17
January 201714:11
50-17-01-2017
Good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, happy New Year and best wishes on all
holidays.
The
past leap year was not easy. In addition to the troubles that usually befall
leap years, some man-made events also took place which were not conducive to
strengthening international security.
Russia’s
vision of its goals in the international arena is described in detail in the
country’s new Foreign Policy Concept that was approved in November by President
Vladimir Putin. I am sure that all those who are interested in this sphere of
our country’s activity have familiarised themselves with it. International
issues were very prominent at President Putin’s news conference (December 23,
2016), as well as in a number of his other statements. I will therefore not lay
out our vision of the year’s results. We’ll do better to leave more time for
questions and answers.
I
will only say that last year did not see any reduction in threats. I am
referring above all to the threat of international terrorism, which continued
doing its dirty business. It has affected residents of cities in Europe, the
Middle East and other countries. As a result of a heinous terrorist attack, we
lost our ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov. Terrorism has become a genuinely
systemic problem. The fact that the international community is still unable to
effectively rally and form what President Vladimir Putin described last year at
the UN as a united, universal antiterrorist front certainly arouses serious
concern and regret.
Why
is this happening? There are probably a lot of reasons.
We see that pooling
efforts to fight terrorism, organised crime, drug trafficking and many other
threats is becoming a systemic problem that is compounded by basic differences
between the objective trend toward the formation of a polycentric world, on the
one hand, and the actions of those trying to hold on to the outdated concept of
unipolarity, on the other hand. I am referring to the domination not even so
much of one state as one group of states with their own system of values. More
and more we are running up against a conflict that has been growing over the past
several years and that has asserted itself in a very naked form at the current
stage. I’m referring to the divide between what underlies the foreign policy of
a particular country – pragmatism, correctly understood national interests –
versus messianism, the aspiration to disseminate values across the world,
what’s more, according to the interpretation that has evolved and developed
within this group of states.
If
we talk about Western and European values, which are constantly put forward as
example for us, these are probably not the values the grandfathers of today’s
Europeans espoused but something new and modernised, a free-for-all, I would
say. These are values that can be called post-Christian. They are radically and
fundamentally at odds with the values handed down from generation to generation
for centuries in our country, which we would like to cherish and hand down to
our children and grandchildren. When during foreign policy battles we and many
others face a demand to accept these new post-Christian Western values,
including permissiveness and the universality of liberal approaches to the life
of the individual, I think it is indecent on a human level. But in terms of
professional diplomats, it is a colossal mistake and a completely unacceptable
overestimation of your own influence on international relations.
There
is a struggle between two trends. The messianic addiction to propagating values
(there was the export of democracy, and now we can see an attempt to export
values) stands in opposition to the growing desire of serious politicians to
focus on pragmatically assessing their own interests, on trying to understand
the legitimate interests of other countries and finding areas of overlap in
approaches to certain issues, be it terrorism or economic development, without
undermining their own interests, and so on. You see, I believe the clash
between pragmatism and messianism in foreign policy is adding a new dimension
to the contradictions that have been observed over the past few years.
The
Russian Federation’s choice is well known. We are not intending, of course, to
export anything. There used to be the practice of exporting revolution in our
country’s history. We have ceased doing that, but a bad example is contagious.
I repeat, the export of democracy and values continues to sow problems in
international relations. It is precisely the export of values and the demand to
accept only the European view of things that triggered the crisis in Ukraine.
The export of democracy and values led to the so-called “Arab spring”, and we
are now reaping the consequences. The “Arab spring” has, in turn, sparked the
import of migrants in Europe. So, export-import transactions, unfortunately, do
occur and don’t benefit security one bit.
Our
choice is pragmatism based on the core interests of the Russian Federation.
Those interests are simple. They remain unchanged and consist of ensuring that
our country does well, that the well-being of our people improves, and that our
economy and social sector develop steadily in an atmosphere of security and
under the most favourable external circumstances possible. That’s what our work
is aimed at. Here, there is no room for any idealised position or messianism.
We are looking for overlapping interests with all who are ready to work toward
a global economy that develops in the interests of all countries and peoples
without exception. We are looking for common approaches with those who realise
that there is no alternative to united efforts against terrorism and other
modern challenges, with those who are ready to work with us on an equal and
mutually beneficial basis, taking into account mutual interests and striking a
balance between interests. We adhere to these positions in our work at the UN,
BRICS, the G20, the CIS, the SCO, the CSTO, the EAEU and other multilateral
structures. And we adhere to the same positions in building relations with our
partners and allies in various regions of the world, whether individual
countries or interstate integration associations or other kinds of
associations. We are ready to build relations with the United States, the
European Union and NATO on the principles of equality, consideration of each
other’s interests, mutual respect and, I repeat, without the import of values
or attempts to impose any values on us, all the more so now that – as the
latest information wars suggest – those values or pseudo-values have already
been seriously discredited.
I
would like our conversation to be frank. I have attempted to express what I
feel at the current stage of international affairs. And now I am inviting you
to ask your questions.
Question: Both during and after the
US election campaign, there were claims of Russian interference in the process.
How did the diplomats’ working conditions change in 2016 in general? Were there
more attempts to recruit Russian diplomats? Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria
Zakharova recently mentioned one such case. Is there evidence of covert
pressure on diplomats in host countries?
Sergey
Lavrov: Any diplomatic mission can share its experience of working in a
particular country. On Barack Obama’s watch, we periodically received
complaints about the US embassy in Moscow working in unbearable conditions:
surveillance, snubbing the ambassador, who was turned down by all Russian
agencies. We made a special effort to look into the situation. It turned out to
be the opposite of what was claimed. We inventoried the contacts that the
Russian ambassador to the United States had at his request during the same period
and we gathered corresponding information on the contacts of the US ambassador
to Russia with Russian official agencies. Russian ministries, agencies and
members of parliament receive the US ambassador dozens of times more often than
Americans receive the Russian ambassador.
Regarding
recruitment attempts, we have not made public complete statistics on this
score, but over the past few years, especially during Barack Obama’s second
term in office, such unfriendly moves with respect to our diplomats increased.
In her recent TV appearance, Maria Zakharova mentioned a case when an attempt
was made to recruit an officer from the Russian Consulate General who had come
to the doctor to pick up prepaid medication for Yevgeny Primakov. It takes real
gall, profound cynicism and unscrupulousness to make a recruitment attempt in
such a situation. That was not the only case. April 2016 witnessed
unprecedented recruitment approaches with an offer of collaboration at the
level of the second in charge at the embassy: minister-counselor. US special
services, in a bid to make a recruitment offer, inserted $10,000 with an offer
of collaboration into one of our senior-level diplomats’ car. If somebody is
interested to know, the money was put on the balance sheet by our accounts
office and is working for the benefit of the Russian state. There were also
some really disgusting episodes when two staff members at the Russian military
attaché’s office in Washington, who were having lunch with their wives at a
restaurant near Washington on a day off, were seized by FBI agents, handcuffed
and questioned, while being denied contact with the embassy. In the end, we
naturally extricated our comrades but there was not even an apology.
As
for the claims that on President Obama’s watch, the US embassy in Moscow was
subjected to unprecedented harassment, I can see no grounds for such claims.
There were a few episodes that came out into the open because the Americans
tried to portray them as a hunt for US diplomats. In reality, nothing could be
further from the truth. What happened was that intelligence operations by US
representatives working under diplomatic cover were stopped. There was a
well-known case when a US diplomat in disguise, a wig and fake eyebrows or
something got into the US embassy building, refused to present his ID to a
security officer at the gate and hit him. There were also several other
episodes involving US diplomats in disguise, including a man dressed as a
woman, who then changed back into men’s clothing in a public toilet. All of
that was recorded. Staff members of the military attaché’s office at the US
embassy very much like driving all around our motherland in rented cars.
Therefore they do not have diplomatic number plates. They use Russian number
plates. That way it is easier to avoid being spotted. They go to the
Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk and Voronezh regions. They have been
repeatedly spotted in Novorossiisk and the republic of Chechnya and they have
covered literally every inch of the border with Donbass. This is to say nothing
about the fact that in addition to spying, US embassy diplomats have been often
observed participating in unsanctioned anti-government opposition rallies,
including in disguise. You can make your own conclusions.
I
once spoke on this topic. In November 1933, diplomatic relations between our
country and the United States were restored. [USSR] People’s Commissar for
Foreign Affairs Maxim Litvinov exchanged official notes with US President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, which, in addition to recording the fact of the
establishment of diplomatic relations as such, stated – to reiterate – at US
insistence that each side has a right to run its affairs at it sees fit,
undertakes not to interfere in the other side’s affairs and to keep all organisations
under its control from actions disrupting the calm, well-being and security of
the other contracting party, including agitation to change the political and
social system. This is almost a quotation. To repeat, it was included in the
documents on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and the
US at Washington’s insistence.
In
2012, long before the events in Ukraine and long before the time when they
began to accuse us of meddling in Syria, as well as other sins, a propaganda
attack was launched against Russia and our foreign and domestic policy, with
different agencies actively working in Russia, including the Agency for
International Development. During one of our contacts, I proposed to US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committing to paper the adherence to the
principles that had been recorded as a basis of relations between our countries
at Franklin D. Roosevelt’s insistence. She politely evaded that conversation. A
year later, John Kerry became the secretary of state and I proposed the same to
him. He also did not show much enthusiasm about that. Draw your own conclusions
and do not forget that the obligation not to engage in any campaigning to
change the political and social system, as recorded at US insistence, is
grossly violated, among other things, by the Ukraine Support Act that was
adopted by the US Congress a couple of years ago, which directly instructs the
State Department and special services to impose democracy in Russia the way the
Americans understand it. Incidentally, this is about compliance with agreements
and the fact that it is necessary to respect international law and remember
that a document that was signed and not disavowed is your sacred obligation.
This
has been a bit too long. But it’s true that the US is doing a great deal, and
this is not even everything.
Question: There have been many
forecasts and statements expressing hope that Russian-US relations will improve
after Donald Trump assumes office. If these forecasts prove accurate, what
impact could this have on the Syrian crisis settlement?
Sergey Lavrov: This seems like a simple question, but it would take more than one
phrase to answer it.
First,
we are realists, and we are certainly watching the incoming US administration’s
preparations to assume office. I would not go to extremes in terms of
expectations. The media and political analysts have made great many forecasts.
Some are thrilled, while others say there is nothing to rejoice about and that
nothing much will change. But there is no point talking about this now. Only
after all seats are assigned and the new administration starts working will we
see how relations between the United States and the rest of the world will
develop. I said “the world” because Donald Trump has specific views. They differ
greatly from the views of his predecessors, both Democrats and Republicans; his
views are based on the fundamental US interests as Donald Trump sees them. When
he says that his key foreign policy priority will be the fight against
terrorism, we are happy to welcome this intention. This is exactly what our
American partners lacked before him. On paper, they seemed to be cooperating
with us and other countries, drafting relevant documents, but in fact, they
were deceiving us when they pledged to separate the moderate opposition from
Jabhat al-Nusra, which they did their best to protect from strikes. According
to a recent leak about John Kerry’s meeting with Syrian opposition forces
several years ago, the United States regarded ISIS as a suitable force for weakening
Bashar al-Assad’s positions.
What
Donald Trump and his team are saying now shows that they have a different
approach to this and that they will not apply double standards in the fight
against terrorism in order to achieve unrelated goals. What Donald Trump has
said about his resolve to focus on US security interests and on creating
favourable conditions for American business is just what President Putin goes
by when setting out Russia’s foreign policy guidelines.
I
would like to mention one more issue which Donald Trump has spoken about
several times. He said that each country must be responsible for its own
development. We think so too. We believe that countries must act independently,
that there must be less parasitism and more respect for the legitimate
interests of all countries. Donald Trump has said that the fight against
terrorism will be his main foreign policy priority, as far as I know, and so I
hope that our cooperation on Syria and other counterterrorism issues will be
more effective than our interaction with the Obama administration. But we will
be able to officially coordinate our cooperation in the fight against terrorism
in Syria only after the President-elect, the secretary of state, the defence
secretary and intelligence and security officials assume office. We believe it
will be correct to invite representatives of the UN and the new US
administration, as I said at a meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia,
Turkey and Iran in Moscow on December 20, to the planned January 23 meeting in
Astana between the armed groups that signed a ceasefire agreement on December
29 and the Syrian Government. As you know, this agreement has been approved by
the UN Security Council and that Moscow, Ankara and Tehran have pledged to
guarantee compliance with it.
We
hope the new US administration will accept this invitation and will be
represented at this meeting at any expert level it considers appropriate. This
could be the first official contact during which we will be able to discuss a
more effective way to fight terrorism in Syria. It should be remembered that
Russia and the United States created and are co-chairing the International
Syria Support Group (ISSG), which has not been dissolved. It has two task
forces – a Humanitarian Task Force and a Ceasefire Task Force. There is a good
chance we can invigorate these mechanisms, considering that the new US
administration is resolved, according to its statements, to fight terrorism in
earnest and not as this happened before.
Question: The meeting in Astana will
take place very soon. We know that Russia is playing a big role in the Syrian
settlement. Will you support the idea of a federal system of government in
Syria? Would such a system guarantee the rights of Syrian Kurds, and would the
status of Kurdistan be formalised in the constitution?
Sergey Lavrov:This is for the Syrians to decide. All UN decisions that were adopted by
consensus in the past few years say clearly that the Syrians themselves must
decide the future of their country through an all-encompassing, that is,
inclusive dialogue between all ethnic, religious and political groups without
exception.
Under
UN resolutions, external forces, including Russia, the United States and
regional countries, should create conditions for launching an inclusive
dialogue in Syria. We have been working towards this goal for the past year.
However, some opposition groups were unwilling to accept this formula, and the
situation was influenced by the specific claims presented by the so-called High
Negotiations Committee, which sabotaged the UN efforts to launch intra-Syrian
talks because it claimed the right to represent all groups that stand in
opposition to President al-Assad. I believe that one obstacle to the talks was
the fact that the UN only sent invitations to members of the political
opposition, the overwhelming majority of whom were emigrants living in Europe,
the Middle East or other countries but not in Syria, and to some opposition
members in Syria. By the way, the Kurds are part of the internal opposition,
although some Kurdish politicians live abroad. Anyway, the Syrian groups that
were invited to the UN-sponsored talks consisted of politicians, both emigrants
and those who live in Syria. These talks were not attended by those who really
determine the situation on the ground, that is, armed groups or armed
opposition.
I
think we took a big and very important step forward after Russia and Turkey
proposed involving the warring sides in the talks and the Syrian Government
signed agreements to this effect with the field commanders of the majority of
armed opposition groups. The goals at the Astana meeting include, first, the
consolidation of the ceasefire regime, and second, an agreement on the field
commanders’ full involvement in the political process, which includes drafting
a constitution and holding a referendum and elections. This process was
launched by the UN in Geneva but has lost momentum. There are plans to
re-launch it. We believe that field commanders must participate in this process
as full members. I think that the process must not be limited to the groups
that signed the ceasefire agreement on December 29. All other armed groups
willing to join the ceasefire should have the opportunity to do so. We have
received appeals from several groups that are not parties to these agreements
but are willing to join them. I consider this a healthy process that can help
involve those who really control the situation [on the ground] in the talks.
Question: 2016 will also be
remembered because of the bloodshed in Nagorno-Karabakh – in Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories. What will be Russia’s position if a counterterrorist
operation begins in the occupied areas to cleanse Azerbaijan’s territory of the
occupation forces and other criminal elements? Will Russia look the other way?
Will it interfere in Azerbaijan’s internal affairs?
Sergey Lavrov: This is no longer something abstract or related solely to Azerbaijan’s internal
affairs. There are a number of resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
primarily ceasefire resolutions that the UN Security Council adopted at the
height of the conflict. If you are interested, we can turn to the archives and
see how the demands on the immediate ceasefire were complied with, as well as
who observed them and who didn’t. Since the Russian- and OSCE-mediated
ceasefire, a requirement has been in force on evacuating the occupied areas,
but under no circumstances should [the evacuation] be performed by force: [it
is to occur] after the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh is determined. This is
recorded in the documents drawn up by the OSCE Minsk Group via its co-chairs
(Russia, the United States and France). This figures in numerous statements
adopted by the co-chair presidents (presidents of Russia, the United States and
France), as well as in statements and documents that were approved and signed
by the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. These documents unequivocally
stipulate a peaceful settlement of disputes.
The
bloody events that happened there in April 2016 are a matter of deep concern.
At that time, Russia played a decisive role in stopping the bloodshed. Given
their mutual recriminations, we negotiated with President of Azerbaijan Ilham
Aliyev and President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan in Vienna, and President
Vladimir Putin held talks with them in St Petersburg in June 2016, focusing on
the need to create an investigative mechanism and increase the number of OSCE
monitors directly along the line of contact. That it is necessary to
investigate incidents was also discussed at the meeting of the presidents of
Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in Astrakhan in 2011.
As
I understand, you are concerned with non-recurrence of these events in the
future. But, regrettably, such an elementary and essential thing as a mechanism
to investigate incidents or an increase in the number of OSCE monitors along
the line of contact cannot be put into practice as long as there is no
consensus within the OSCE. OSCE representatives can also be asked why their
organisation is unable to reach consensus.
Question: Two events have happened
against the backdrop of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs’ condemnation of the use
of force or the threat of force in Nagorno-Karabakh. One was a large clash on
the Armenian-Azerbaijani border – not Karabakh – on December 29, 2016, which
left several servicemen dead and wounded. The other was the arrest of a
Russian-Israeli blogger, Alexander Lapshin, in Minsk last month at the request
of Azerbaijan over his visit to Nagorno-Karabakh following which he wrote that
people in Nagorno-Karabakh had a right to decide their future themselves. When
he went to Minsk on business, he was arrested at Azerbaijan’s request and has
been in a Belarusian jail for over a month. Protest actions have been held at
the Belarusian Embassy in Yerevan, but we don’t know anything about Russia’s
reaction to the arrest of its citizen.
What
do you think about the clash on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border on December 29,
2016?
What
is Russia’s stand on blogger Lapshin’s arrest in Minsk?
Sergey Lavrov: First, we are against considering any foreign visits by journalists or private
individuals as a crime. Second, we are against extraditing Russian citizens
detained outside Russia to any other country.
Our
consular officials have met with Alexander Lapshin. We know that he is also an
Israeli citizen. Israeli diplomats have met with him too. We will take measures
to resolve this issue based on respect for the rights of a Russian citizen who
also holds Israeli citizenship.
There
is one more thing I want to say on this. As you know, Russia and Belarus, as
members of the Union State, have decided to guarantee equal rights to their
citizens in all spheres without exception. This includes efforts to coordinate a
common visa space, which provides for a common migration space, a coordinated
list of undesirable persons and a common extradition policy. We hope the issue
is still on the table in light of the Belarus-EU agreement on the establishment
of illegal migrant centres in the country. This could create opportunities for
the abuse of law, considering that there is no technical border between Russia
and Belarus. We will discuss this issue with our Belarusian colleagues. In
principle, we have long been negotiating a common migration policy. I believe
recent developments call for accelerating these talks to reach practical
results as soon as possible.
As
I said, we have consular access to a Russian citizen detained in Belarus, and
we are working closely with officials from Israel, the country of his second
citizenship.
Question: Three years ago Russia
signed an agreement on the Russian-Estonian border, but the State Duma has
still not ratified it. They say it is not the right time now.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, this is an interesting story indeed. In 2005, Estonian Foreign
Minister Urmas Paet and I signed agreements on the land and lake borders. We
agreed that these agreements would be ratified without any incendiary addenda
and territorial claims. We received a hundred percent guarantee that this would
not happen and these agreements were submitted to the Estonian Parliament for
ratification. A day before the end of the spring session, the Estonian MPs
adopted a law on ratification, citing the Treaty of Tartu of 1920, which
contains, as you know, territorial claims against the current Russian
Federation. We asked our Estonian colleagues that, if they knew that they would
not receive enough votes to ratify the agreements as we had agreed, why they
did not revoke the law and wait for the next session where it could undergo
further discussions. They never responded, so we were forced to revoke our
signature.
Many
years later, Urmas Paet and I agreed to sign these agreements again and
launched the ratification procedure. We signed them in Moscow and agreed to
exchange ratification instruments in Tallinn (by the way, this is the only
capital of a former USSR republic that I have never visited as a Minister), but
we also agreed that favourable conditions should be created for the ratification.
By this we meant the absence of sudden demands towards each other, and no
accusations that Russia threatened the security of Estonia and other countries
in the region and the entire Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, when the agreement
was submitted to the State Duma Committee on International Affairs and
committee members began the hearings, Tallinn’s rhetoric became absolutely
inappropriate for this process to continue without sparking discontent of the
Russian public.
We
are ready to get back to ratification; our MPs have repeatedly said that. They
sense the attitude of their voters and it is up to them to make the decision.
We will support this process providing that our relations develop in a
constructive manner, not in an environment created by a confrontation policy.
Question: NATO is now deploying
troops on the Russian-Estonian border. What is your view on this?
Sergey Lavrov: It’s
not a good thing and I think it is completely unnecessary. If NATO’s military
organisation sees no better use for its forces than in Estonia, on the border
with Russia, then their intelligence is not doing a very good job and they have
little understanding of what is going on in other areas under NATO’s
responsibility.
Question: When it comes to the
Cyprus issue, you are probably one of the most experienced diplomats and
ministers in the world. This is a long-running issue and is once again in the
spotlight today. Negotiations are underway, but it looks as though Russia has
been sidelined from this process. The Russian public often asks if the Cypriot
or Greek governments have contacted you on having Russia take part in the
settlement process in one form or another. What is your assessment of the
situation?
Sergey Lavrov:Yes,
this is indeed one of the matters I have long dealt with, above all because the
Cyprus issue has traditionally been on the UN Security Council’s agenda, partly
because UN peacekeeping forces are stationed on the island and the Security
Council extends their mandate at regular intervals. The Security Council’s
permanent members always co-authored the resolutions on extending the mandate
or on the political settlement process in Cyprus. When I was coming to the end
of my term as permanent representative at the UN in New York, the plan put
forward by then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan produced similar hopes as we
see for the meeting in Geneva now. Annan proposed that the parties agree to
hold a referendum, even with some key issues still unresolved. If the
referendum went through, these outstanding issues would be settled with the UN
acting as arbitrator, dividing territory between the two sides and settling
ownership disputes. I met at that time with the Cypriot leaders when they came
to New York. We took the view that it would be a mistake to have the serious
issues dividing Turkish and Greek Cypriots settled through arbitration. But the
Annan plan was supported and a referendum was held but failed to pass. If you
are suggesting that my position at that moment was a reflection of my
experience, yes, this is probably the case.
The
reason I say this is to get it across that attempts to put a positive face on
everything are not always productive. I saw excessive optimism during
preparations for the meeting in Geneva. I do not hide that we have spoken with
our Cypriot, Greek and Turkish colleagues. We are in contact with everyone.
Responding to their question on how we would like to see this conference
organised, we said that if we are talking about an international event that
will discuss guarantees, the best option would be to have the Security Council
act as guarantor of a united Cyprus, and not just one, two or three countries.
Our Greek and Cypriot colleagues agreed with this. In this respect, they
expressed interest in having all five permanent UN Security Council members
take part in this conference, which will examine international aspects of the
settlement process. The other participants in the process did not want this
format, it seems, and this leads me to suspect that some of our partners hope to
avoid a solution in which Cyprus’ security would be guaranteed by the UN
Security Council rather than one, two or three countries. I do not think this
is the right approach, but we are ready to support any agreements that the two
Cypriot communities reach together.
Question: Russia and Greece
have traditionally warm relations. They have held a cross-culture year. But
some forces seem to be trying to mar this positive atmosphere. Greek
journalists have learned that despite their warm words about Russia, the Greek
government refused to allow a Russian warship headed to Syria to refuel in a
Greek port. A Russian diplomat was expelled from Athens in late 2016, and
Russia reciprocated by expelling a Greek diplomat from Moscow. We know about
this even though Russia and Greece decided, at the intergovernmental level, to
suppress this information.
Sergey Lavrov:I can say that if the latter is true, then the score is one to one, and we can
leave it at that.
As
for refuelling our warships that deliver supplies to the Russian Aerospace
Forces, the Hmeymin base and our logistics support facility in Tartus, we have
managed. We have the capability to ensure the operation of our aerospace and
naval forces without bothering any of our colleagues.
Question: Donald Trump said in
an interview the other day that he might propose offering to end sanctions
imposed on Russia in return for a nuclear arms reduction deal with Moscow. What
can you tell us about this besides waiting until after Trump’s inauguration?
Sergey Lavrov: You
understand that I do not want to, and have no right to interpret anything
Donald Trump may have said in an interview. However, I understand the phrase
you mentioned differently from the majority of observers and commentators. If I
understand correctly, he said he would see what can be done about the
sanctions. This is only part of what he said. He also said that if some good
deals can be made with Russia, a solution should be found. And then he said
that nuclear weapons should be reduced substantially. I do not see a direct
connection between nuclear disarmament and the lifting of sanctions.
As
for nuclear weapons, strategic stability and nuclear and strategic parity, this
is a key issue in Russian-US relations. I can understand the US President-elect
mentioning nuclear arsenals in connection with Russia. I am convinced that one
of Russia’s priorities will also be to resume the strategic stability dialogue
with Washington, which has been disrupted by the Obama administration alongside
many other positive mechanisms. During its last week in office, the outgoing
Obama administration proposed resuming this dialogue with Russia. Being polite
people, we did not reject the offer and have even had a meeting. But we will
discuss this issue in earnest with the Trump administration.
You
must know that when we talk about international security and the steps that
should be taken to reduce physical threats to this security, we must keep in
mind absolutely all factors that influence strategic stability, and there are
many factors besides nuclear weapons. They include strategic conventional
weapons, including hypersonic weapons that can destroy targets in any part of
the world within an hour even without nuclear warheads. Those who have these
weapons do not need nuclear weapons. The second factor is the Ballistic Missile
Defence (BMD) system, which is changing the strategic balance. We need to
negotiate this issue, so that any changes in strategic balance will not
destabilise the situation. One more thing that influences strategic stability
is the space militarisation plans of the current and previous US
administrations. There are also other variables, including the US refusal to
ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). All these factors – I
may have forgotten to mention some – influence global strategic balance and
parity. We are willing to hold talks as soon as the new US administration
assumes office and prepares for such a meeting, which must be held in a
business-like manner and with full awareness of our responsibility to our
nations and to the rest of the world.
Question: Many people think that
the leaders of the two superpowers – Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin – should
meet, something that has not happened for a long time. A rather respected
newspaper, The Sunday Times, reported last Sunday that the meeting would be
held at Reykjavik halfway between Moscow and Washington. Can you comment on
this report?
Sergey Lavrov: With the same response as Washington and Moscow: it has no substance. There was
no communication about plans of this sort.
Question: The Eurasian Economic
Community made strides in the past year. How do you estimate Europe’s reaction
to this? How would you advise developing the Eurasian space at this point?
Not
long ago, the leadership in Uzbekistan changed. How do you think
Russia-Uzbekistan relations will fare?
Sergey Lavrov: As far as relations between Russia and Uzbekistan are concerned, they have long
been those of strategic partnership and alliance, despite the fact that
Uzbekistan withdrew from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO)
several years ago. Our bilateral allied relations are legalised
internationally. We think that the new president and the new leaders in
Uzbekistan are certainly interested in maintaining continuity in our relations.
We welcome this. We also hope that additional opportunities for stepping up
Uzbekistan’s relations with the Russian Federation and its other neighbours,
including multilateral organisations, will be used in the interests of the
people of all of our countries.
As
far as the EAEU is concerned, it is making consistent progress. As you know, a
new customs code was approved not long ago, which helps cut commodity
registration time and costs and reduces the number of documents necessary to
enable goods to cross the border. There is a functioning common market for
pharmaceuticals and medical products. A single electric power market will be
established before 2025. Despite the problems related to the current foreign
economic situation and difficult negotiations within the EAEU, I can see that
this union has very good prospects. There are real results that the citizens of
Russia and Uzbekistan can see and understand the advantages of EAEU membership.
Other
outside parties that are interested in the EAEU is another confirmation that
this organisation enjoys good prospects. Talks are under way with approximately
15 potential foreign partners, both countries and organisations on one kind of
relation or another. As you know, an FTA agreement has been signed with Vietnam
and an intergovernmental trade and economic cooperation agreement is being
discussed with China. FTA negotiations with Israel are at an early stage, with
a so-called research group established. The same ideas are being discussed with
Egypt, Iran, India, Serbia and Singapore. Of course, these processes should be
regarded in the context of the broader plans and concepts that President
Vladimir Putin laid out last year. These plans are about promoting the
so-called Greater Eurasia project, where EAEU, SCO and ASEAN member-countries
can participate based on different forms of cooperation. Incidentally, the
secretariats of these three organisations met in Sochi in May 2016 on the
sidelines of the Russia-ASEAN summit, which also confirmed the Southeast Asian
countries’ interest in cooperation. On top of individual ASEAN countries desire
to sign FTA agreements with the EAEU, ASEAN as an organisation is also
considering the opportunity. The same processes include cooperation aimed at
aligning Eurasian economic integration with the Silk Road Economic Belt
project.
If
I understand your question, you asked how Europe was viewing this cooperation.
First, I will tell you that over a year ago, in November 2015, the Eurasian
Economic Commission sent a proposal to Brussels on establishing contacts with
the European Commission and discussing mutually beneficial cooperation in trade
liberalisation and investment expansion. There is still no response. We proceed
from information we receive via different channels and it shows that the EU
does not regard the Eurasian economic integration movement as a full or
comprehensive entity. The EU thinks this movement is driven by ideology and
motivated by Russia’s desire to seize zones of influence.
In
my opening remarks, I mentioned a kind of foreign policy mentality motivated by
messianism and the wish to promote values as our European partners understand
them. Accusations that Russia is seeking to “isolate” neighbouring countries
from European values are voiced not only by individual journalists but also
officials. Zbigniew Brzezinski has written Grand Chessboard. To
me, certain modern politicians are still guided by his creed with regard to
Eurasia. In his book on Eurasia, he said that barbarians should not be allowed
to unite. That’s how he characterised us! Many modern politicians do not want
the Eurasian economic integration project to come into its own, though not with
the same degree of rudeness and impudence. Let me cite the example of Serbia.
It is conducting and is willing to conduct FTA talks with the EAEU, but the EU
is sending it signals that characterise what I said. High Representative of the
European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini has
an adviser, Nathalie Tocci, who said that Serbia’s relations with Russia were
the main challenge for Serbia from the point of view of that country’s
conformity to EU foreign policy. This was said in connection with Serbia’s
current EU accession talks, rather than about Belgrade’s relations with the
EAEU. This shows that nothing has changed during the last 12 or so years, when
Brussels regarded any partner in Europe as being obliged to choose between
Europe and Russia. To my profound regret, this vicious, shortsighted and
counterproductive logic prevails to this day. As I said, the Eurasian Economic
Commission sent a cooperation proposal to the European Commission. I hope that
at some point the elementary politeness that has always been a European value
will have some influence and that we will receive an answer.
Question: Picking up on a colleague’s
question. Donald Trump spoke a few days ago about sanctions as well as nuclear
weapons, and he seemed to link the two together. Are you prepared to do some
kind of a grand deal with Donald Trump on these issues? And also, secondly, not
a message to Donald Trump, not a message to the administration, but as he
prepares to take office, what’s Russia’s message to America? Thank you.
Sergey Lavrov:I am somewhat confused because I think I have already answered these
two questions, well definitely the first one. I spoke about my view of our
relations in terms of strategic stability, and this is what I heard Donald
Trump say when he spoke about three things: the need to deal with the
sanctions, the need to find positive areas of interaction with Russia and that
one of such areas might be the dialogue on strategic nuclear weapons. I did not
hear him speak of any proposed deals like “disarmament in exchange for
sanctions.”
As
for our message to the United States. We wish prosperity to the American people
just like to any other nation. As I said today, we understand Mr Trump if he
wants to concentrate his work on this issue both within and outside the
country. If what Mr Trump and his team say about Russia and about their
readiness to find common approaches to solve shared problems and overcome
threats is true, if this is the position of the new administration, then we
will reciprocate. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that too on
numerous occasions. Our position does not depend on who is a country’s leader;
we are ready to cooperate with anyone who is committed to cooperation on the
basis of equality and mutual respect of each other’s interests.
Question: Do you feel sad that you
will soon lose German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and US Secretary
of State John Kerry as official counterparts in talks?
Ahead
of the election in Germany, much is being said about Russia’s hacker attacks.
Can you prove that your country does not pose a cyber threat?
Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, I have close and friendly relations with Frank-Walter
Steinmeier and John Kerry. I hope that these relations will continue regardless
of the positions we occupy in the future. At least, Frank-Walter and John both
know about this. This is my position and I think they agree. I wish both of
them success in their new capacity.
As
for cybersecurity and accusations, to put it bluntly, I am not going to prove
it to you why this is all a lie. I thought that Germany, just like many other
countries, respects the principle of the presumption of innocence, so it is
their obligation to prove our guilt. We have seen the proofs made up by some
fugitive fraudster from MI6. These proofs have been denied by both Britain and
their colleagues in the US who tried to frame the new administration. All of
our television talk shows have been discussing these blatant provocations that
discredit Europe and the part of the United States that is involved in it. So
we can talk endlessly about how absurd and farfetched they are, and about the
facts that prove it is a lie. But I am not going to do so. You know, international
cybersecurity is something that should concern all of us. Russia was the
country that urged sustainable cooperation in bringing order to cybercrime
counteraction. We submitted a relevant proposal, by the way, to the OSCE and
the UN. In particular, we proposed draft conventions on counteracting
cybercrime in information space that would criminalise hacking. We were told
that none of that was necessary, everything was fine, and it was enough that we
had the Budapest Convention of 2001. It was adopted by the Council of Europe
and allowed interference in sovereign affairs of countries without their
permission. However, enormous changes have taken place since 2001. So these
cries about the threat to the western cybersecurity are nothing but double standards.
The same people who refuse to develop universal rules to bring order to the
information space and who refuse to take part in international efforts in
counteracting cybercrime accuse us, without any proof, that we brought just
about the entire world under our control.
I
recently saw a BBC report about a special counterintelligence team created by
the CIA, which allegedly has been investigating Donald Trump’s financial ties
with Russia for a long time. It comprises, apart from the CIA, representatives
from the FBI, the NSA, the office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury. All of them collected
evidence that Russia has financial ties with Mr Trump or that he has
connections with us. If the only thing this team consisting of respectable
agencies has dug up was the “evidence” it presented to the public, they should
all be fired because they are just worthless. So I am not going to explain and
prove that we have nothing to do with it.
Question: We all remember how you
congratulated your Chinese colleagues on the Chinese New Year during your news
conference last year. You said then that Russia and China’s cooperation on the
international stage is an important factor for guaranteeing security. The
Chinese Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson said just recently that China seeks to
continue strengthening and developing comprehensive strategic partnership
between our countries in order to ensure security in the region and around the
world. How do you assess cooperation with China on issues such as the Middle
East, the Korean Peninsula and the fight against terrorism last year? What
hopes do you have for future joint diplomatic efforts?
We
all know that Russia made great efforts in 2016 to settle the internal
conflicts in Syria and advance political talks in the Syrian Arab Republic. The
international community is placing considerable hopes on the talks that will
soon take place in Astana. What are Russia’s achievements and losses in the
Syrian settlement process begun a year ago?
Sergey Lavrov: Our
relations with China are at their best level ever in our two countries’
history. Bilateral strategic cooperation, comprehensive partnership and
cooperation on regional and global affairs are all on the increase. We really
do believe, and our Chinese friends share this view, that coordination between
Moscow and Beijing on the international stage plays a key part in maintaining
global stability, and we will continue this cooperation.
A
whole series of agreements were signed during President Vladimir Putin’s
official visit to Beijing in June 2016. They included a joint declaration on
economic and foreign policy cooperation, a joint declaration on strengthening
global strategic stability, a joint declaration on cooperation in developing
the information space (this covers information- and cybersecurity), and a
declaration by the two foreign ministers on raising the role of international
law. This list of agreements alone is evidence of the attention our leaders are
giving to international issues. Of course, this includes the situation on the
Korean Peninsula, where Russia and China are working very closely on the basis
of trust to promote initiatives aimed at relaunching the negotiation process
and at ensuring that the international community’s firm position on not
recognising North Korea’s claims to nuclear power status and condemnation of
provocative nuclear tests and missile launches does not become the starting
point for an ongoing spiral of threats. We do not want this crisis to end up
being used as a pretext for a rapid and out of proportion arms build-up and
military exercises conducted in aggressive fashion. At the same time as we put
pressure on Pyongyang, we also want to keep the door open for resuming talks. Russia
and China share absolutely identical positions here and are working to convince
the other participants in the six-party talks to take the same
approach.
On
the Middle East issues, if we take the Syrian crisis and the situation in
Libya, Iraq and Yemen, Russia and China traditionally vote in solidarity with
each other in the UN. This reflects the completely coordinated approach we take
on issues such as fighting terrorism. I note that along with the UN’s efforts,
we have counterterrorist programmes in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
too and are currently examining similar efforts through the BRICS group. Russia
and China both play an important proactive role in these two
organisations.
As
for Syria and your request to assess our achievements and losses, it is not our
job to do this. We take the view that we acted correctly when we gave a
positive response to the request for help from the legitimate government of
Syria, a UN member country, whose capital was only two-three weeks away from being
seized by terrorists. I think the fact that we succeeded in pushing the
terrorists back from Damascus and helped the Syrian army to liberate Aleppo is
very important in order to preserve Syria as a multi-ethnic, multi-faith,
secular state, as is called for by the UN Security Council resolution. Those
who watched on in silence for 18 months as ISIS and other terrorists surrounded
Aleppo are probably guilty of a crime, as they directly violated the UN
Security Council resolution that called for Syria not to be turned into an
Islamic state.
You
know the losses we suffered. We grieve over the losses among our military
service personnel, performers and doctors who were headed for Syria just
recently to wish the service personnel there a happy New Year. Yes, these are
losses, but we are sure that our heroes have forever engraved their names in
the history of Syria’s liberation from terrorism.
Question: Russian President Vladimir
Putin’s official visit to Japan in December 2016 was the most important event
in our bilateral relations. How would you characterise it and what is the most
important outcome of the visit, in your opinion?
An
agreement was reached on joint economic operations on the Kuril Islands. The
Japanese consider this an important decision, but it will not be easy to
implement. How can mutually beneficial conditions be created in this regard?
Sergey Lavrov: I think the most important result of the visit was a very clear,
unambiguous confirmation of mutual intent to bring our relations to a qualitatively
new level without taking into account some external factors or the current
environment. This is important because we know what kind of pressure was put on
Japan by the outgoing US administration: here too, it tried to undermine
prospects for normal relations so that the Japanese government would abstain
from meeting with the Russian President or would lower the level of the
meetings. The outgoing US administration is behaving indecently. I will repeat,
even in this case they tried to take advantage of their relations with Japan,
tried to treat their Japanese allies as second-class, subordinate members of
the international community. So under these conditions, the determination
outlined in the joint documents to bring Russian-Japanese relations to a qualitatively
new level is very important, despite the external factors.
Mr
Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed to continue negotiations on
developing a peace treaty. This task will be given to our negotiating teams at
the deputy foreign minister level. It was decided to, as you said, prioritise
the development of joint economic activity and liberalise the travel
restrictions, first for the former residents of the islands and relatives who
want to visit the graves of their families. This process has already been
initiated. Hiroshige Seko, the Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade, and
Industry, visited Moscow after President Putin’s trip to Japan, to begin
discussing this issue with his Russian colleagues.
Naturally,
our position is based on the tangible results of the Russian-Japanese summit,
that is, twelve intergovernmental agreements and about 70 business agreements.
One of the most important ones was the agreement to establish a
Russian-Japanese investment fund. We feel very positive about the visit; the
goals were clearly set. It will not be easy to reach them, as President
Vladimir Putin said at the news conference, given the issue of the peace
treaty. However, both parties are striving to solve these issues based on the
vital interests of the Russian and Japanese people and not let other countries
meddle in the process. There is much work ahead, but we are ready for it.
Question: You cited President
Vladimir Putin several times today. In particular, he said that Russia has
never tried to conceal the fact that it sent people to resolve military matters
in Donbass. He also said that Russia had a duty to protect the Russian-speaking
population in Donbass and Crimea. Could you please clarify where this is
written in the Minsk Agreements and the Budapest Memorandum? What changes
regarding the occupied territories in Donbass and Crimea would the Russian
Federation be willing to make once the new US administration takes office?
Sergey Lavrov: Could you please repeat the last question?
Question: What changes regarding
the occupied territories in Donbass and Crimea would the Russian Federation be
willing to make once the new US administration takes office?
Sergey Lavrov: You are an experienced journalist. It would probably be better to ask whether
Russia is ready to make changes, and not what changes Russia is ready to make.
Question: Is Russia ready to make
changes regarding the occupied territories in Donbass and Crimea once the new
US administration takes office?
Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the first question, we have discussed these arguments before and the
relation between the events that took place and Ukraine’s obligations,
including under the Budapest Memorandum’s terms. I remind you once again that
the Budapest Memorandum contains just one legal obligation binding Russia, the
United States and Great Britain, namely, that nuclear weapons would not be used
against Ukraine, which had given up its nuclear weapons. This was the only
legal obligation cemented in the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. At the same time,
of course, this document also contained political obligations declaring that we
all desire and would respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and
independence. This accords completely with our position. The only thing absent
from the Budapest Memorandum is an obligation on the part of Russia or anyone
else to agree with the results of an anti-constitutional armed coup d’etat, led
by people who made it their first act to proclaim a fight against the Russian
language and Russians in Crimea. I can quote the former leader of the Right
Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, who said that, “Russians should be driven out of Crimea
or exterminated.” No one had any obligation to accept political changes of this
kind in Ukraine under leaders of this sort. When they violated the agreements
of February 20, 2014 and ignored their obligation to form a government of
national unity under guarantees from France, Poland and Germany, the Ukrainian
coup leaders flagrantly violated the Budapest Memorandum’s terms regarding the need
to respect in full Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As
for the Minsk Agreements, I have no intention of rewriting them. They were
unanimously enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution. I have heard
nothing suggesting that France or Germany as countries taking part in the
Normandy format, or Donetsk and Lugansk as participants in the Contact Group
have proposed changing these agreements. On the contrary, the entire
international community repeats ceaselessly that there is no alternative to the
Minsk Agreements. It is true that high-level political and official circles in
Ukraine have expressed the view that no one intends to implement these
agreements and that they should be redrafted and that the United States should
be involved too, in addition to the Normandy format. We have been hearing this
for a long time, right since the agreements were concluded. US President Barack
Obama’s administration has tried to support the agreements’ implementation.
These efforts had their use but did not ultimately produce results. I have
heard nothing about the Trump administration saying the Minsk Agreements should
be buried and the crisis in eastern Ukraine resolved some other way. We have no
reason to consider this possibility.
Question: I have a question about the
Balkans. A train was sent from Belgrade to the northern region of Kosovo
several days ago. The train was painted in Serbia’s national colours and had a
message reading “Kosovo is Serbia.” Kosovo special forces stopped the train at
the border and forced it to turn back to Belgrade. President Hashim Thaci of Kosovo
denounced the move as a provocation and as evidence of Serbia’s readiness to
annex northern Kosovo using the Crimea scenario. The Serbian President
threatened to send troops to Kosovo to protect the Serbian population. A week
ago, President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik said the republic would
withdraw from Bosnia and Herzegovina to join Serbia, after which they would
take over Kosovo’s northern regions and then Montenegro. Can you comment on the
current situation in the Balkans? Some experts say it is fast approaching war
again.
Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, the Balkans have been a source of conflict more than
once. I am convinced, or at least hope that, although the only thing history
teaches us is that history doesn’t teach us anything, everyone understands that
the use of military force must be prevented this time even despite escalating
tensions. As I said in my opening remarks, these problems are largely created
by the policy of those who are forcing a new, modernised and post-Christian edition
of so-called European values on the Balkan nations. I have no doubt about this.
As
for the Belgrade-Pristina train, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic called me
the same day. I received first-hand information from him, and then we analysed
what happened. The only thing I can say is that the EU must defuse the
situation and take the necessary measures to ensure the implementation of the
Belgrade-Pristina agreements, which were reached with Brussels’ mediation and
which say, first, that freedom of movement will not be restricted, and second,
that there must be no Albanian security forces in Northern Kosovo where the
Serbian community lives. As I see it, at least some of these EU-sponsored
agreements have been violated.
As
for statements by President of Republika Srpska Milorad Dodik, we stand for the
implementation of the Dayton Accords, to which Mr Dodik pledged commitment
until this day. At the same time, we often reminded our Western partners about
the inappropriateness of a sovereign country being overseen by the High
Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, a kind of governor-general who can
force any decision on the three constituent ethnic groups – Bosniaks, Serbs and
Croats. Several years ago, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) even held non-permanent
status at the UN Security Council. The EU continues to defend the importance of
this office, or it probably just cannot give up the powers it enjoys. This is
irritating, just as the regular accusations of attempting to destroy the
republic thrown at Serbian officials in Banja Luka. As I said, nobody is trying
to destroy this republic. President Dodik has reaffirmed his commitment to the
Dayton Accords more than once. However, the Dayton Agreements are being
violated by those who take decisions in BiH without due regard for the opinion
of the three constituent ethnic groups and without their agreement, contrary to
the Dayton Accords. Hysterics over Bosnian Serbs’ decision to mark January 9 as
their day of culture, which has been denounced as an attempt to undermine the
Dayton Accords, is a provocation and evidence of pride wounded by the fact that
somebody can cherish one’s own values more than Brussel’s post-Christian
values.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment