Tweet
MR.LAVROV'S BIG INTERVIEW: RUSSIA-NATO RELATIONS, ARMS RACE AND UKRAINE
(c) Sputnik. Evgeny Biyatov
Interviews
13:00 09.12.2014(updated 13:13 09.12.2014) 37111 Diplomat Number One
shared his stance on everything that happened in the past year. Russian
Foreign Minister Lavrov touched upon the subject of Russian-NATO
relations, the Ukrainian crisis, the Arctic race, the ongoing conflict
in Syria and the emergence of the Eastern giant - China.
Russia is affected by Western sanctions imposed on Moscow, especially
those imposed by Europe. Our partners in the European Union are
affected by the countermeasures introduced by Moscow. How efficient
is it for Russia to keep the countermeasures in place? Doesn't it
seem like Moscow is trying to save its face putting well-being of
Russian citizens at risk?
Sergei Lavrov: Unfortunately, in our relations with the European
Union we have approached the line when goodwill gestures are unable
to produce the required result. It should be taken into account that
current situation resulted from Brussels' policy toward Ukraine,
including support for the coup carried out by ultranationalists
in Kiev. This drove Ukraine to the brink of a breakup; it has been
embroiled in a fratricidal war since then. Subsequently, the European
Union tried to put the blame for the tragedy in Ukraine on Russia. The
EU imposed unilateral sanctions on Moscow. This practice is illegal,
condemned by the UN General Assembly and runs contrary to the WTO
standards. However, the logic of uncoiling the EU sanctions' spiral
does not correspond to the development of the Ukrainian crisis.
(c) Sputnik. Ilya Pitalev Amended EU Sanctions Provide Relief to
Russian Bank Subsidiaries We have repeatedly stressed that attempts to
speak to Russia in the language of ultimatums is totally unacceptable
and will yield no results. Our response to these measures was balanced
and it took into account Russia's rights and responsibilities under
international treaties, including as a member of the WTO.
Russia introduced countermeasures only after Western countries had
imposed sanctions on Russia's major state banks, which are the primary
moneylenders in industry and agriculture. By restricting access of
Russian financial institutions to European financial instruments,
Brussels has de-facto created more favorable conditions for European
goods on our domestic market. Consequently, measures to limit food
imports from European Union countries are not sanctions. It is
our right to defend national economic interests and fight unfair
competition. Russia's actions are justified and legal.
Simultaneously, in the current situation Russia is becoming more
determined to conserve resources, modernize industry, become more
self-reliant in terms of agricultural products.
We are not going to discuss any criteria for lifting sanctions.
Lifting sanctions is the responsibility of those, who imposed them.
Surely, if the European Union shows common sense, Russia will be
ready for constructive dialogue on the issue.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed, even in cases when
governments of some countries try to isolate Moscow, Russia will
actively foster cooperation, strengthen business, humanitarian,
scientific, educational and cultural ties.
The process of Euro-Asian integration has intensified during the course
of the previous year. With the West imposing sanctions on Russia and
Russia responding to them, the role of Euro-Asian integration and
the Eurasian Economic Union is growing bigger yet.
According to the information you have, do Belarus and Kazakhstan
comply with the obligation to block the import of sanctioned goods
from Europe into Russia?
Sergei Lavrov: During the past couple of years, the Eurasian economic
integration has established itself in our life. The official launch of
the Eurasian Economic Union is set for January 1, 2015. The Eurasian
Economic Union is based on equality, economic interest and mutual
respect. The Union maintains each members' sovereignty and identity,
takes integration and cooperation to a new level. It is destined
to play a significant role in improving the competitiveness of the
national economies of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as
stabilizing the whole region.
Regarding the pressure from the West, my colleagues and I agree that
these restrictive measures towards Russia are against the international
law and do not contribute to the improvement of the domestic crisis
in Ukraine.
Considering that the Western economic sanctions were aimed at targeting
Russia, our retaliatory measures were imposed on a unilateral basis on
countries which sanctioned us. The rules and regulations of the Customs
Union allow its members to impose trade regulations on third parties
only if there has been economic pressure from that country towards
any one member of the Customs Union. Despite that rule, the Customs
Union at the moment is not considering imposing trade regulations to
the West in response to Western sanctions on Russia. The possibility
that this might happen in the future remains open, though.
Regarding Belarus and Kazakhstan and their compliance with the import
ban of EU goods to Russia: In the conditions of a unified market it
is quite difficult to rule out dishonest actions of western economic
agents, that could decide to make money on smuggling of banned goods
into Russia. In the meantime, Leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan assure
us that they will prevent such actions. We have no reasons to doubt
this. We are satisfied with the cooperation with our partners and
are grateful for the provided assistance.
The growth of economic pressure on Russia and our retaliatory measures
open new horizons for augmenting trade possibilities within the
Customs Union. We are ready to help Kazakhstan and Belarus occupy
niches on the Russian market that had become vacant as a result of
the short-sighted Western policy. It's evident that Minsk and Astana
will take advantage of the emerging possibilities
Difficult relations with Western countries let many experts talk about
a certain turn in Russia's foreign policy and its foreign trade to the
East. China is obviously the main partner in this area. Is there no
fear that dependence on China will become too strong and that Beijing
could take advantage of this?
Sergei Lavrov: Our country is pursuing a multi-vector foreign policy,
as stated in the new edition of Concept of the Foreign Policy of
Russian Federation, approved by the President in February 2013. We
are ready to develop mutual and equal relations with all those, who
show an oncoming willingness to do that. Putin has repeatedly stated
that interaction with the Asia-Pacific region is a strategic priority
for us throughout the XXI century, and Russia, as an Asia-Pacific
power, will take full advantage of the enormous potential of the
Asia-Pacific's rapid development, including the development of the Far
East and the Eastern Siberia. Thus, we are interested to be actively
involved in the integration processes in the region. At the same time,
we would like to do this not as an alternative to relations with the
EU, but simultaneously with their intensification.
Our relations with China are not of an opportunistic nature and are
not directed against anyone. We are the two largest states, which
historically live in close proximity. In October we marked the 65th
anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our
countries. During this time, Russian-Chinese relations have come a long
way, steadily developing over the past twenty years. The most important
milestones are normalization in the late eighties, establishment of
strategic partnership and cooperation in the nineties, signing of
the 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation and
its successful implementation.
In the second decade of the XXI century, our relations have reached
a new level -- a comprehensive equitable and trustful partnership
and strategic interaction. This formula includes intensive deepening
of political contacts, practical cooperation and cooperation in the
international arena. As leaders of our countries repeatedly pointed
out, relations between Russia and China are currently the best in
their entire history.
The reason for such successful development is rooted in the fact that
it is based on the mutual consideration of interests, mutual respect,
equality, non-interference in internal affairs. These are -- in every
sense of the word -- mutually beneficial relations, in which there
are no seniors and juniors, leaders and followers. The course of
Russian-Chinese relations takes into account core interests of the
two nations and we have no plans to change it.
The highest level of confidence promotes further progress in all
areas. In May this year, President Putin paid an official visit to the
People's Republic of China. The negotiations were followed by signing
a Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic
of China on a new phase of comprehensive partnership and strategic
cooperation. About fifty agreements were signed in the course of the
meeting. Solid package of documents was signed following a meeting
between President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in
Beijing on the eve of the APEC forum in November.
The "receptacle" of the outgoing year includes final stage of the
agreement for a 30-year annual supply of 38 billion cubic meters of
gas to China through the eastern sector of the Russian-Chinese border
and signing of a framework agreement for the supply of additional
30 billion cubic meters through the western sector. New horizons
of the energy dialogue are connected with prospects of liquid gas
supplies from Russia to China. Chinese partners became involved into
a large-scale project "Yamal LNG"; they are members of the Vankor
project. This is the result of years of hard work on both sides.
Obviously, if the relationship among other countries resembled the
Russian-Chinese, it would only benefit international stability and
security.
In future the Russian-Chinese relationship looks positive. We are
sure that the multi-faceted bilateral cooperation will further deepen
progressively, regardless of the short-term fluctuations in political
sphere for the benefit of our peoples.
Following elections in Ukraine, you mentioned that you are determined
to meet your Ukrainian counterpart. When will this meeting take place?
Do you perceive the current Kiev authorities as a partner in
negotiations, committed to solving the Ukrainian crisis?
Sergei Lavrov: We are open to a constructive dialogue. I have always
tried to maintain working relations with Ukrainian counterparts. We
discuss current issues, including implementation of agreements,
reached at a high level.
At the moment, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is our main
partner to seek resolution of conflict in the southeast of the
country. Poroshenko's peace plan and corresponding initiatives,
announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, have become the
foundation of the Minsk agreements. Their implementation is key
to solving the crisis. Poroshenko has repeatedly stated that armed
hostilities in Donbas cannot break out again. Russia hopes, that his
words will be backed by real steps to ease tensions and establish
lasting peace in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as well as launch
an inclusive political dialogue in Ukraine.
The Contact Group on Ukraine, scheduled to meet in the coming days,
will discuss a plan, developed by military experts. It outlines
specific steps to implement the Minsk agreements. Russia hopes the
plan will be put into effect.
Russia believes that new Ukrainian cabinet of ministers, formed
after the snap parliamentary elections held on October 26, will also
contribute to the process of tackling the crisis.
Russia will continue to assist Ukraine. Moscow has lately provided
$32.5 - $33.5 billion to the country. Russia will continue to
contribute to creating favorable climate to tackle major challenges
that Ukrainian people face.
Does Moscow support territorial integrity of Ukraine? Armed conflict
is still fueling in Eastern Ukraine and the humanitarian situation
in the region is far from being stable. Under these conditions is
there a possibility to officially recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk
regions' independence? What will be the "Red Line", after which the
recognition of the two provinces is possible?
Sergei Lavrov: In his speech last week, Vladimir Putin stressed that
every nation has the inalienable right to self-determination and the
sovereign right to choose its own path of development, and Russia would
always respect the choice. This fully applies to the Ukrainian nation.
It is obvious that without mutually acceptable arrangements to settle
domestic crisis within the country by the Ukrainians themselves it will
be impossible to reach any agreement. The need for the all-encompassing
national dialogue, in which all regions and political factions
could participate, was documented in the agreement from February 21,
declaration in Geneva made by Russia, Ukraine, the United States and
European Union on April 17, as well as Minsk Agreement of September
5. The internal Ukrainian dialogue should discuss issues of the
national constitution which would guarantee inclusion, safety and
respect for human rights of all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of
their ethnic origin, and make sure that radicalism and nationalism
is stopped in its tracks.
In our opinion, the lack of a balanced constitutional system in Ukraine
that would take into account the interests of various regions and
all ethnic and language groups of the country caused the political
cataclysms that have been shaking the foundations of the Ukrainian
state for many years.
We are convinced that the purpose and goal of a new draft law on
amendments to the Ukrainian constitution should not be merely a
cosmetic revision of the previous texts, but emergence of a carefully
revised and updated constitution, which would be perceived by the
multiethnic Ukrainian society as a legitimate long-term document
and the legal basis for the state governed by the rule of law that
guarantees the equality of all regions and ethnic groups. We will
try to ensure this would be successfully performed.
The self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics
had their elections on November 2. As a result of the election,
local administrative authorities were formed. According to public
statements coming from leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions,
Donbas republics are ready to collaborate with the government in
Kiev to work on economic, social and political issues. In response,
Kiev implemented a blockade of the eastern regions, cutting them
off from the state's financial system. Earlier, President Poroshenko
proposed to revoke the Verkhovna Rada's Law on special right of the
local government in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Such steps will
only increase the distrust between the two sides.
We would like to remind that during the Minsk talks, representatives
from Kiev, Donetsk and Luhansk agreed not only to the armistice, but
also to implement the so-called "postwar" development of the Donbas
region. The Minsk Agreement confirmed the need for adoption of a
series of measures to improve the humanitarian situation in the Donbas
region, development of an economic plan and recovery of socio-political
sectors. Russia, as the co-facilitator of the Minsk Agreement, intends
to take an active role in the implementation of these conditions.
How do you assess the work of the OSCE observer mission in the conflict
zone in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions? How effective and impartial
is it?
Sergei Lavrov: The role of OSCE in regulating the situation in Ukraine
was discussed in detail during the meeting of the Council of Ministers
of Foreign Affairs in Basel on 4-5 December.
Let me remind you, that the decision to establish the special
monitoring mission OSCE in Ukraine by the governmental participants in
March was in light of urgent requirement to de-escalate the increasing
tension inside the country.
The observers were required to monitor the security situation, rapidly
inform the government participants in case of possible incidents,
violation of rights and freedom of citizens, including the rights
of the minority nationals. In this regard, leaders of the monitoring
mission were urged to pay attention to the eradication of ultra-radical
tendencies, national reconciliation and respect for social, political,
linguistic, educational, cultural and religious rights of all citizens
including the Ukrainian regions. Such immediate measures if applied,
could improve the situation in Ukraine.
Without a doubt, the fact that a significant number of international
observers were present on Ukrainian soil according to our estimates
played a stabilizing role. At the same time, frankly, we expected more.
The result of the observers work, their input in regulating the inside
Ukrainian crisis directly depends on fairness and adequacy of their
assessments of what is happening in Ukraine. It must be noted that
in some situations the observers lack hardness and integrity.
The observers manage to not notice the facts of widespread use of
Ukrainian military heavy weapons and prohibited ammunition against
civilians, targeted destruction of vital facilities in the cities
of the South-East. The information on the humanitarian situation
in Donbas is heavily altered. The coverage of Odessa and Maruipol
was given blurry coverage it was almost neglected. Same went for
airstrikes on Lugansk, systematic destruction of Slavyansk, the
facts of unjustified detentions, beatings and killings of Russian
journalists. But the militia movements and their military equipment
were given deliberate nonstop attention and excessive coverage.
All of us understand the situation in which the observers have to act.
It is not just the immense political pressure from Kiev and its
Western curators.
The lives of observers of OSCE are under threat, their immunity, as
it turned out, only nominally guaranteed by Kiev. We are forced to
once again remind the leadership of Ukraine the commitments taken
in regard to OSCE to ensure the safety of all employees of the
monitoring mission.
A sharp decline in Russian-American relations became one of the
main results of the year. Some experts say that these relations are
close to the Cold War level. How correct is this assessment, in your
opinion? What is needed to improve them and is Russia ready to make
the first move?
Sergei Lavrov: In the address to the Fedral Assembly President Vladimir
Putin underscored that policy of containment toward our country was
not invented yesterday - every time someone thinks that Russia becomes
too strong, independent, these instruments are quickly put into use.
Problems in our relations with the USA had started to accrue before
the Ukrainian crisis, what is more - not through our fault. We can
recall for example the notorious Magnitsky Act passed in 2012. But
what has been going on since the beginning of this year is even more
dispiriting. The White House has set a course for confrontation,
blaming Russia for all sins in connection with the Ukrainian crisis
that they provoked to a significant extent.
(c) Fotolia/ Valeriy Russia-US 'Reset' Became History After Obama's
Second Term: Moscow On the practical level Washington wound down the
bilateral dialogue concerning the majority of issues back in Spring,
including freezing the activity of the crated in 2009 Presidential
Commission whose task groups dealt with, above all else, the fight
against terrorism and drug trafficking. Simultaneously sanctions
contradicting the international law and WTO regulations were imposed,
they have already hit 50 Russian nationals, 47 companies and banks. All
this is accompanied with Washington's aggressive utterances including
levelling Russia with the main global threats along with ISIL and
Ebola.
Such rhetoric can indeed cause certain associations. But the times when
international relations were defined by one or several superpowers have
passed. In the modern world with several independent centres of power
operating, attempts to isolate some of the leaders or impose one's
own unilateral recipes from the position of some "exceptionalism"
of the USA cannot take effect.
It is tellingly that even now, despite all disagreements on Ukraine,
Americans inform us about their willingness to cooperate in resolving
the pressing global problems, generally work on a "positive agenda"
in the relations. Truth be told, these right words and appeals exist
in parallel reality with practical deeds of Washington that have
unfriendly character. This is partially connected with wavering of
the internal political conjuncture in the USA, including the current
tasks of election campaigns.
As president Putin noted, talking with Russia from the position of
strength is useless. We remember that the current decline in relations
between our countries is not the first one. And time after time violent
eruptions of rusophobic emotions in Washington were later changed by
sobering and understanding that cooperation is much better.
Especially considering a possible result of discord between nuclear
superpowers on for global security and strategic stability.
For our part, we are always open for a constructive and fair
political dialogue with the USA in both international affairs and
on the global stage where our countries bear special responsibility
for global security and stability. The question is, when Washington
will be ready to cooperate on principles of true equality and taking
Russian interests into account that we will never abandon under any
circumstances.
As for the highest-level contacts, they have not been stopped.
President Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have three times met this
year, including the recent summits of APEC in Beijing and G20 in
Brisbane. Besides, they talked ten times on the phone, and these
conversations were quite long and were mainly initiated by the
White House.
I have either no lack of conversation with US State Secretary John
Kerry - we have had 16 comprehensive meeting s, including the one on
December 4 on the sidelines of the OECD Ministerial Council meeting
in Basel, not to mention dozens of phone conversations.
Russia and the US are initiators and leaders of the global process of
disarmament, in particular nuclear. The two countries have a range of
important agreements in the field - the INF and START treaties. Does
the dramatic cooling in relations pose a threat to the implementation
of the agreements?
Sergei Lavrov: It has to be clear that there is no direct connection
between the cooling of the Russian-US relations and the implementation
of arms control agreements.
The START treaty is, of course, useful, because it matches our
interests and contributes to the enhancement of strategic stability,
in whole. There are no special difficulties with its implementation,
and technical issues are solved by a special bilateral commission.
At the same time, we remind and will remind to our American colleagues
about the wording upon record in the preamble to the treaty, which
states a relatively inextricable connection between offensive and
defensive arms. In his address to the Federal Assembly, Russian
President Vladimir Putin stressed that the ongoing persevering
efforts to create a global US missile defense system pose threats
not only to Russia's security, but to the entire world, because of
a possible disbalance in strategic forces. We warn that we will have
to take adequate measures at a certain stage of the creation of the
US missile defense system. Russia has no intention to drift into a
costly arms race; however we will surely maintain the defense capacity
of our country.
As for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in July, the US
started to accuse Russia of its breach without any reason. But the US
has provided no evidence so far. What is more, the US does not clearly
answer our questions on its commitment to the spirit and letter of
the document. For example, contrary to the agreement, the US plans to
start deploying missile defense launchers in Romania and Poland next
year, which can be used for launching offensive middle-range cruise
missiles, such as Tomahawks. Unfortunately, Washington pretends not
to see Russia's concerns.
We believe that the issue over the agreement should be solved through
diplomatic channels, not with use of "megaphone diplomacy".
Russia-NATO relations have suffered considerably over the past year,
rolling back practically to the zero point, if not worse. Is Russia's
ceremonial presence in NATO (permanent mission) and NATO's presence
in Russia (information center) worthwhile in these conditions?
Sergei Lavrov: The alliance continues its course toward containing
Russia, steps are being taken to strengthen military potential with
consequent boosting of the bloc's military capacity at Russia's
borders. A decision has been made to suspend practical cooperation
with our country along military and civilian lines. Such actions,
undoubtedly, contribute to the growing tensions and undermine stability
in the Euro-Atlantic region.
Despite this, we consider it necessary to keep channels for political
dialog open. The actions of Russia's permanent representative in NATO
are aimed to achieve this task.
As for NATO's information center in Moscow, it performs its activities
in accordance with provisions of the Fundamental Russia-NATO Pact,
which our country strictly complies with. At this time we see no
reasons to review our position on this.
Washington's aggressive rhetoric in regard to Tehran is gradually
moderating, the Times have recently reported of the alleged
'clandestine negotiations' around the possible opening of the US
representational office in Iran. How would you evaluate the prospects
of the US-Iran dialogue, will they reflect on the Tehran-Moscow
relations and how they will redound upon the Iranian nuclear talks?
Sergei Lavrov: Regarding the possible opening of the US representation
office in Iran you'd better ask the Americans and, of course,
the Iranians. On our part, we have always spoken in support of the
normalization ni the American-Iranian relations, as the prolonged
crisis in their mutual relations does not benefit the interest of
both nations.
In our view, a full-scale political dialogue between Tehran and
Washington, including on the matters of regional security, is long
overdue. We believe that better relations between these two nations
would contribute to the stability in and outside the Middle East,
spur the solution to the issues of the Iranian nuclear programme, and
boost the efficiency of the efforts, directed against the international
terrorism and drug-related threats.
Within the currently underway talks around the Iranian nuclear
programme the negotiators from both Washington and Tehran are
sustaining active contacts, providing rapprochements in a wide variety
of problematic issues on their way toward the final resolution of the
situation. On our part, we support any measure that brings us closer
to the comprehensive agreement.
In a recent interview to American media Russia's PM Dmitry Medvedev
spoke of the evidences hinting that the US are not anymore intending
to oust the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, trying instead
to find opportunities for separate negotiations with Damascus,
including to fight the IS terrorists. Is Russia able to contribute
to such contacts, has Moscow been addressed by the Americans with a
corresponding request? Is Moscow ready to consider the project UNSC
resolution on countering IS in case such document is brought into
discussion? Under which circumstances will Russia support it?
Sergei Lavrov: First of all, I would like to say that Washington has
never seen us as a direct member of the anti-IS coalition, which it
created in accordance with its own rules and parameters, without a
backward glance at the international law. Moreover, President Obama
has repeatedly put Russia on the list of global threats in line with
IS and the Ebola fever. Against such background, the timely pleads of
other US representatives to 'unite efforts' against the IS terrorists
carry little conviction.
The US did not address us with a plea to provide a contact with
Damascus. Quite the opposite, it is us constantly calling on them
to not neglect the Syrian authorities is countering IS. However,
Washington stubbornly insists that the US 'cannot in principle'
recognize the 'legitimacy' of the Bashar Assad regime, even
indirectly. They continue demonizing Assad while retaining their right
to apply force anywhere, anytime, on a unilateral basis. This is why
the Obama administration did not apply to the UNSC when forming the
anti-IS coalition.
I don't think there is a need for our mediation in contacts between
Damascus and the Americans. During the period of sharp escalation in
Syria in August 2013 the US Secretary of State John Kerry called on the
phone the Syrian FM Walid Moallem. There are also other opportunities
for direct contacts.
Russia is known as actively proposing the consolidation of the
international efforts in countering terrorism and extremism, including
in the Middle East. This is evidenced, among others, by our role
in adopting the UNSC Resolutions 2170 and 2178. We also insist that
such efforts should be universalist and complex in nature, based on
the international law and legitimate mechanisms. It is impossible to
lead a war on terrorism on the territory of a certain foreign nation
without checking with its legitimate authorities.
Otherwise this may trigger an adverse effect, the consequences of
which will reflect on the Middle-Eastern nations. We have seen this
in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya.
According to experts, international tension resulted in the stirring up
of the "Arctic Race." Here, Russia is one of the recognized leaders. On
what stage is the UN's consideration of Russia's claim to expand the
borders of Russia's continental shelf? When could a decision be made,
and what are, in your opinion the chances of success?
Sergei Lavrov: The "Arctic Race" cannot exist in principle.
International law on Arctic waters clearly determines the rights
of both coastal arctic and other states. This includes access to
developing extraction of mineral resources, oil and gas deposits as
well as managing marine biological stocks. International law also
regulates the ability of countries to expand the external border of
their continental shelf. Today's complicated international situation
does not create any significant changes to the established order.
Remember, Russia, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea in 1982, submitted a request regarding the continental shelf
of the Arctic Ocean to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf for the first time back in 2001. At this time there is a great
array of additional scientific data to substantiate Russia's claim,
the filing process of which is concluding. The request will be made in
the next several months. It can sometimes take as long as five years
for the Commission to study a request and prepare a recommendation.
Considering the high quality of the evidence base of Russia's request,
we have all reasons to believe that it has a high chance of success.
http://sputniknews.com/interviews/20141209/1015650233.html
From: A. Papazian
(c) Sputnik. Evgeny Biyatov
Interviews
13:00 09.12.2014(updated 13:13 09.12.2014) 37111 Diplomat Number One
shared his stance on everything that happened in the past year. Russian
Foreign Minister Lavrov touched upon the subject of Russian-NATO
relations, the Ukrainian crisis, the Arctic race, the ongoing conflict
in Syria and the emergence of the Eastern giant - China.
Russia is affected by Western sanctions imposed on Moscow, especially
those imposed by Europe. Our partners in the European Union are
affected by the countermeasures introduced by Moscow. How efficient
is it for Russia to keep the countermeasures in place? Doesn't it
seem like Moscow is trying to save its face putting well-being of
Russian citizens at risk?
Sergei Lavrov: Unfortunately, in our relations with the European
Union we have approached the line when goodwill gestures are unable
to produce the required result. It should be taken into account that
current situation resulted from Brussels' policy toward Ukraine,
including support for the coup carried out by ultranationalists
in Kiev. This drove Ukraine to the brink of a breakup; it has been
embroiled in a fratricidal war since then. Subsequently, the European
Union tried to put the blame for the tragedy in Ukraine on Russia. The
EU imposed unilateral sanctions on Moscow. This practice is illegal,
condemned by the UN General Assembly and runs contrary to the WTO
standards. However, the logic of uncoiling the EU sanctions' spiral
does not correspond to the development of the Ukrainian crisis.
(c) Sputnik. Ilya Pitalev Amended EU Sanctions Provide Relief to
Russian Bank Subsidiaries We have repeatedly stressed that attempts to
speak to Russia in the language of ultimatums is totally unacceptable
and will yield no results. Our response to these measures was balanced
and it took into account Russia's rights and responsibilities under
international treaties, including as a member of the WTO.
Russia introduced countermeasures only after Western countries had
imposed sanctions on Russia's major state banks, which are the primary
moneylenders in industry and agriculture. By restricting access of
Russian financial institutions to European financial instruments,
Brussels has de-facto created more favorable conditions for European
goods on our domestic market. Consequently, measures to limit food
imports from European Union countries are not sanctions. It is
our right to defend national economic interests and fight unfair
competition. Russia's actions are justified and legal.
Simultaneously, in the current situation Russia is becoming more
determined to conserve resources, modernize industry, become more
self-reliant in terms of agricultural products.
We are not going to discuss any criteria for lifting sanctions.
Lifting sanctions is the responsibility of those, who imposed them.
Surely, if the European Union shows common sense, Russia will be
ready for constructive dialogue on the issue.
As Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed, even in cases when
governments of some countries try to isolate Moscow, Russia will
actively foster cooperation, strengthen business, humanitarian,
scientific, educational and cultural ties.
The process of Euro-Asian integration has intensified during the course
of the previous year. With the West imposing sanctions on Russia and
Russia responding to them, the role of Euro-Asian integration and
the Eurasian Economic Union is growing bigger yet.
According to the information you have, do Belarus and Kazakhstan
comply with the obligation to block the import of sanctioned goods
from Europe into Russia?
Sergei Lavrov: During the past couple of years, the Eurasian economic
integration has established itself in our life. The official launch of
the Eurasian Economic Union is set for January 1, 2015. The Eurasian
Economic Union is based on equality, economic interest and mutual
respect. The Union maintains each members' sovereignty and identity,
takes integration and cooperation to a new level. It is destined
to play a significant role in improving the competitiveness of the
national economies of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, as well as
stabilizing the whole region.
Regarding the pressure from the West, my colleagues and I agree that
these restrictive measures towards Russia are against the international
law and do not contribute to the improvement of the domestic crisis
in Ukraine.
Considering that the Western economic sanctions were aimed at targeting
Russia, our retaliatory measures were imposed on a unilateral basis on
countries which sanctioned us. The rules and regulations of the Customs
Union allow its members to impose trade regulations on third parties
only if there has been economic pressure from that country towards
any one member of the Customs Union. Despite that rule, the Customs
Union at the moment is not considering imposing trade regulations to
the West in response to Western sanctions on Russia. The possibility
that this might happen in the future remains open, though.
Regarding Belarus and Kazakhstan and their compliance with the import
ban of EU goods to Russia: In the conditions of a unified market it
is quite difficult to rule out dishonest actions of western economic
agents, that could decide to make money on smuggling of banned goods
into Russia. In the meantime, Leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan assure
us that they will prevent such actions. We have no reasons to doubt
this. We are satisfied with the cooperation with our partners and
are grateful for the provided assistance.
The growth of economic pressure on Russia and our retaliatory measures
open new horizons for augmenting trade possibilities within the
Customs Union. We are ready to help Kazakhstan and Belarus occupy
niches on the Russian market that had become vacant as a result of
the short-sighted Western policy. It's evident that Minsk and Astana
will take advantage of the emerging possibilities
Difficult relations with Western countries let many experts talk about
a certain turn in Russia's foreign policy and its foreign trade to the
East. China is obviously the main partner in this area. Is there no
fear that dependence on China will become too strong and that Beijing
could take advantage of this?
Sergei Lavrov: Our country is pursuing a multi-vector foreign policy,
as stated in the new edition of Concept of the Foreign Policy of
Russian Federation, approved by the President in February 2013. We
are ready to develop mutual and equal relations with all those, who
show an oncoming willingness to do that. Putin has repeatedly stated
that interaction with the Asia-Pacific region is a strategic priority
for us throughout the XXI century, and Russia, as an Asia-Pacific
power, will take full advantage of the enormous potential of the
Asia-Pacific's rapid development, including the development of the Far
East and the Eastern Siberia. Thus, we are interested to be actively
involved in the integration processes in the region. At the same time,
we would like to do this not as an alternative to relations with the
EU, but simultaneously with their intensification.
Our relations with China are not of an opportunistic nature and are
not directed against anyone. We are the two largest states, which
historically live in close proximity. In October we marked the 65th
anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our
countries. During this time, Russian-Chinese relations have come a long
way, steadily developing over the past twenty years. The most important
milestones are normalization in the late eighties, establishment of
strategic partnership and cooperation in the nineties, signing of
the 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation and
its successful implementation.
In the second decade of the XXI century, our relations have reached
a new level -- a comprehensive equitable and trustful partnership
and strategic interaction. This formula includes intensive deepening
of political contacts, practical cooperation and cooperation in the
international arena. As leaders of our countries repeatedly pointed
out, relations between Russia and China are currently the best in
their entire history.
The reason for such successful development is rooted in the fact that
it is based on the mutual consideration of interests, mutual respect,
equality, non-interference in internal affairs. These are -- in every
sense of the word -- mutually beneficial relations, in which there
are no seniors and juniors, leaders and followers. The course of
Russian-Chinese relations takes into account core interests of the
two nations and we have no plans to change it.
The highest level of confidence promotes further progress in all
areas. In May this year, President Putin paid an official visit to the
People's Republic of China. The negotiations were followed by signing
a Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People's Republic
of China on a new phase of comprehensive partnership and strategic
cooperation. About fifty agreements were signed in the course of the
meeting. Solid package of documents was signed following a meeting
between President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping in
Beijing on the eve of the APEC forum in November.
The "receptacle" of the outgoing year includes final stage of the
agreement for a 30-year annual supply of 38 billion cubic meters of
gas to China through the eastern sector of the Russian-Chinese border
and signing of a framework agreement for the supply of additional
30 billion cubic meters through the western sector. New horizons
of the energy dialogue are connected with prospects of liquid gas
supplies from Russia to China. Chinese partners became involved into
a large-scale project "Yamal LNG"; they are members of the Vankor
project. This is the result of years of hard work on both sides.
Obviously, if the relationship among other countries resembled the
Russian-Chinese, it would only benefit international stability and
security.
In future the Russian-Chinese relationship looks positive. We are
sure that the multi-faceted bilateral cooperation will further deepen
progressively, regardless of the short-term fluctuations in political
sphere for the benefit of our peoples.
Following elections in Ukraine, you mentioned that you are determined
to meet your Ukrainian counterpart. When will this meeting take place?
Do you perceive the current Kiev authorities as a partner in
negotiations, committed to solving the Ukrainian crisis?
Sergei Lavrov: We are open to a constructive dialogue. I have always
tried to maintain working relations with Ukrainian counterparts. We
discuss current issues, including implementation of agreements,
reached at a high level.
At the moment, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is our main
partner to seek resolution of conflict in the southeast of the
country. Poroshenko's peace plan and corresponding initiatives,
announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin, have become the
foundation of the Minsk agreements. Their implementation is key
to solving the crisis. Poroshenko has repeatedly stated that armed
hostilities in Donbas cannot break out again. Russia hopes, that his
words will be backed by real steps to ease tensions and establish
lasting peace in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, as well as launch
an inclusive political dialogue in Ukraine.
The Contact Group on Ukraine, scheduled to meet in the coming days,
will discuss a plan, developed by military experts. It outlines
specific steps to implement the Minsk agreements. Russia hopes the
plan will be put into effect.
Russia believes that new Ukrainian cabinet of ministers, formed
after the snap parliamentary elections held on October 26, will also
contribute to the process of tackling the crisis.
Russia will continue to assist Ukraine. Moscow has lately provided
$32.5 - $33.5 billion to the country. Russia will continue to
contribute to creating favorable climate to tackle major challenges
that Ukrainian people face.
Does Moscow support territorial integrity of Ukraine? Armed conflict
is still fueling in Eastern Ukraine and the humanitarian situation
in the region is far from being stable. Under these conditions is
there a possibility to officially recognize the Donetsk and Luhansk
regions' independence? What will be the "Red Line", after which the
recognition of the two provinces is possible?
Sergei Lavrov: In his speech last week, Vladimir Putin stressed that
every nation has the inalienable right to self-determination and the
sovereign right to choose its own path of development, and Russia would
always respect the choice. This fully applies to the Ukrainian nation.
It is obvious that without mutually acceptable arrangements to settle
domestic crisis within the country by the Ukrainians themselves it will
be impossible to reach any agreement. The need for the all-encompassing
national dialogue, in which all regions and political factions
could participate, was documented in the agreement from February 21,
declaration in Geneva made by Russia, Ukraine, the United States and
European Union on April 17, as well as Minsk Agreement of September
5. The internal Ukrainian dialogue should discuss issues of the
national constitution which would guarantee inclusion, safety and
respect for human rights of all Ukrainian citizens, regardless of
their ethnic origin, and make sure that radicalism and nationalism
is stopped in its tracks.
In our opinion, the lack of a balanced constitutional system in Ukraine
that would take into account the interests of various regions and
all ethnic and language groups of the country caused the political
cataclysms that have been shaking the foundations of the Ukrainian
state for many years.
We are convinced that the purpose and goal of a new draft law on
amendments to the Ukrainian constitution should not be merely a
cosmetic revision of the previous texts, but emergence of a carefully
revised and updated constitution, which would be perceived by the
multiethnic Ukrainian society as a legitimate long-term document
and the legal basis for the state governed by the rule of law that
guarantees the equality of all regions and ethnic groups. We will
try to ensure this would be successfully performed.
The self-proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics
had their elections on November 2. As a result of the election,
local administrative authorities were formed. According to public
statements coming from leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions,
Donbas republics are ready to collaborate with the government in
Kiev to work on economic, social and political issues. In response,
Kiev implemented a blockade of the eastern regions, cutting them
off from the state's financial system. Earlier, President Poroshenko
proposed to revoke the Verkhovna Rada's Law on special right of the
local government in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Such steps will
only increase the distrust between the two sides.
We would like to remind that during the Minsk talks, representatives
from Kiev, Donetsk and Luhansk agreed not only to the armistice, but
also to implement the so-called "postwar" development of the Donbas
region. The Minsk Agreement confirmed the need for adoption of a
series of measures to improve the humanitarian situation in the Donbas
region, development of an economic plan and recovery of socio-political
sectors. Russia, as the co-facilitator of the Minsk Agreement, intends
to take an active role in the implementation of these conditions.
How do you assess the work of the OSCE observer mission in the conflict
zone in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions? How effective and impartial
is it?
Sergei Lavrov: The role of OSCE in regulating the situation in Ukraine
was discussed in detail during the meeting of the Council of Ministers
of Foreign Affairs in Basel on 4-5 December.
Let me remind you, that the decision to establish the special
monitoring mission OSCE in Ukraine by the governmental participants in
March was in light of urgent requirement to de-escalate the increasing
tension inside the country.
The observers were required to monitor the security situation, rapidly
inform the government participants in case of possible incidents,
violation of rights and freedom of citizens, including the rights
of the minority nationals. In this regard, leaders of the monitoring
mission were urged to pay attention to the eradication of ultra-radical
tendencies, national reconciliation and respect for social, political,
linguistic, educational, cultural and religious rights of all citizens
including the Ukrainian regions. Such immediate measures if applied,
could improve the situation in Ukraine.
Without a doubt, the fact that a significant number of international
observers were present on Ukrainian soil according to our estimates
played a stabilizing role. At the same time, frankly, we expected more.
The result of the observers work, their input in regulating the inside
Ukrainian crisis directly depends on fairness and adequacy of their
assessments of what is happening in Ukraine. It must be noted that
in some situations the observers lack hardness and integrity.
The observers manage to not notice the facts of widespread use of
Ukrainian military heavy weapons and prohibited ammunition against
civilians, targeted destruction of vital facilities in the cities
of the South-East. The information on the humanitarian situation
in Donbas is heavily altered. The coverage of Odessa and Maruipol
was given blurry coverage it was almost neglected. Same went for
airstrikes on Lugansk, systematic destruction of Slavyansk, the
facts of unjustified detentions, beatings and killings of Russian
journalists. But the militia movements and their military equipment
were given deliberate nonstop attention and excessive coverage.
All of us understand the situation in which the observers have to act.
It is not just the immense political pressure from Kiev and its
Western curators.
The lives of observers of OSCE are under threat, their immunity, as
it turned out, only nominally guaranteed by Kiev. We are forced to
once again remind the leadership of Ukraine the commitments taken
in regard to OSCE to ensure the safety of all employees of the
monitoring mission.
A sharp decline in Russian-American relations became one of the
main results of the year. Some experts say that these relations are
close to the Cold War level. How correct is this assessment, in your
opinion? What is needed to improve them and is Russia ready to make
the first move?
Sergei Lavrov: In the address to the Fedral Assembly President Vladimir
Putin underscored that policy of containment toward our country was
not invented yesterday - every time someone thinks that Russia becomes
too strong, independent, these instruments are quickly put into use.
Problems in our relations with the USA had started to accrue before
the Ukrainian crisis, what is more - not through our fault. We can
recall for example the notorious Magnitsky Act passed in 2012. But
what has been going on since the beginning of this year is even more
dispiriting. The White House has set a course for confrontation,
blaming Russia for all sins in connection with the Ukrainian crisis
that they provoked to a significant extent.
(c) Fotolia/ Valeriy Russia-US 'Reset' Became History After Obama's
Second Term: Moscow On the practical level Washington wound down the
bilateral dialogue concerning the majority of issues back in Spring,
including freezing the activity of the crated in 2009 Presidential
Commission whose task groups dealt with, above all else, the fight
against terrorism and drug trafficking. Simultaneously sanctions
contradicting the international law and WTO regulations were imposed,
they have already hit 50 Russian nationals, 47 companies and banks. All
this is accompanied with Washington's aggressive utterances including
levelling Russia with the main global threats along with ISIL and
Ebola.
Such rhetoric can indeed cause certain associations. But the times when
international relations were defined by one or several superpowers have
passed. In the modern world with several independent centres of power
operating, attempts to isolate some of the leaders or impose one's
own unilateral recipes from the position of some "exceptionalism"
of the USA cannot take effect.
It is tellingly that even now, despite all disagreements on Ukraine,
Americans inform us about their willingness to cooperate in resolving
the pressing global problems, generally work on a "positive agenda"
in the relations. Truth be told, these right words and appeals exist
in parallel reality with practical deeds of Washington that have
unfriendly character. This is partially connected with wavering of
the internal political conjuncture in the USA, including the current
tasks of election campaigns.
As president Putin noted, talking with Russia from the position of
strength is useless. We remember that the current decline in relations
between our countries is not the first one. And time after time violent
eruptions of rusophobic emotions in Washington were later changed by
sobering and understanding that cooperation is much better.
Especially considering a possible result of discord between nuclear
superpowers on for global security and strategic stability.
For our part, we are always open for a constructive and fair
political dialogue with the USA in both international affairs and
on the global stage where our countries bear special responsibility
for global security and stability. The question is, when Washington
will be ready to cooperate on principles of true equality and taking
Russian interests into account that we will never abandon under any
circumstances.
As for the highest-level contacts, they have not been stopped.
President Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have three times met this
year, including the recent summits of APEC in Beijing and G20 in
Brisbane. Besides, they talked ten times on the phone, and these
conversations were quite long and were mainly initiated by the
White House.
I have either no lack of conversation with US State Secretary John
Kerry - we have had 16 comprehensive meeting s, including the one on
December 4 on the sidelines of the OECD Ministerial Council meeting
in Basel, not to mention dozens of phone conversations.
Russia and the US are initiators and leaders of the global process of
disarmament, in particular nuclear. The two countries have a range of
important agreements in the field - the INF and START treaties. Does
the dramatic cooling in relations pose a threat to the implementation
of the agreements?
Sergei Lavrov: It has to be clear that there is no direct connection
between the cooling of the Russian-US relations and the implementation
of arms control agreements.
The START treaty is, of course, useful, because it matches our
interests and contributes to the enhancement of strategic stability,
in whole. There are no special difficulties with its implementation,
and technical issues are solved by a special bilateral commission.
At the same time, we remind and will remind to our American colleagues
about the wording upon record in the preamble to the treaty, which
states a relatively inextricable connection between offensive and
defensive arms. In his address to the Federal Assembly, Russian
President Vladimir Putin stressed that the ongoing persevering
efforts to create a global US missile defense system pose threats
not only to Russia's security, but to the entire world, because of
a possible disbalance in strategic forces. We warn that we will have
to take adequate measures at a certain stage of the creation of the
US missile defense system. Russia has no intention to drift into a
costly arms race; however we will surely maintain the defense capacity
of our country.
As for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, in July, the US
started to accuse Russia of its breach without any reason. But the US
has provided no evidence so far. What is more, the US does not clearly
answer our questions on its commitment to the spirit and letter of
the document. For example, contrary to the agreement, the US plans to
start deploying missile defense launchers in Romania and Poland next
year, which can be used for launching offensive middle-range cruise
missiles, such as Tomahawks. Unfortunately, Washington pretends not
to see Russia's concerns.
We believe that the issue over the agreement should be solved through
diplomatic channels, not with use of "megaphone diplomacy".
Russia-NATO relations have suffered considerably over the past year,
rolling back practically to the zero point, if not worse. Is Russia's
ceremonial presence in NATO (permanent mission) and NATO's presence
in Russia (information center) worthwhile in these conditions?
Sergei Lavrov: The alliance continues its course toward containing
Russia, steps are being taken to strengthen military potential with
consequent boosting of the bloc's military capacity at Russia's
borders. A decision has been made to suspend practical cooperation
with our country along military and civilian lines. Such actions,
undoubtedly, contribute to the growing tensions and undermine stability
in the Euro-Atlantic region.
Despite this, we consider it necessary to keep channels for political
dialog open. The actions of Russia's permanent representative in NATO
are aimed to achieve this task.
As for NATO's information center in Moscow, it performs its activities
in accordance with provisions of the Fundamental Russia-NATO Pact,
which our country strictly complies with. At this time we see no
reasons to review our position on this.
Washington's aggressive rhetoric in regard to Tehran is gradually
moderating, the Times have recently reported of the alleged
'clandestine negotiations' around the possible opening of the US
representational office in Iran. How would you evaluate the prospects
of the US-Iran dialogue, will they reflect on the Tehran-Moscow
relations and how they will redound upon the Iranian nuclear talks?
Sergei Lavrov: Regarding the possible opening of the US representation
office in Iran you'd better ask the Americans and, of course,
the Iranians. On our part, we have always spoken in support of the
normalization ni the American-Iranian relations, as the prolonged
crisis in their mutual relations does not benefit the interest of
both nations.
In our view, a full-scale political dialogue between Tehran and
Washington, including on the matters of regional security, is long
overdue. We believe that better relations between these two nations
would contribute to the stability in and outside the Middle East,
spur the solution to the issues of the Iranian nuclear programme, and
boost the efficiency of the efforts, directed against the international
terrorism and drug-related threats.
Within the currently underway talks around the Iranian nuclear
programme the negotiators from both Washington and Tehran are
sustaining active contacts, providing rapprochements in a wide variety
of problematic issues on their way toward the final resolution of the
situation. On our part, we support any measure that brings us closer
to the comprehensive agreement.
In a recent interview to American media Russia's PM Dmitry Medvedev
spoke of the evidences hinting that the US are not anymore intending
to oust the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, trying instead
to find opportunities for separate negotiations with Damascus,
including to fight the IS terrorists. Is Russia able to contribute
to such contacts, has Moscow been addressed by the Americans with a
corresponding request? Is Moscow ready to consider the project UNSC
resolution on countering IS in case such document is brought into
discussion? Under which circumstances will Russia support it?
Sergei Lavrov: First of all, I would like to say that Washington has
never seen us as a direct member of the anti-IS coalition, which it
created in accordance with its own rules and parameters, without a
backward glance at the international law. Moreover, President Obama
has repeatedly put Russia on the list of global threats in line with
IS and the Ebola fever. Against such background, the timely pleads of
other US representatives to 'unite efforts' against the IS terrorists
carry little conviction.
The US did not address us with a plea to provide a contact with
Damascus. Quite the opposite, it is us constantly calling on them
to not neglect the Syrian authorities is countering IS. However,
Washington stubbornly insists that the US 'cannot in principle'
recognize the 'legitimacy' of the Bashar Assad regime, even
indirectly. They continue demonizing Assad while retaining their right
to apply force anywhere, anytime, on a unilateral basis. This is why
the Obama administration did not apply to the UNSC when forming the
anti-IS coalition.
I don't think there is a need for our mediation in contacts between
Damascus and the Americans. During the period of sharp escalation in
Syria in August 2013 the US Secretary of State John Kerry called on the
phone the Syrian FM Walid Moallem. There are also other opportunities
for direct contacts.
Russia is known as actively proposing the consolidation of the
international efforts in countering terrorism and extremism, including
in the Middle East. This is evidenced, among others, by our role
in adopting the UNSC Resolutions 2170 and 2178. We also insist that
such efforts should be universalist and complex in nature, based on
the international law and legitimate mechanisms. It is impossible to
lead a war on terrorism on the territory of a certain foreign nation
without checking with its legitimate authorities.
Otherwise this may trigger an adverse effect, the consequences of
which will reflect on the Middle-Eastern nations. We have seen this
in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Libya.
According to experts, international tension resulted in the stirring up
of the "Arctic Race." Here, Russia is one of the recognized leaders. On
what stage is the UN's consideration of Russia's claim to expand the
borders of Russia's continental shelf? When could a decision be made,
and what are, in your opinion the chances of success?
Sergei Lavrov: The "Arctic Race" cannot exist in principle.
International law on Arctic waters clearly determines the rights
of both coastal arctic and other states. This includes access to
developing extraction of mineral resources, oil and gas deposits as
well as managing marine biological stocks. International law also
regulates the ability of countries to expand the external border of
their continental shelf. Today's complicated international situation
does not create any significant changes to the established order.
Remember, Russia, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea in 1982, submitted a request regarding the continental shelf
of the Arctic Ocean to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf for the first time back in 2001. At this time there is a great
array of additional scientific data to substantiate Russia's claim,
the filing process of which is concluding. The request will be made in
the next several months. It can sometimes take as long as five years
for the Commission to study a request and prepare a recommendation.
Considering the high quality of the evidence base of Russia's request,
we have all reasons to believe that it has a high chance of success.
http://sputniknews.com/interviews/20141209/1015650233.html
From: A. Papazian