Russian foreign minister answers listeners' questions in major radio interview
BBC Monitoring, 02.11.2011
Text of report "Answers by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to listeners' questions on the Voice of Russia, Radio Russia and Ekho Moskvy radio stations, 21 October 2011" published in English by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs website on 26 October. Subheadings added editorially:
Qadhafi's death
Question: Could you set forth Russia's reaction to the death of Mu'ammar Qadhafi?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Of course, Qadhafi long ago lost his legitimacy. This was stated by the president of Russia back in May of this year, followed up with a reiteration of the position in a collective document endorsed by the G8 leaders in Deauville. It explicitly demanded that Qadhafi step down. With the start of unrest in Libya brute military force, including the use of combat aircraft, was unleashed against peaceful demonstrations. This compelled the UN Security Council to adopt two resolutions. With regard to Qadhafi, the Council decided that the International Criminal Court must investigate his crimes.
But the circumstances of his death raise a whole array of questions. I have heard statements from many world leaders expressing satisfaction and even joy at the dictator's demise. I do not now presume to judge these statements. We have to base ourselves on evidence and international law. There is no other criterion in international affairs. During the periods of armed conflict (as in the case in Libya), international humanitarian rules apply. These rules are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, which were adopted in the late 1940s and then supplemented with different protocols. The conventions clearly prescribe that as soon as a participant in an armed conflict is taken prisoner, he shall be subject to specific procedures, including the provision of medical assistance in case of injury; moreover, it is categorically unacceptable to kill him. The footage we saw on the TV screens shows that Qadhafi definitely was captured wounded. And only then was he deprived of his life while a POW. Not surprisingly, today the United Nations high commissioner for human rights has said that it is necessary to investigate all the circumstances of this death. I am sure that this really needs to be done.
NATO's role in Libya
I will also note such an international law aspect as the beginning of this whole story of Qadhafi's capture and subsequent death. There have been media reports, undenied by NATO, that alliance planes attacked a convoy of vehicles moving from Sirte in the direction of the border, after which the vehicles and their passengers, including Qadhafi, were seized by rebels.
Recall that NATO forces received mandate from the UN Security Council to enforce a no-fly zone with the object of preventing Libyan air force planes under Qadhafi's control from rising into the air. The attack of ground targets has nothing to do with the no-fly zone. All the more so as in this case we can't even talk about the protection of civilian lives, because the convoy wasn't attacking anyone but fleeing. So NATO's actions also require assessment from the international legal point of view.
I say all this not to shield the Qadhafi regime, but for one reason. Our Western partners at every corner declare that the way in which the revolution was carried out in Libya is a model for the future. We do not want a repeat in any new internal conflicts, of the intervention of outside forces in flagrant violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions.
Consequently, all of this needs the most thorough investigation from the international law point of view. NATO countries said when undertaking to carry out the Security Council resolution that their task was to protect the civilian population, rather than target Qadhafi's elimination and that a regime change, as they put it, must occur in a natural way - namely, through the efforts of the Libyan people themselves. Now they talk differently, saying that with the death of Qadhafi their goal is reached. Although, again, the UN Security Council did not set such a goal for them but decreed that Qadhafi must be handed over to the International Criminal Court.
And one more remark about this: If the media reports are correct, then Qadhafi was captured not by units that obey the National Transitional Council of Libya, but by semi-autonomous combat detachments from Misratah that do not obey the NTC. This raises the question of how the situation will further develop in Libya. As President of Russia Dmitriy Medvedev stressed yesterday, we hope for peace to come to Libya and that the various Libyan sides will be able to reach a final agreement on the configuration of power so that Libya is a modern democratic state in which the interests of all Libyans would be ensured without regard to religion or ethnic, clan or tribal identity.
It is very important that the UN Security Council in accordance with its central role in the Libyan matter encourage precisely this course of events in that long-suffering country.
Russia's relations with new Libyan authorities
Q: It is clear that Qadhafi is a living history of the second half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st - a figure controversial, complex and amazing. But in this case, from all appearances, a different government will emerge in Libya. Are there any ideas about how to build relations with this new power maybe very fragile and weak? What are the principles and approaches to this question?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Russia has recognized the NTC as ruling authority, which has announced a plan for the transition period. It should lead to elaboration of a constitution based on which parliamentary, presidential and other elections will be held in accordance with the parameters set out in the document.
We met with representatives of the Libyan opposition in the early stages of the conflict. We were visited by Abd-al-Rahman Shalqam, foreign minister in Qadhafi's government and then his representative at the UN before joining the opposition. He came to us with the relevant messages from the NTC leaders. We continue contact with them now both through our Embassy in Libya and during the visits to Tripoli and Benghazi by Mikhail Margelov, special presidential representative. We maintain a regular dialogue. And we want to build our relationship based on respect for those treaties and agreements that were concluded between our two countries. The NTC representatives clearly confirmed to us that they will follow exactly this logic. Moreover, the Security Council's resolution on Libya emphasized that the new authorities must respect their international obligations. So the groundwork remains the same - the principles of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit.
McCain's remarks about dictators
Q: Today ex-Republican US presidential candidate John McCain said that it (Qadhafi's death) was a big lesson for tyrants, some of whom, perhaps, today slept poorly. He mentioned Vladimir Putin and some of the Chinese leaders.
Foreign Minister Lavrov: This isn't the first time that we have heard such exotic remarks from Mr John McCain. I don't think they deserve serious comment. He's quite a character, he's got his own history, his phobias, his, if you will, own bugs, sorry for, maybe, a not exactly diplomatic statement. It is unlikely that he determines and ever will determine the United States' position.
Russia's relations with North African countries
Q: How do you assess our current standing in North Africa? Why are we missing opportunities there with each passing year, although the area is exceptionally favourable for us?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I would not agree with the premise that we are losing our opportunities there. In the last 10-15 years, especially in recent years, we have greatly increased our opportunities there, first of all due to filling of the vacuum that we had during the Soviet era in relations with the Persian Gulf states. Even if we had diplomatic relations with those countries, they were not filled with real economic, commercial or cultural content.
Now the situation has changed. With all of them we have diplomatic relations and intense economic and commercial ties. Moreover, we conduct a concrete dialogue on security issues. In just ten days, the first ever ministerial meeting of the Russia-Gulf Cooperation Council will be held. We will negotiate to build on the strategic partnership. That had never happened before.
We had traditional ties with Arab countries like Egypt, Syria, Libya, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. They are fully preserved, and, I think, tend to reach a qualitatively new level. With Egypt we have relations of strategic partnership. The country's transitional authorities have confirmed interest in their furthering. I was in Egypt this spring, and met with the opposition, including the Muslim Brotherhood. I can firmly assert that they and all political forces want, after having formed government bodies, to continue strategic relations with our country. We are also interested in this. Egypt is the leading state in the region.
This also applies to Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. We recently hosted the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tunisia. In the spring I was in Algeria. In New York, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, I had contacts with the Foreign Minister of Morocco. I feel a lively concrete interest to deepen our ties. I repeat: the economic component, always a very strong part of the foundation of bilateral relations, is becoming ever richer.
I think our position in the region has not weakened in the slightest. We are not trying here to act like an elephant in a china shop. Russia has always been building relationships with these countries with regard to and with full respect for their traditions, history, mores, and customs, based on a balance of interests.
I am convinced that this line has a very good perspective. This is borne out by how countries in the region view Russia's role in the international Quartet of Middle East peace mediators. We are considered to be an "honest broker" seen as a balancing force with unique opportunities to talk with the Palestinians, all Arabs and Israel alike on a trusting, mutually respectful and practical basis.
Russia's relations with African Union countries
Q: The representative of the African Press Agency asked a question related to Libya. The position of the African Union and many African countries was different from the position of the European countries and the USA. They searched for their own solution, had their own approaches. How does Russian diplomacy see the development of relations with the African countries south of the Sahara?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: The African Union at the beginning of the Libyan crisis took an active stance. A special initiative was devised aiming to get the parties to the negotiating table. We actively supported this initiative.
In early July, Russian President Medvedev met in Sochi with President of South Africa Jacob Zuma, who acted on behalf of the African Union. Also there a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council took place, and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was invited by the presidents of Russia and South Africa to a trilateral meeting which proved to be a very interesting and useful.
Unfortunately, the initiative of the African Union to foster negotiations between Benghazi and Tripoli failed to be supported, especially by Western countries, which, apparently, had already taken the path of achieving victory over Qadhafi's regime by military force. I think that if the African initiative had been developed, perhaps its outcome, as provided for in itself, would have been Qadhafi stepping down. But this goal would have been achieved at a much lower cost in terms of human casualties. It is a pity that this did not happen.
As for our relations with the African Union, we have partner ties evolving with the Organization. There is Russia's permanent representative at the AU headquarters in Ethiopia's capital Addis Ababa. We have an extensive programme of joint activities. Russia participates in all peacekeeping operations which the UN is conducting in Africa, and our country is helping to train African peacekeepers for participation in these operations. We also assist in providing the appropriate equipment of peacekeeping troops. This line will continue.
But as I said before, any relations should rest on a sound economic base. So far, the level of cooperation does not match the potential. Trade with all sub-Saharan African countries amounts to about 4bn dollars. In the case of China, for example, it stands at $120 billion. In addition to trade right now, there are many very promising investment projects involving our companies. Gazprom, Aluminium, Renova, Lukoil and Alrosa are active there. There is every reason to believe that the investment component will grow rapidly. Trade will also continue, particularly since we provide preferential treatment for most African traditional export goods.
Russian opposition to sanctions against Syria
Q: Will Russia continue to block those resolutions that are being suggested to us by our UN Security Council partners on Syria? What has the Libyan lesson taught us all, including in the context of Syria? Does the Russian side have any new proposals on Syria?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Russia has blocked only one resolution on Syria, vetoing it together with China. Four other states also did not back the resolution. So there are serious discrepancies in the Security Council on this question, considering that India, South Africa, Brazil and Lebanon, which represents the Arab group in the Council, did not vote in favour of the draft.
The Western resolution was fraught with a repetition of the Libyan scenario, although its cosponsors tried to convince us otherwise. There is indeed no authorization there to use military force in order to favour the opposition in one way or another. But it has a one-sided assessment of the situation, placing all the blame on the government led by President Bashar al-Asad, as well as requiring all countries to be vigilant on arms sales and the realization of a whole array of other contacts with the Syrian side. The defectiveness of this approach is that the analysis itself is based on a one-sided reading of the situation.
From the beginning we condemned any attempt to use force against peaceful demonstrators. But at the same time we condemned those extremist elements that have wormed their way and continue to join the ranks of peaceful demonstrators, getting arms from abroad. Nobody has denied the information on arms contraband to Syria from various countries, particularly from Iraq and Lebanon. If there's proof, I call for refuting this information.
The evidence has been recorded of attacks by extremist groups who claim to be peaceful demonstrators on administrative buildings and police stations. There was a shooting attack on the Russian subsidiary of Stroytransgaz. According to human rights activists' reports, which are generally corroborated by the UN, there are already about 2,700 deaths, of which, according to the Syrian side's data, about 800 were police and law enforcement officers. The trouble is that this information is very difficult to verify.
Q: Interfax news agency has just reported that Qadhafi's murder has sparked fresh disturbances in Syria. The Syrian opposition, inspired by his elimination, came out for massive demonstrations. How can you comment on that?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: You simply gave a fact that confirms my point: if we support the line which the West now pursues and which boils down to positioning the Libyan case as a model for the future, it will provoke a similar sentiment. This logic will stir up the masses, which is not hard to do. That is what we have seen in Egypt, where, apparently, the situation has calmed down, but it hasn't. If the principle - "you are bad, so we're not going to hold any talks with you, you should leave at any price" - determines the position of the international community, it will be a direct provocation of violence and unrest.
We stand for dialogue, for encouraging all without exception in any country where there is conflict, to sit down and negotiate, having in view primarily the interests of their country, and not personal, subjective self-interest.
Support for Viktor But and other Russian citizens tried abroad
Q: How will Russia help citizens who find themselves in a difficult situation abroad, against whom unjust accusations are put forward by authorities in other countries? Often this happens in America. Such cases are not uncommon in Europe. Sometimes children suffer from these actions whose Russian parents return them from abroad to their homeland. How will Russia help its citizens?
There are many such instances. For example, Viktor Bout [But] is now being tried in the US. Recently pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko was sentenced to a long term. In Finland, a female citizen is being prosecuted who just wants to be with her son. It's all high-profile cases; they are being talked about on television. Cases abound where our citizens are being unjustly oppressed in other countries. Will Russia have some kind of coherent policy in this area? When will our citizens who have found themselves abroad clearly know that behind them stands a big country that will not abandon them in an unfair situation?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I think that our citizens must already know that the country will not abandon them in an unfair situation. Surely Viktor Bout, his wife and lawyer know this. Konstantin Yaroshenko and his family know it. As far as I know, in this particular situation an appeal is being filed.
The above cases are really high-profile cases. Before trial without investigation two of our citizens (one in Thailand, where he was lured, the other - in Liberia) were provoked to make the remarks later interpreted as evidence of their crimes. And in both cases the laws of those countries were grossly violated, as were the elementary rules of decent behaviour in relations between states in terms of informing the Russian side.
We actively support our compatriots who have found themselves in similar situations. We provide moral support, and organize special visits to their places of detention. If necessary, we hire good lawyers.
These are not isolated cases. You mentioned the situation related to children born in families of mixed marriages. Everyone knows the story of Rimma Salonen, who still cannot get justice: her husband with the help of a Finnish diplomat secretly kidnapped the son from Russia and whisked him to Finland in the trunk of a car - an outrageous case, given the involvement of an official representative in this. Although later both the Foreign Ministry and Government of Finland disowned him.
In such situations, there are several ways to act. First, we will seek justice in our relationship with the relevant states along official lines. We will insist that with the countries with which we have no such documents so far, agreements for mutual legal assistance in criminal, family and other matters should be concluded. We will insist on the conclusion of special agreements relating to the resolution of problems associated with children in mixed marriages. We have just completed negotiating a comprehensive and, I hope, effective agreement with France. We will also demand fulfilment of the obligations to the Russian Federation in terms of informing us about our citizens when they find themselves in the hands of law enforcement agencies in foreign countries.
On 1 January 2012 we simultaneously launch the Foundation for the Support of Russian Compatriots, set up on the President's instruction, whose work will primarily be aimed at financing the costs of lawyers, and at funding for activities designed to ensure equality of our citizens before the law in the states where they are permanently resident or as tourists.
I want to note the following important aspect: in the contemporary epoch, the number of Russian citizens going abroad has increased multifold, and many compatriots on tourist and other trips do not fully comply with the laws of the host country. It is always necessary to do so.
Today I read the information from our Embassy in India. I do not remember the name of the woman who sent a letter. The point is the following. She repeatedly travelled to India, worked and holidayed there, and at some point her visa expired. Instead of contacting the embassy or consulates, of which we have quite a few there, and the phone numbers of which are known and available, she turned to a private Indian party, who promised to help. And she had some kind of visa put in her passport, on which she was able to leave India. But when once again she was going there, she was detained and told that the visa is a fake. We are now investigating this episode.
I do not want to disclaim responsibility, but our citizens must be more careful in such situations.
At the same time outrageous things have occurred and continue to occur. Recently, a Russian citizen who served a prison sentence in the United States was freed. Two days before leaving, he was told that he had illegally used a mobile phone in the cell. For that he was given a further six months. We asked for justice. As a result, he was released but not before spending some extra time in jail.
Russia and the United States have many such issues. One of them is the problem of children who are adopted by American citizens. We try to resolve it, and so concluded an agreement, which must shortly come into force.
Visas and ID cards for Russians living abroad
Q: How do you feel about the idea of facilitating the procedures for obtaining visas by compatriots and of introducing a compatriot identification card?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: In addition to my principal duties, I also head the Government Commission for the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad. We have recently completed extensive work on updating the Law on Work with Compatriots, adopted in the early 1990s. Of course, it was approved in the conditions of a "romantic" legislative approach. The experience we have amassed in relations with compatriots in recent years is incorporated in the new version of the Law.
The idea of issuing identification cards was also discussed. But its authors suggested that the holder of an ID card should qualify for a number of positions that are inaccessible to Russian citizens living in Russia. For example, it concerns a permanent free entry to museums. The logic is based on good intentions - that people should feel their connectivity to the homeland. But our laws do not allow for providing foreign nationals with greater rights than those enjoyed by citizens of the Russian Federation. It was not clear how these ID cards would be issued and who was this overseas compatriot?
Our people love various certificates, little red books. But in the end, we formulated the criteria by which to determine compatriots, and agreed that the Coordination Councils of Russian Compatriots, established in all countries where there is the Russian community, will issue their membership cards, which do not specifically materialize in benefits on the territory of Russia. But this will be moral encouragement. We'll know these people.
As to the issuance of visas to compatriots, all those who cooperate with the Coordination Councils obtain visas in a simplified manner. I do not recall any complaints from compatriots that they were denied a visa when they wanted to come home to meet with friends and family.
Adoption issues
Q: How do you think of the fact that most foreigners adopt children under the age of three years? Now Russian families are actively adopting toddlers. And in the regions from where foreigners adopt, Russians are already facing difficulties in finding a child.
Foreign Minister Lavrov: It's not the MFA that establishes these rules, but I fully agree that priority must belong to Russian families who want to adopt a child. I understand that such is the rule, as enshrined by our legislation.
Perhaps the tendency towards the adoption by foreigners of more children formed during the less favourable economic and social situation in our country, when many families who would like to adopt a child, could not afford it. Now the situation is improving, and this is reflected in the statistics describing the number of families wishing to adopt children. I believe that given the practical application of the law that prescribes the priority of Russian families over foreign ones, it will be more effectively implemented in practice.
With regard to the outer side of the case, of course we want to get rectified the situation of previous years, when sometimes we even had no knowledge where the adoptive families lived and how the Russian child was feeling there. In the US we were not given consular access to such families. With the signing of the Adoption Agreement with the country, we have changed the situation. The document will come into force when the US government has given us a complete list of guardianship agencies in each state (they do not have federal agencies). The condition of the Agreement is to provide us with a full list of guardianship agencies for all states with data on the families in which our children live. Then we will have the right to consular access at any time. This is needed to understand the conditions under which our children grow and are educated.
Protection of Russian companies' interests abroad
Q: How does the Russian Foreign Ministry intend to protect the interests of Russian companies in the European gas and energy markets, given the pressure exerted on them lately? Example - Gazprom offices raided by EU.
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I would just mention that, while a priority for our Ministry, this task is under the control of the President and Prime Minister. It's about the sphere in which the attitude to a country in the system of international relations and interstate communication manifests itself. From how citizens and companies are treated you can always gauge the extent of respect for the country and of observance of the norms of equitable, nondiscriminatory treatment.
Of course, we worry a great deal about what is happening in the European gas market now. Russia is the closest partner of the European Union, and we have a developed, well-branched energy partnership. Any questions in this area can and should be addressed through the energy dialogue, which has been in place for quite a long time and in which the professionals handle all aspects of the interaction. The unilateral steps being undertaken by the European Commission, which are far from always agreed to and supported by EU member states, are a source of concern for us.
The Third Energy Package, adopted by the EU at the prompting of the European Commission, contains provisions that come into direct conflict with the obligations of the EU member states and the European Commission itself. I am referring to the obligations contained in Russia's bilateral agreements with the EU countries on the reciprocal protection of investment. In each of these agreements, the principle of no deterioration to terms of business on the territory of each other is stated. The Third Energy Package really has a deteriorating effect on these terms. Besides the bilateral agreements, there is a similar entry in the Russia-EU Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. This is the legal side of things, and these documents may well be presented in court.
Now we hope that the negotiations that have been entered into between our Ministry of Energy and the EU Energy Commissioner will produce results. They are aimed at preventing the retrospective application of the Third Energy Package to those projects that have already been completed or are under way.
Q: Or going to court...
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Going to court is always a tool in our hands, but it is better to negotiate without it. Court proceedings are always time consuming, and the energy situation in Europe is not the easiest, especially since those decisions that were taken regarding the fate of nuclear power.
Russian-language media abroad
Q: The Voice of Russia has received a huge amount of questions from those of our compatriots who are trying to establish Russian-language media abroad. A Conference of Overseas Russian-language Radio Stations, which number more than 100 across the world, will be held on 31 October. In several countries, including EU countries, many Russian communities, consisting of both Russian citizens and citizens of those countries, are often faced with a certain kind of constraints posed by the language of broadcasting, taxation, and legal status. Moreover, this situation is not only in the far abroad countries, but also in the CIS area. Meanwhile, in the European Union more favourable conditions are created for many languages.
Is the problem of both maintaining the Russian language and integrating Russian compatriots around the Russian-language media abroad a substantial theme for the Russian Foreign Ministry today?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Of course. I have already mentioned that I head the Government Commission for the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad. Through the Commission the main focus is now on, primarily, the promotion of consolidation of compatriots. This is not a "fifth column". We're talking about consolidation for the sake of upholding their rights as citizens of those states where they live, on the basis of local laws that proclaim equality regardless of nationality or anything else.
One of the important aims of the consolidation policy is to help Russian-language media. When for some publication, radio station or TV channel broadcasting in Russian a problem arises and they come to us, we always include this item on the agenda of intergovernmental negotiations. I urge all who are faced with such problems (take this as an official statement) not to hesitate to report to the Foreign Ministry through Russian embassies about the facts of violation of rights or discrimination against the Russian-language press in comparison with other publications in those countries where you live.
The second line of activity by the Commission is the work of the online portal for our compatriots, the publication of four magazines in different regions of the world and of a series of books under the general title of "Russians abroad" - such as "Russian America", "Russian Egypt", and so on. About twenty of them have already been put out.
Russians complaining to European Court of Human Rights
Q: There is another European theme related to our countrymen: the frequent complaints filed by Russians with the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. How does the Foreign Ministry see this? In particular, how will you comment on the hearing in Strasbourg on the rehabilitation of the victims of the crime at Katyn?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: The feeling that we are the main "victim" and the main object of focus of the European Court of Human Rights is very different from reality. In the number of cases as a percentage of the population we are not among the first. Turkey has the greatest number of cases per capita. The reason for the considerable number of proceedings against the Russian Federation is that we do not implement the decisions of our own courts, do not pay the compensations ordered by the Russian judicial system for damage suffered by the people. They appeal to the Strasbourg Court to receive these funds, and in almost every case do.
Therefore, for our image in the world it is more advantageous to pay, especially as decisions and rulings in favour of our citizens, I repeat, are rendered by Russian courts. Incidentally, the latest instructions of the President are aimed at eliminating this problem, which no one but us will solve.
Dispute over Katyn massacre
As for our relations with Poland and those lawsuits that the families of the officers killed in the Katyn Forest have filed with the ECHR, we basically conduct a very concrete business-like conversation with the Polish government on this sad topic. This year, the State Duma passed a special resolution on the matter. We are willing to consider the completely legitimate request addressed to us for the rehabilitation of those people. The issue lies at the legal level; it must be solved in such a way as to satisfy the families of the Polish officers, while at the same time remaining within the legal field of the Russian Federation. This is being undertaken. There is an interdepartmental group that addresses these issues.
As to the individual complaints brought to the ECHR, such is the procedure. They are not a lawsuit by the Polish government, although it was in the past supportive of individual complaints by citizens of Poland. We still believe that the matter can be resolved at the intergovernmental level to the satisfaction of all the families of the killed officers. We are now doing that.
Relations with USA
Q: One of the questions was put to you by Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte about relations between Russia and the United States, which in his opinion could be much better. Do you agree that the development of contacts between Russia and America will help all countries achieve a higher level of confidence and enhance stability in the world?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I definitely agree that relations between Russia and America largely, if not to a great extent, depend on the stability of contemporary international relations, taking into account the influence of our countries on many states and regions and the desire of states in any region of the globe to have a normal relationship with America and Russia, along with the European Union and other major players.
As to whether these relations could be better. Of course, there is no limit to perfection. As the character from the movie "Some Like It Hot" said, nobody's perfect. Therefore, we are working on a constructive agenda. After President Obama took office, the changes in general are quite striking.
Q: Today Hillary Clinton said in an interview that you and she often don't have enough time. First, what issues do you not have enough time to deal with? And secondly, how do you assess your interaction with the current US Secretary of State?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: We do not have enough time to discuss bilateral relations and the very multi-faceted, ever-expanding agenda. It's a pleasure to deal with Hillary. She is a very comfortable companion, does not forget about the questions raised before her. For our part, we endeavour to do the same. This is the style that has been set by the Presidents, and we must work in this vein.
Speaking of the intense agenda, for which we don't always have enough time, after the Presidents by their decision created the Russian-US Presidential Commission, which comprises 20 working groups, we are obliged, as coordinators, in each meeting to review its activities. The working groups deal with the issues of economy, energy, health, civil society, rule of law, military affairs, international security, and so on.
So this part of our bilateral relations alone requires considerable time and attention. The international agenda is likewise very intense. In the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Asia-Pacific, Latin America - everywhere there are US and Russian interests.
Of course, it is in our common interest not to work against each other, but to try to use our significant combined potential beneficially - first of all, for the benefit of the peoples who live in their respective regions and of our states, having regard to mutual benefit as the principle of communication. The same applies to activities which the United States very vigorously pursues in our neighbouring states - namely, in Central Asia and Transcaucasia. We have long ago said that we do not have a monopoly on relations with these countries after they declared their independence. Russia treats them with full respect as states that are entitled to choose their partners. Therefore, those interests which the United States, European and other countries have in Central Asia and Transcaucasia are dictated by the importance of these regions in terms of terrorist threats and the drug challenges actively manifested there and affecting Russia, Europe and the United States. It's also about the energy and transport communications that run there and connect the East and West.
We understand these interests, but we want the objective interests of extra-regional actors to be realized in this geopolitical space while respecting the interests of both these states themselves and of the Russian Federation, given the very close ties that unite us with the Central Asian, Transcaucasian [South Caucasus], and European neighbours - former republics of the Soviet Union. It is in this vein that we try to build our dialogue with the United States. I think it's the only possible way.
Q: Tom Graham, director of consulting company Kissinger and Associates, asks whether, from your point of view, there are any projects in which Russian-US cooperation would be vitally important for both countries. Take the alliance during the Second World War. Victory was vital for both countries, and this led to the famous cooperation. Are there now any similar projects between the two countries in which the interaction is simply a necessity?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: If we abstract ourselves from many things, both Russia and the United States are major self-sufficient states with a ramified network of external ties: economic, cultural, humanitarian, political and defence. By and large, we can live without each other, but we will live worse than if we live together. Together means, of course, not a mindless fusion in ecstasy, but the awareness by each side of its pragmatic national interest, preferably cleansed of its ideological accretions. Unfortunately, there still remains inertia inherited from the Cold War era, when it's necessary to look ideologically at any situation as follows: Russia, a major power, wants to become stronger in one region or another, establish a special relationship with someone; hence we need to do so that it fails to achieve that.
I do not want to praise our foreign policy; we are all not without sin. But we have been consciously trying to escape this logic. Russia and the United States should act on the basis of their national interests and to compare them, though they do not always coincide, given the size of our states and global issues. But if we honestly and openly talk about it, we can always isolate those areas where there are no contradictions, and where we can get "added value" on a reciprocal basis. We will comprehend those areas which we still need to work on, and somewhere, perhaps, to make concessions and find a compromise. In order not to elbow each other in certain matters, but together follow the path which will benefit everyone - Russia and the United States and those countries which are situated in this or that region.
Russian-US cooperation in Afghanistan
A good example is Afghanistan. Vladimir Putin was the first who called George W. Bush on 11 September 2001 and offered to help. He volunteered and fulfilled his promise to help, ensuring that the Central Asian countries supported the operation authorized by the UN Security Council against Al-Qa'idah and the Taleban. It was a vital issue for the United States. For Russia, the threat, which at that time came from Afghanistan, turned out to be much more serious than that which we are now dealing with. We are talking about terrorist infiltration into Central Asia, and through it - into the North Caucasus and other regions of Russia; about the huge flow of drug traffic. I cannot say that such threats have now disappeared. On the contrary, the threat of drugs has even increased. But this is a question for those who are implementing the anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan. We have many complaints about how they struggle against drug trafficking. But there is no doubt that the terrorist activity on our borders, encompassing, inter alia, the territory of Russia, was far more dangerous to us than what we have now as a result of the presence of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
When talking with our partners in NATO and other countries that participate in this operation and which we help with our transit capabilities, with the training of officers of Afghan law enforcement agencies and with the provision of helicopters and other equipment for these law enforcement agencies, we insist that the coalition's pullout from Afghanistan should not be paired with some artificially announced deadlines. We've heard about 2014, but for us the criterion of assessment will be the real situation in Afghanistan, the ability of the Afghans themselves to ensure reasonable levels of security. Therefore, once the coalition is in Afghanistan under the mandate of the UN Security Council, before starting to withdraw from there, it should report to the Security Council how this mandate has been fulfilled. We will seek to ensure that such is the case.
US Congress vote on Magnitskiy case
Q: Many people say that the voting in Congress for the so-called Magnitskiy list will lead to the end of the Reset. How do you assess this situation?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Firstly, the death of Sergey Magnitskiy is first of all our own tragedy. Whatever the case against Magnitskiy himself, it's outrageous that we have people dying in SIZO [pre-trial detention centre] who have not even undergone legal proceedings and in respect of whom no court decisions have been made. You know how the President of Russia has commented on it, and what measures he is taking to solve the problem. Such cases should not have any place in our society, nor in any other.
The adoption of such lists, in fact, means deciding for us about who is to blame. Whatever our judicial system - and it has many shortcomings, and the opportunities for its improvement are very broad (the President substantively and regularly deals with this) - we have no right to disrespect the judicial system. None of the foreign partners is competent to decide for our judicial system or to impose on us decisions which only our judicial authorities are competent to make. Not one of those present in these lists has been proven guilty. Whatever the facts surfacing in the media, until there is a court decision, the presumption of innocence is in effect.
The attempt of the senator (Ben Cardin) is a gross violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, sacred for any American. We see our problems and will tackle them ourselves. We are willing to discuss any human rights and related topics with Americans and Europeans in a respectful and constructive way. We have such dialogue formats created. In the same Presidential Commission there is a special group on civil society and the rule of law. We are in regular dialogue with the European Union on the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We also have questions that we ask about how justice is administered in the United States or a number of EU countries and how national minority rights are observed.
Unfortunately, there are the laws of the genre, and they in diplomacy and in international relations operate smoothly: all use the principle of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth".
Q: How would you characterize the progress and results of the Reset?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Speaking of our work with the administration of Barack Obama, a construct has been developed under the daily supervision of the two presidents, which is resistant to many attempts to destroy it. I am sure that the "Magnitskiy list" can be viewed as an attempt to interfere in our internal affairs and undermine the line pursued by President Obama. Maybe even more so than the very essence of the issue, the author of this list is interested in inter-party struggle on the eve of the election campaign. Such an attempt will not be crowned with success in terms of undermining the foundations of Russian-American relations.
Differences with USA over missile defence
The same also applies to missile defence: our countries have fundamental differences, their positions are diametrically opposed. We categorically do not accept attempts to pretend that they do not understand us. They understand us perfectly well! We are told: "Don't worry - this system is not against you". Well, then write it down on paper and give us legal guarantees because it is a serious matter: after all, a ramified infrastructure will be built by 2020 extending across the Euro-Atlantic area, from North to South around our borders. We need to understand how we are in this situation to act in relations with the countries in which, having asked no one, including NATO, elements of a US global missile defence system are being placed. However, the system will be called "NATO missile defence". What kind of NATO system it is - all understand that.
Q: If in December the visit of President Obama to Russia takes place, will documents on missile defence be signed?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: US President Barack Obama has an invitation to visit Russia. We will be happy to arrange that visit. So far, the date has not been agreed. In fact, speaking of visits at the highest level, fairly serious decisions are always expected from them. As a rule, we are talking about decisions that affect the overall situation in the world. So it was with the New START Treaty, the creation of the Presidential Commission and the Agreements on the Partnership for Modernization and on the coming of US companies to Skolkovo, and so on.
Now on the agenda is the hottest and generally anticipated theme - the World Trade Organization. We have completed negotiations with the European Union and the United States. President Obama actively volunteered to help finalize all aspects within the multilateral working group in Geneva. Today I can say that all matters relating to WTO rules and regulations have been settled.
Dispute with Georgia and WTO membership
Q: And Georgia?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: The problems posed by Georgia in no way relate to the WTO's rules and regulations. It is not a part of WTO obligations. The Swiss mediators, when they offered to help settle the Georgian claims, originally told both us and the Georgian side that they would seek to find a compromise only within the scope of the WTO rules and regulations, and would not touch the question of the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They gave an assurance they would not seek a wording that would concern the problem of the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The numerous rounds of consultation, including the one held yesterday, have shown that the Georgian side has departed from this basic principle, which, in fact, made it possible to start the Swiss mediation, and is demanding the physical presence of foreign states and international organizations on the borders of the Russian Federation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This has nothing to do with the WTO. All that is relevant to the WTO in terms of trade flows between Russia and Georgia, we are ready to tackle it. The Swiss proposals suit us. Everything is held up by the political position taken by our Georgian partners.
Q: The Swiss proposals that have been made to both us and Georgia, suit Russia?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: They suited us even a few weeks ago when the Swiss first formulated them. After these proposals had been discussed, we offered several options for resolving the question so as to remain strictly within the mandate, within the purview of the WTO. Our Georgian neighbours cannot agree to this, their position is totally politicized, and besides, they, like on many other issues, shamelessly lie, claiming that everything is held up by the stance of the Russian side. This is not the case. Another lie is the recent statement by [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili in an interview, when he invented the story that the Russian side had organized 18 terrorist attacks on Georgian territory against the US Embassy in Tbilisi, the representation of NATO, against members of political parties of Georgia, on the railway, and against police stations. It's nonsense. Mikheil Nikolayevich is famous for hypocritically, shamelessly distorting facts. Even not only distorting the facts, he simply makes up things that do not exist.
Q: He himself believes it?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I do not rule it out.
Q: Is today the current position of Georgia an insurmountable barrier to Russia joining the WTO?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: If you strictly follow the WTO Constitution, Georgia's position is not an obstacle. There are ways therein provided to ensure that our commitments to all WTO members do not apply to Georgia.
Russian stand on missile defence reiterated
Q: There are a lot of questions from US listeners on missile defence and the prospects for disarmament. Could you also comment on this topic?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Missile defence is now, certainly, at the centre of discussion about strategic stability, disarmament and security. This is understandable, because for a long time strategic parity, and global stability were maintained thanks not only to the concept of nuclear deterrence between Moscow and Washington, but also due to the Treaty that prohibited deployment of more than one missile defence system for each of our two countries.
After the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty, and took the path of creating its own global missile defence system, the situation has changed. Because, if one partner will sense that he has created for himself the most reliable antinuclear, anti-ballistic shield possible, his nuclear intercontinental ballistic sword may have an additional temptation to be used. The principle on which, in general, strategic stability has rested and continues to rest has been violated. The plans that the United States will implement in the field of missile defence in the third and fourth phases in 2018-2020, if they are all completed as intended (and the US Congress has forbidden to deviate from what's intended), by the end of the decade will have created real risks for our strategic nuclear forces. We have no right to ignore it in our military planning.
It would be much better if the problem of missile defence were moved from the sphere of contradictions to a field not just of mutual agreement, but of a strategic partnership and even alliance. If Russia and the United States and indeed all other countries that are part of the Russia-NATO Council, combined their potentials and agreed to establish a system that would not create a risk for any of the participants of the Euro-Atlantic area and would be clearly testable, aimed at warding off threats emanating from outside, it would be really a colossal revolution in the minds and practical life. We would have finally buried the Cold War.
Let's see what's going on. President Medvedev at the Lisbon summit proposed to jointly develop a missile defence system based on a sectoral approach, whereby we, as allies, will divide the territory to protect against external threats. And we are told that they won't agree to this, because NATO cannot entrust to anyone the defence of its territory. But this is an ideology from our past life, from the time when NATO was being created to counter the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. Neither one nor the other is anymore. The shortsightedness of those who refused to accept this proposal seems to me to be historic. Afterward, many may regret it, because the chance will have been lost. Not because there will be war. I'm honestly not a big pessimist about this. Although, of course, the General Staff of Russia will have to take measures of a military-technical nature, if such modern hardware, including radars and interceptors, appear around our borders.
Of course, the military will make the appropriate conclusions that will be implemented in practice. But in this case once and for all the opportunity will be missed to overcome the legacy of the Cold War and to eliminate the dividing lines, which now remain mostly in the minds, and do not allow people to overcome the philosophy that one should always act "against someone". It turns out - against us. We propose to agree in legally binding terms that this system will not be used against Russia. The American partners say that they cannot agree to this because Congress prohibited them from somehow limiting the further, now after 2020, development of this system. Then the natural question arises whether this can be used against us after 2020. We receive silence in response. What are we to do in this situation? In fact, it is suggested that we do without guarantees, and instead cooperate according to the templates that will be devised in Washington without our participation, and turned into NATO's approach, but in their essence will remain American ideas. We are told: "As you cooperate with us, you will realize that this is not against you." And then they add: "And if you happen to think that the system is against you then you can give up this cooperation." I recite almost word for word. It turns out that the serious stuff is presented in absolutely flippant language.
We intend to continue consultations. But I see no possibility for any joint action, until it is clearly and explicitly confirmed in legally binding form that the system is not aimed against Russia. In the meantime, agreements have been signed with Romania and Poland (Poland is geographically farther from Iran and closer to Russia), with Turkey on radar deployment, and with Spain on the use of its naval base by ships that can enter and operate in the Mediterranean, Black Sea, the Barents Sea and the North Sea. Moreover, to our follow-up questions we are told that these visits are envisioned not only in the event of a crisis, but also routinely. How is it possible to perceive that, if everyone understands that the North and Barents Seas are too far from Iran? And in general, Iran has no missiles against which they need to defend themselves in this way and will not have any for a very long time. But Russia has them.
Rearmament of Russian troops on disputed Kuril Islands
Q: A week ago the media reported that the group of Russian troops in the Kuril Islands has received new air defence missile systems Buk-M1 and a battalion of T-80 tanks to replace those outdated. It is also planned to upgrade the helicopter fleet and to build a practically "impregnable fortress" under the name of "Kurile Islands". This military activity has intensified after the Japanese nervous reaction to the recent visit of the President of the Russian Federation to the Kurile Islands. Does this mean that Russia does not rule out possible attempts by Japan to solve the issue of the Kurile Islands by force rather than diplomatic means?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: First of all, with regard to the appearance of military equipment there, this process takes place across the territory of Russia, where there are military garrisons. Obsolete armaments are being changed to new. The process is not unique to the Kuril Islands. There is a modernization of the army going on; we must part with the old weapons.
Question: The fact is that it was planned to replace all equipment in the Kuril Islands within the next five years.
Foreign Minister Lavrov: The next five years is a period in which we now live. The progress has got under way. I do not see any reason to talk about our trying to turn the Kuril Islands into an "impregnable fortress". Our whole country should be an "impregnable fortress". Our borders must be reliably protected. I do not have accurate information on what armaments are now being replaced there.
It's necessary to modernize armaments in many parts of Russia. In addition, the Kuril Islands have been and will be Russian territory in accordance with the decisions that were adopted following the Second World War and are enshrined in the UN Charter. It says that everything that the victorious powers did is part of international law and the world order following World War II. Talk about other documents, the Declaration of San Francisco (supposedly the Japanese interpret it as not including the South Ridge), or the argument that the Soviet Union did not sign it, has no meaning. There is the UN Charter, in which everything is written simply and clearly.
The visits of the president of the Russian Federation and other leaders of the country (I also was there two or 3 years ago) are an absolutely natural thing. This is our territory, and how we are moving on it should not cause anybody any questions or feelings.
Relations with Japan
I should add that we want to realize the full potential of our relationship with Japan as a major and very important neighbour. We are developing a useful political trusting dialogue. More rapidly than ever before, economic cooperation has been evolving not only in the energy sector - it's Sakhalin-1, Sakhalin-2, and liquefied natural gas. We are ready to support Japan in meeting its energy needs in many different ways - the supply of liquefied natural gas, electricity and coal. This is especially true after the tragedy at the plant Fukushima-1, in overcoming the consequences of which we were in solidarity with the Japanese people. Now we take Japanese children on holiday.
We are developing other forms of modern economic cooperation. Thus, the Japanese are interested in participating in the Skolkovo project. Most Japanese car companies are already engaged in assembling cars in Russia; this also applies to agricultural and construction equipment. So Japan is a very important partner for us.
We never avoid discussion on concluding a peace treaty. And although we have diplomatic relations, the notion of a peace treaty has already acquired a symbolic meaning. The only thing we say to our Japanese colleagues is that the discussion should proceed on the principles that were previously agreed. Namely - it should be conducted on a mutually respectful basis, taking into consideration all the historical and legal realities that exist today, in recognition of the results of World War II - this is an integral component of the dialogue. And it's necessary to conduct it in a climate that excludes whipping up emotions on both sides. Unfortunately, statements can occasionally be heard from the Japanese side describing our presence in these areas as inconsistent with historical facts and legal aspects. We cannot accept such approaches, and we openly say this to the Japanese counterparts. We want the discussion to be held quietly, without a one-sided interpretation of history and politicization.
No visa-free travel between Russia and Georgia
Q: Is it possible to abolish the visa regime with Georgia that deprives hundreds of thousands of ordinary Georgians of the opportunity to visit Russia? As you know, President Saakashvili may arrive by invitation only.
Foreign Minister Lavrov: No one will ever invite President Saakashvili to Russia. He is a man who has been removed from the list of our partners, from the list of our communication. He ordered the killing of Russian peacekeepers, and along with them the citizens, whom he considered his own - I mean the people of South Ossetia; after all, he used to say that this was his territory, and hence they were his citizens.
As for the communication between ordinary citizens of Russia and Georgia, then let me remind you that we did not sever diplomatic relations with Georgia - it was the initiative of Mikheil Saakashvili. It is not our fault that our contacts are now limited, that we have only the Russian Interests Section at the Swiss Embassy in Tbilisi and that of Georgia at the Swiss Embassy in Moscow. Visas for humanitarian, cultural and educational contacts are being issued.
Q: So why not abolish the visa regime?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: We want to have civilized relations with countries. And when a state breaks off diplomatic relations, to have a no-visa regime is simply nonsense. Our art and cultural workers turned to me many times, referring to existing joint projects with their Georgian partners. No problem: we issue visas, people come and work. We issue visas for the visiting of relatives.
Russian stand on Iran and its nuclear programme
Q: In light of the scandal with the conspiracy against the Saudi ambassador to the United States, a listener from Iran asks the following question: "Why will Russia not help Iran overcome Western sanctions?"
Foreign Minister Lavrov: The sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council must be implemented. The sanctions are dictated by one simple reason - Iran is not cooperating to the extent necessary with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), does not respond to legitimate questions that the Agency addresses to the Iranian leadership. The IAEA is interested, in addition to its regular presence in Iran, to have an additional access in accordance with the so-called Additional Protocol to the standard agreement between Iran and the IAEA, entered into by all parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). There are additional instruments - the Additional Protocol - there is the modified Code 3.1; it's of course technicisms. That is, besides the most mandatory things that each member of the NPT must provide to the IAEA, there are also such optional norms.
Given the large number of questions about its past nuclear programme, Iran could accommodate the Agency especially as this is what the decisions the IAEA and the UN Security Council call for. We would like Iran to close all of these questions, and then the sanctions will also be removed.
We try to help Iran continue the negotiation process between Europe, the USA, Russia and China, on the one hand, and Iran on the other, which has stalled. Want these negotiations to move forward, for which purpose we have proposed a number of concrete measures designed to start movement, so that Iran takes the first step, for example, begins to apply the Additional Protocol - then some sanctions will be relaxed. This topic was discussed at the meeting between Dmitriy Medvedev and Mahmud Ahmadinezhad in June in Astana, and during the visit to Russia in August by Iran's foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi. The conversation continues.
In addition to the sanctions, which the UN Security Council declares and which Iran is obliged to carry out, there are also the unilateral sanctions adopted by the US, EU, Australia, Canada, Japan and several other countries. Unilateral sanctions do not help the cause, but cause harm, because they split the united front. If the case is made that we must act as a body, without division, and in the UN Security Council we reach such arrangements, no one can make any exceptions to this position either in the direction of their reducing or increasing. Otherwise, it is no longer a collective position.
Therefore, Tehran has the feeling that the West does not want to negotiate seriously, but wants to strangle Iran and its economy. This approach provokes a confrontation, but we stand for engaging in dialogue any international partner that has accumulated questions and for solving all matters through negotiations. This is a fundamental difference between our approach and the approaches of some of our Western partners.
Q: In the confrontation between the spiritual leader of the IRI [Islamic Republic of Iran] Ali Khamene'i and President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad, who would Russia like to support?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: This matter lies within the competence of the Iranian people; they regularly hold elections, quite democratic in comparison to some neighbouring countries of Iran. When our leaders and ministers visit the IRI, the Iranians organize meetings with both the president and spiritual leader.
Prospects of visa-free travel to Europe
Q: Let me go from high politics to a utilitarian question that concerns many listeners and requires a short answer. When will Schengen visas be cancelled for Russians?
S. Lavrov: I hope we will soon make a big step in that direction. We have agreed with the European Union a number of specific joint steps: introduction of biometric passports, solution of alien registration issues. These aspects require regulatory clearance and conversion to a norm, a law on both sides. The list must be approved by Russia and the European Union in December this year at a joint summit in Brussels. This document contains answers to the questions that the European Union has been putting to us in the past few years. All the answers are now there.
Q: All normative documents are ready?
S. Lavrov: No, it lists all that which needs to be done. This will take, I think, not years, but months. Once everything is done on our and their side, we will sit down to write an agreement on visa-free movement between Russia and the countries of the Schengen zone.
Question: What's the calendar, Sergey Viktorovich? When can this be done?
S. Lavrov: As soon as the last of the already agreed steps is carried out.
Q: A year, two years, five?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I think just months. I believe that everything is amenable to rapid settlement. However, our European partners propose to first implement this whole exhaustive list, and then see how to proceed. We don't understand, why wait. It is only necessary to approve and execute all of these items. Russia believes that after approval of the list, we must automatically sign the agreement, but Westerners say again: "Let's see." I hope they will find that they have no arguments.
Diplomats on Moscow roads
Q: How long will cars with diplomatic license plates ignore all the rules on the roads of Moscow? They have special rights?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: They have only one privilege - immunity; that is, they cannot be detained. At the same time, these cars must comply with all, without exception, traffic regulations, including moving within a lane, the speed limit, and sobriety behind the wheel. There are no special rights. The exception is instances of arrival of delegations when embassy vehicles are accompanied by traffic police cars that set the parameters of their movement through the city.
Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, Moscow, in English 26 Oct 11
BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union
