Question: The situation has changed since August. You said on Saturday that the architecture of security in Europe has failed in the case of Caucasus conflict in August. Can you please elaborate what you meant by the failure of European security? Did Russia want war? Maybe you will give us an assessment of how the situation in Caucasus now can fit into the new European security and the negotiations that your President has called for?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: First of all, before any situation can fit into any new security architecture this security architecture must be revamped. The current architecture most of which was inherited from the period of cold war proved to be insufficient and flawed in quite a number of respects. First, the principles on which this current architecture is based, if you take all European organizations, are the right ones. Those principles speak of sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs of states. Most importantly it speaks about indivisibility of security, and speaks of the need to avoid any means to strengthen your own security at the expense of the security of others.
This principle, the last one on indivisibility of security, has been under permanent strain in the last years. The United States’ withdrawal from the ABM Treaty was followed by negotiations to deploy a third positioning area for the US strategic missile defense system in Europe. NATO expansion in spite of all the commitments to the contrary has taken place. This expansion again in spite all commitments to the contrary was combined with moving military assets of NATO in the new territories, the territories of the new members. Military bases have appeared in Bulgaria and Romania. All this against the background of negotiations between us and Washington to make sure that after START 1 Treaty expires in December 2009 we have some meaningful strategic arms control regime. These negotiations are not so far heading anywhere, because our American colleagues do not want to keep limits on the delivery vehicles and on nuclear warheads at storage. They only want to keep some limits on the operationally deployed nuclear warheads. I can continue with the examples of security, the examples of strategic stability being strained. The parity which has long been basis of strategic stability is becoming misbalanced and against all this background, the problems in Europe were exacerbated by the fact that in spite of the existence of all European pan-Euro-Atlantic structures like OSCE based on the principles agreed by all, the center for real security measures has shifted to NATO in the context of its expansion, in the context of its new mission, which is still being searched for. And this NATO-centrism contradicts the commitments of all countries in the OSCE space to do what I referred to, rather not to do what I referred to, namely not to ensure security of anyone at the expense of security of others. The new dividing line is being created in the area of security with NATO expansion. And all this can not really but cause concern. In very specific terms how this system failed to prevent the attack by Georgian leaders against South Ossetia. Georgian leaders have been armed beyond any meaningful defense needs during last few years. Basically this armament of Georgia started after the Saakashvili government started their first war against South Ossetia in August 2004. At that time this war was stopped very quickly by the peacekeepers and by the South Ossetian security forces probably because Georgian army was not armed enough. They have compensated since: a huge amount of heavy weaponry was sent to Georgia, including by covert means and apparently by July 2008 Mr. Saakashvili decided that he was armed enough to start this war again trying to achieve a blitzkrieg. All these shipments of arms have been executed in violation of code of conduct existing in OSCE and a relevant code of conduct inside the European Union, which call upon utmost caution when sending arms to the areas of conflict. All these goals were ignored not by EU and not by OSCE but by individual member states of these organizations, who had to be guided by those principles.
So as a result we have a situation where by the security structures most of which as I said have been inherited from the period of cold war are fragmented and are not very efficient in promoting real stability based on account of interest of all countries in this space. And Russia-NATO council when it was created in 2003 was an attempt to overcome this problem, to overcome the logic of NATO-centrism, because Russia-NATO council was established on the basis of “one country – one vote”, not on the basis of “26+1”. And each of the members of the Russia – NATO Council subscribed to the need to represent their national positions in this mechanism, in this format, not the block positions. Apparently it does not work. What is to be done, we believe and President Medvedev announced the formal proposal to start negotiating a new treaty on Euro-Atlantic security, which should embrace not only all countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, basically OSCE membership, but also all organizations existing in the security area within this particular space, which would also include, of course, NATO, OSCE, EU. It would also include security structures on the post-soviet space. And we think that an open and honest discussion could certainly make a difference. A discussion should be based on taking inventory of all those principles on which we now operate in various formats in the European geopolitical space. And if we all agree that those principles remain valid, and I believe they should be endorsed once again then we have to think what is wrong with the mechanisms, which are being applied to put these principles into practice. That is in brief how we think we should proceed.
Question: Russia and Syria are strengthening their naval and military presence in Syria. Is Russia planning to stay in Syria? What would be the repercussions on Lebanon and the Middle East?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I have already replied to this question. Where military-technical and military cooperation by the Russian Federation with Syria or any other state is concerned, it is exclusively within international law, without any violation of international legal norms and in the interests of reinforcing stability and maintaining security in the regions which are located close to the Russian Federation and in other regions of the world regardless of whether somebody likes that or not. I repeat that the sole criterion is international law, and concern for the maintenance of stability and security. We are doing nothing that might upset the balance of forces in this or that region. We endeavor to maintain that balance in every way, thus preventing any possible conflict flare-ups.
Question: Following up on your speech to the General Assembly, where you called for a revival of the global coalition that brought the world together to fight terrorism after September 11. Could you elaborate a little bit how you envision this global coalition and what Russia would like to see the world like in the next five or 10 years as we move into the 21 century in terms of geopolitical forces, greater equality, things that you have mentioned?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: You probably will agree that there are too many conflicts in the world. Many of them have been with us for whole decades, and several others have broken out in the recent historical epoch. Some of them were created artificially, under farfetched pretexts, contrary to international law. Probably the most important condition – you may call this the restoration of the antiterrorist coalition or you may call it the creation of workable, equitable schemes of interaction among states to resolve crises and maintain stability on the basis of international law – the most important condition is following the same principles that are enshrined in international law. This presupposes the absence on anybody’s part of any monopoly on truth, and respect for the analytical abilities of all other members of the world community. Any problem ought to be dealt with jointly. This means that from the very beginning it is necessary to sit down and review the situation. After such joint analysis it will be possible on this basis to agree on the steps that need to be taken to solve the problem. A third stage must be the direct realization of these steps together. That’s the approach which is also applicable to the existing conflicts, to the new situations. I have mentioned the problem of missile defense in Eastern Europe. If you follow the logic we have proposed – Vladimir Putin proposed it in the summer of last year while in Kennebunkport at the invitation of President George Bush – then I am convinced that tension around this entire system would be removed. But our American colleagues did not want to jointly analyze the character of the threats and told us that they had already carried out this analysis and that in order to parry these threats a third positioning area should be created in Eastern Europe. And they invited us to join in. Whereas we were convinced that a joint analysis of the threats to which our American colleagues referred – by joint analysis we understand an analysis involving the US, Russia and European states – would show that there are real ways without creating threats to somebody else’s security to jointly track any development of events in the region from where the Americans believe a threat already emanates now, which they should start this whole thing to overcome.
These principles are applicable to virtually any other situation. Take the same Iraq. We were against that war, and we still believe that it was a mistake to start it. But when the Americans and other coalition participants turned to the UN to search within its framework for a way out of the situation in which as a result of the war that country has found itself, we agreed to work in the Security Council. Resolutions were adopted, the absence of foreign troops on Iraqi territory was regularized, but many of our assessments were ignored. For example, from the very beginning, after the war was over, or, to be more precise, after it was announced that the active stage of combat actions was over, we, for example, came out in favor of allowing the Iraqis themselves to define the composition of the structures that were to shape their bodies of power. This was not done. Shortly after the end of the war we came out for holding a conference on national reconciliation in Iraq. This idea was also rejected. Moreover, as you know, the Baath party was prohibited, and the armed forces and security forces were disbanded only for the Americans themselves to acknowledge that that was a mistake a couple of years later. The principal task now, which everybody acknowledges, is national reconciliation in Iraq. This has already become an official position. But if we had all agreed with that five years ago, probably the situation in that country would be more stable, and movement towards normalization would be more effective.
I could go on citing these examples, but let me mention only one more. Afghanistan. Everybody realizes, everybody agrees that the continuing terrorist attacks in Afghanistan are nourished financially by the narcotics trade, by the illegal narco-business. Our insistent proposals during the last four, probably, five years to foster interaction between NATO, which is the leading force in the framework of the international security forces, and the CSTO, which is conducting antinarcotics operations along the perimeter of Afghanistan – all these proposals have encountered refusal. Well NATO simply does not want to cooperate with the CSTO. Why? I see only the ideological bias in this regard. Because practical expediency and mutual benefit for the Afghan people, for the countries in Central Asia and in Europe where Afghan narcotics flow at full steam, the benefit from such cooperation would certainly be obvious to all of us.
The last example – several days ago the Security Council agreed on a new resolution extending the mandate of the international security force in Afghanistan. It was with enormous difficulty that the most general phrase that more attention should be paid to the fight against the threat of drugs was eventually inserted there.
I can’t understand why this occurs, but these are just several examples of how, mildly speaking, not quite full consideration is given to the assessments and the analyses of all members of the world community when making very important decisions which later tell on the situation of all.
Question: In your speech on Saturday you called for elaboration of principle of international law that states should refrain from propaganda of war and aggression. How is that to be applied to coverage of the war in Georgia and how it might affect press freedom? What can you say concerning the sources of funding of the government of President Saakashvili?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: As to the situation with coverage of the events started by the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia, I consider that the actions of the Georgian leadership unambiguously fall within the category of state propaganda of aggressive war. In the same direction, although, perhaps, not as zealously, many other western media were working, when there were also outright forgeries of information. CNN was showing a picture from the Russian television channel Russia Today that depicted the burning city of Tskhinval after Georgian artillery, Grad multiple rocket launchers and aircraft had bombed it and the CNN announcer gave the explanation that the picture showed the city of Gori destroyed by the Russian army. Later, it is true, after several hours they explained that a mistake had occurred, but the footage of the burning city was being shown for hours while the mistake was mentioned in passing and they did not return to this theme anymore.
There are quite a bit of such examples, by the way, both for electronic and for printed media. I shall also mention that, from the very first days of the start of the war against South Ossetia, the Georgian leadership held its people in an information blockade, having absolutely shut off the possibility for Georgian citizens to get alternative assessments of what was occurring. The broadcasting of all Russian television channels was banned and this continues to this day, along with the closure of access to the Russian Internet for the citizens of Georgia. Such are the facts.
I do not know what is occurring in the Georgian capital right now, but according to some information journalists are being persecuted there. Some of them are even possibly arrested, I guess. But on the whole it is a very harmful and dangerous path when leaders attempt to dictate to the press a particular assessment of what is happening and do not allow it to honestly report on events and things seen.
Here’s one example. When I went to Tskhinval and Sukhum about ten days ago, before the trip two Georgian television channels which operate in Moscow had asked us to take their correspondents and cameramen to South Ossetia and Abkhazia along with us. We had agreed. These correspondents and cameramen filmed many stories, spoke to residents in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and filmed destructions in Tskhinval and in other parts of South Ossetia. I was interested to know what of all that footage would later be shown on Georgian television. We asked staff members at our embassy, which so far remains in Georgia, because Mikhail Saakashvili has broken off diplomatic relations, but it is not yet clear how the Georgian side wants to retain some of its presence in Russia; accordingly the presence of Russia in Georgia will depend on this, but for the time being we have our staff there – well I asked them how the reports of these two television channels whose correspondents had traveled with us on that trip were being presented. I was told that there were a few very brief, absolutely neutral stories, from which one could form no idea of the extent of the devastation which the Georgian action had inflicted upon South Ossetia or of the emotions South Ossetian residents had splashed out in communication with the journalists.
So I believe responsibility for coverage of conflicts is particularly high. There is something that all the media ought to strive for, in this regard. I do not think that there is some medium which can position itself as being absolutely irreproachable. Honesty and a striving not to hide the truth I think is the key to everyone being able to sleep calmly, to their conscience being calm.
Now regarding what sources are drawn on to pay for the activities of the Georgian leadership. I have heard many rumors and reports. I know that they are now being checked and verified. At a point in the past, I believe, George Soros sponsored Georgian government members. Now I hear that the United Nations Development Program spent some of its funds for this purpose. This has to be sorted out. The chief thing is that the rules should not be violated on the basis of which the world body and all of its entities, funds and programs operate. Somebody privatizing this organization cannot be tolerated.
Question: You made several references to commitments that were made that NATO would not expand. You made those references today and in you interview with Ch.Rose the other night. You said it’s a pity they did not get those promises in writing, but as you know in American law verbal agreements are legally binding. There must have been witnesses to those verbal agreements that were made not to expand NATO. How could one get hold of that documentation? Since December the Russian Federation put forth a resolution, which was adopted with opposition only of the USA. on the inadmissibility of the glorification of Nazism. I bring this together with my former question because a number of the countries which have been included in NATO have very powerful pro-Nazi movements – Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine. Can you tell us a little bit more on how serious is the danger of the spread of Nazism in this new world?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I hope that the dangers inherent in a revival of Nazism and the heroization of SS men are understandable to a majority of sensible people across the world, including politicians and leaders of major powers. It is sad that to please the openly ideologized approaches to world and European affairs certain entities in the Euro-Atlantic area, in Europe in particular, are trying to turn a blind eye to such “petty mischiefs” of their young members. This is dangerous. Such things have to be nipped in the bud. We are going consistently, together with our partners, to insist on just this kind of attitude in our work and in the OSCE and in the Council of Europe and in our contacts with the European Union. And we are certainly going to continue to seek a firm stance of the world community on this matter in the UN. The resolution you referred to – we want to again present it, in a renewed form, to the current session of the General Assembly for consideration.
To my shame I admit that I did not know that in the United States oral agreements are legally binding. I always thought that it was only in old Russia, when the merchants used to shake hands on it without signing any contracts, that this handshake was a sacred commitment and not to fulfill it was absolutely impossible. I will study your proposals. Of course, there are the minutes of those talks, the recordings of those conversations. I saw them. But it is not only verbal agreements that get violated. Agreements concluded on paper are likewise violated, particularly within the same Russia-NATO Council; I spoke about this. There it was written in black and white in 2003 at the summit in Pratica di Mare that no one should try to strengthen his own security at the expense of the security of others.
When another Russia-NATO summit was held in Bucharest this past April, Vladimir Putin represented Russia in his then capacity as President of the Russian Federation. We had wanted to adopt a joint outcome statement. It failed to be adopted for only one reason: we had wanted that this highly important stand that no one should try to strengthen his own security at the expense of the security of others should be reaffirmed in this joint statement in April of this year. This did not happen, as is now fashionable to say, because of the position of one delegation.
As to the promises, I shall say it once more in respect of Georgia specifically. When we had for several years warned our American and other partners of the dangers inherent in the armament of the Tbilisi regime, pointing out that the latter had repeatedly used the supplied weapons for provocations and when we had cautioned against the possibility of a war breaking out this time again, we were given assurances that this would not happen. Members of the American leadership even said that should Georgia attack South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it might as well forget about its application for NATO membership. Also like a verbal promise, it seems. We’ll see.
Question: You have talked a great deal about the necessity to create a new security system which would encompass all existing entities and correspond to the interests of all countries. Please say how much understanding this position and these proposals meet with and what they are all about in concrete terms. You have yourself said that NATO refuses to cooperate with the CSTO, but under the new Russian concept that cooperation is a must. It is provided for. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that the US will not allow Russia to decide the fate of NATO. Do you count on some understanding, are there already some signs of that understanding and has this question been discussed on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Let me say right away that Russia has no intention or desire to decide the fate of NATO, if only because this is too unthankful a task. This fate is being decided in Afghanistan now. We shall see how well NATO can do this mission that it has there. We are convinced that this mission can only succeed if the actions of the international community inside Afghanistan rest on collective analysis, on collective decision making and are not arranged to the detriment of the contribution which many countries can make to the struggle against terrorism and drug trafficking. I mean, among others, a country like Iran as well.
As to the security system, it is our belief that its present fragmentary condition and the overall incapacity of Euro-Atlantic structures like the OSCE to provide a unifying factor for this fragmentary system require serious discussion. That discussion should involve all the states and entities that operate in this area in the field of security, and the start must be made, as I’ve already said, by the stocktaking of all the principles that have been developed, beginning with the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and with the analysis of why the principles which must still be valid are not being respected in practice. Having realized why this occurs, it is necessary to think of new mechanisms which, without undermining any of the existing structures, including the very same NATO, would ensure interaction among all on an equal, honest basis – on the basis of mutual consideration of interests and the indivisibility of security. Attempts to present our initiative as one intended to substitute for NATO are completely untenable. We have never suggested that. We are realists and we understand that NATO is a reality which has to be taken into account, although I repeat that much of what is happening with NATO only adds to the risks for security, and we would like to see an opposite trend.
Question: You have been pretty consistently evasive in as far as new arrangements you have with Syria. Why are you so secret about what you have got with Syria? How large is your presence going to be? Who else are you talking to in the region so you could enhance cooperation? Is Russia any less committed to the Tribunal on Lebanon? (38:25)
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Well there is no secrecy. As a minister of foreign affairs I do not concern myself with the specific affairs of military training exercises, maneuvers and other affairs of our military and military-technical cooperation with other countries. I can only guarantee that all this cooperation is within international law and creates no threats to anybody’s security, just as this absolutely does not imply that we have changed our position on Lebanese affairs, the tribunal in particular. Moreover, this year we have contributed 500000 dollars for this tribunal’s activities specifically not only to underscore our continuing support of the inquiry into Hariri’s murder, but also to demonstrate the practical filling of this our support with concrete actions. But as to any treaties and agreements that involve the presence of the Russian military on the soil of other countries, all the concluded agreements are open, there are no secrets here, simply if that’s not what it is all about, then, essentially, there is nothing to publish.
Regarding what you have mentioned about the talks between Iraq and the United States on the modalities for the further stationing of American troops in Iraq. I have already said that we support any option which the Iraqi leadership will agree to. If the stationing agreement is reached to the Iraqi leadership’s satisfaction, we will only be happy assuming that the Iraqi people and leadership will themselves set the timeframe to end that presence. But if the Iraqi leadership is not ready to sign a document which it does not regard as fully meeting its interests, then we will have no problems with extending the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq. I have heard that signals are being sent to Bagdad that if you fail to make concessions in talks on a status of forces agreement then Russia will veto the mandate’s extension in the Security Council. This is a lie and provocation. I now officially refute it.
Question: Pirates in Somalia have seized a large Ukrainian merchant vessel carrying weapons, with a Russian crew. What can the UN and world community offer in the fight against such a challenge of our time as this kind of piracy?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I hold that the United Nations has already taken the first step by adopting a Security Council resolution which condemns such actions and authorizes member countries to use their capabilities to suppress such acts. Now the concrete example of the Faina ship demonstrates that states do not want to put up with the continuation of such brigandage and lawlessness anymore. There are US naval ships there, and a naval ship of the Russian Federation is heading to the place. As my Malaysian colleague told me, also heading there are two frigates from Malaysia. EU countries have also wanted to send their squadron there to ensure navigation safety in that area. I think that everybody has to see how the resolution works in practice and following response from a sufficiently large number of member countries thought can be given to fostering collaboration among naval ships of the states which want to make their contribution to implementing the Security Council resolution to put an end to piracy in the Horn of Africa area.
Question: How can you comment upon the situation in PACE?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Konstantin Kosachev has already commented on the situation in PACE in great detail. I can only agree with this.
http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/e78a48070f128a7b43256999005bcbb3/fab4e9a7c2de99fec32574d5004a0433?OpenDocument
01-10-2008
