South Sudan, including the establishment of the Regional
Protection Force. We believe that IGAD and the UN Secretariat will continue to
work constructively with Juba for the purpose of coordinating acceptable
options for the deployment of the Regional Protection Force, with due respect
for the sovereignty of South Sudan and while honouring basic UN peacekeeping
principles.
I’d like to comment on what
is happening in Russian-American relations. It pains me to do so as there is no
good news.
We regret to see Washington
continue to aggravate Russian-American relations. We hear threats, nearly on a
daily basis, to expand the sanctions and also appeals to the international
community to follow suit. Washington has made no secret of the fact that the
sanctions policy is primarily to undermine the Russian economy. The Pentagon
has been building up its military presence along Russian borders. Inside the
US, as you know and hear every day, Russophobic propaganda from some of the
very top officials is totally off the charts.
It is more undisguised lies
than propaganda (propaganda is a very general term). What we hear daily are
complete lies, for example, about Russian hackers who nobody has seen but who
everybody already knows in absentia. The average person in America is made to
believe that Russia is an adversary.
We are now at a point where
American representatives in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and
other international financial institutions have been instructed to block
funding for any programmes connected with Russia. They have been tacitly doing
this for a while, but now they are receiving straightforward instructions. The
White House is trying to use any leverage to pressure Russia and is doing it
with painful pleasure, not as if it was forced to do so but in a ceremonial way
(which is particularly surprising). We have a clear notion that all of these
measures are dictated by the American domestic developments ahead of the
elections.
We have the increasing
feeling that the outgoing US administration has been pursuing a “scorched earth
policy” in bilateral relations. This is a dangerous policy that could have
detrimental consequences for international stability and is unlikely to bring
any positive change. In any case, nobody should be under the illusion that
Russia can be pressured – be it the current American leadership or the incoming
administration. Hopefully, the new administration will prove to be smarter than
its predecessor.
I would like to cite data
related to accusations that our country is implicated in hacker attacks on US
websites. This is commented by President Vladimir Putin and Minister of Foreign
Affairs Sergey Lavrov. Let me dwell on this issue as well.
On October 7, the US Office
of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland
Security published a joint statement accusing Russia for the nth time of
organising hacker attacks on US political institutions and persons.
The US side has failed to
provide any facts or arguments to corroborate its allegations. Moreover, the
statement says that the US intelligence community is not – I quote – “now
in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government.”
Not so long ago, a White
House spokesperson said that they, in fact, had no proof, but it was not needed
at all because Russia would deny it anyway. First you provide proof and then
we’ll talk! For this long, you haven’t bothered to make available even a single
material. Jumping to conclusion that proof would be refuted or denied is an
insane approach.
Against this backdrop, we
are perplexed to hear a White House spokesperson say that the administration
intends to come up with a proportional response in connection with the hacker
attacks on US websites. There is no proof implicating Russia, or Russian
officials, or the Russian side in certain hacker attacks, nor is it presented
by anyone. But the situation seems to be used as a pretext for Washington’s
hacker attacks. I at least don’t see any other reading. What does this response
mean? A response of this kind implies hacking – actually, it implies committing
a cybercrime. It should be mentioned that Washington has repeatedly
hurled similar unsupported accusations against Russia, but it never provided
any facts.
We think that this
malpractice is part of the US election campaign, used in the interests of one
of the political parties to garner votes. Having had an earful from America on
cyber threats and hacker attacks, we would like to ask this. Does the US
administration want to follow the path of global cyber conflict to secure the
victory of a certain candidate and lobby for one group in the US elections? The
threats we hear are about nothing other than a cyber conflict.
Please note that in 2013
Russia and the United States signed an agreement on confidence-building
measures in the area of information and communications technologies. If one of
the parties suspects the other of launching hacker attacks from its territory,
the agreement directs the parties to use the communications channels existing
between Russia and the United States, the special hotlines, including at a high
political level. This mechanism was developed to obviate any doubt or
misunderstanding, and, most importantly, to jointly resolve disputable
situations. Let me stress that we have received no inquiries, let alone accusations
of having committed hacker attacks on some US websites, via any of the three
existing official channels. One of the explanations of this failure is that
these inquiries must be thoroughly substantiated, whereas the US has no
substantiations – that is, facts – whatsoever.
I would like to remind our
US colleagues once again that Russia has, for a year now, repeatedly offered
the US administration to hold bilateral interagency consultations on combating
illegal actions in the information space. We reaffirm our readiness for this
dialogue because we are well aware how sensitive this sphere is. We still hope
to receive a comprehensible answer from the US.
It is obvious that the need
to develop the rules of responsible behaviour by states in the information
space is of particular importance in this context. It is the Russian
Federation, jointly with the SCO member states, that advanced the initiative to
draft these rules, which would make it incumbent on states to prevent conflicts
in the information space, respect state sovereignty of other countries, and
pledge not to use information and communications technologies to interfere in
internal affairs of others. Disseminated as an official UN document, these
rules are open to accession by all states.
The UN Group of Governmental
Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in
the Context of International Security has a special role to play in drafting
these rules. We hope that this Group, which includes experts from 25 countries,
including Russia and the United States, will be able to prepare a UN General
Assembly resolution on rules of behaviour for states in the information space,
which, as we hope, will be supported by all member states of the United
Nations.
Our great hope is that
commonsense will prevail in Washington and that the outgoing US administration
will not edge towards a global cyber confrontation. There are all necessary
mechanisms for addressing any complex disputed issues as they arise. They
simply need to be used but they can only be used when you have facts and proofs
handy. Otherwise, if your grievances are from the category of inventions, there
is nothing to talk about.
We have addressed the issue
of the procedure for the entry of Russian citizens to the Republic of Korea
several times, published our recommendations on the ministry’s website and
talked about this at briefings. I am talking about the denial of entry into
South Korea.
A growing number of Russians
have tried to enter South Korea in search of jobs, using the short-term
visa-free procedure approved for travel between our countries.
We would like to remind
everyone that the Russian-South Korean agreement on mutual visa-free travel,
dated November 13, 2013, does not provide for visa-free entry into South Korea
for employment purposes. The violation of this provision allows the South
Korean immigration service to deny the violators the right to enter the
country, to deport them to the country of their departure and to prohibit them
from entering South Korea for a long period. The violators shall cover the
expenses for the temporary stay in the transit zone and the return tickets. We
also remind everyone that those who have been denied entry into South Korea are
obliged to return to the point of their departure by the same airline they used
to arrive in South Korea.
We again caution people
against believing the assurances of unscrupulous employers and agents who
promise to guarantee them free passage through immigration in the Republic of Korea.
They should remember that they will be held accountable for violating the
immigration and other legislation of the destination country.
Question: Russian Economic Development Minister Alexey
Ulyukayev said they have submitted a proposal to the Foreign Ministry to lift
visas for Turkish business people. Have you received this proposal? How will
you distinguish business people?
Maria Zakharova: I will answer this
question after I check the information. I have no information at this point.
As for distinguishing
business people, it is a routine procedure at consular departments.
Question: Can you comment on the alleged
escalation of tensions between Iraq and Turkey? What is Russia’s position on
the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq?
Maria Zakharova: We believe that any
escalation can only aggravate the explosive situation in the region. We have
the ISSG, bilateral channels, the UN and other possibilities to promote the
easing, rather than the escalation of tensions. We must act from this premise.
Question: The US has announced that it will negotiate the
exit of ISIS fighters and their families from Mosul, possibly to Syria. Has
Russia responded to these talks between Iraqi and US armies and terrorists?
Maria Zakharova: I cannot confirm or
refute information about the alleged bilateral contacts on this issue, contacts
which do not include Russia.
I can tell you that the
initiative was advanced by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria
Staffan de Mistura. We consider this initiative to be very timely but believe
that its details need more working out. We have attracted the UN Security
Council’s attention to this initiative in the multilateral format and also
bilaterally, during telephone conversations with our foreign colleagues.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has raised this issue more than once. He said
that this initiative, if further elaborated, could help ease humanitarian
problems in Aleppo. We are considering this initiative, which needs more
working on, very seriously, and we are doing our utmost to ensure its practical
discussion as soon as possible.
Question: Create a humanitarian corridor for the
terrorists? Simply let them go?
Maria Zakharova: We are talking about a
humanitarian catastrophe in Aleppo. The situation is very complex. I said that
it is not Russia but Damascus, the official representatives of the Syrian
government, which means the Syrian authorities are willing to look for options,
including those that provide for letting the terrorists go in order to improve
the situation for common people, for civilians and children. The situation is
extremely complicated. The Western media are showing a simplistic picture,
according to which bombing raids by the Syrian Army, supported by Russia, are
killing women, old people and children.
I hope that everyone here
understands that the situation is completely different. There are terrorist
organisations and militants, who are described as militants by some and as the
moderate opposition by others. Still others believe that they have become
affiliated with the terrorists who have seized some areas in Aleppo and are
using civilians as live shields. Civilians cannot leave these areas because the
humanitarian corridors there have been mined. This is why Damascus, the UN and
Russia are looking for a way to unblock the situation. It is an ambivalent
scenario that needs to be thoroughly worked out. I can confirm that we are
searching for ways to ease the long-time suffering of the people, including in
Aleppo.
A solution cannot be found
if we take a simplistic view of the problem. We must look at the situation from
all angles and consider all factors on the ground.
Question: Is Russia willing to negotiate with all the forces in
Aleppo, including the terrorists, or only with the moderate opposition?
Maria Zakharova: I have answered your
question openly. I did not try to dodge it. The initiative has been advanced by
a UN official who is an expert on the Syrian crisis. We see that Damascus is
interested in finding a formula or a solution to the humanitarian crisis in
Aleppo. We believe that these factors should be taken into account in order to
find a solution. This is why Russia has made public its views on the UN Envoy
for Syria Staffan de Mistura’s initiative as soon as he released it.
Question: Can you comment on the drafting of a resolution on
North Korea at the UN Security Council, or more specifically, the issues that
are most difficult to coordinate?
Maria Zakharova: I have no information
updates on this. I will tell you as soon as I have it. At this point, I cannot
say anything more.
Question: What did the deputy foreign ministers of Russia and
Japan discuss at today’s meeting on strategic cooperation? Did they discuss any
important issues?
Maria Zakharova: A summation of this
meeting will be published on the ministry’s website.
Question: Can you comment on the latest developments in Ukraine?
Maria Zakharova: The latest political
and socioeconomic developments in Ukraine are commented on routinely. Which
aspect are you referring to?
Question: Presidential Press Secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said all
four of the negotiating countries should do their homework and that this was
what the October 19 summit depended on. What can we expect from the Normandy
four meeting?
Maria Zakharova: Comments on the meeting are
issued by the presidential press service because it is a summit.
I can only comment on the
socioeconomic situation in Ukraine, which is giving rise to not just big
questions but to big concerns. As you may know, the situation is deteriorating
rapidly. I will not list the objective indicators. There is one element – a
bridge of sorts or a link between the economy and politics – that is directly
connected with this. The deterioration of the living standards and the
socioeconomic situation in Ukraine is an alarming and at the same time
objective trend that undermines the Ukrainian regions’ confidence in the
central government. We are witnessing mass demands by regional legislators and
members of the public, who want more authority at the local level and duties to
be divided clearly between the central authorities and the regions. Their logic
is simple and clear: if the central government is unable to cope with problems,
then authority should be transferred to the regions. I saw media reports saying
that close to 10 regional councils are requesting that the budget, economic and
administrative mechanisms be transferred to them so they can address local
problems. Quite recently, several major regional councils such as Odessa and
Kiev took the same road urging President Poroshenko and the cabinet to sign a
division of powers agreement with them. Thus, the regions, in fact, are proposing
to go over to contract-based relations with the central government. Regional
legislators in Zaporozhye are suggesting special status for their region that
would make it possible to address its environmental and economic problems.
We might reach the following
conclusion: the Ukrainian regions are displeased with the current government’s
performance, and this is understandable. While declaring a course for
decentralisation, Kiev is actually sabotaging it. This is an obvious fact. It
can only hand down new directives to collect taxes or finance socioeconomic
programmes to the local level. All of this explains regional initiatives:
legislators have more frequent contact with people and a better understanding
of their problems and moods, something that reflects on the political process.
In fact, this is a growing general trend in the Ukrainian domestic political
process.
Question: Which countries have been invited to the
Saturday meeting in Lausanne? What outcome do you expect? Is a new agreement on
a ceasefire in Syria possible?
Maria Zakharova: I spoke in
considerable detail about our view on this meeting. I believe it would be
premature to speak about a shortlist, but I can tell you at this point that the
meeting will be attended by Russia and the United States and, most likely, also
Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I think the updated list will be made public later,
before the meeting. If you have any additional questions, you should address
them to the meeting participants I mentioned. We will issue updates as soon we
have the schedule of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s bilateral meetings.
We have been asked many
questions about Mr Lavrov’s potential bilateral meetings with US Secretary of
State John Kerry and the foreign ministers of other countries, for example
Turkey. You understand that this is a multilateral format. Therefore, bilateral
meetings are not just possible but are an integral part of such multilateral
consultations. There will definitely be bilateral contacts, considering that
these meetings are not simple protocol events but are planned for meaningful
discussions. Decisions will be made based on the discussions.
Question: This will be President Putin’s first visit
to Germany for a Normandy format meeting since 2012.
Maria Zakharova: There is an open rule
for the assignment of duties. Under the rule, we do not comment on the agenda
or the schedule of trips for the President of Russia. This is the
responsibility of his press service. We are responsible for the schedule of
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and anything related to the Foreign Ministry’s
activities. Procedures differ from country to country. This is our procedure.
Question: What signal will President Putin make there?
Maria Zakharova: Do you know what I
would speak about if I could express my personal opinions here? There are so
many interesting issues and so many interesting events in the world.
Unfortunately, I have to stay within established parameters. Therefore, you
should address you question to the Presidential Executive Office.
Question: The West has accused Moscow of pursuing
malicious goals in Syria. What are Russia’s strategic interests in a Syrian
settlement?
Maria Zakharova: To answer your
question, I would have to deliver a long lecture on Russia and its role in the
Syrian conflict.
What do we want in Syria?
Although we have talked about this today, I will answer your question, trying
to be as concise as possible.
First, our goals in Syria
and our views on the developments related to a settlement in Syria can be found
in UN Security Council and ISSG documents, as well as the agreements reached by
Moscow and Washington on September 9 this year. If you want to know exactly
what Moscow wants from a settlement in Syria, you should read these documents
that provide an unambiguous answer.
Speaking globally, we want a
settlement. We believe this is possible if the developments are steered along
the two tracks that were outlined in early 2016: a political dialogue (even if
indirect at first, but with a view to making it direct) between the Syrian
Government (Damascus) and a broad opposition group, not just a single group of
people who claim to be a broad opposition bloc. We are talking about a
comprehensive opposition group, including both internal and external
opposition, those who have taken the side of Damascus in this global conflict,
and those who demand that Bashar al-Assad step down. The entire range of
opposition should come together for talks or dialogue, or however you want to
describe it.
A second vital aspect is the
fight against terrorists, who continue to receive encouraging signals from some
Western and regional countries that their cause is right and they will
celebrate victory soon. Unfortunately, this is a road in the opposite
direction, away from what we have agreed upon and put on paper. The
encouragement of terrorists or moderates ultimately makes them part of
terrorist organisations, which is absolutely contrary to Russia’s global
approach.
We believe that a Syrian
settlement should include the above elements. As we have said more than once,
the result we are after is a free, sovereign, democratic, multi-confessional,
secular, united and integral state with democratic institutions.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment