Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for the International Barents Secretariat Web Portal, Moscow, November 23, 2017



24 November 2017 - 11:00





Question:

What are the first three things you associate with the Barents region?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, these are the guiding principles of the Barents/Euroarctic Council (BEAC) – trust, cooperation and good-neighborhood relations. That's exactly what we relied on while developing the programme of the Russian Chairmanship of BEAC in 2015-2017, which remains the main integration mechanism in this part of Europe. Its work contributes significantly to promoting values of peace, security and stability on the whole European continent.



Question:

In your opinion, what is the main purpose for the Barents Cooperation?



Sergey Lavrov:

We proceed from the fact that facilitating sustainable social and economic development of the region and creating favorable conditions for the citizens of our countries who live in the North should remain an absolute priority of the joint efforts within the framework of BEAC. In this regard, special emphasis should be placed on the sustainable use of unique scientific, innovative and resource capabilities, complying with environmental standards and taking into account the interests of indigenous peoples.



Question:

What is your personal experience of the Barents Cooperation? Do you have any personal memories about the Barents region?



Sergey Lavrov:

Of course I do. For example, I recall with a special feeling my visit to Kirkenes in October 2014 to participate in the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the Red Army's liberation of Eastern Finnmark. King
Harald V of Norway, senior government officials of the country, including Prime Minister Erna Solberg, heads of regions and border municipalities of the two countries attended commemorative events. Within their framework an unforgettable meeting with Russian and Norwegian war veterans was held.

It is important that we all keep good memories of cooperation that existed between our countries during those harsh years. Today, when we are witnessing recurrent attempts to rewrite the history of the Second World War, to heroize the Nazis and their henchmen, the efforts aimed at preserving the historical truth, immortalizing the heroic deed of those who saved Europe and the whole world from the horrors of the “brown plague” acquire special meaning.



Question:

The cooperation in the Barents region started in 1993, almost 25 years ago. In your opinion, what are the main achievements of the cooperation this far?



Sergey Lavrov:

Today, we can say for sure that over nearly 25 years of its work, the Council has fully lived up to its main purpose and established itself as an indispensable inter-State cooperation mechanism that generates a unifying, aspiring agenda.

Joint activities within BEAC are strictly practical and concrete, which makes it possible to achieve progress in almost all spheres of cooperation. From my perspective the main outcome is that through joint efforts we have managed to create a zone of confidence, stability and good-neighborhood relations in Northern Europe. That being said, our multifaceted cooperation is resistant to fluctuations of political environment.



Question:

How will the Barents Cooperation look like in 25 years?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all it depends on us, on our willingness to keep working together for the benefit of our region, for the well-being and prosperity of its inhabitants. The Barents process' anniversary next year provides a good opportunity to try and see beyond the horizon, outline plans for the future.

I am convinced that close coordination at both the national and regional levels of the Barents cooperation will further remain essential to the successful dynamic development of the Council, providing for aligning priorities of States with the needs and interests of particular regions.

At the same time, even such a successful cooperation format as BEAC should “keep up with the times”, adapt to new global realia. To these ends, the Russian Chairmanship came forward with the initiative to establish a high-level regional forum, a kind of "Barents Davos", which would function on a permanent basis. This is meant to be a representative discussion platform bringing together politicians, representatives of the governments, business, academic and scientific communities, as well as media for the full-fledged discussion of the Barents agenda with a focus on sustainable socio-economic and environmental development of the region. Such forum would no doubt be helpful in identifying innovative cooperation forms, including the development of cooperation roadmaps. This is quite a far-reaching task, that is why it can only be accomplished through a joint effort.

Obviously, that it is the young generation that will determine the development of the Barents region in the foreseeable future. That is why Russia also proposed to establish a Youth Forum, which should embrace all the levels of cooperation – national, regional and municipal. We consider this as an investment in our future cooperation. It is important that young people from our countries regularly communicate with each other, discuss acute issues of the regional agenda.



Question:

In your perspective, is the Barents Cooperation part of the broader Arctic agenda or does it have a more independent role in the region?



Sergey Lavrov:

The Barents process is certainly part of the global Arctic agenda and cannot develop independently in isolation from the "big Arctic". At the same time, the Barents region with its many unique characteristics holds, in our opinion, its own unique position in the Arctic interaction.

It is the most populated (around 5.2 million people) and economically advanced region in the Arctic. Besides that, the experience of cross-border cooperation it has gained is probably unlike any other. We believe that promotion of the Barents region is very important. BEAC as a format of inter-State interaction can be considered as one of the most successful models of regional cooperation that could well be extended to other parts of the world.



Question:

You have just finished your Chairmanship of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Which results are you the most pleased with?



Sergey Lavrov:

During our Chairmanship, we focused on the issues that were key to the region, such as developing transport and logistics infrastructure, protecting the environment and addressing climate change, promoting cultural and tourist ties. Each priority was given further emphasis at a relevant ministerial meeting. We have managed to achieve significant progress in each field.

The Ministers of Environment Meeting (Sortavala, November 2015) noted the progress in elimination of environmental "hot spots" in the Barents region. An important outcome of the efforts made to address climate change was the updated version of the Action Plan on Climate Change for the Barents Cooperation.

The Ministers of Transport Meeting (Arkhangelsk, June 2016) helped to achieve progress in the development of the large-scale Joint Barents Transport Plan, which envisages the establishment of 16 cross-border transport routes (corridors) comprising rail, road and sea routes. Seven of them run through the Russian territory. There are plans to develop the east-west flight connections in Northern Europe.

Modernization of the Murmansk-Nikel-Kirkenes section of the "Kola" motorway, which was completed in September 2017, is another major achievement in the development of the transport network in the Barents region.

At the Ministers of Culture Meeting (Moscow, November 2016) the Barents Scholarship for Cultural Cooperation was established; it is to be awarded every second year to young artists and artistic associations from Russia, Norway, Finland and Sweden. The first ceremony took place on the sidelines of the 16th BEAC Ministerial Session in Arkhangelsk on October 19, 2017.

Developing Arctic tourism is a promising area. The decision adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation in July 2016 on the introduction of a 72‑hour visa‑free regime in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk for passengers of cruise liners will give an additional impetus to our cooperation in this sphere and facilitate contacts between people.

Emphasis was placed on supporting indigenous peoples of the North. In April 2017, Moscow hosted the first Barents Indigenous Peoples' Summit, the outcome of which is meant to strengthen the mechanisms for protecting the interests of indigenous peoples and to contribute to building an equal dialogue between them and authorities. We hope that this work will systematically continue.

In our view, we have succeeded in enhancing coordination between all the participants in the Barents cooperation. The first meeting featuring major regional partners, including the Chairs of the BEAC and the Barents Regional Council, the International Barents Secretariat and the heads of all the working groups – and we have 16 of them (not counting 9 subgroups) – held in Moscow in April 2017 became an important step to this end.

On the whole, our Chairmanship appears to have been productive with over 80 events held and a number of major decisions taken aimed at further strengthening of the Barents cooperation.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2964726






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s reply to a media question at the joint news conference following talks with Japan’s Foreign Minister Taro Kono, Moscow, November 24, 2017



24 November 2017 - 14:46









Question:

As is known, following the visit of US President Trump to Japan, an agreement was reached on direct destruction of DPRK missiles and purchasing weapons from the United States by Tokyo. Was this issue discussed during today's talks? What is Moscow's reaction to these agreements? Does Tokyo allow for the possibility of resolving the Korean Peninsula crisis by force?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have discussed these topics. By the way, if a question by the NHK correspondent who said “Russia condemns Japan” was correctly translated, I’d like to note that we have never said that we condemn Japan. We express our deepest concern with the evidence at our disposal regarding the fact that Japan, just like South Korea, is becoming a territory for the deployment of the global US missile defence system under the pretext of threats coming from North Korea (and in Europe, under the pretext of the Iranian threat). In fact, if you look at the map, you will see that this US missile defence system “miraculously” surrounds Russia and China.

Knowing the Americans, we have major doubts that they will agree to transfer control over any element of this global missile defence system to anyone. In Europe, they announced, for form’s sake, the creation of a NATO missile defence system, but everyone knows that all the levers related to decision-making on the functioning of this NATO system, are in the hands of the Americans. Frankly, I think this will be the case in Asia as well.

Of particular concern are the US plans, which are already being implemented, to deploy global missile defence system elements in this region. We drew attention to the extremely negative impact of these actions on security in the Asia-Pacific Region.

We are convinced that security in this region should be strengthened not through building up cooperation within exclusive military-political blocs, but on a transparent, inclusive and region-wide basis in line with the dialogue which was started as part of the East Asia Summits on security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region and was recently systematised at the ASEAN headquarters in Jakarta.

When discussing the peace treaty, we focused, per the decision of President Putin and Prime Minister Abe, on ways of practical implementation of the leaders' agreements on joint economic activities on the southern Kuril Islands. This topic is being considered through negotiations at the level of deputy foreign ministers. Two working groups have been created to address these issues more thoroughly. One group deals with commercial aspects of joint economic activities, while the other focuses on consular and logistical issues, which must be addressed for us to be able to implement corresponding projects on the islands. We supported our Japanese colleagues’ proposal to hold a meeting of the two working groups in December. We will then use its outcome to plan the date for the next round of talks led by the deputy foreign ministers, I think, early next year.

I believe the talks were very useful. Overall, the visit by Foreign Minister Taro Kono, including the talks at the Russian Foreign Ministry and the forthcoming meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Issues, will certainly be an important step towards advancing the goals set during the meetings of our leaders.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2964975






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Staffan de Mistura, Moscow, November 24, 2017



24 November 2017 - 17:20









Mr de Mistura, dear Staffan, friends,

We highly value this opportunity to compare notes on the efforts that are being made on the path to a peace settlement in Syria. There are many developments which, at first glance, are unfolding concurrently, but should definitely be united under the single objective of meeting the conditions and achieving the goals set out in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. All the efforts that the Russian Federation has taken in recent months, and maybe even couple of years, in connection with many external players and, of course, the UN, have been aimed precisely at this.

We are grateful to you personally, to your entire team, and the UN Secretary General, for supporting the Astana process, which was originally developed in response to an impasse in the Syria peace process after our American partners from Barack Obama’s team failed to deliver on agreements reached in September 2016 on separating terrorists from opposition members. The Russian-Iranian-Turkish partnership, which dates back to that period, allowed us to create de-escalation zones which had a tangible beneficial effect on the situation “on the ground”. It was perhaps this partnership which facilitated the meeting in Astana, where, for the first time in the history of the Syrian conflict, delegates of the Syrian Government sat down at the same table with opposition groups, some of which are carrying out armed attacks against the Syrian army. Throughout all the months during which the Astana process was unfolding, with the participation and cooperation of your team, Mr de Mistura, we could see the framework which was universally agreed upon at the UN Security Council and we tried to move towards ensuring that we identify all the appropriate solutions within this framework, during every stage of our endeavours. We actively contributed to Saudi Arabia’s efforts, with your support, in order to unite the opposition, in all its dimensions and capacities – external and internal – on a constructive platform which would fully comply with requirements of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012. Our consultations with our Iranian and Turkish partners regarding preparations for a tripartite summit in Sochi on November 22, are based on these criteria and principles. At the outset, I would like to make it clear that the statement, which was approved by the three presidents and published as a UN Security Council document, echoes the key provisions of the Russia-US top-level statement which President Putin and President Trump approved on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Danang. Both documents underline the central importance of Resolution 2254 and the Geneva process. All the efforts, which we have undertaken and continue to undertake, are aimed specifically at stimulating a genuinely inclusive intra-Syrian dialogue, under the aegis of the UN and on the basis of the criteria agreed upon at the UN Security Council.

We are convinced that the National Dialogue Congress on Syrian settlement can become an important step towards launching a truly intra-Syrian inclusive dialogue, unburdened by the artificial demands of a particular faction of the opposition, which are at variance with the UN Security Council’s criteria. The presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran supported and approved this idea at their recent meeting in Sochi.

Thank you once again for accepting our invitation. I very much hope that, during your stay in Moscow, we will be able to share our assessments of the meaningful talks which took place in Sochi as part of the Russian-Iranian-Turkish meeting, as well as the impressions that you have about the conference held in Saudi Arabia on uniting the Syrian opposition. Our representative also attended this event, as an observer. It is important to exchange opinions. I’m confident that the talks here, at the Foreign Ministry, in addition to the upcoming meetings at the Defence Ministry that you have planned, will serve the common cause of settling the Syrian crisis in the interests of the Syrian people, in all their diversity, rather than in the interest of whatever other party.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2965437

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the results of the 56th Special Session of OPCW Executive Council



25 November 2017 - 17:29



A special session of the OPCW Executive Council on the Syrian chemical file ended in The Hague on November 24. After the United States proposed that such a session be held more than two weeks ago, the session has been suspended and resumed more than once by the US partners with no reason given. This nonstandard behaviour is contrary to the usual OPCW practice and can be explained by Washington’s intention to ensure the adoption of a harsh anti-Syria decision, which many Council members were unwilling to support.

The proposed decision said, citing the unsubstantiated conclusions of the seventh report of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (OPCW-UN JIM), declared that the Syrian Arab Republic released sarin as a chemical weapon on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, 2017. Based on this allegation, those who made the decision concluded that the Damascus government had not declared all of its chemical weapons stockpiles and that the Syrian government must declare all of its remaining chemical stockpiles within 45 days following the adoption of the proposed decision.

This brings to mind an infamous precedent involving Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.

This US approach subsequently resulted in serious foreign policy outlays for Washington and major suffering for the Iraqi people.

Russia has always been firmly against the US proposal at the OPCW Executive Council, saying that the main provision of that proposal, which has placed the blame for the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun on Damascus, does not stand up to scrutiny. Russian experts provided facts to demonstrate the flaws of this conclusion at the interdepartmental briefing held at the Russian Foreign Ministry on November 2, 2017. It is notable that nobody has overturned these facts or even tried to do so since then. The United States and its allies have avoided an open professional discussion, pretending that these facts do not exist.

Ultimately, the United States had to withdraw its proposal. We would like to express our respect and gratitude to those states that have refused to support the US proposal and, by doing this, have demonstrated a high level of responsibility for taking substantiated and well-considered decisions at the OPCW.

The investigation of the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun is not over yet. The perpetrators will be identified sooner or later. Russia intends to continue to work towards this goal. At the same time, we will do our best to resist the politicisation of the OPCW and some countries’ attempts to use the Syria chemical file as a distasteful means of attaining pre-planned geopolitical goals.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2965703






Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question on Polish national Henryk Glebocki’s expulsion from Russia



27 November 2017 - 17:49





Question:

Could you comment on the expulsion of Polish historian Henryk Glebocki from Russia?



Zakharova:

We can confirm the expulsion of Polish national Henryk Glebocki from Russia. He is an employee of the Institute of History of Jagiellonian University in Cracow and the regional branch of the Polish Institute of National Memory. On November 24 this year, he was officially notified that in accordance with the Federal Law of August 15, 1996, On the Procedure for Exit from the Russian Federation and Entry to the Russian Federation, a decision was made that it was undesirable for him to remain in our country. On November 25, Mr Glebocki left the territory of Russia.

We would like to recall that on October 11 this year, on absurd charges, the Polish authorities expelled from Poland a Russian historian who was engaged in teaching there. The measures taken against Mr Glebocki are a response to this hostile act.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2968938






Comment by the Information and Press Department on a North Korean missile launch



29 November 2017 - 13:12



We are very concerned about yet another North Korean ballistic missile launched on November 29 in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

Today, against the backdrop of constant military activity by the United States and its allies in the region around the Korean Peninsula over the last few months, it is particularly important that the involved parties not provoke each other, but rather display restraint and avoid any new actions that could lead to the further escalation of tensions. In this connection, we urge the DPRK to stop its missile and nuclear tests. We also urge the United States and the Republic of Korea to refrain from holding unscheduled and unprecedented air force exercises as announced, in early December this year, which will aggravate an already explosive situation.

Russia’s position regarding a Korean Peninsula settlement remains unchanged: an effective search for a long-term and mutually acceptable solution for the range of problems is only possible through persistent and energetic political-diplomatic work. In this context, we urge all parties to implement the Russian road map for a Korean settlement. We see no reasonable alternative to this.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2971214






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the dismantling of part of a monument to Soviet POWs killed in the Karolowka concentration camp in Poland



30 November 2017 - 17:22



A new act of state vandalism against Soviet/Russian war memorials has been committed in Poland.

Part of a monument to the 20,000 Soviet prisoners of war who were executed by Nazis at the Karolowka concentration camp in November 1941 has been dismantled upon recommendations from the Polish Institute of National Remembrance and by decision of the council of the city of Zamosc, Lublin Voivodeship. The part that has been dismantled includes the images of the hammer and sickle and the information plaque.

It is not just an illegal act by the Polish officials, who seem to have no respect for the relevant bilateral agreements with Russia. It is an especially cynical and abominable act, because the vandalised monument stands in a place of sorrow and suffering.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2972269

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from Interfax news agency, Moscow, November 27, 2017



27 November 2017 - 19:00





Question:

A year ago the Americans would not allow our diplomats to visit polling stations. At that time Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that we will respond in kind. Have we told the Americans that their diplomats won’t have the right to visit our polling stations?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think we should send any notifications. For the time being we haven’t heard any names or appeals from countries and organisations that would like to send their observers. Needless to say, citizens of those countries that did not let our people visit their polling stations will not be particularly welcome here. We will take a relevant decision.



Question:

Are we monitoring the conduct, activities and the first steps of the new US ambassador in Russia? To what extent does he cooperate with opposition leaders?



Sergey Lavrov:

We do not watch ambassadors. We believe the ambassador of any country is supposed to find points of contact and develop warm, friendly, and, most important, mutually beneficial relations with the country where he is accredited. So far we have seen a constructive approach from Ambassador Jon Huntsman. I met with him and had a fairly detailed conversation. He was also received in many other places, including the Defence Ministry and other agencies.

As for his requests for additional meetings, we maintain parity with the way our new Ambassador Anatoly Antonov is received in the United States. Both ambassadors are demonstrating their desire to find constructive ideas that are much in demand in this difficult situation. I hope that a desire to seek benefits will prevail over a desire to harm our relations.



Question:

Considering the developments in Syria in the context of the Kurdish factor, will it be possible to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity without its federalisation? What is our view on its federalisation in general?



Sergey Lavrov:

We consider Syria’s territorial integrity a must. Nobody has yet said and I hope no one will ever say that this principle is subject to doubt. It is stated in a UN Security Council resolution and has been confirmed now at the Sochi summit of the Russian, Iranian and Turkish presidents, and during numerous sessions of various forums on Syria under the aegis of the UN and other agencies, including regional ones, for instance the Arab League.

As for what Syria will look like, besides being sovereign and unified, with its territorial integrity intact – that is to be decided by the Syrians themselves. UN Security Council resolutions and our agreements as part of the Astana format are aimed at starting direct dialogue between the Government of Syria and the full spectrum of the opposition.

UN Security Council Resolution 2254 says that it is for Syrians alone to determine the destiny of their country. Therefore, ideas about the arrangement of the government must be discussed in the course of inter-Syrian dialogue. After many unsuccessful attempts in the UN, this dialogue has finally been encouraged through the Astana process where the Syrian Government and the armed opposition sat at the negotiating table for the first time. Direct dialogue is a forthright requirement of the UN. As you know, at the Sochi summit Russian President Vladimir Putin, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Iran Hassan Rouhani set forth the initiative to convene the Syrian National Dialogue Congress to discuss primarily Constitutional reform and preparations of presidential and parliamentary elections on this basis. But only the Syrians can make all these decisions. The congress we suggest is one of the ways of moving toward this goal. We hope this will contribute to the talks that are expected to be resumed under the aegis of the UN in Geneva.



Question:

Will the Syrian National Dialogue Congress be convened before the New Year?



Sergey Lavrov:

If you read the statements by the three presidents, you probably noticed that the terms of holding it will be coordinated by the sides. There will be an additional announcement about this.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2968962






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Russian International Affairs Council’s general meeting, Moscow, November 28, 2017



28 November 2017 - 12:19









Mr Ivanov, colleagues, friends,

I’m pleased to participate in the Russian International Affairs Council’s general meeting devoted to its performance in 2017. Although the year is not out yet, it is already clear that it was, to put it mildly, by far not the easiest.

Conflicts continue to increase. Constructive interstate cooperation is on the decline, unfortunately. Unipolarity throwbacks raise concerns as one centre of international influence wants to act like a hegemon resorting to fast-track decisions, military blackmail, and brute force in order to promote its goals.

The situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula remains complex. Turbulence in the Middle East persists. Even though a major blow has been dealt to the terrorists who holed up there, we have so far failed to transform the mixed but generally useful experience gained by various stakeholders in forming a global anti-terrorist coalition under the auspices of the UN, the idea of which, as you are well aware, was advanced by President Putin about two years ago.

Given these circumstances, major crises continue to plague Libya, Iraq, and Yemen. Major agreements, which we consider an example of constructive multilateral cooperation, are in jeopardy. I’m referring, in particular, to the Iranian nuclear programme issue. Growing tension in the Persian Gulf not only in relation to Iran, but between the Arab monarchies as well, are of concern to us. The internal political crisis in neighbouring Ukraine has not been settled because of the Kiev authorities’ absolute unwillingness to comply with the Minsk Agreements in the part that concerns them, and the aspirations of Kiev’s Western curators to encourage such a position.

On the plus side, I would like to note the results of the meeting of the presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran in Sochi which took place on November 22, the resumed Geneva talks between the Syrian Government and the opposition groups, and preparations for the Syrian National Dialogue Congress. All of this seeks to promote the political process in Syria in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Russia's strategic interaction with a number of large states, including within BRICS and the SCO, continues to expand. The unification processes and projects in Eurasia actively continue, and major work is being done to harmonise the integration projects.

Overall, we are now going through a stage of mixed trends, which will continue. The world has entered a period of transformation. As one of the geopolitical centres and one the most active international players, Russia actively participates in forming a new, more just and democratic polycentric world order, the formation of which is a fact and a reality. This is a process, which, of course, will last for a long time.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing relentless attempts to reverse this process, which, we believe, are one of the main reasons for today's tensions in international relations.

Given these circumstances, clear understanding of the prospects for global development, and comprehensive understanding of the key trends in international affairs has taken on special significance. RIAC’s contribution to addressing these important tasks is significant, and its activities in 2017 deserve high praise. Much has been done in many different areas.

This is confirmed by objective measures, such as the number of publications and events. I will not list them all. The Council is confidently implementing its primary mission which is to promote Russia’s foreign policy interests.

In this regard, I will note the ever growing role of the Council as a provider of expert support for Russian diplomacy. The traditional international conference on Russia-China relations held in May is a case in point. It is gratifying to know that this successful undertaking has spread to include Russia-India cooperation. I’m referring to the conference, Russia and India: Strategic Vision of Bilateral Relations and the Changing World Order, which was held in October. I believe it’s important for this conference, just like the events on the Chinese matters, to become traditional for the Council.

I consider it important to continue to expand both the coverage of important international stories as well as the number of foreign partners. Given the current complicated situation, the role of interaction via experts and international affairs pundits in supporting the bilateral dialogue, and keeping our partners updated about our assessments, is growing. Joint research, which is another RIAC’s important area of focus, also contributes to this mission.

It is comforting to know that education remains one of the Council’s key functions, which is implemented in various forms, including summer schools, webinars, lectures, and breakfasts with experts. The updated version of the Council's website launched in May has already become one of the most popular Russian media platforms offering high-quality analytical material on important international topics. Notably, we have attained the level of leading Western websites in this area.

The Ministry values ​​its interaction with the Council. We are proud of the fact that this year Sergey Kislyak, who is present here, became one of its members, and Alexander Kramarenko became its programme director for development.

In general, I believe that the Council, which was established in 2011, has gained a strong form in the second five-year period of its activities. Dynamic and profound changes that the modern world is experiencing, the tasks that all of us who are involved in international relations and Russia’s foreign policy are faced with are becoming more complicated.

I’m confident that the Council will continue to successfully maintain its reputation as the leading domestic think tank providing expert and analytical support for the needs of Russia’s foreign policy.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2969147






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, Moscow, November 28, 2017



28 November 2017 - 16:50









Colleagues,

I welcome all the participants and guests of this meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad. We have the necessary quorum, so we can get to work. We have the agenda and the working materials. If you have no comments, I propose approving the agenda.

Providing all-round support to our compatriots and upholding their legitimate rights and interests are among our undeniable priorities, which are enshrined in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. We are all interested in further consolidating the Russian world, and bolstering the standing of its representatives in the countries of residence.

The Foundation, which has already accumulated considerable experience, is making its contribution to the overall efforts. The network of legal aid centres created by the Foundation provides support to representatives of Russian communities. I consider it important to regularly analyse the practical results of such activities, paying special attention to the centres which operate in countries with high levels of discrimination against our compatriots.

Using the media, including online posting, to provide qualified legal advice by leading experts on the most frequently asked questions, has a positive track record. This practice is particularly popular in countries where the authorities do not agree to open human rights centres operated by our Foundation. Such projects should be expanded, with special attention paid to the quality of materials, the relevance of topics, and prompt response to the issues at hand.

Amid incessant discrimination against our compatriots in a number of countries, including the Baltic countries and Ukraine, it is imperative to improve approaches to protecting their political, civil, ethnic and cultural rights. This area should remain a priority in the activities of the Foundation. It is necessary to step up efforts to uphold the positions of the Russian language, to preserve cultural heritage and historical memory and, in general, to counteract discrimination, including in everyday life. I consider it important to actively use the potential offered by multilateral platforms for these purposes.

We appreciate the efforts of the Foundation to counter World War II revisionism and the glorification of Nazis and their accomplices, and to combat manifestations of xenophobia, nationalism, and chauvinism. Importantly, all this work is carried out in full compliance with the norms of international law. This also applies to the efforts which we are currently undertaking in cooperation with a number of other states at the UN, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe in connection with the outrageous law on education adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The network of non-governmental organisations which can really act as entities protecting human rights with respect to compatriots should be expanded.

Much is being done today for Russian-speaking young people living abroad. A joint project with the Russian State Humanitarian University launched in 2013 is used to train a youth core group of human rights activists. The Foundation’s new youth-oriented project, Compatriots: Workshop of Meanings, which is being implemented by University of Technology in the town of Korolev outside Moscow, also holds a lot of promise. I believe it is important to continue such work aimed, among other things, at providing the movement of compatriots with fresh ideas, and ensuring generational continuity in the leadership of communities.

A meeting of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Compatriots Living Abroad was held on September 27. A draft Comprehensive Plan of the Key Steps to Implement the State Policy of the Russian Federation with Regard to Compatriots Living Abroad for 2018−2020 was approved. This plan outlines the tasks and key areas of our Foundation’s activity. I consider it necessary to do our best to make sure that the relevant decisions of the Commission are implemented completely, effectively, and energetically. Of course, I believe that all members of the Board of Trustees will do their utmost to facilitate this.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2969366






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Libero, Italy, published on November 30, 2017



30 November 2017 - 09:00





Question:

What subjects do you intend to broach in you remarks at the Mediterranean forum?



Sergey Lavrov:

I am glad to have an opportunity to once again attend the third international conference, Rome Mediterranean Dialogues 2017, sponsored by Italy’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation and the Italian Institute for International Political Studies.

Owing to the organisers’ energetic efforts, the forum has asserted itself, within a brief period of time, as an authoritative and much-needed expert venue for discussing current international problems relating to the Mediterranean region.

Those taking part at the two previous meetings discussed Mediterranean security, settlement of crises and conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Africa, and counteraction to international terrorism. The discussions were interesting, substantial, and aimed at looking for effective solutions to a wide range of subjects.

Today, this region continues to face numerous challenges. What I mean in particular is the persisting political and socio-economic instability in a number of its countries, the terrorist threat, radicalisation of public moods, and an uncontrolled growth of migration flows.

I am planning to focus on these problems as well as on the Russian approaches to dealing with them. I intend to emphasise that Russia is prepared for constructive interaction with all responsible players in the interests of ensuring peace, stability and security in the Mediterranean. It is only by pooling our efforts that we will be able to achieve this.



Question:

In his recent interview with Libero, the Russian Ambassador in Italy, Sergey Razov, stressed that the anti-Russian sanctions were inflicting great damage on the economies of Italy and other members of the EU. When, in your opinion, will Brussels abolish these suicidal restrictions?



Sergey Lavrov:

In fact, the sanctions are damaging to Russia’s cooperation with the EU and its member countries. Incidentally, Italian Ambassador to Russia Cesare Maria Ragaglini, as far as I know, called attention to this very fact in his interview with Corriere della Sera in July of this year.

Today, it is clear that the sanctions, which the Brussels bureaucrats have built up on instructions from Washington, have boomeranged against the European national producers. They have lost a number of their positions on the Russian market and continue sustaining considerable losses. America, for its part, has suffered no damage, because our trade with them is miniscule. Thus, the US establishment wants to address its anti-Russian agenda at the expense of the Europeans and use Europeans to do their dirty work. I suggest that you think about this. Not so very long ago, I had a chance to talk to representatives of European companies working in my country. Their stance is unequivocal: the business community does not want restrictions and political interference in business life.

As for the fate of sanctions, this question, to be sure, should be addressed to Brussels, not Moscow. We hope that the EU structures will prove strong enough to renounce policy-making with regard to Russia based on the “least common denominator” principle and stop taking their cues from a small, if extremely aggressive, group of Russia haters inside the EU. For our part, we will promote cooperation at a pace for which our European partners are ready.



Question:

Could the West defeat ISIS without the assistance of Russia’s Aerospace Forces?



Sergey Lavrov:

From your question, Western readers might think that the West is fighting ISIS and that Russia is helping the West. The situation is different. The US-led coalition against ISIS was established without a UN Security Council mandate and is not coordinating its actions with Syria’s government, which is a violation of international law.

As for the effectiveness of its actions, it became clear by mid-2015 that it was unable to attain its proclaimed goals. ISIS was increasing the area of its caliphate, was creating pseudo-state organisations and was printing its own currency. ISIS controlled nearly 70 per cent of Syrian territory. Despite the coalition headquarters’ victorious statements, ISIS continued to spread its misanthropic ideology and to stage bloody intimidation attacks in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as beyond it.

Realising that the strengthening of ISIS and similar terrorist groups can have dramatic consequences, Russia decided to help the Syrian government fight the proliferation of the various types of terrorism regardless of their ethnic or religious nature.

Here are some facts to show what has been done to rout ISIS. Over the two years since the Russian Aerospace Forces launched operations in Syria, they have eliminated over 900 terrorist training camps, over 660 munitions plants and 1,500 items of military equipment. Some 1,000 cities and towns have been liberated.

At this point, over 95 per cent of Syrian territory has been cleansed of ISIS. Peaceful life is returning to the country: 1.12 million refugees and internally displaced persons have returned to their homes, including 660,000 in 2017. I would like to point out that our operation in Syria proceeded in strict compliance with international law.

In 2015, President Putin proposed creating a broad UN-led international coalition. Regrettably, our calls for joining forces against ISIS were disregarded. Only recently have our Western partners seen that collective efforts are needed to fight terrorism. A vital political event in this context was the joint statement on Syria the presidents of Russia and the United State made on the sidelines of the APEC summit in Da Nang on November 11. It confirmed their determination to defeat ISIS in Syria. Possibilities for developing interaction in the fight against terrorism were also discussed in a telephone conversation between President Putin and President Trump on November 21.



Question:

Does Russia still hope to improve relations with the United States despite Russiagate and the Trump administration’s unfriendly actions?



Sergey Lavrov:

The situation in our bilateral relations remains very complicated. The US establishment is sinking in Russia-hating sentiments, which have been provoked by some political forces that refuse to accept the results of last year’s presidential election in the United States.

It is difficult to say what consequences the current difficult stage [in bilateral relations] will have. The divergence of opinions in the United States has reached its highest level in decades, spreading from the political and economic spheres to the entire range of social issues.

It appears that the US administration has not yet developed a clear Russia policy. Just as during his election campaign, President Trump continues to say that he would like to normalise relations and to develop cooperation with Russia on current international issues. He has said this more than once during telephone conversations and meetings with President Putin, including at the APEC summit in Da Nang.

In practice, however, the actions of President Trump’s team could be described as inertial; they do not differ much from Obama’s policy. Moreover, acting at the prompting of the anti-Russia lobby, the administration has taken many unfriendly steps in many areas, such as the expansion of unilateral restrictions, the implementation of global BMD plans, the build-up of US and NATO military presence at Russian borders, as well as attempts to discredit Russia’s foreign policy.

Russia-hating hysterics in the United States have resulted in the adoption of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. In other unprecedented moves, the United States has shut down the Russian Consulate General in San Francisco and seized five Russian diplomatic properties.

At this point, we can hardly expect any positive US moves. The potential for cooperation in global and bilateral affairs remains largely unused because of the anti-Russia hysterics. Declaring Russia an adversary in legislation is an absurd and irresponsible move. We in Russia do not look at the United States from the same angle. On the contrary, we have always respected the American nation and its achievements.

In other words, we will continue to act pragmatically and will not seek confrontation. We believe that it is in the common interests of Russia and the United States to join efforts against terrorism, drug trafficking, WMD proliferation and organised crime. A coordination of efforts is vitally important to settle regional conflicts. As President Putin has said more than once, Russia is open to cooperation with the United States on all issues and is willing to cover its part of the way towards stabilising and improving relations, which have deteriorated in the past few years through no fault of ours. We hope that common sense will prevail in Washington’s corridors of power in the foreseeable future.

At the same time, we will continue to reply to unfriendly moves on the principle of reciprocity.



Question:

Russia has successfully resolved problems linked with immigration from post-Soviet republics. What should the European Union and its member countries do to stem the tide of immigrants from North African countries which is supported by international organised crime?



Sergey Lavrov:

The large-scale immigration crisis that has engulfed Europe is the direct consequence of a policy of “exporting” the state system, of meddling in the domestic affairs of sovereign states, primarily those in the Middle East and North Africa. These short-sighted actions weakened or demolished institutions of state authority, caused humanitarian disasters and an upsurge of terrorism and extremism. This provoked an all-out exodus of people from these regions.

Obviously, it is impossible to effectively solve Europe’s immigration problems without the elimination of their root causes. It is necessary to redouble efforts for resolving crises and conflicts, primarily those in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen, by peaceful and political-diplomatic means. It is necessary to assist regional countries in either strengthening or restoring their statehood, conducting socioeconomic rehabilitation and putting them on the path of sustainable development. It is necessary to continue an uncompromising struggle against terrorism, as stipulated by the initiative of President Vladimir Putin to establish a broad anti-terrorist coalition under UN auspices that I have already mentioned.

Today, it is important to adequately monitor immigration flows and to rule out the possibility of terrorists penetrating European countries with people in need of real assistance. It is unacceptable to make refugees an object of political manipulations on the part of forces inciting ethnic, religious as well as social hatred. It is all the more unacceptable to use refugee camps for recruiting and training militants. At the same time, it is important to counter xenophobia, racism and intolerance towards immigrants themselves.

We are ready to continue cooperating with the EU in the area of immigration and to exchange experience in resolving immigration problems. We are interested in resuming contacts within the Russia-EU immigration dialogue as soon as possible. It goes without saying that we are ready to more actively cooperate with the EU while countering terrorism.

And, finally, we believe that countries that were actively involved in destabilising vast regions of the Middle East and North Africa should assume the greatest primary responsibility for assisting refugees and forced migrants. In this connection, we perceive the “sharing of responsibility” concept being advanced by a number of states as an attempt to shift the relevant burden on someone else’s shoulders.



Question:

How would you describe the situation in southeastern Ukraine? Will Crimea always be part of Russia?



Sergey Lavrov:

The situation in southeastern Ukraine remains complicated. The stability of the ceasefire cannot be ensured because of Kiev’s unwillingness to stop using military force to resolve the problem of Donbass.

The back to school truce announced by the Minsk Contact Group on August 25 and supported by the leaders of the four Normandy format states has helped reduce tension on the contact line but has not stopped the shelling altogether. OSCE SMM reports point to continued violations of the silence regime by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

This is not surprising. President Poroshenko promised to redeploy missile and artillery units any time to use these systems, which are prohibited under the Minsk Agreements, against Donbass civilians. Ukrainian actions have supported his words. On the night of November 5, government forces used the Grad multiple-launch rocket systems to attack Donetsk suburbs.

Ukraine is not honouring the agreements on the disengagement of forces and the creation of three pilot areas on the contact line that were reached by the Normandy format leaders in Berlin in October 2016.

The Minsk Agreements clearly stipulate the sequence of actions and link military and political issues in one package. The settlement of these issues depends on consistency, if not exact timing. But consistency is not one of Kiev’s strong points. They continue to say that the political part of the Minsk II agreement cannot be implemented without the full silence regime in Donbass. They demand capitulation and disarmament from the self-defence forces. And they continue to demand the reinstatement of full control of the state border, although the Minsk Agreements place this in the final stage of the settlement.

At the same time, Kiev refuses to admit that a search for compromise through direct dialogue with Donbass is key to a settlement. This is the basic precept of the Minsk Agreements, to which there is no alternative. The issue concerns giving the southeastern regions special status and sealing it in the constitution, holding local elections, providing an amnesty and implementing true decentralisation. No settlement will be stable without this.

During a news conference following the BRICS summit in China in September 2017, President Putin proposed establishing a UN mission that would provide security for the OSCE mission in southeastern Ukraine. The idea is that the UN group would only ensure the security of the OSCE SMM staff on both sides of the contact line in the disengagement area, as well as the OSCE staff patrolling other regions of the conflict in keeping with its mandate under the Minsk Agreements. UN peacekeepers would be deployed in the conflict area after the disengagement of the sides’ weapons and personnel. The deployment of UN personnel would be coordinated with the authorities in Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. At the same time, the Minsk Agreements must remain the basis for the settlement, and the existing negotiating formats – the Minsk Contact Group and the Normandy format – must be preserved as well.

As for the second part of your question, this issue has been settled once and for all. I would like to point out that we are talking about the free and democratic expression of will by the Crimeans who made their choice in favour of peace and prosperity. This exercise of the right to self-determination was the only possible way to protect the vital interests of the people against the rising wave of nationalist radicalism which seized power in Ukraine in a state coup in February 2014. It is clear now that the will Crimeans expressed at their referendum protected them from the horrors of a civil war, which Kiev has been waging in Donbass for over three years.



Question:

Is it right to say that President Vladimir Putin is creating a civilisational model in Russia which is based on traditional values, Christianity and the defence of the family, and which is an alternative to the globalist model that tends to erode people’s national identity?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russia, which is historically built on the principles of a peaceful co-existence of cultures, faiths and ethnicities, is paying great attention to efforts to bring society together on the basis of eternal spiritual and moral values. We consider this as a major factor in securing the dynamic and sustainable development of the country and strengthening its position in international affairs. In so doing, we are not dictating our will to anybody, nor are we teaching others what to do. We respect the rights of other nations to choose political and socioeconomic models on their own.

We are concerned about the existing trend in a number of Western countries towards substituting universal human values with quasi-liberal ones and this not only within their national borders. There is no end to the attempts to aggressively export [these new values], which are being increasingly resisted by other nations seeking to preserve their lifestyles as well as their own national identity.

We believe that the solidarity of the global community should be based on traditional ideals shared by the world’s leading religions and cultures. Clearly, it is impossible to find effective solutions to numerous existing problems unless we strengthen the moral foundation of international life. We will further work to build relations between states on the principles of honesty, truth and justice.



Question:

Russia is building a new multipolar world. What is your geopolitical concept?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, I want to note that we are not building anything. The configuration of the international system is influenced by objective factors. Obviously, any attempts to build a world order or adjust it to suit someone’s interests are doomed to failure.

Recent events have clearly shown that the efforts of a small group of countries led by the United States to build a unipolar model of the world order, adapting the Cold War institutions to present-day realities, have failed. The world has not become either West-centric or safer and more stable. Old crises and conflicts remain unresolved while new challenges to security are emerging. The unprecedented upsurge in international terrorism still poses a serious threat.

Today we are speaking about the shaping of a fairer and more democratic polycentric or multipolar world order. It is an objective process that is associated with the emergence and strengthening of new economic and political “centres of power” in the Asia Pacific region, Latin America and Africa, who are seeking to pursue an independent foreign policy and are taking an active part in the development of international and regional agendas. The multipolarity encapsulates the diversity of cultural and historical traditions and political and economic systems, as well as the aspiration of nations to decide their fate on their own.

The attempts to slow down this tendency, reverse it and retain one’s dominant position may only lead to greater chaos and instability. It is in our common interests to make the process of shaping a new global architecture sustained and predictable. To make this happen we need to get back to the main principles of international life formulated in the Charter of the United Nations Organisation, including the sovereign equality of countries, non-interference in their internal affairs and the peaceful settlement of disputes.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2971828






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question on the sidelines of the Joint Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Council of Defence Ministers and the Security Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, Minsk, November 30, 2017



30 November 2017 - 12:08





Question:

Earlier, the United States urged the world to suspend all ties with North Korea and to stop trade, in particular. What does the Russian side think of this idea?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have a negative view of this idea. We have already noted repeatedly that the sanctions pressure has been virtually depleted. All resolutions introducing sanctions contained a mandatory demand to resume the political process and talks. The US side completely ignores precisely this demand. I believe this is a big mistake.

In addition, it appears that the latest US actions deliberately aim to provoke Pyongyang into taking new drastic steps. This past September, our American colleagues hinted confidentially to us (I will make no secret out of this) that the next exercise was only scheduled for spring and that the DPRK could take advantage of this pause and not make any abrupt moves either. Why not try and launch some kind of dialogue in this situation? We were reassured by this approach. And now, after they told us that the next exercise was set for spring, they are holding an unscheduled exercise in October and November, and now they have also announced a large-scale exercise for December. One gets the impression that everything was deliberately done to make Kim Jong-Un lose his nerve and take another reckless action. This is regrettable.

The Americans should, above all, explain to all of us what they want to achieve. If they want to find a pretext for destroying North Korea, as the US Ambassador to the UN has stated, then they should say this openly, and let the top US leadership also confirm this. We would then make a decision on how to respond to this.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2971951






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to VGTRK questions on the sidelines of the Joint Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the Council of Defence Ministers and the Security Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, Minsk, November 30, 2017



30 November 2017 - 14:45





Question:

You have said that the team of US President Donald Trump is conducting just about the same policy as that of Barack Obama. Does this mean that a complete blind alley is in store for us?



Sergey Lavrov:

Some of our assessments show the situation to be really deplorable. I regretted when I’d read a recent speech made by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars. In his opinion, virtually all foreign policy problems now encountered by the United States are linked with Russia. I believe this is a tribute to the US domestic situation.

I know US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson well; and, in principle, he is a reasonable person. But one has to say that any reasonable desires are being severely tested by the Russophobic US Congress, and this is sad.



Question:

Will Russia annul the accreditation of US media outlets covering the work of institutions of state authority?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our official spokespersons have already discussed this matter. The framework law that has been passed allows us to respond symmetrically. As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has said, we will act this way.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2972073

[Alex Him]

Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov’s remarks at the Sixth Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development (ISID) Forum



28 November 2017 - 11:25





Mr Director General,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The UNIDO Programme for Country Partnership (PCP) is a unique system for providing assistance to the member states’ inclusive and sustainable industrial development. This new UNIDO model is based on an in-depth analysis of the beneficiary countries’ industrial development priorities, the implementation of the required reforms in close cooperation with the beneficiary countries’ governments, and with the involvement of the expert and financial potential of state and public institutions.

The PCP model corresponds to the provision of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development for strengthening and promoting Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. We are convinced that global prosperity can be achieved only through the mobilisation of all available resources and the efforts of the government, the private sector, civil societies and the UN system. Russia has been working to promote this model through action rather than in word. In 2017, we contributed to the implementation of the PCP model in Ethiopia aimed at creating a technical and institutional potential for increasing production and developing aquaculture and fishery value chains in Ethiopia.

We believe that the PCP model should be applied to more geographical areas, including the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). We support Kyrgyzstan’s application for PCP participation.

Russia and Kyrgyzstan are long-time strategic partners and allies within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Kyrgyzstan is Russia’s major trade and economic partner. Their mutual trade reached $1.2 billion in 2016.

Kyrgyzstan’s EAEU partnership offers many advantages. The lifting of the customs, sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions is promoting the development of close integration ties in trade, industry and agriculture. Russia is helping Kyrgyzstan adjust its economy to the EAEU requirements, including by providing assistance for the modernisation of its customs infrastructure and customs checkpoints.

Russia is also helping Kyrgyzstan modernise its economy by promoting the development of the private sector and competitive production. Russia has invested $500 million in the Russian-Kyrgyz Development Fund, which has been established for the above purpose. The Fund has been established to invest in promising projects with the potential for a multiplier effect. Projects worth $200 million are being implemented with the Fund’s assistance.

In addition, we have allocated $225 million as budget stabilisation grants to Kyrgyzstan. We are also implementing a programme to write off Kyrgyzstan’s sovereign debt, which helps release funds needed for vital programmes, including socioeconomic ones.

We are also supporting Kyrgyzstan by supplying duty-free petrochemicals. We supplied over 1 million tonnes of petrochemicals to the country in 2016.

Russian companies are actively involved in the development of Kyrgyzstan. For example, Gazprom’s large-scale project to deliver gas and connect users to gas supply networks is designed to enhance the accessibility of affordable energy in Kyrgyzstan. Total investment in the country’s gas transportation and distribution network is estimated at 100 billion roubles. The share of users connected to gas supply networks will increase from 22 per cent to 60 per cent.

Another focus is on training Kyrgyzstani personnel in various spheres, including industry. Over 16,000 Kyrgyzstanis are studying at Russian universities, and 5,000 of them receive Russian state scholarships.

We believe that Kyrgyzstan should also receive assistance and support from international organisations. We are working with UNIDO to implement two major projects in Kyrgyzstan: “Promoting community level job creation and income generating activities through the development of cost-effective building materials production in Kyrgyzstan” and “Linking the Tourism Industry to Productive Activities in the Issyk-Kul Region of the Kyrgyz Republic.” Kyrgyzstan is also involved in the Russia-financed UNIDO regional CIS project to improve the standards of industrial statistics.

In our opinion, Kyrgyzstan’s participation in the Programme for Country Partnership will help make broader use of the country’s industrial potential and attract more donors and investors. Russia has allocated over $500,000 to the UNIDO Partnership Trust Fund to draft a programme for Kyrgyzstan’s sustainable industrial development in 2017-2020 and the PCP framework for Kyrgyzstan. We are working with other potential participants and donors. The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the UNDP Resident Representative in the Kyrgyz Republic have expressed support for applying the PCP model in Kyrgyzstan.

It is notable that the Kyrgyzstani authorities are committed to promoting inclusive and sustainable industrial development in the country. We are convinced that Kyrgyzstan’s participation in the PCP will facilitate the sustainable socioeconomic development of the country, which is a friend of Russia, as well as Central Asia as a whole.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2969087






Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov’s remarks at the 17th session of the UNIDO General Conference, Vienna, November 27, 2017



28 November 2017 - 21:48





Madam Chair,

Mr Director General,

Delegates,

Ladies and gentlemen,

The Russian Federation is committed to international cooperation for sustainable development. We are ready for fruitful cooperation with any interested party in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the 2030 Agenda). We believe that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as formulated in the 2030 Agenda are effective tools for building “a world in which every country enjoys sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all.”

We are ready for a constructive dialogue on the reform of the Organisation’s development system. We would like to point out the need to adjust this process to the basic provisions of UN General Assembly Resolution 71/243 on the quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational activities for development of the UN system.

We believe that the reforms should leave intact the unique mandates of the UN specialised agencies and should focus them on providing assistance to the countries that are willing to implement the 2030 Agenda. All of the reforms must be based on the decisions taken by the UN member states, which must maintain control over the decision-making process and over the system of monitoring financial as well as human resources following the reforms.

Madam Chair,

Russia is committed to its obligations in the area of International Development Assistance (IDA). We are convinced that development assistance amounts to investment in global stability and is a major factor of a crisis-resistant international system.

Russia’s assistance is aimed at settling the current problems of our partners. The key priority of Russia’s IDA policy at the global level is to help countries eradicate poverty. According to the latest data, the volume of Russia’s IDA reached $1.1 billion in 2016.

Madam Chair,

We reaffirm our resolve to promote multifaceted cooperation with UNIDO as the main UN body in the area of inclusive industrial development. Our relations with UNIDO have reached a strategic level. Russia is one of the largest donors to the Industrial Development Fund.

We plan to sign a revised Memorandum on a Strategic Partnership between the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) and the Government of the Russian Federation during this session. The document is fully in keeping with our donor status and is designed to strengthen some aspects of our cooperation.

Russia is financing 12 UNIDO technical assistance programmes of inclusive and sustainable development in partner states. A major focus in our cooperation with UNIDO is on the preparations for a Global Forum of Environmental and Convergent Technologies for Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development, which will be held in Moscow in the first half of 2018 at the initiative of the President of Russia.

We would like to use this occasion to congratulate UNIDO Director General Li Yong on his election for a second term. We highly value Mr Li Yong’s efforts to promote the UNIDO mandate and industrialisation ideas at the leading international venues, as well as his contribution to enhancing the quality of UNIDO services. We take note of the expansion of the Organisation’s activities under the guidance of its Director General, the most important of which is the new Programme for Country Partnership (PCP).

Madam Chair,

We support the efforts of the UNIDO Secretariat to restore the full UNIDO mandate and to take it out of the artificial boundaries of a project agency. We welcome measures that are being taken to promote international industrial cooperation programmes and to implement analytical as well as policy advisory projects in the area of industrial policy, standardisation and accreditation for purposes of the promotion of international trade.

We welcome the decision to include the goal of strengthening knowledge and institutions in the medium-term programme framework. The achievement of this goal will be a major factor of maintaining the Organisation’s membership and to enhance its profile amid the changing trends of global industrial development.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2969498






Statement by Anton Mazur, Head of the Russian Delegation to the Vienna Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control, at a joint session of OSCE Forum for Security Co-operation and OSCE Permanent Council, Vienna, November 29, 2017



30 November 2017 - 17:29





Esteemed co-chairs,

First, we would like to thank you for convening today's session and, of course, to thank distinguished Ambassador Eberhard Pohl for the skilful organisation and leadership of the Informal Working Group on Structured Dialogue, as well as for his report summarising its work in 2017.

The Structured Dialogue is inseparable from the pan-European political process. It can evolve only on the basis of equality and mutual consideration of interests. It must serve to de-escalate the situation, restore trust and help advance the goal, set at the top level, of building a community of equal and indivisible security. A joint mutually respectful discussion, without bellicose rhetoric or an exchange of accusations, should lead us to a general idea and to an understanding of the key elements of ​​a new European security model, beneficial to all. This would create the basis for moving towards a discussion of practical arrangements.

A constructive and depoliticised discussion is especially needed in the current complicated situation and, in this sense, the progress made within the framework of the Structured Dialogue gives some hope. We note the positive dynamics in the remarks of European experts (primarily, the military), their gradual departure from unfounded accusations against Russia, and their willingness to pursue constructive interaction. It is important to avoid attempts to return to fruitless talk about who broke the rules and obligations and when, and instead to consolidate the positive trend, focusing on the discussion on the formation of constructive mutual understanding in the sphere of “hard security.”

In this context, the process of joint analysis of trends in the armed forces and military activities, which began recently, may also be useful. An unbiased systematic review of changes in the military-political situation on the continent, including the entire range of factors affecting it, in historical retrospect, (beginning in the 1990s), based on official sources, could bring about a better understanding of the current balance of forces on the continent and prospects for maintaining general security in the foreseeable future. We are ready to continue this and to discuss specific issues in the military activities of the participating states and military-political alliances in Europe, and the mutual concerns of individual countries. Of course, this can be done with the understanding that the purpose of this joint work is not talk for the sake of talking, or transparency for the sake of transparency, but the promotion of understanding for a subsequent transition to deliberating concrete steps towards reducing military and political tensions in the OSCE space and, in particular, in the contact zone of the armed forces of Russia and NATO countries (we cannot afford to ignore the existence of this military-political alliance). There have been examples of such dialogue throughout history and, over time, this led to the development of practical agreements on measures of restraint and trust in the military-technical sphere. Of course, the discussion of this issue will depend on developments regarding the deployment by NATO countries of forward-based forces near Russian borders.

I would also like to emphasise that what we currently lack is precisely a dialogue between military specialists in various formats and this has arisen as a result of the decision by NATO countries to suspend practical military cooperation with Russia. If the aim of one of these countries was to "punish" Russia, this ploy failed, and the real outcome has been the loss of the channels of communication, which could be used to discuss issues of mutual concern. We, in turn, did not freeze anything and repeatedly confirmed our openness to a dialogue. So it's up to our partners now.

Russia's attitude to continued work within the Structured Dialogue will largely depend on whether NATO countries are willing to consolidate de-escalation of the situation, to reduce military confrontation, to restore relations in the military sphere, and to make concrete steps in this area priority goals. Such steps would include: the cessation of military activities and the deployment of forces and infrastructure near Russia’s borders, the refusal to consolidate a foreign presence in the Baltic region and Eastern Europe, a return to original frontiers, at least to where NATO forces were at the beginning of 2014. Once this is achieved, it would then be possible to move on to planning joint work regarding conventional arms control in Europe and building trust and security.

In closing, I would like to make a few wishes for the future. We should avoid walking in circles or duplicating discussions which are traditionally held at the OSCE Permanent Council and the Forum. We must try to move forward, shifting from the "who is to blame" question to the "what to do" question and concentrating on forming constructive common understandings. In this context, de-escalating the situation and reducing military confrontation should become a priority topic for our further discussions.

Thank you, esteemed co-chairs, and I would like this statement to be attached to the minutes of today's meeting.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2972292






Press release on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (PABSEC)



1 December 2017 - 14:16



According to incoming information, the Ukrainian chairmanship actually banned the delegation of Armenian parliamentarians from joint work on the amendments of fundamental nature to the final declaration at the session of the PABSEC General Assembly in Kiev on November 30. As a result, the Armenian delegation had to walk out in protest.

It is becoming quite clear that Ukraine is not coping with its duties as PABSEC chairman: It violates the generally accepted norms and principles, on which the work at multilateral organisations is based, fails to ensure delegations’ full-scale participation in the events, and tramples on the basic principles of parliamentarianism. It is appropriate to mention here that the Russian parliamentary delegation has not received an invitation to attend the PABSEC General Assembly session in Kiev either, which also interferes with the PABSEC order of procedure. Regrettably, these violations of the rights of delegations take place with the tacit approval of its other members. We believe that this matter calls for a serious debate at the Assembly.

As for the Ukrainian amendments, they were introduced into the coordinated draft declaration at the last moment and were of a patently provocative nature.

The Ukrainians have actually abused their chairmanship by twisting the PABSEC delegates’ arms and made them approve clearly unbalanced formulas that went beyond the economic agenda that the Parliamentary Assembly of Black Sea Economic Cooperation should handle. Moreover, the session that was timed to coincide with the 25th PABSEC anniversary has approved a final declaration, which should have been imbued with a unifying spirit but fell hostage to Ukraine’s destructive aspirations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2972998

[Jack Mohr]

goddamn that is a massive useless wall of text! congrats

[Alex Him]

Originally Posted by Jack Mohr

goddamn that is a massive useless wall of text! congrats

I want to surpass the Great Wall of China

[Jack Mohr]

Originally Posted by Alex Him

I want to surpass the Great Wall of China

well i think you've done it several times over

[Alex Him]

Originally Posted by Jack Mohr

well i think you've done it several times over

Then I must set myselfs a new ambitious goal:
To create as many posts here as there are stars in our galaxy

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions at the joint news conference following talks with Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Angelino Alfano, Rome, December 1, 2017



1 December 2017 - 19:09









Question:

What is the Russian position on the current difficulties between the United States and the DPRK? Are there tensions with the US over the issue?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our position on the problems of the Korean Peninsula is straightforward, honest and open. It has been set forth more than once, including by the Russian President Vladimir Putin. As we see it, the main task is to prevent an armed conflict that would have catastrophic consequences above all for the countries situated there – the Republic of Korea and Japan. And we should not forget that China and Russia also border on North Korea.

Together with our Chinese partners we have prepared a roadmap, which envisages renunciation of any actions that build up tensions, strengthening trust and negotiations on how to ensure denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula in a way that does not jeopardise the security of any country there that is interested in tranquillity. We expect that on the whole this would contribute to the creation in Northeast Asia of a system of collective, equal and indivisible security without blocs.

As for the US position, we are in very close contact with the American representatives who deal with the Korean Peninsula. We have had meetings in Moscow and at other venues. We have assumed that Washington is aware of the need not to aggravate tension, not to launch major military actions in response to the situation that calls for far more consideration and well-thought-out reactions. Unfortunately, the last couple of months give the impression that there are people in Washington who have decided to provoke Pyongyang into taking new reckless actions at all costs. Major unscheduled military exercises were announced in October. Fresh exercises have been announced for December although according to the regular schedule they are not to be held until next spring. If someone really wants to use force in order to “destroy” North Korea, as the US representative to the UN said (it was a very bloodthirsty tirade) I believe this kind of playing with fire is a big mistake. We will do all we can to prevent this happening so that the problem is resolved only by peaceful, political and diplomatic means.



Question (addressed to Angelino Alfano):

How do you assess Russia’s contribution to the peace process in Libya? Is the Russian Federation playing a positive or a negative role in the process of national reconciliation?



Sergey Lavrov:

As regards the Libya crisis or any other conflict situations we always proceed from the need to involve in dialogue all concerned parties. We never support attempts to isolate anyone. We did not support it in Syria in 2011, when our Western counterparts declared that they would not talk to the legitimate government. We did not support the attempts in Libya to isolate the eastern part of the country, as Angelino Alfano has just said. We really engage with everyone without exception. I think this principle applies to any conflict.

Thank you for the kind words about our approach. We are always in favour of team play and we never try, in any country, to set anyone against the other side. As Angelino Alfano said, we will support the efforts of UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative Ghassan Salame. He is in contact with us. I think the mediation efforts of the countries in the region and the European states, including Russia, must at the end of the day be coordinated by the UN.



Question:

Does the Russian Foreign Ministry plan to suspend the accreditation of any American media outlets in response to the cancelation of the accreditation of Russia Today journalists with the US Congress?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are looking into the situation with your TV network. I am sure that this is totally unacceptable for any country that is at all civilised.

I cannot tell you now what our response will be. I would hate to enter a cycle of tit-for-tat bans, which would harm the media and the people who rely on the media to get information on what is happening in the world.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2973778






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’ remarks and answers to media questions during the Rome MED: Mediterranean Dialogues international conference, Rome, December 1, 2017



1 December 2017 - 22:00









S. Lavrov:

Thank you very much and it is really a pleasure to be here for the third time. I appreciate the invitation and if my interventions are helpful then I think it is in our common interests. I am sure that the previous speakers listed the problems facing the Middle East region, the Mediterranean region. Migration, outburst of terrorism which is to be defeated and we are moving towards this goal in Syria. But it is not going to be the end of terrorism in the region and beyond. The illegal flow of arms, foreign terrorist fighters moving freely through Libya, some other countries, to Sahara Sahel region. And we all have to fight these threats and these challenges. We have to address these challenges. But we never must forget how all this started.

The problems of the region, the turmoil in the region, as you described it, is a direct result of outside interference, of the attempts of geopolitical engineering under the slogan of removing dictators. Saddam Hussein was removed. And I am sure that you understand what kind of situation is in Iraq. Muammar Qaddafi was murdered - I cannot find another word - by those who grossly violated the Security Council resolution about no-fly zone. And OK this authoritarian regime was also removed and what happened to Libya. Some people say it would be close to impossible to restore the statehood of that country.

So we do have to understand that while addressing the problems like migration, like illegal flow of arms, terrorism that we don’t make similar mistakes. We don’t allow anyone to make similar mistakes in the future. Ruining countries for the sake of very doubtful process, imposing somebody’s values, somebody’s way of life on others with different culture, with different traditions, I believe it is very reckless. And we don’t want another region to become, you know, a shop where china has been broken all over the place.

I stop here and I am ready to entertain your comments. I’m sure I can count on the previous speakers to describe the attitude towards what is going on and I don’t want to repeat them. So let’s become interactive.



Question:

Minister, thank you very much. Also, thanks for framing the discussion in a way that will allow for an exchange of views. As you said, we had the previous speakers to describe each from their point of view the developments in the Middle East. And you have hinted what you consider the roots of the problems we are facing nowadays. Let me try to move you a step further in the discussion. You hinted that the roots…



S. Lavrov:

No, I did not hint. I gave you names.



Question:

You gave them for you made clear and we know what your views are on this. Could I ask you to elaborate a bit more on the vision Russia has of the Middle East. What sort of region you wish for, you hope for and you – I imagine - you think you are contributing at the moment?



S. Lavrov:

Well, it’s peace. It’s stability. It’s conditions for development. It’s openness to the outside world. It’s also keeping the centuries-long tradition of ethnic and confessional groups of different nature living together. The future of Christians in the Middle East is very important. This is probably the most suffered group because of the crisis which is going on. And certainly the Middle East where all countries, including Iraq, including Syria, including Libya, all others choose the way they want to live. And certainly this is a region where the Palestinian problem has been resolved on the basis of what we have been deciding many many years ago and on the basis of direct deal between Israelis and Palestinians for a viable Palestinian state and for security of all countries in the region, including of course the security of Israel. This is more or less the picture which I believe we would prefer.



Question:

How do you move from the current situation to the picture you have described?



S. Lavrov:

First, we have to overcome the results of very reckless, very brutal intervention in Iraq first under the entirely false pretext, as you know now, then in Libya, as I said, violating grossly the Security Council mandate for no-fly zone. And the same was attempted to be done to Syria. So we have to now overcome the consequences of these absolutely reckless unacceptable policies.

If you take Syria, we have to move towards the inclusive Syrian dialogue, national dialogue between all Syrians. The same is necessary for Libya. The same is necessary for Iraq. Inclusive national dialogue is, I believe, the feature which would be represented in any country if we want political solutions.

On migration I understand that these days there was a meeting in Abidjan between the European Union and the African Union. So it would be waiting for some ideas which might be operational and might be helpful in practical terms. I met today with Prime Minister Gentiloni and Minister Alfano. And we supported the intention of Italy as it begins to chair the OSCE next year to make migration one of the key topics. It’s a very elaborate approach which Italian friends presented to us and we support it.

And of course restoration of cultural heritage. What ISIL and Nusra were doing in Syria, in Iraq, ruining the temples and the churches, is a loss for the entire world civilization. And we’re now suggesting that UNESCO should become a bit more active in studying the necessary work in Aleppo and including on Umayyad Mosque which was almost ruined.

And certainly we need to have much more humanitarian assistance on the ground. Be it Syria, be it Yemen, especially in these two countries it is absolutely important. And also to think about future, restoration of economy of the countries who have been ruined by the war, by wars actually. And I believe it is not very correct, to put it mildly, to condition the programmes to restore economic and social sectors in countries under question by demanding the regime change as we now watch some people say about Syria. So that’s what we have to do. And that’s demining of course is another goal which we have to promote. It’s a huge task in Syria and anywhere else to move along these lines while keeping the pledge which we are all given to respect: sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, non-sectarian nature. But there is no other way. If we allow Syria to fall apart as some outside players I believe wouldn’t mind, then it would be reverberating all over the region and in a very bad way.



Question:

Mr. Minister looking at the outcome of the Sochi summit, it appears in the region that Russia is willing to take a leadership role in ending the conflict in Syria. And then also at the same time it looks that at this point in time Russia is the only power that speaks with all the protagonists in the region. So I wanted to ask, first of all, does Russia envision a much more structured peace process moving forward? And also, as part of that, does it see a role for itself, for instance, to mediate between some of the countries in the region like Iran and Saudi Arabia which have zero-sum positions on Syria in order to facilitate a broader deal. And then also when you arrive at a deal, do you envision staying in the region longer to protect that deal and to make sure that ISIS doesn’t return, that things don’t fall apart again.



S. Lavrov:

Well, first, we were not trying to lead for the sake of being considered a leader. We have interfered at the request of the legitimate government of United Nations Member State in September 2015 to save the State of Syria from falling in the hands of ISIL which was getting very close to Damascus and controlled most of the Syrian territory by that time, with Nusra also taking control of some places.

And I believe we achieved quite considerable results especially now that ISIL is almost defeated, the operation on the Eastern bank of the Euphrates river goes on and I think that we have to really concentrate on the help to those who fight terrorists in Syria. First of all, this is the Syrian army. We are doing this, we are helping them together with Iran, who was also invited. Others, yes, fight terrorists but they were not invited. There is a problem but we managed being pragmatic to establish some understanding with the United States, starting by "de-conflicting", as they call it, but this "de-conflicting" is quite substantive, I would say. And hopefully we would be guided, all of us, first of all, the United States, by what Rex Tillerson and quite a number of other officials in Washington publicly stated several times, namely, that the only goal why the United States is in Syria is to fight ISIL. Now we hear a slightly nuanced approach saying that, yes, this would also require staying longer for a year and a half, a couple of years, just to make sure that ISIL, or ISIS, does not return. We believe that after the end of the war against ISIS all foreign units who were not invited by the legitimate government of a UN Member State or who are not there under the Security Council resolution, because there is none on this score, they should leave.

About the leading, as you call it, you know, after we interfered with our Air Force to help the Syrian government fight terrorists, we were very much in favor of the peace process in Geneva under the United Nations auspices, as you might have heard, together with John Kerry at the instructions of Presidents Putin and Obama in September 2016. We managed to compile a common document, which basically was not about de-conflicting, but it was about coordination, including coordination of the efforts of the US and Russia against terrorist targets. In other words, no one strikes until the other side agrees that this is a legitimate and the right target. The only thing which was required for this agreement to become operational was for the United States to deliver on its commitment to separate the opposition with whom they cooperate from Nusra. ISIL was not a problem because ISIL was not mixing with others. Nusra was mixing some units for joining it and dropping from it. And we have noticed long ago that for the last three years, at least when the United States compiled the coalition and they moved into Syrian airspace, that Nusra was spared. Yes, they were taking ISIL not as intensively as we would like them to do, but Nusra was almost never touched, which of course was brought in our discussions with them. And they were saying that this is not the case but there was some suspicion that they were keeping Nusra just in case when the Plan B would be required so that it could be used against the regime. It is not this way now and I hope that our regular contacts with American military were useful to promote a common understanding of what is the right counter-terrorist strategy in Syria.

And so, when the Americans and the Obama administration failed to deliver on the separation of the patriotic opposition from Nusra, we understood that the administration was not credible any longer on the Syrian situation. And then we had to be pragmatic and we started this Astana process together with Turkey and Iran, which is not really a couple of countries who are very much natural in doing something together, and I think that the results of the Astana process, especially the creation of de-escalation areas, one of which was negotiated between us, the Americans and Jordan, is really making a difference on the ground. Everybody recognizes this but we have to be very careful not to allow these de-escalation areas to become a step towards splitting Syria in various parts. Unfortunately, the Americans unilaterally created a 55-kilometer radius zone in At Tanf, which, we believe, is absolutely unnecessary, and inside this unilaterally proclaimed area is the Ruban refugee camp, which is being used regularly by ISIL remnants, who even have been making some inroads from outside that circle. We are raising this issue with the United States, and I hope that they will accept the conclusions which we have through our military convey to them that it is no longer necessary. And unless they really want to carve out some part of Syria and establish the local administrations loyal to the United States and not talking to the central government, unless this is their plan, I hope that we can handle this situation.

We, on the contrary, we are promoting the national reconciliation mechanisms between the authorities who are inside the de-escalation areas on the one hand and the Damascus government on the other hand. Humanitarian assistance is moving in and so on and so forth.

But when Astana process was launched in late December last year with the meeting of Foreign Ministers and Defense Ministers of Russia, Turkey and Iran in Moscow, it was only after this was announced that we created this troika that our United Nations friends started moving. Before that, there were about nine months of absence of any meeting in Geneva, so, in a way, Astana process stimulated the United Nations not to drag behind and to do something. By the same token, there was a huge pause again this year when our Saudi colleagues were trying to bring the various groups of opposition together. Eventually, they managed to do this, which we discussed today with Minister Jubeir. But as they were negotiating with these opposition groups, Geneva process was non-existent. But when the meeting between the Presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey took place, when it was announced, immediately my good friend Staffan de Mistura announced his own date for the resumption of the Geneva process.

So those efforts, those initiatives are mutually supportive and we certainly, as the President of Russia repeatedly stated, we want the solution to be based firmly on the Resolution 2254 under the United Nations umbrella, Constitution, new Constitution, parliamentary and presidential elections under United Nations supervision. This is our position as we describe it.



Question:

Well, I just wanted to sort of maybe ask specifically what step comes after Sochi particularly in engaging Arab countries who were not present in Sochi – to also sort of subscribe to an endgame in Syria.



S. Lavrov:

Well, the three countries who met in Sochi are the three countries of the Astana process, which is also a process where the opposition started talking directly to the government. This never happened before. And the opposition which is represented in the Astana context is the opposition who fights the government. Before Astana, the representation of opposition in Geneva was compiled basically from immigrants living in Istanbul, Ar Riyadh, Doha, Paris, London, and now the military opposition which participated in Astana is also included in the delegation of the opposition in Geneva, which the Saudis, as I said, quite successfully organized.

So, in Astana, apart from the government and the opposition delegations, apart from the three countries who are guaranteeing this process, Russia, Iran and Turkey, observers participate from the United States, from Jordan, and there were requests from other countries to become observers and we were quite positively disposed of these requests but eventually it was decided since, in any case, it’s linked to Geneva, to keep this process compact, in a compact way. By the way, in Geneva, the creation of Russian and American leadership, which is called International Syria Support Group, which met couple of times at the ministerial level and which wrote the Resolution 2254 a couple of years ago, it does not convene at the plenary level anymore, but the two task forces – one on cessation of hostilities and another on humanitarian issues – meet every week. So countries for who are interested in the Syrian settlement most of them, if not all of them, are in these task forces in Geneva, and they meet, as I said, weekly.

I don't believe that we need to create any new mechanisms, I don't believe that those who want to contribute do not have this opportunity. We want to help Geneva process by convening Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue. The statement adopted in Sochi says that the three countries will consult and agree on the list of participants. We brief Staffan de Mistura, the United Nations in general about what we have been doing and we want to use this forthcoming Congress – the date will have to be agreed later, after we agree on the list of participants – to use it to help Geneva to launch the sustainable, constitutional reform process and the preparation for elections.



Question:

Can I build on Professor Nasr question and your answers? There is no doubt that the Syrian crisis set in motion dynamics which have a regional impact. Iran has become an important player. There is the Iranian-Saudi difficult problematical relationship, the Israeli position. So there are dynamics which are not necessarily compatible. How do you judge these dynamics and how, in longer term, how do you see them somehow reconcilable?



S. Lavrov:

Well, we have been raising the issue of Saudi-Iranian differences many times, including publicly. But we also, when talking to each of them, indicate that we really believe that they should start talking. And we are ready to help in whatever way. We believe it is really very very unfortunate for the region to have two countries who are very important, very influential to symbolize the split of Islam basically. Sunnis-Shias divide is very dangerous. It was in 2004 when King Abdullah of Jordan convened the meeting to declare that all Muslims must be seen as brothers, sisters, united, one religion, one culture. And there was Amman declaration adopted on that occasion but it does not work. Maybe we need a new try through the Organization of Islamic Cooperation probably. But this would be up to our Muslim friends. And certainly it is not realistic when people say Iran must just be put in the box. You cannot put in the box a country like Iran, a country like Saudi Arabia. They have their legitimate interest in the region and as long as these interests are legitimately promoted we have to accept this as a given and help these interests of various players in the region to be harmonized. And, I did say, by the way, that one of the problems in the region is the Palestinian issue. We would certainly remove a couple of trump cards from those who recruit terrorists among the young people if they resolve the Palestinian problem on a just and fair basis. The young girls and boys are being told by extremists that Palestinians were fooled by the United Nations, because seventy years ago a state was promised and they never got one. And this is really feeding the extremists, giving the recruiters a pretext to get more supporters.

Speaking of extremism, by the way, I said that the reasons for this crisis, the roots of this crisis are in the attempts to meddle from outside and this meddling unlike some other meddling is very well documented but Obama administration before they left they convened the meeting on the United Nations premises, but not under the United Nations aegis. They just used the premises, they invited the countries whom they wanted and they declared the need to develop a new concept of countering the violent extremism.

It’s a very interesting story, by the way. The Secretariat of the United Nations under the previous Secretary-General, without any prompting, without any request from the General Assembly or from any other organ wrote a report on countering the violent extremism. In a nutshell the American concept went the following way. The dictators and authoritarian rulers they get divorced from the population, they ignore the needs of the population, and because of the dictatorship the population becomes extremist and violently extremist for that matter. Therefore the international community must reach over the heads of dictators to the civil society and explain to them how to become democratic. I believe you understand that this is absolutely contrary to all and each principles of the United Nations Charter. And we have to be very careful, because this concept is intended to explain and to legitimize the interferences in Iraq and Libya, in Syria and elsewhere. We would be very much cautious about this discussion, which was not, once again, commissioned by any of the United Nations organ.



Question:

Maybe I can also ask you about the Iran nuclear deal in which you were very involved (S. Lavrov: sure) and yesterday questions was asked to the Iranian Foreign Minister. Where do you see this still going, and also what role Russia may play in terms of preserving the deal or managing it going forward?



S. Lavrov:

Well, the deal is there. Few days ago the Director General of IAEA Y.Amano once again confirmed that Iran is in compliance with its commitments under this deal. The deal was endorsed by the Security Council resolution unanimously, and it’s part of international law. Full stop. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.



Question:

If you have any additional comment?



Question:

Well, I guess the question would be that if the United States end up being determined to…



S. Lavrov:

Well, we cannot really do anything if the United States decide to drop from this deal, this would be a violation of its commitment, that would be violation of something initiated by the previous administration, by the way, something which was to a large extent negotiated not in this group of six countries with Iran, but directly between Washington and Tehran in the series of very quiet meetings. Others were only happy when Iran and the United States were reaching some compromises on one or another part of the deal. So, if the United States drops from this deal now, it’s become not very credible in the eyes of those who are now requested to drop the nuclear programme like North Korea. We all, including the United States, demand that they stop the nuclear program and start negotiating the security concerns and the denuclearization of the peninsula and what kind of example is the leader of North Korea getting from the US position if the United States drop from the deal. He would say, why shall I give away, give up on this programme, even if they give me a deal who knows what happens when next president comes to the White House. So, I think and well, I know that most serious analysts in the United States including quite a number of officials understand this and I hope that there would be no breach of the deal on the part of anyone.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2973946






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Belarusian television network RTR Belarus, December 2, 2017



2 December 2017 - 20:00





Question:

Mr Lavrov, let us talk about military and political matters, which are the reason for your visit to Minsk. Do you think the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), which is celebrating an anniversary, has become a weighty alternative to NATO in the post-Soviet space?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, I do not think that the CSTO is a purely military and political topic. It also refers to a large-scale integration policy and is designed to protect all aspects of security in our big common space, including protection against terrorism, drugs and crime.

The date is indeed impressive: 25 years of the Collective Security Treaty and 15 years of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, which has reached the age of maturity, as I see it. We have achieved visible and impressive progress in the overwhelming majority of areas that were outlined by the heads of the member states.

As for comparing the CSTO to other military-political blocs and organisations, I see no reason why we should try to match NATO. We have different goals. Actually, NATO is being kept alive artificially. The bloc has lost its meaning with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty. Our overseas partners maintained the military-political elements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation primarily to keep hold of the levers of influencing Europe. This is obviously true. Any political analyst has known this for a long time.

Take the subject of Afghanistan, which gave the meaning to the preservation of NATO for decades. When this theme was exhausted, they needed to invent something else. And they looked at the Russian Federation as a country that upheld its interests in close interaction with its allies in a historically common space. This provoked their displeasure, primarily over the fact that we refused to accept the fact of NATO violations of the agreements we reached in the 1990s, such as that security is indivisible and that NATO will not expand eastward, and a later compromise agreement under which NATO’s eastward expansion will not involve the deployment of military forces in the new member states. All these agreements have been trampled on by NATO, which faced all of our neighbours with a choice between Russia and the West. We can see the results of this policy in Georgia and Ukraine.

I strongly hope that the CSTO will not do the same. We do not blackmail or present ultimatums to anyone. We are concerned about the security of the CSTO member states. We have enough problems at home, and we are not eager to play geopolitical games.



Question:

Judging by the reaction to the latest Russian-Belarusian military exercise, the West is worried by our close military cooperation. Is Russia concerned about or alarmed by the Belarusian participation in the Eastern Partnership programme?



Sergey Lavrov:

Speaking about the military manoeuvre, the West is not so alarmed as it is trying to use this exercise as a pretext for whipping up tension. Belarus and Russia notified the signatories of the OSCE Vienna Document on Confidence and Security-Building Measures about the planned exercise in due time. We sent the notifications in due order and invited observers, which was more than we were obliged to do. Everyone who wanted to has attended these exercises and has confirmed the complete transparency of our actions. But our American colleagues and the other NATO countries used the hysteria to deploy additional military forces and equipment in the Baltic countries as well as in Poland. They have made use of the pretext, and although their fears have not been confirmed, the deed has been done and the case is closed.

As for the Eastern Partnership, we do not tell others how to live their lives. We have a partnership agreement with the EU, which has been suspended through no fault of ours. We have never doubted that all our neighbours and friends want to have good relations with their partners in the West, the East, the South and the North.

We are aware of some EU countries’ desire to use the Eastern Partnership for anti-Russia purposes. These countries do not constitute a majority, but they are rather aggressive. The latest example is the speech delivered by UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Brussels just a few days ago. The majority of the EU countries see this as yet another futile attempt and that adding anti-Russia sentiments to relations with the CIS countries is counterproductive as well as useless. We appreciate the firm stance taken by Belarus and some other members of the Eastern Partnership programme against these attempts. The summit’s final declaration does not include anything that has no connection to the target countries’ relations with the EU, contrary to the desire of some summit participants and thanks to the efforts of other countries, including Belarus, which prevented the addition of political and ideological elements to this process because they see it as an opportunity to promote normal relations with Western Europe. I believe we see eye-to-eye on this.



Question:

No sore spots?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have no doubts or any suspicions about Belarus, Armenia or Azerbaijan. Of course, we also see what our Ukrainian, Moldovan and Georgian colleagues are doing. But despite all this, as I have said before, we are sure that they won’t succeed in pushing the Eastern Partnership system in an anti-Russia direction.



Question:

What do the Russian leaders think about the efforts taken by Belarus to help settle the situation in Ukraine? Was the Belarusian initiative unexpected? Was it coordinated with Russia, or was it an impromptu decision?



Sergey Lavrov:

When President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko proposed Minsk as the dialogue venue for the Normandy format, which developed in June 2014, we supported this idea immediately. There is no sense in talking about whether it was a coordinated decision or not. It was done wholeheartedly, and Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France supported this initiative immediately. I remember the 17 hours we spent talking without respite in February 2017, which produced the Minsk Package of Measures for the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. The UN Security Council approved the package very quickly, and there is still no alternative to this solution to the Ukrainian crisis. It is another matter than not all provisions from this document are being fulfilled. I think we will keep working, including in Minsk as the venue for the Contact Group’s talks, which will resume soon at the level of aides to the leaders of the Normandy format countries.



Question:

This week’s breaking news is that North Korea has launched yet another nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile, which can reach Japan, the United States, South Korea and Russia. The United States, Japan and South Korea raised the alarm and called an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council. What should Russia and the CSTO do in this situation? Should the CSTO be concerned about the situation on the Korean Peninsula?



Sergey Lavrov:

In principle, the CSTO has a common stand on this matter. We do not accept North Korea’s claim to the nuclear status. All the CSTO countries support UN Security Council resolutions and comply with its sanctions against North Korea. At the same time, the CSTO countries call for abandoning warlike rhetoric, threats and insults and for looking instead for a way to resume talks.

As for the latest missile test in North Korea, I can say that the country’s leader has refrained from taking any opportunistic actions for over two months. Back in September, our American colleagues hinted that the next large scale military exercise would be held near the Korean Peninsula no sooner than next spring. The underlying idea was that if Pyongyang did not disrupt this natural pause in the schedule of US-South Korean exercises, this could be used to create conditions for a dialogue. We said we appreciated this idea. We also worked with Pyongyang. Quite unexpectedly, two weeks after the Americans’ hint they announced the decision to hold extraordinary military exercises in October and November. They have recently announced that the regular manoeuvres will be held in December. This looked like an attempt to provoke Kim Jong-un into breaking the pause. We condemn Pyongyang’s opportunistic nuclear missile plans, but we also disapprove of the provocative conduct of our American colleagues. It is deeply regrettable that they are trying to pull along Japan and South Korea, which, as you said correctly, will be the first victims of a war on the Korean Peninsula.



Question:

These comments may frighten some of those who plan to attend the Olympic Games in South Korea. Do you think the games may be cancelled?



Sergey Lavrov:

It appears that the Americans are not thinking about this. South Koreans are clearly worried about the games. They have said this openly in connection with the developments on the Korean Peninsula and with provocations against Russian athletes.



Question:

You are a football fan and surly monitor all the events connected with the 2018 World Cup. Who will win the title?



Sergey Lavrov:

The strongest team. I want to watch some good football.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2975550

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the International Conference Parliamentarians Against Drugs, Moscow, December 4, 2017



4 December 2017 - 11:43









Mr Speaker,

Colleagues and friends,

To begin with, I would like to express my active support for the initiative by the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to hold the International Conference Parliamentarians Against Drugs. I would also like to thank our foreign guests, many of whom had to travel a long way to come to Moscow.

The conference will feature a comprehensive discussion of the global problem of drugs that affects all countries without exception. It is obvious that there are no simple or quick solutions to this problem. For this reason, the contribution from the parliamentarians is so important, parliamentarians who shape anti-drug laws with due regard for national specifics, thereby introducing long-term algorithms for countering this threat.

Relevant international standards and regulations can serve as a reference point for these legislative efforts. It is encouraging that the UN General Assembly Special Session on the World Problem of Drugs in 2016 clearly confirmed the three UN anti-drug conventions currently in force as the cornerstone of the international legal framework for drug control. It is these conventions that provide the foundation for intergovernmental counter-narcotics cooperation. Without these instruments, we would not have had any common standards for legislative support of cooperation and its practical development. Therefore, it is essential that these three universal UN conventions retain their fundamental role in countering the global challenge of drugs.

Unfortunately, despite all the efforts by the international community, the problem of drugs remains an urgent and topical issue. Globalisation has given a universal dimension to drug trafficking, transforming it into a ramified industry.

Drug mafias have found their way into the dark corners of the internet, establishing their marketplaces in order to peddle drugs outside of any control or supervision. As masses of new psychoactive substances become available on the market, the international community has to come up with a creative and joint approach to find a timely and effective way of countering the threat. The synergy between drug trafficking and terrorism has become a reality, as proceeds from drug trafficking feed into and strengthen the murderous potential of terrorism. Consequently, proceeds from drug trafficking undermine international security and stability.

Faced with these problems, we cannot agree with those who propose surrendering to international drug criminals, throw out the white flag and open the gate to total drug liberalisation. This approach is fraught with a disaster of unprecedented scale.

We must pay tribute to the law enforcement officers who often put their lives on the line in the fight against drug-related crime. We need law enforcement agencies to further step-up cooperation, to promote the exchange of sensitive information and enhance technical capability.

Russia proactively contributes to these efforts. Together with our CSTO partners, we have the large-scale counter-drug Operation Channel, held regularly with the view to blocking the expansion of drug trafficking in the CSTO member states.

Consistent steps are also undertaken within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to build a powerful capacity for effectively rebuffing the terrorist and drug-related threats.

The BRICS countries are also improving their inter-continental tools to fight drugs.

In our everyday work, we cooperate closely with the United Nations. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has become a reliable partner in consolidating intergovernmental counter-drug cooperation.

Of course, the level of counter-narcotics officer training is a major factor in the effectiveness of these efforts. Russia proactively contributes to these efforts by training officers from Afghanistan and neighbouring countries at the educational institutions of the Russian Interior Ministry. I would also like to note Japan’s contribution. This country has proven its commitment to countering the threat of drug trafficking by taking concrete action.

Russia’s counter-narcotics training efforts go far beyond our region. The Interior Ministry offers regular courses on fighting illegal drug trafficking together with our partners from Peru for South American law enforcement agencies. The tenth stage of this training programme is scheduled for the spring of 2018.

One month ago, the Interior Ministry opened a Training Centre in Nicaragua, and the first group completed the training course on November 10.

We are committed to taking specific steps to carry out the resolution adopted at Russia’s initiative at the 60th Session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs with a view to enhancing the potential of law enforcement agencies through counterdrug training.

Russia advocates openness and good faith in relations with international organisations. Guided by these principles, we recently received an International Narcotics Control Board mission in Moscow. Their conclusions and recommendations will be taken into consideration in Russia’s domestic policy as well as in terms of international cooperation.

By voting for a UN Security Council resolution in support of the deployment of NATO and allied troops to Afghanistan, including as part of the Resolute Support Mission, we had sincere hopes that together with the Afghan government they would be able to push back against the soaring drug production in that country, as was already mentioned today. Unfortunately, the recent UNODC data show that the Afghan drug epidemic is increasingly in the nature of a landslide. In 2017, Afghanistan’s drug industry has set another record with the opium-poppy cultivation area increasing by 63 percent to 328,000 hectares. This is an absolute record. Opium-poppy is cultivated in 21 of 34 Afghan provinces. The overall production of opioids in the country has increased 87 percent to 9,000 tonnes in opium equivalent. The scale of this tragedy requires a new level of international solidarity. We call on NATO’s representatives to think about finding common approaches to banishing drug trafficking and the terrorism it feeds from Afghan land.

At the same time, we advocate reinvigorating The Paris Pact Initiative and adapting it to today’s reality. Russia works closely with Afghanistan and its representatives within the CSTO, where a working group has been established to this effect, as well as within the SCO, where Afghanistan is an observer country. I can also mention the close cooperation with the countries neighbouring Afghanistan within the Central Asian Regional Information and Coordination Centre for Combating Illicit Trafficking of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and their Precursors (CARICC).

In April 2017, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed the importance of targeted anti-drug propaganda in the media and building a lasting immunity to drugs, especially among young people.

As we engage in all these efforts, we are open to working in close cooperation with civil society and our friends from among NGOs. This year, twelve Russian non-governmental organisations specialising in health protection and healthy lifestyle promotion were awarded grants for counter-narcotics projects as part of the second presidential grant contest.

Russian parliamentarians and heads of executive agencies, myself included, took part in events held by the National Anti-Drug Union, which advocates the total and uncompromising rejection of all psychotropic substances, and overcoming addictions. To deliver on its agenda, the Union works with the leading athletes, artists and cultural figures. It is encouraging that the National Anti-Drug Union is expanding its network of partners abroad, and its experience, efforts and projects have been praised during counter-drug debates under UN auspices.

I strongly believe that the efforts of NGOs like this one are a real contribution to delivering on the objective set by the Government of Russia to increase the number of adepts of a healthy life style by 50 percent by 2020. At the end of the day, making a responsible approach to personal health a habit is the way to root out drug abuse in Russia and in all other countries represented at this conference.

Friends, our ultimate goal is to advance towards a drug-free world. There are still quite a few challenges and obstacles on this path. However, walk and ye shall reach, as the saying goes. As far as I know, everyone here is committed to staying on course. By building a drug-free world, we will take it step closer to the ideals enshrined in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I am confident that by combining the efforts of all parliamentarians, governments and civil society, we will succeed in this task.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2977445






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article “Russia and Thailand: 120 Years of Mutual Respect and Trust” published in Thailand’s Matichon Weekly



4 December 2017 - 12:48



This year we are celebrating a remarkable date, the 120th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and Thailand. It is a good occasion for us to outline guidelines on where we can further join forces, drawing on the vast experience of diverse cooperation with our country’s long-time partner in Southeast Asia.

The official history of relations between Russia and Thailand began on July 3, 1897, when King Rama V of Siam visited St Petersburg. On April 14, 1898, Russia’s Consulate-General opened in Bangkok. It was headed by Alexander Olarovsky, whose activities had, as an instruction approved by Emperor Nicholas II read, to “be devoid of any selfish motives and profit seeking”. In 1899, the first bilateral agreement, the Russian-Siamese Declaration of Jurisdiction, Trade and Navigation, was signed. In those years Russia provided political support to Siam, which helped it defend its sovereignty from Britain’s attempts to establish its control over the country. The Thai royal family’s anthem, which was the country’s national anthem until 1932, was created by Russian composer Pyotr Shchurovsky.

At a time of the bipolar standoff between the sociopolitical systems in the 20th century, Moscow and Bangkok successfully advanced mutually beneficial cooperation in areas that were of interest to both countries. They signed the Trade Agreement in 1970 and the Air Service Agreement in 1971, which are still in effect. In 1973, Aeroflot airlines launched direct flights to the capital of Thailand.

In the mid-1980s, relations between the two countries entered a new stage. Thai Prime Minister Prem Tinsulanonda visited Moscow in 1988 and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Nikolai Ryzhkov went to Bangkok in 1990. On December 28, 1991, Thailand recognised the Russian Federation as the successor to the Soviet Union and reaffirmed its commitment to developing friendly relations with it.

President Vladimir Putin’s official visit to Thailand in October 2003, which was the first trip by a Kremlin leader to this country while in office, provided a strong impulse to Russian-Thai cooperation. The high-level negotiations allowed the countries to coordinate the priority areas of their long-term cooperation. The countries reaffirmed their mutual commitment to stepping it up during the visit of Thailand’s Queen Sirikit to Russia in July 2007 in her role as a representative of King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

In recent years, the bilateral political dialogue has become more dynamic, which can be seen from President Vladimir Putin’s meetings with Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha on the sidelines of the Russia – ASEAN Summit in May 2016 in Sochi and at the BRICS Summit in Xiamen in September 2017. In 2015 and 2016, the two countries’ prime ministers exchanged visits.

Trade and economic cooperation is gaining momentum. Thailand has established itself as one of our country’s key trading partners in Southeast Asia. We are jointly taking steps towards achieving an ambitious objective: to bring trade between our two countries to $10 billion by 2020. The development of cooperation in high-technology areas, such as civil aviation, the energy sector, the use of space for peaceful purposes, transport and telecommunications is given priority attention. Russia has much to offer to its Thai partners who are interested in its promising developments in nanotechnology, bioengineering, telemedicine, geophysics and unconventional energy sources.

Overall investment in the Russian economy by Thai businesses has topped $1.6 billion, while Russian investment in Thailand has exceeded $500 million. We particularly appreciate the effective operation of the Charoen Pokphand Group, which is successfully carrying out agricultural projects in several Russian regions.

Inter-regional exchanges are moving forward. Back in 1997, protocols on friendly relations between Moscow and Bangkok (currently, a cooperation programme for 2015–2017 is in force) and between Bangkok and St Petersburg were signed. Since 2015, Moscow has served as a venue for an annual festival that allows Muscovites to gain an insight into Thai traditions, culture and cuisine. In November last year, Bangkok hosted Days of Moscow.

The first cultural ties between our countries can be traced back to 1900, when a traditional Thai dance company was received with enthusiasm by the St Petersburg audience. Today, famous Russian groups are regular guests of the international Bangkok dance and music festival. For many years, artists from the Mariinsky and Novosibirsk opera and ballet theatres, as well as other regions in Russia have been warmly received in Thailand. This year, to mark the 120th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries, the Yekaterinburg Opera and Ballet Theatre staged its performance, Katya and the Prince of Siam, in Thailand, while the traditional Thai Khon mask theatre toured Russia. In July, Bangkok hosted a Russian-Thai festival to mark the occasion.

We are glad that people in Thailand are increasingly seeking to study Russian and receive education in our country. Several hundred Thai nationals are currently studying in Russia, including those who have been awarded Russian state grants. A number of agreements have been signed to establish direct contact and cooperation between the two countries’ leading universities.

Thailand remains one of the most popular holiday destinations in Russia. Over one million tourists from Russia visited your hospitable country last year alone, while in the first five months of this year the flow of tourists increased by 37 per cent. There is also a large community of our compatriots living in Thailand: they launch Russian-language media and open schools, kindergartens and restaurants. Russia’s honorary consuls in Pattaya and on Phuket Island are playing an important role in ensuring the security of our citizens and protecting their rights and legitimate interests.

An important area of our joint work is cooperation in countering numerous challenges and threats. Our countries’ security councils discuss the issues of combating international terrorism, transnational crime, drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms smuggling, money laundering and other economic crimes. Contacts between supreme courts and law enforcement agencies are being actively promoted.

There is close cooperation between the foreign ministries of the two countries. During my visit to Bangkok in August 2017, we reaffirmed our close positions on key international and regional issues. Russia and our Thai partners have similar views on the basic principles of shaping a fair and democratic polycentric world order based on international law and reflecting the modern world’s cultural and civilisational diversity.

We are interested in expanding dialogue on shaping the architecture of equal and indivisible security in the Asia-Pacific region that is based on the non-aligned approaches for the sake of ensuring the sustainable development of all countries in the region without exception. We highly appreciate Bangkok’s intention to develop cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Union.

Russian-Thai relations have been time tested and have reached a high level of trust and mutual understanding. We face ambitious tasks to ensure progressive development of bilateral ties in order to promote the well-being and prosperity of people in our countries and strengthen peace and stability in Southeast Asia and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole. We believe that we can rise to the occasion and successfully deliver on these tasks.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2977542

[Alex Him]

Director of the Department for European Cooperation Andrey Kelin’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya December 4, 2017



4 December 2017 - 16:38





Question:

The traditional OSCE Ministerial Council will take place on December 7 and 8. This year it will be held in Vienna. As usual, the Russian delegation at this event will be led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. What initiatives will the delegation bring to the meeting?



Andrey Kelin:

The annual OSCE Ministerial Council meetings are held primarily as a dialogue venue for numerous bilateral contacts where international organisations are represented, and where participants express their opinions and, of course, review the political results of the outgoing year. It is a big political event. This time we will promote the same priorities we always promote: the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. We will also speak about cooperation in cybersecurity and the alignment of integration processes, or more precisely, the development of cooperation between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Another important issue concerns the protection of traditional values. Of course, we will also raise the issues of non-citizenship and infringements on the language and education rights in some member states.



Question:

With whom does the foreign minister plan to meet on the sidelines of this event?



Andrey Kelin:

The minister intends to hold many meetings. We have received many requests from other ministers and delegation heads. We are still working on the schedule.



Question:

Will the minister hold talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson?



Andrey Kelin:

We have no confirmation of his attendance yet.



Question:

Are we ready for the possibility of this meeting?



Andrey Kelin:

We are always ready for any contact, of course.



Question:

It appears that the idea of sending UN peacekeepers to protect OSCE observers in eastern Ukraine has stalled. This is not surprising, considering the opposing positions of the concerned parties. For example, US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker said again recently that the United States believes the UN peacekeeping force must be able to control the entire contested area in Donbass, including the Ukrainian side of the Ukraine-Russia border, and that they do not want Russians to be involved in the UN peacekeeping force. It is clear that no progress will be made on this unless the parties met each other halfway. Is Russia willing to moderate its position on the deployment of UN peacekeepers in Donbass?



Andrey Kelin:

Our position is that the UN-mandated peacekeeping operations should be held to support the OSCE mission. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) has been working for a long time, and it has had its drawbacks. For example, its reports are not always completely objective. However, we believe that the SMM should continue working. The SMM is part of the Minsk Agreements, the implementation of which is advocated not only by Russia but also by the Normandy format countries. The United States has also indicated that it supports the implementation of the Minsk II accords.

Therefore, UN peacekeepers are needed to protect the OSCE observers. It is another matter how they would do this. I know that those responsible for the OSCE Mission have certain doubts regarding this because they believe that their observers would be safer as unarmed civilians than if they are protected by armed personnel.



Question:

Does this mean that we will not change our position on peacekeepers?



Andrey Kelin:

At this point, our position is firm and absolutely substantiated. It is based on the need to implement the Minsk Agreements. These agreements must be implemented consistently. Political guarantees must be provided for the Donbass people. This includes amendments to the Constitution, an amnesty and elections, and only then will we be able to talk about the [resumption of government control over the] Russia-Ukraine border.



Question:

The Pentagon said in mid-November that it had made the decision to supply about $10.5 billion worth of Patriot missile-defence systems to Poland. They could be delivered in 2019. What will Russia’s response be to this strengthening of NATO’s positions near our borders?



Andrey Kelin:

US and NATO efforts to deploy a missile-defence system are a major destructive factor that undermines stability in Europe. Since a deal on Iran’s nuclear issue was reached, the pretext for the step-by-step creation of a missile-defence system has disappeared, and now it is clear that Iran was not the reason for building a missile-defence system.

Indeed, in addition to a NATO-wide missile-defence system, national efforts are also under way. In particular, Warsaw is building its so-called Polish Shield, which they say will be integrated into the NATO system. All of this will have a negative impact on the atmosphere in Europe.

Earlier, we proposed some forms of missile-defence cooperation with NATO that could have eliminated that negative impact, but all our attempts and proposals were rejected. So in addition to including this in our defence planning, we will take commensurate steps to restore stability in Europe. As for exactly what kind of steps, our Defence Ministry is responsible for that.



Question:

Finland and Sweden are more often publicly speaking about the security threat coming from Russia. Their cooperation with NATO is deepening but they say they have no plans to join the alliance. Moscow is already talking at the top level about the consequences of Helsinki and Stockholm joining the organisation. Does Russia really believe that Finland and Sweden will eventually become NATO members?



Andrey Kelin:

This is a difficult question. These countries work closely with NATO in the military sphere. This has been going on for many years. This is nothing new. We are aware of this and watch the trends closely. These countries hold joint exercises and their representatives participate in NATO governing bodies meetings. We know that NATO would like to make this cooperation so close as to draw them into its orbit. However, we also know that there are independent influences in both Helsinki and Stockholm that are opposed to NATO membership and believe in preserving the status quo. For our part, we see opportunities – and they are being used – for strengthening security in the Baltic region on a non-NATO basis. This is especially important today when there are significantly more warships and warplanes in the Baltic region and therefore more possibilities for military incidents. Our Swedish partners confirmed to me in recent consultations that since ICAO adopted a code of conduct for state aviation, which is part of military aviation, tensions have eased and no air incidents have been recorded recently.



Question:

Are we sure that NATO will continue to expand?



Andrey Kelin:

Washington’s main efforts are currently focused on bringing in the western Balkans and after Montenegro, drawing other countries in. To this end, enormous efforts are being made, including political pressure, as was the case in Montenegro, and interference in domestic affairs, which is a violation of the Helsinki principles. So we are aware of this political pressure.



Question:

Should we expect the alliance to expand further?



Andrey Kelin:

NATO has an open-door policy. We certainly cannot ignore this, since any wave of NATO expansion is a compounding factor in European security, especially when relations are so bad.



Question:

In September, Zapad [West] 2017 Russian-Belarusian exercises took place, which caused serious concern among NATO members. Does Russia intend to continue the exercises next year?



Andrey Kelin:

This is a question for the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, but I would like to say that, at approximately the same time, NATO conducted about a dozen and a half drills in Europe as part of a single plan. So our Western partners have no cause for concern: They conduct large-scale exercises themselves. Needless to say, none of this is good for stability. I’m sure that to improve predictability, we need to share information on these exercises and this is what we do at the Russia-NATO Council.



Question:

Maia Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, earlier said that the Russian law on the status of foreign agents with regard to the media jeopardises the country’s free and independent media. The OSCE also stressed recently that both US and Russian steps in this direction are dangerous and unacceptable. Can you explain the difference between our law and US measures in relation to the Russian media outlets RT and Sputnik?



Andrey Kelin:

Frankly, we’ve been less than happy with the activity of the new OSCE representative on freedom of the media. Initially, he completely ignored the action taken against RT in the United States and sprang to life only when it came to the point of our measures in response to that. After all, an OSCE representative is not supposed to make hasty statements but get to the bottom of things. What we have here is the same old practice where a public statement is made right from the outset without an attempt to understand who is right and who is wrong. It is essential to make the distinction between action and counteraction. As for the corresponding EU’s statement, we were not surprised. It seems that Brussels is completely unaware of the Americans’ actions with regard to Russian media outlets.



Question:

Does Russia plan to contribute to the Council of Europe’s budget?



Andrey Kelin:

The Council of Europe is based on three fundamental things: intergovernmental cooperation, parliamentary cooperation and regional cooperation. Lately we have seen a lot of disputes in PACE that affect not only us but other countries as well. MPs use PACE not so much for discussions and sharing their views as for setting up all sorts of investigation committees. This speaks of a deep crisis that has affected the Parliamentary Assembly and we are afraid that it will spill over to the entire organisation that essentially provides the groundwork for a common humanitarian space. Therefore our main goal is to resolve this crisis and have our MPs’ rights reinstated in full. This is a challenging task. The CE leadership, our MPs and our Foreign Ministry are working on this. Right now it is hard to say what the situation will be at the beginning of the year. We will make a decision later.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2978054






Remarks by a representative of the Russian Federation at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights situation of Rohingya population in Myanmar, Geneva, December 5, 2017



6 December 2017 - 14:01





Mr President,

We share concerns over the tensions in Rakhine State (RS) and the emerging threat of a humanitarian crisis, which was provoked by the terrorist attacks of militants from the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. We strongly condemn their terrorist attacks.

At the same, we are satisfied that the security situation in the north of Rakhine State has recently started to stabilise. This is borne out by a reduction in military personnel deployed in Rakhine State as part of the special operation, which was announced on October 27.

We are urging all parties to refrain from actions which may lead to further degradation of the situation and continue the constructive dialogue at all levels without politicising it. This is the only possible way to comprehensively resolve the complicated problem of the Muslim minority in Myanmar. Russia supports efforts to facilitate inter-faith interaction in this country involving the spiritual leaders of all faiths.

We positively view measures undertaken by the Myanmar leadership to create conditions for a peaceful co-existence of all ethnic and religious communities in Rakhine State and the preparations to receive people seeking to return to their original place of residence.

We proceed from our belief that the country’s authorities are stepping up activities to prevent the escalation of violence, restore law and order across the country, create normal socioeconomic conditions and settle the refugee problem.

Russia welcomes the Myanmar government’s steps towards delivering on the recommendations of the Consultative Commission led by the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the signing last month of the agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh on the repatriation of displaced persons in Rakhine State.

We believe that the first thing that an agreed settlement of the situation around the mass movement of the population across the border between Myanmar and Bangladesh requires is the goodwill of both countries. Unfortunately, unless steps are taken towards meeting one another halfway, this problem, the roots of which go back to the colonial administration of the last century, cannot be resolved. The role that the international community, including the UN Human Rights Council, can play in this process is to facilitate bilateral efforts to overcome the crisis and its consequences and in no way undermine them.

The Russian Federation still seriously doubts that the holding of the Human Rights Council special session meets this criterion.

Thank you for your attention.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2979482






Address by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Union Vladimir Chizhov at the meeting of the 11th European Russian Forum, Brussels, European Parliament, December 4, 2017



8 December 2017 - 17:47





Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all I would like to express my gratitude to Tatyana Zhdanok for organising what is already the 11th European Russian Forum at the platform of the European Union and to convey the message of greetings by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to the organisers and participants of today’s meeting.

Message of greetings from Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to organisers and participants of the 11th European Russian Forum

Throughout the years of its existence the Forum has earned a reputation of a respected venue for exchanging opinions on the most urgent issues of Russia-EU cooperation, as well as those of the international agenda. This is especially important now taking into account the current complicated stage of our relations with the European Union, which are experiencing considerable pressure and a manifest shortage of communication channels.

The theme of this year’s forum is “EU 2017 and Russian Revolution 1917: Lessons not Learned”, which fully reflects the present moment. The world has changed beyond recognition in the past hundred years. However, today when Russia and the West are not divided by any ideological disagreements, we still see attempts to present our nation as some kind of an ideological antipode to the western world.

Russophobic stereotypes, which seemed to have long dissipated, are deliberately being revived, and some of them bring back the memories of the darkest pages of the 20th century history.

Meanwhile, it is history that has shown more than once that attempts to subordinate our country to some foreign influence and to solve internal problems at Russia’s expense are an absolutely futile undertaking. However, not everyone has learned these generally obvious lessons.

We still witness an inclination to punish us for the right to independently chart our domestic and foreign policies. Different containment tools are being employed, the spiral of sanctions is escalating, and information wars are initiated with the aim of distorting our principled approach to global and regional problems and discrediting the Russian course of actions in international affairs.

We have certainly faced different forms of bias against Russia in the EU countries before. However, today, under the pretext of countering trumped-up threats, we see a desire to virtually delete the perception of Russia from public consciousness as an inalienable part of the European civilisation that had saved Europe a number of times from certain ruin, to build up a wall of alienation and distrust between our peoples. The very notion of the “Russian world” is not just criticised, it is ostracised as if it is a matter of setting up a kind of Gulag for our compatriots in different countries in Europe and around the world rather than a matter of stepping up contacts and enhancing relations between the people belonging to the same civilisational community.

Right before our eyes, new dividing lines are erected in Europe which we were actively working to remove back in the 1990s out of determination to build a true common European home from Lisbon to Vladivostok. This spirit permeates our ideas of aligning integration processes in Europe and in Eurasia.

Meanwhile, we do not impose any social, economic or political models on anybody. Today, we have on our agenda the issues of ensuring a dynamic domestic development and strengthening the fair multipolar world order on the solid foundation of international law with due account for cultural and civilisational diversity of the countries and peoples and their aspiration to determine their destinies independently.

I firmly believe that in the modern world – dynamic, highly competitive and, unfortunately, far from secure – Russia and the European Union, which objectively mutually supplement each other, have no alternative to cooperation and joining their potentials.

We hope that sanity and political foresight of our European partners will lead our relations out of the blind alley and will help them to embark on the road of constructive dialogue filled with the spirit of true neighbourliness and openness.

I am confident that the ideas expressed by the participants of the Forum, which has already proved a number of times its pertinence and its creative potential, will contribute to depoliticised comprehension, free from ideological shrouds and stereotypes, of the events that happened not only a hundred years ago but also yesterday and today. And they will also make their contribution to strengthening trust and normalising the Russia-EU relations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983533

[Alex Him]

Opening Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Opening of the Plenary Session of the Meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Caspian Littoral States, Moscow, December 5, 2017



December 2017 - 11:07









Colleagues,

I would like to cordially welcome you to another meeting of the foreign ministers of the Caspian littoral states. This is our regular format. We are meeting for the seventh time in the past few years.

We are pleased with how well the Caspian Five mechanism operates: an open interaction on an equal and mutually respectful basis. We discuss all issues that come up and search for best solutions together.

A solid multi-level dialogue system is up and running, which helps to maintain an atmosphere of neighbourliness and mutual understanding on the Caspian. As I said, there are regular meetings of heads of state and foreign ministers, and effective sector-based discussion platforms. I would especially like to note the activities of the Ad Hoc Working Group for the Elaboration of a Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea at the level of our deputies, the Intergovernmental Commission on the Conservation and Rational Use of Aquatic Biological Resources, and the Committee on Hydrometeorology.

We praise the efforts of our countries’ regions that are adjacent to the Caspian Sea to expand direct contact. We attach great importance to the dialogue between defence and law enforcement agencies, and rescue services. We expect our joint environmental activities to grow even more effective.

Today’s agenda is packed, as a lot of issues have accumulated since our previous meeting in July 2016 in Astana.

We would like to see how our experts’ work is progressing on the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea.

We expect that the talks on this document will be completed at the next, fifth Caspian summit in Kazakhstan, and that the Caspian Five will have the reliable legal foundation they need to reach a higher level of interaction.

In addition to legal status, we need to discuss several practical aspects of the five countries’ economic, transport, environmental and security cooperation on the Caspian.

I think it is important to make every effort for the results of this meeting to contribute to the preparations for the heads of state summit.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2978287






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement at a news conference following the Meeting of the Caspian Littoral States' Foreign Ministers, Moscow, December 5, 2017



5 December 2017 - 14:27









Ladies and gentlemen,

We have completed the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the five Caspian states. My colleagues asked me to update you on the results.

We have held a substantive discussion of the issues on the current Caspian agenda, paying particular attention to the work on the draft Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea.

I announce with great satisfaction that we have found solutions to all the remaining major issues related to the preparation of this document. The text of the Convention is actually ready. In the near future, it will be edited and finalised, and translated into the national languages of the signatories, and each of the countries will perform the domestic procedure preparing it for signing at the top level. The Convention will be signed at the Fifth Caspian Summit, which will be held in Kazakhstan in the first half of next year. The final decision on the summit timeframe will be made by the leadership of Kazakhstan once it makes sure that all the technical and legal aspects of work on the Convention’s text have been cleared.

The participants have stated their high opinion of the progress made on other aspects of the contractual framework for cooperation between the littoral states in the most important areas. They confirmed the successful implementation of the 2014 Astrakhan summit decisions. In particular, all the agreements signed have come into force: on the bioresources, hydrometeorology and prevention of emergencies in the Caspian region. The intergovernmental commissions established on the basis of these three agreements have held their opening meetings recently. The five-sided moratorium on sturgeon fishing has been extended. Last year and in the autumn of this year, the rescue services of all the five states successfully operated in the water area of ​​the Caspian Sea.

We have agreed to continue to vigorously promote the implementation of new promising joint projects, especially in the transport sector with its various aspects – from infrastructure development and commercial navigation to improving navigation safety – and the deepening of economic cooperation between the Caspian Five. At the initiative of Turkmenistan, we are intensively preparing intergovernmental agreements on economic and transport cooperation. We have agreed to document cooperation between our law enforcement agencies in their efforts to fight poaching, terrorism and organised crime as separate protocols.

We have positively evaluated the interaction between our defence ministries in the Caspian Sea. This year, almost all coastal states exchanged friendly visits by their Navy ships. In summer, the Sea Cup 2017 international contest was held with great success. Joint exercises are planned for next year.

The draft Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents in the Caspian Sea is at a very advanced stage of coordination; it lays the groundwork for a strong system of confidence-building measures in the region.

We expect to propose all these documents I have mentioned, which are now being discussed at the expert level, for approval at the Kazakhstan summit along with the draft Caspian Sea status convention.

We have specifically touched upon the implementation of the framework Tehran Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea, noting the five countries’ readiness to adopt the Protocol on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (EIA) to the Tehran Convention as soon as possible. The Russian Federation expects this Protocol to be signed before the signing of the Convention or simultaneously with its approval by the heads of state.

Overall, I am greatly satisfied with the meeting results. We have completed almost two decades of work on the Convention and submitted it for approval to our heads of state. We expect them to support it.

We will continue to work on the development of Caspian cooperation.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2978643






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Patriarch John X Yazigi of Antioch and All the East, Moscow, December 5, 2017



5 December 2017 - 18:19









Your Beautitude,

Esteemed guests,

We are sincerely glad to see you again.

We appreciate your participation in the Bishops’ Council and events devoted to the 100th anniversary of the Patriarchate in Russia.

Yesterday you had a very substantial conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, during which you discussed major issues of cooperation between Orthodox Christian churches. The focus was on the need for additional efforts to protect Christians, primarily in the Middle East and North Africa.

By tradition, representatives of the most different ethnic and religious groups peacefully co-existed in this part of the world. Major world religions originated there. We are vitally interested in preventing religious splits in this key area. The Russian Federation is taking a very active part in the efforts to overcome the negative consequences of the short-sighted and adventurist policy of external players that launched interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria. These interventions sowed chaos in the region, undermined the foundations of statehood in many countries and created a highly favourable environment for the activities of terrorists and extremists.

The negative consequences of these events have repercussions far beyond the region. We are making a contribution to the struggle against ISIS and other terrorist organisations by supporting the Syrian Government in fighting terrorists with the support of our Aerospace Forces. At the same time, we are working to develop inclusive national dialogue on settling problems in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other countries of the region with a view to stopping the strife and uniting against the terrorist threat. This will also ease the life of Christians, which has already improved after the liberation of Palmira and Aleppo and the formation of de-escalation zones that were agreed upon during the Astana process.

We are grateful to you for your appreciation of Russia’s actions in the region and are looking forward to hearing your trustworthy assessments of the current events and advice on how we can work together in the future.

Welcome once again!





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2979012






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the opening of an exhibition of archive materials on the occasion of the 160th anniversary of Russia-Uruguay diplomatic relations, Moscow, December 6, 2017



6 December 2017 - 12:21









Your Excellency, Mr Ambassador,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Friends,

In February this year, President of Uruguay Tabare Vazquez made an official visit to Russia. Following that summit meeting, the foreign ministries of Russia and Uruguay signed a cooperation agreement in the area of archives. Now, just months after this intergovernmental document was signed, we see a practical benefit. I am referring to this exhibition of archive materials opened on the occasion of the 160th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries.

These relations are based on traditions of friendship, mutual respect and trust. These documents show that our countries have been guided by these principles since the mid-19th century. I would like to draw your attention to documents like the official letter from Emperor Alexander II to the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay Gabriel Antonio Pereira on the establishment of friendly relations between our countries, as well as a 1944 letter from Uruguayan Counsellor Emilio Frugoni to Joseph Stalin on the transfer of 6,000 roubles to the Soviet Defence Fund in solidarity with the fight against Nazism.

Today our countries maintain a multifaceted and intense dialogue in the bilateral format and at international organisations. I am referring not only to Russia’s relations with Latin American integration associations where Uruguay is a member, but also to our interaction in the UN Security Council in the past two years. A regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on trade, Economic, Investment, Research and Technical Cooperation will be held next year. It will certainly give fresh impetus to our economic ties.

A vivid example of the mutual feelings of sympathy between our peoples is the story of the Russian-speaking town of San Javier, where the majority of the population is from Russia or of Russian descent. Today we will be able to read unique documents from 1914 about life in this town that was founded by Russian settlers.

I am sure that the upcoming mundial in June and July 2018, in which eight Latin American countries will participate, will further promote the contacts between our countries and peoples. Moreover, Uruguay and Russia are in the same group. We look forward to this interesting match in Samara in the latter half of June.

I hope you will enjoy this interesting and impressive event. I wish you all the best.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2979378

[Alex Him]

Excerpts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, December 6, 2017



6 December 2017 - 16:52









New methods of exerting pressure on Russian media by US special services

Again, we raise the question of the unprecedented pressure on the Russian media exerted by US special services, not only with our US colleagues but the international community as well. Just recently, and for a fairly long time before that, we have been talking about the rights of the reporters being violated, including in the wake of Washington's request to Russia Today television channel to register as a foreign agent and to disclose internal information. However, US officials have set their minds to finding more ways to create an uncomfortable environment for our journalists. In addition to legislative pressure, the authorities of that country are practicing less formal, but, as they see it, more effective methods. Recently, representatives of Russian media, including in the United States, have been subjected to strong pressure by US special services in the form of recruitment attempts.

These attempts are numerous and come in multiple phases. These are the so-called “approaches” made to representatives of Russian state and private media, including Russian journalists and representatives of Russian media outlets’ editorial boards. For obvious reasons, I cannot give out the names of the Russian journalists. I can share a specific case with you, though. First, the special services suggested that a Russian journalist begin cooperating with them, and did so more or less by the book, without revealing the true nature of such cooperation. Faced with an outright refusal, they changed tactics and offered money. Then, they moved on to psychological pressure, eventually stooping to banal threats. They went as far as invasion of privacy, including when the reporters were off duty, and made such approaches to family members who have no involvement in journalism.

We consider all this part of a large-scale attack on freedom of speech, an information attack not only against Russia, but also an encroachment on freedom of speech worldwide.

As we see it, Washington and the US special services are becoming increasingly aware of it, and the media are just a tool they are using to attain their immediate goals. While, after such pressure, outright threats, and occasionally blackmail attempts, Russian reporters can promptly seek help at the Russian Embassy, ​​a consulate or a representative office in any country and obtain the necessary protection and assistance, it is scary to even think about the situation the US media have found themselves in now, since they are amenable to all kinds of pressure. Apparently, this is how the US special services go about it.

Recently, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Harlem Desir, was in Russia. We would like him to take note of this unacceptable situation and draw the appropriate conclusions.

It would be nice to have the United States comment on this, but I know perfectly well what will happen if you put this question to the US State Department. They will simply make a helpless gesture and say that they are not aware of such cases and have no such information. If you ask the FBI (whose employees made the above approaches and performed other illegal actions with regard to Russian diplomats), they will say that they do not provide comments on the situation. For this situation not to recur, the corresponding information will be presented to the United States during talks in Vienna between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. They will not be able to claim then that they have no information, or do not comment on it.



The situation in Syria

The eighth round of UN-brokered intra-Syrian talks has been under way in Geneva since November 28. In the course of the tough going discussions, the delegations of the Syrian government and the opposition, with the active role of UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, are trying to find consensus-based decisions to achieve a lasting political settlement and normalise the situation for good.

We note with satisfaction the continuing positive trends in the development of the situation on the ground in the Syrian Arab Republic. The Syrian Army is advancing along the old Hama-Aleppo road. Army subunits advancing from the southeast of the Aleppo Province have driven Al-Nusra militants from the villages of Abisan and Ramlah. In the northeast of the Hama Province, government troops, supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, have taken control of several villages.

Russia’s two-day ceasefire initiative has helped stabilise the situation in Eastern Ghouta. In response to the militants’ mortar attacks against Harasta and the capital district of Bab Musalla, the army shelled al-Nusra and Faylaq al-Rahman’s positions in Jobar and neighbouring Ayn Tarmah. As the situation de-escalated, on November 28, the UN was able to deliver aid to residents of the town of Al-Nashabiyah, after the first unsuccessful attempt.

On the eastern theatre, mopping-up operations continue against ISIS members on the west bank of the Euphrates. The remaining terrorists, driven from the settlement of Kuria, have been trapped in the town of Hasrat and Syal west of al-Bukamal. The terrorists are making attempts to break out of the encirclement.

Sources on the ground report ongoing internecine fighting among extremists in Syria. According to these reports, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) has ordered a campaign in the Idlib province to eliminate several influential field commanders on charges of “betraying the ideology of international terrorism.”

I would like to draw special attention to recent media reports with footage showing ISIS’ arsenal discovered near al-Ashara, Subeyhan and al-Salkhiya in the southeast of the Deir ez-Zor province. The Syrian military seized several thousand small arms and light weapons, a supply of antiaircraft missile launching tubes, heavy tank machineguns and artillery systems. The trophies included US- and European-made military equipment.

Recently, British media outlets, in particular the BBC, published investigative reports on a project to finance the so-called Free Syrian Police active in the Aleppo, Deraa and Idlib provinces. The BBC story shows that part of the money went to Jabhat al-Nusra militants and that the militants themselves chose who would perform “police functions” and on what terms. What’s more, al-Nusra often included “ghost members” in their lists in a bid to secure additional funding from the sponsors of the project.

We regard any attempts to support extremists in Syria as unacceptable. We urge our international and regional partners to respect Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. We draw their attention to the fact that Syrian people need more aid and assistance in rebuilding vital infrastructure and the national economy, but definitely not weapons or money for members of illegal armed groups that are in some way or other affiliated with the terrorist underground.



The situation in Yemen

The situation in Yemen has sharply escalated over the past several days.

Amid the ongoing blockade of the country and airstrikes against its territory by the so-called Arab coalition, a final split occurred within the alliance of the Ansar Allah Houthi movement, which controls Yemen’s northern regions, and supporters of former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. Large-scale armed clashes have been going on between these forces since November 29, centering around the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. Over 200 people have been killed and more than 400 injured in street fighting.

On December 4, Abdullah Saleh, who the day before had stated his readiness to start peace negotiations with the “coalition,” was killed. Tellingly, Ansar Allah has said “the fight against traitors” will continue. For their part, Saleh’s followers, including the leaders of major tribes, are determined to avenge the death of the Yemen’s former head of state and are calling for a march on Sanaa.

Moscow is seriously concerned by this negative turn of events. There is a high risk of Yemen sliding into political and military chaos, accompanied by an unprecedented humanitarian disaster. We can see no alternative to preventing such scenarios other than by ending the armed confrontation as soon as possible and launching the broadest possible national dialogue under UN auspices, based on mutual respect and consideration for the interests of all political forces in Yemen, in keeping with the fundamental norms of international law. We hope that major international and regional players will use their influence on Yemeni parties to persuade them to end violence, stop fighting and return to the negotiating table before the extremely dangerous situation in the country becomes irreversible.

For our part, we continue to actively facilitate the fulfillment of this task. At the same time, we would like to reiterate that in accordance with current international conventions, ensuring the safety of diplomatic missions in Sanaa, including the Russian mission, is the responsibility of the host country, as well as of all parties involved in the conflict.



The situation in Afghanistan

The military and political developments in Afghanistan provide no cause for optimism as yet, as the threats of terrorism and drug-related crime coming from this country are growing even stronger. The expanding presence of an ISIS branch in Afghanistan and its strengthening in the northern provinces that border Central Asian countries remains the focus of heightened attention. We consider this to be a direct threat to our national interests. We are waiting for the results of the operation against ISIS in this region of the country, which was announced by Commander of US and NATO Forces in Afghanistan John Nicholson.

The situation with drugs is the most worrying. We already mentioned the record high levels of opium poppy planting and production in Afghanistan. Against this backdrop, reports about a special operation to destroy opium-producing laboratories in the southern Helmand Province, which was carried out by Afghan national security forces with support from US aircraft, look somewhat modest. Experts believe that the operation is unlikely to significantly reduce opium production because the destroyed factories can be restored very quickly. Also, given the number of opium-producing provinces – 24 out of 34 provinces, according to a UN Office on Drugs and Crime report, we expect more active and large-scale action to be taken to fight narcotics in all problem areas, rather than in one province only.



Konstantin Yaroshenko

After our persistent demands, Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko, who was kidnapped by the American intelligence services in Liberia and sentenced to 20 years in US prison over absolutely unsubstantiated accusations, has received, at last, adequate medical treatment. He has long suffered from several medical conditions, including those that he acquired as a result of being beaten during the arrest. Currently, following a recent planned surgery, he is undergoing postoperative rehabilitation.

We consider this to be a positive development, however, we expect more – we are waiting for a decision to send him back to his home country on humanitarian grounds, which we have been seeking since 2010. So far, it looks like Konstantin Yaroshenko, like Viktor Bout, who is also serving a long sentence in an American prison, are held hostage in Washington. And this is not a case of emotions running too high: former US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland frankly told us last year that both Russians, who had flatly refused to plead guilty in court, would serve their full sentences to teach others not to follow suit. To put it differently, they want them to serve as an example that will make our other compatriots who happened to be detected by the “American justice” more compliant. I would like to stress that I am not speaking about real crimes or attempts to commit a crime but rather about completely staged provocations.

As for the Foreign Ministry, it continues to work to ensure that Russian nationals who received prison sentences in the United State return home.



International conference on combating the glorification of Nazism held in Slovenia

On December 1, Maribor, Slovenia hosted an international conference, Lessons of the Past for Future Prosperity, which was held to review the history of WWII in the context of current challenges. The event, which was organised by the Russian Embassy in Slovenia and the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Ljubljana, was attended by academics, politicians and public figures from Russia, Slovenia, Austria, Serbia, Croatia and other countries. Deputy Chairperson of the Federation Council Committee on Science, Education and Culture Lyubov Glebova and other speakers pointed out the importance of historical memory as a public diplomacy instrument, the need to fight any attempts to distort the truth about the events of 1941−1945, as well as the vital importance of instilling antifascist ideals in young people. These views have been reflected in the final resolution of the conference.

We see this initiative as a major step towards the implementation of a Russian-Slovenian project, which provides for opening an International Research Centre for the Second World War in the former Nazi camp for Soviet prisoners of war in Maribor. We reaffirm Russia’s resolve to continue taking multifaceted efforts with our Slovenian and other foreign partners in order to prevent the falsification of WWII history and the glorification of Nazism.



Event to mark the 20th anniversary of the Joint Commission for Studying the Recent History of Russian-German Relations

The 20th anniversary of the Joint Commission for Studying the Recent History of Russian-German Relations was marked at the German-Russian Museum Berlin-Karlshorst on November 30. The event was attended by over 100 academics, researchers and experts, including Commission co-chairs Academician Alexander Chubaryan, Director of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World History, and Andreas Wirsching, Director of the Institute of Contemporary History Munich-Berlin (IfZ). Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent his greetings to event participants.

It should be said that the Commission is greatly contributing to the development of Russian-German cooperation in the area of history and memorials. It has implemented many joint projects, such as the publication of a Russian-German history textbook and the study of the history of prisoners and internees of the two world wars and those who were forced to work for Nazi Germany during the Great Patriotic War.

The Commission is an important instrument of cooperation between our academics and researchers. It helps to formulate objective assessments of the past events and to fight the attempts to falsify history for short-term political considerations, of which we have seen a lot recently.

A similar event was held within the framework of the 20th meeting of the Joint Commission at the Foreign Ministry in Moscow in July. The meeting agenda also included an academic conference on the centenary of the 1917 Russian Revolution.



Situation in Lithuania with the monument to Red Army soldiers in Vilnius

There is a new twist in the story of the memorial plaque in Vilnius’ Antakalnis Cemetery, where seven Soviet soldiers were reburied. Continuing their offensive against the Forgotten Soldiers War History Association, which installed this monument, the Lithuanian authorities imposed a fine on its President Viktor Orlov.

This action was clearly illegal. Suffice to say that the reburial took place in 2013 with the approval of the Vilnius mayor’s office, and in May 2016 the Association was accused of infringing upon the Rules for Improving Cultural Heritage Sites of Special Significance for Foreign States. As far as we know, Viktor Orlov intends to challenge this fine in court.

As a reminder, in May the Moscow Government funded the installation of a black marble memorial plaque at the burial site with the names of the soldiers engraved on it, which included the contour of a five-pointed star, which Russia’s ill-wishers found objectionable. As we know, there is a ban in Lithuania on distributing or displaying “Nazi or communist symbols,” which include “the Soviet five-pointed star” without banning all images of stars, however. Given the total absurdity of this legal standard, the claims regarding the star are expected to be settled soon.

We hope that common sense and justice will prevail despite the destructive efforts of the Lithuanian authorities who continue their undeclared war on historical memory.



Remarks by Special Assistant to US President and National Security Council Senior Director Christopher Ford at the Hudson Institute on November 14, 2017

We noted the discussion with the Special Assistant to US President Christopher Ford at the Hudson Institute, who said that Russia’s withdrawal from almost all aspects of bilateral cooperation in securing nuclear materials could result in a reduction in security at certain facilities within Russia’s vast and expansive nuclear complex. He went on to say that Russia helped Syria conceal its chemical weapons potential.

Regarding nuclear security, it was quite predictable to hear this kind of response from the US political elite to a series of steps undertaken by Russia to limit the ability of the US to interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs. After all, nuclear security and protection of nuclear materials is a very sensitive area that is essential for the overall security of our country.

As for Mr Ford’s statements on the resources Russia should commit to maintaining the “vast and expansive” nuclear complex, let me note that the size of the Russian nuclear complex and the spending it requires are Russia’s domestic affairs that do not fall within the purview of the Assistant to US President.

Speaking of cooperation on nuclear safety and security, let me emphasise that the Russian Federation is open to cooperation of this kind within the relevant international platforms and with all our foreign partners, including the US. We have confirmed our commitment to this cause on numerous occasions and we have been quite effective in our international cooperation efforts to strengthen nuclear security around the world.

However, we have always sought to prevent and will oppose any attempts to impose approaches on the Russian Federation that do not meet its interests or to interfere in Russia’s domestic affairs under the pretext of strengthening nuclear security, or force our country to subscribe to ideas developed without due regard for our position. We will not tolerate any actions in this sensitive area undertaken outside official channels. Mr Ford and other US officials will have to take this into account, if they wish to work effectively with Russia on nuclear safety and security.

Mr Ford absurdly alleges that Russia somehow choreographed Syria’s efforts to relinquish its chemical weapons stockpile in order for the Syrian government to retain some chemical weapons for further use.

A high-ranking official who has access to the sources of information should know that the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile was undertaken under intense international scrutiny and was made possible by the relevant Russia-US framework agreement concluded in September 2013 in Geneva. In late 2015, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) officially confirmed that Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile was eliminated.

We understand all too well that groundless and irresponsible statements of this kind by US officials were used as a pretext for intervening in Iraq in 2003, which was later recognised as a “mistake.” It seems that these tragic events did not teach Mr Ford anything.



Investigation into Andrey Karlov’s assassination

On December 19 it will be one year since the assassination of Russian Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Republic of Turkey Andrey Karlov. Turkish law enforcement agencies continue to investigate the crime in cooperation with Russian operatives. Persons suspected of complicity in the crime have been arrested, and their activities are being investigated.

The Foreign Ministry and the Russian Embassy in Turkey continue to focus on and monitor this issue closely.

In the past 12 months, we have regularly briefed you on all events linked with perpetrating the memory of Andrey Karlov and on the work of the Foreign Ministry and NGOs, and we will continue to do this in the future.



Unveiling Pushkin’s bust in Budapest

On November 22, a bust of Alexander Pushkin was officially unveiled at Eotvos Lorand University under the Days of Moscow in Budapest programme. The bust was installed near the Russian Language Faculty named after the great Russian writer and poet. It may be symbolic, but some of the University’s buildings are located on Pushkin Street. Sculptor Nikolai Kuznetsov-Muromsky from Moscow created the monument.

The unveiling ceremony was attended by Russian Ambassador to Hungary Vladimir Sergeyev, President of Eotvos Lorand Budapest University Dr. Laszlo Borhi, representatives of the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and the University’s faculty and students.

The project was organised by public activist and Great Patriotic War veteran Igor Novosyolov, who has already helped erect 34 monuments and busts in 25 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and America under public diplomacy projects.

As we see it, the unveiling of the monument to Pushkin in Hungary is a particularly important event against the backdrop of frequent attempts to vandalise various monuments in Eastern Europe. We are grateful to the people of Hungary for this friendly gesture symbolising friendship and cooperation between our countries.



Unveiling memorial marking 350th anniversary of first Russian embassy’s arrival in Spain

On December 5, a memorial marking the 350th anniversary of the arrival of the first Russian embassy in Spain, which was headed by Pyotr Potemkin, was officially unveiled in the city of El Puerto de Santa Maria (autonomous community Andalusia).

Russian Ambassador in Madrid Yury Korchagin, Mayor of El Puerto de Santa Maria David de la Encina Ortega, representatives of the public and academics attended the ceremony. This is another good symbol of friendship between our countries.



World Golf Award rates Moscow Country Club best Russian golf hotel

The winners of the World Golf Award 2017, the international golf tourism prize, have been announced. The Moscow Country Club, a subsidiary of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Directorate for Servicing the Diplomatic Corps (UPDK), has been rated the best golf hotel in Russia.

Each year, World Golf Award rates the quality of services being provided by golf clubs worldwide. This is the fourth World Golf Award ceremony to date, as part of the World Travel Awards, a major international contest in the area of tourism achievements that was launched 24 years ago.

In August 2018, the Moscow Country Club is to host the highly important Russian Open Golf Championship-Senior event.



US allegations regarding Russia Today

We appreciate the attention given to Russia by the US State Department in the context of the registration of the RT television network as a foreign agent. However, we would like to caution them about interpreting factual material, or more precisely, US rather than Russian legislation, and to urge them to act more professionally when commenting on Russia’s proportionate responses to US actions involving Russian media outlets.

I would like to point out a mistake the US State Department made when assessing the consequences of RT’s registration as a foreign agent. For example, State Department representative said that this would not affect their ability to gather information and report. It turned out that this is not so. On November 29, RT received a letter saying that their credentials at the US Congress have been revoked because as a foreign agent they are no longer eligible. This means either that American officials do not know their legislation, or that they know their legislation but choose to mislead everyone.

We have also analysed the list of media outlets registered as foreign agents in the United States. We received statements from the US State Department saying that the law has been applied to all media outlets similar to RT. But this is not true. We would like to point out that there are other foreign-financed media outlets working in the United States, such as Al-Jazeera and France24, which are not registered as foreign agents. This raises questions about the competence of those who represent US views on the international stage, as well as about the selective application of this law, in particular, against RT.

A lot of comments have been made regarding the amendments to the Russian media law with respect to government-financed foreign media outlets. The Russian law provides for the registration of US state-owned media outlets that are broadcasting to the Russian audience. Many people in the United States, including our colleagues at the State Department, say that this law is harsher than the American law. This is not true either. The Russian law stipulates administrative liability for failure to register as a foreign agent, while the American law stipulates criminal penalties for violating it.

Our American partners continue to say that the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a mere formality and that no consequences are implied for violating it. This is not true again. RT has reported that its registration as a foreign agent has resulted in practical obstacles to its operations. For example, many of its old-time partners have added unacceptable terms to their contracts. They are doing this to protect themselves, because otherwise they can be required to register as a foreign agent for cooperating with RT, which is a foreign agent.

I would like to say once again what we have said many times before and what seems to escape the attention of the US State Department and our American colleagues. First, the amendments to the Russian media law are a proportionate response to US actions, and second, these measures and any other measures that may be taken in this respect in the future will be cancelled as soon as the US restrictions are lifted from RT and the other media outlets against which these restrictions have been applied. However, this phrase seems to go unnoticed by the US media and Washington officials.



Amie Ferris-Rotman’s publication in Foreign Policy magazine

I would like to ask you to look at your screens. Do you know who this is? You don’t? This is interesting. It’s strange that you don’t recognise her but she was also completely unknown to me. I didn’t know her either. To be more precise, we saw her exactly once when we issued her a foreign correspondent’s accreditation card in May. She has not been in touch with us since. This is Amie Ferris-Rotman who works for Foreign Policy, a US magazine.

I don’t need to tell you that we have various communication formats with foreign reporters: weekly briefings, weekly Q&A meetings, addressing your technical problems, queries, organising interviews and written inquiries, requests for comment and the media tours of Russia for foreign reporters, which began about two years ago. I’m not even talking about the fact that I can be contacted at any time via social media, messaging or mobile phone (I believe everyone has one). We regularly reply to your questions.

So, since Amie Ferris-Rotman received accreditation at the Foreign Ministry she has not once been in touch with the press service on any matter. We have never seen her at briefings or any other meetings.

I wouldn’t talk about this and we would still not know about her – possibly to our mutual pleasure, but the problem is that she wrote an article for Foreign Policy entitled “Donald Trump Has Been Torture for Foreign Correspondents” in Russia. Generally speaking, this article is about you. I will tell you about it now.

The article claims that it has never been harder to be a foreign correspondent in post-Cold War Russia than it is now. Is it hard for you? I can just see your gloomy faces. The article says that now is the hardest time – for you, not for me. To support this point, Amie lists the following complaints: it’s impossible to gain access to state and government agencies or get any comment. Interviews and meetings are just out of the question. In short, everything in Russia is bad.

Ms Ferris-Rotman may be very much surprised, but in order to get a comment or an interview, you need to make yourself known in one way or another. One way is by email. We also have fax. For especially tech-savvy reporters, such as Amie, this could be via text message. Anything. You can send [a note] by courier service. Modern and traditional means of communication enable you to do this in just a couple of minutes. However, she has never even tried! We have looked high and low but have not found any queries [from her] – i.e., during the seven months that have passed since she received accreditation as a Foreign Policy correspondent. I would like to highlight the name of this journal. It would seem that the Foreign Ministry should be the one government agency that Amie would be in contact with. Amie, we’re here! Where are you? We’re looking for you and waiting for you! We want to mend our ways!

By the way, when we read this article, when I read it – Sergey Lavrov did not call me “despotic” for nothing – I was really puzzled. Since you and I meet every week, I thought that maybe Amie had conducted some poll among you, that you felt awkward about telling me about it and so you told Amie that it is hard for you to work here. We decided to hold a little survey. We called 100 reporters (perhaps some of you here received a call). The numbers were picked at random. The question was: “It is hard for you to live and work in Moscow and Russia as a whole?” I’ll tell you straight away: The absolute majority of respondents stated with confidence that they were fine. There were some specific suggestions but in general everyone was happy. I’ll take the liberty of saying that many noted an improvement in the work of the ministry’s press service recently, specifically shorter response times in processing reporters’ queries, prompt and effective assistance in dealing with their problems, facilitating contacts and liaison with representatives of other government agencies.

There were also critical remarks. As a matter of fact, we get together at least twice a week to discuss this. We will continue to improve further. I promise this to both Amie and you.

While I’m on the subject, I’d like to tell you about other publications by Amie Ferris-Rotman. In fact, this is important. We went even further. We thought that maybe there are some passages in her articles that really criticise us on objective grounds. It would seem that Foreign Policy should be about foreign policy. However, apparently Amie does not agree with this. Here are the titles of just some articles published under her byline:

- “The Next Must-See TV Show Is Russia’s Version of ‘The Americans”

- “The Bolshevik Revolution Is a Chinese Tourist Trap”

- “Putin's Next Target Is Russia's Abortion Culture”

- “Russians Don’t Understand Why Anyone Is Upset with ‘Girl Crazy’ Weinstein” – surely you understand what this is about.

Maybe this is in fact the problem? Maybe the articles penned by Amie Ferris-Rotman indeed have absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy as a matter of principle? Why then did we and other government agencies catch flak?

Most likely, in her article, Amie simply listed all possible excuses in a bid to justify her inability (as well as the inability of others) to find any evidence to corroborate the worn-out allegation about “the Kremlin’s meddling in the US election.” Considerable efforts were made to put substance behind this claim, but all to no avail because it just did not happen! Still, it must be found. So maybe it’s her editors or Amie herself who insists on holding somebody responsible for failing to find a Russian trail in all of America’s troubles. You have to justify yourself, when you claim it’s hard to work here.

Amie, we are waiting for you! Write, call or come over and don’t mislead the US public with claims that it’s hard for you to work here. To work hard, you should at least start to work.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman is visiting North Korea to discuss possible ways to ease tensions on the peninsula. He has visited the Russian Embassy in Pyongyang. Do you expect any positive changes from this visit?



Maria Zakharova:

We welcome and pin our expectations on any diplomatic contact in a tense situation, like the one that has developed on the Korean Peninsula.



Question:

The foreign ministers from five Caspian states have completed the coordination of a convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea, on which we primarily congratulate the Russian Foreign Ministry. Can you tell us how the convention defines the Caspian Sea’s legal status? Has it marked the maritime boundaries of the sea? When will confidential information regarding this, if any, be made public?



Maria Zakharova:

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov talked about this in detail yesterday in a statement on behalf of the Caspian states after the ministers coordinated the convention. There is nothing else I can add. The transcript of his statement is available on our website.



Question:

US President Donald Trump intends to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to announce the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. White House representatives said this at a media briefing. How would the Russian Foreign Ministry respond to this? And what effect will this recognition have on regional security?



Maria Zakharova:

Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov has commented on this situation. He said that Russia considers it premature to discuss decisions that have not been taken yet, but the Kremlin is worried this might complicate the situation. I am quoting Mr Peskov from press reports. You can check them by reading first-hand information.

Of course, we need to wait until the declaration of recognition or however else this action may be described by our American colleagues. I just wanted to explain the fundamentals of Russia’s attitude to such issues. This attitude was put forth in a Foreign Ministry statement of April 6, 2017, which reaffirmed our commitment to the UN-approved principles for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement, including the status of East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state. I would like to say once again that we will not comment on US intentions. Again, we have put forth our position of principle on this issue many times.



Question:

Is there any concrete information regarding the dates and time for potential meetings between Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson? Will they talk to the press following the OSCE Ministerial Council in addition to the news conference you mentioned?



Maria Zakharova:

A meeting with Mr Rex Tillerson has been set for the afternoon of December 7. But their meeting could be rescheduled.

As for meeting with the press, you know that we always invite the media to attend the beginning of such meetings, when the opening remarks are made. This can be interpreted as a meeting with the press. Sometimes we publish comments following bilateral meetings. We do not intend to do this in this particular case, but it is possible. However, the main accomplishments of the OSCE ministerial meeting will be reviewed at the news conference I mentioned.



Question:

What can you tell us about the situation in Macedonia where members of the opposition have been arrested, allegedly for participating in the anti-NATO meetings in April but in fact for their involvement in the conflict in the parliament?



Maria Zakharova:

There is nothing I can add on this issue. I will ask the experts, and if they know anything I will share it with you.



Question:

I have to ask about the IOC decision to ban the Russian national team from the Pyeongchang Olympics. Many people, including athletes and politicians, agree that it is a political rather than a sports decision. Is it likely that some political forces pressured the IOC into taking this decision? Can you comment on this?



Maria Zakharova:

We can see that a large-scale aggressive campaign is being waged against the Russian Federation in many areas. Today we have talked about the pressure put on the media. There is an open form of such pressure, namely, the selective use of laws, in particular, by the United States. There is also an invisible part of the iceberg, when the methods I have mentioned are applied against journalists, such as the cancellation of accreditation, endless allegations in the media and references to Russian media outlets in the context of the alleged Russian propaganda campaign, insinuations that they are part of the Kremlin’s propaganda machinery producing fake news, etc.

You can see from the example of our media outlets that this is a large-scale global campaign. The same methods are being applied in sports, including unsubstantiated accusations and banning our athletes from competitions. This is something new, and it involves the policy of collective responsibility, in the negative meaning of this word, which has been applied against Russian athletes.

Again, this information campaign began before the Sochi Olympic Games. But what we are seeing now is not just an information campaign but attempts to push Russia out of big-time sports. They probably pinned their hopes on the failure of the Sochi Olympics, thinking that our team would underperform there. But the Sochi Games were more than a success, and out athletes performed very well there. Both the fans and the teams were satisfied. Therefore, they moved on to Plan B, which they are implementing now. This is happening not only in sports, but also in the media and, of course, politics. This is a large-scale offensive.

I think the reason behind it is that the straightforward attempt to isolate Russia, a kind of crusade against us, has failed. Russia has not been isolated, but they still have a desire and capabilities to continue the offensive. These capabilities should have been applied in some other sphere, such as the fight against terrorism and poverty, or used to stand up against the elements and find ways to rebuild the infrastructure damaged by natural disasters or to prevent industrial accidents. But they have no interest in doing this, because it requires hard work and huge investment with uncertain results.

They have chosen a target for their attack – the Russian Federation – and this attack is being launched on many fronts. They have reached a point where they have said – this is ridiculous and yet sad – that it is not Russia but the United States that has routed terrorists in Syria. They continue trying to steal victories, claiming that Russia only killed civilians in Aleppo while the Americans were fighting terrorists. This is total nonsense, but this is what we see happening now.

Other elements include the so-called war on monuments, which is being waged to revise history and even to erase the anti-Nazi contribution made by the Soviet Union and its peoples from history. A worldwide campaign is being waged in this area as well; this is how I see it.

You have mentioned elements of political pressure. This is definitely true. The doping problem did not crop up yesterday, nor in 2014, and certainly not in Sochi. Just look at the number of athletes around the world who have been disqualified for using performance enhancing drugs, including at the Olympic Games. But did the Olympic bodies, including the IOC or any other sports officials, react like this before? Never! Have you ever heard about a desire – which has been presented as an agreed decision – to hold repeat Olympic medal ceremonies for the “wronged” athletes? But this is what they are doing now.

The use of pressure and political tools is not my domain, but if I learn anything about this I will share the news. As for my personal opinion, I have expressed it in the social media.



Question:

I want to ask about Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Italy. What conclusions have been drawn following this event? Did they have an opportunity to discuss Libya, which is a very painful issue for us?



Maria Zakharova:

You could see that it was a frank discussion. It covered all the priority issues. Of course, the situation in Libya and the rest of the region was discussed at bilateral talks and also on the sidelines of the Rome MED: Mediterranean Dialogues international conference, which has been held several times in Italy. This issue was also on the agenda of Sergey Lavrov’s meetings with his foreign colleagues at this event.

Regrettably, we turned out to be right – this has nothing to do with an over-positive view of our own actions but a hard fact – when we said several years ago that the global powers’ experiments in the Middle East and North Africa were fraught with big problems in their home territory. This is exactly what we see happening now. Regrettably, these experiments had a negative outcome; they were illogical, unwise and were not supported by analytical research, and they have created the current situation. It is because of this situation that we talk above all about Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and many other regional countries at all our briefings. We talk about the proliferation of terrorism and the growth of the so-called terrorism belt between the Middle East and Central Asia, something we did not think possible before. This terrorism belt has linked the Middle East to Afghanistan. Now we will need to fight the terrorist groups that have been especially active recently in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The Russian leaders, the Russian foreign and defence ministers, as well as our experts have repeatedly drawn public attention to the entire range of these issues for the past decade. You can find this in President Vladimir Putin’s remarks in Munich and at the UN, as well as in the statements made by Russian representatives at the UN Security Council. We have not received any answer or even response to our statements at the Munich Security Conference or to our calls for joining forces and capabilities not only to fight terrorism but also to address the issue of refugees, who are bringing problems from their region to Europe. Our partners laughed, sniggered or pretended not to hear us. We would like them not just to start thinking about these problems at last, but also to take cooperative actions to resolve them. We are ready for this anyway.



Question:

Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin instructed the Foreign Ministry to establish an inter-agency working group to develop recommendations on ensuring efficient legal protection for Russian nationals’ rights abroad. The working group would include NGOs. What does the Foreign Ministry plan to do?



Maria Zakharova:

I can confirm that the President indeed expressed interest in the issue. This instruction from the President was submitted to the Foreign Ministry in written form, which we just received the other day. Now the Foreign Ministry is reviewing the document. The instruction is currently being processed by our departments and experts. We are very interested in this both because it was an instruction from the President and because it is in line with our priority work with Russian nationals abroad.

Considering the attention both the media and Russian citizens give to this issue, we will comment on further developments as soon as we can share our views (but first, of course, they must be communicated to the Presidential Executive Office).

Speaking of protecting Russian nationals’ rights, I would like to point out Minister Lavrov’s recent remarks at a meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Foundation for Supporting and Protecting the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad that took place on November 28, 2017. Mr Lavrov discussed the protection of Russian nationals’ rights abroad at length.



Question:

As a journalist who has worked in Russia for two years, I would like to say that Russia is the most open country for the media. I can prove it. My colleagues in Europe and the United States often have no opportunity to see the head of state, to say nothing of asking questions. Over seven months, I have addressed two questions to President Putin directly and seen him 10 to 15 times. I have also seen Minister Lavrov six or seven times. There is no other country where a president gives such large press conferences like President Putin does, or where a foreign minister will give an exclusive interview. The accreditation process in Russia is also very simple and everybody is very nice and helpful.



Maria Zakharova:

Thank you very much. Nice to hear it.



Question:

It has been reported that the UN plans to wind down its World Food Programme in Donbass due to lack of funding. In your opinion, is the money for this programme distributed fairly? What is the reason for this shortage?



Maria Zakharova:

I will forward your question to our analysts and get back to you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2979640

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 24th OSCE Ministerial Council Meeting, Vienna, December 7, 2017



7 December 2017 - 14:46









Mr Chairperson-in-Office, Mr Secretary-General, ladies and gentlemen,

The Euro-Atlantic area architecture, of which the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act remain the cornerstones, has come under a serious test recently. Building up NATO's potential on the "eastern flank," the policies seeking to recklessly expand the alliance, and deploying US missile defence in Europe significantly undermine the principle of indivisibility of security. We are deeply concerned by gross violations of international law, such as interference in internal affairs, including direct support of coups d'etat, attempts to resolve existing issues by military force, use of illegitimate unilateral coercive measures, including as an instrument of unfair competition in various areas ranging from energy to sport. There are attempts to substitute flat-out dictates and ultimatums for the principles of democracy, market freedom, and fair competition in international affairs.

This has led to increased conflict potential, aggravation of terrorist threats, illegal migration and other transnational risks, especially in regions that greatly affect the security of all our countries. We are particularly concerned by the attempts of those who pursue their reckless policies in the Middle East and North Africa to resort to the most unscrupulous methods to achieve their self-serving goals.

I am referring, in particular, to financial and other support provided by a number of the OSCE members to entities such as White Helmets, which disguise themselves as NGOs and conduct openly provocative activities in Syria, thereby directly contributing to the crimes of extremists. There is enough evidence to back this up.

We are convinced that the OSCE needs to step up its activities - without any double standards - in fighting terrorist ideology in accordance with UNSC Resolution 2354.

It is also imperative to consolidate efforts in fighting the drug threat. We continue to implement the OSCE projects to train drug enforcement agents in Afghanistan, where the production of opium and heroin reached all-time highs despite the longstanding presence of NATO troops in that country. We reiterate our proposal to create a separate anti-drug unit in the Secretariat.

States must behave responsibly in the information space which is being increasingly used for illegal purposes. We urge to focus on developing and implementing specific additional confidence-building measures in the interest of ensuring cybersecurity rather than wasting time on unsubstantiated accusations.

Speaking about the security sphere, we hope for the OSCE's ability to contribute to the reduction of military and political tension. The "structured dialogue" launched a year ago at Germany’s initiative is designed to help restore trust. Its usefulness will depend on whether it will be possible to avoid politicising it, which some participants of the discussions have so far been aggressively promoting.

We consider it important to strive not only for indivisibility of security, but indivisibility of socioeconomic development as well. In conjunction with its EAEU partners, Russia advocates a dialogue on harmonising various integration processes in our common space in the interest of forming the Greater Eurasian partnership in the future as proposed by President Vladimir Putin. The OSCE can be instrumental in establishing such a dialogue, including by encouraging contacts between the EU and the EAEU.

The situation with the observance of rights and freedoms in the Euro-Atlantic region is a source of deep concern. The vicious practice of dividing the media into “free” and “propagandistic” is gaining ground. In France journalists of the Sputnik news agency are not allowed to attend new conferences. The US authorities are imposing considerable restrictions on the activities of the Russia Today television channel by designating it a foreign agent. Ukraine and the Baltic countries are deliberately reducing the Russian-language information space. Regrettably, OSCE institutions employ double standards and are often silent when such actions are taken in the Western and Western-backed countries. They criticise them only when Russia is compelled to take reciprocal measures. I would like to remind you that when a collection of candidates for the four main positions in the OSCE Secretariat was coordinated last July, we were told in public that these officials will work without bias. The promises that made it possible to reach a consensus on this collection of positions must be kept.

Freedom of speech was also violated last November when Crimean journalists were not allowed to say the truth about the situation on the peninsula. They were denied visas for a visit to Vienna to attend an ODIHR event where they had already registered, and later were not allowed to show their video to its participants.

The position of national minorities continues to evoke alarm. The problem of stateless persons that is shameful for the EU has not been resolved in Latvia and Estonia. The reaction of Brussels to the Ukrainian Law on Education is utterly vague although it crudely violates Kiev’s commitments on linguistic and educational rights. If the Venice Commission that is studying this law takes a conciliatory position, it will do serious damage to its reputation. I would like to draw your attention to the absolutely unacceptable attempts to exempt EU languages from this overtly discriminatory law. We hope that everyone understands that it is shameful to tacitly support these attempts to attack the Russian language that is a native tongue for millions of Ukrainian citizens.

We have repeatedly noted the tacit support of the Ukrainian authorities for the radicals that are capturing and desecrating Russian Orthodox churches. Now Kiev has decided to consolidate by law its “right” to interfere in religious life.

We are alarmed by the EU bans on religious symbols, attempts to prevent parents from raising their children in the spirit of Christian morality, and the consolidation of anti-Islamic attitudes.

We have repeatedly raised the issue about the need to comply with the 2014 instruction of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Basel on adopting, on a par with the declaration on countering anti-Semitism, separate documents on combatting Christianophobia and Islamophobia. Agreements must be fulfilled.

The attempts to rewrite the history of World War II, and to whitewash and even glorify Nazis continue unabated. Latvia has passed a law to equate members of the SS – an organisation condemned by the Nuremberg Tribunal – with those who liberated Europe from Nazism. Poland’s war on memorials dedicated to liberator soldiers is sacrilegious and insulting to the memory of tens of millions of victims of fascism and the feelings of their descendants.

For the sake of Europe’s future, the OSCE should strongly condemn this. I would like the participants to take note of the statement issued by eight CIS countries on this subject that was circulated at our meeting.

Promoting conflict resolution remains an important area of the Organisation's activities. We support the OSCE efforts in the Contact Group, as well as the Special Monitoring Mission’s activities in Donbass. Both these functions of the OSCE should be aimed at developing a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk as required by the Minsk Package of Measures, to which there is no alternative. However, so far the efforts within the Contact Group and the Normandy format have been artificially hindered by Kiev. A dangerous situation has developed around the Joint Control and Coordination Centre (JCCC). Ukraine, in particular, President Poroshenko, who spearheaded the creation of such a centre in 2014, is now doing everything to create unbearable environment for the Russian officers and making unacceptable requirements on them with an eye towards shutting down the centre. The responsibility for this will, of course, lie with the Ukrainian authorities. We are deeply concerned by the attempts to filibuster substantive consideration of the Russian UN Security Council draft resolution on creating a UN mission to improve the protection of observers of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in strict accordance with their mandate.

In return, ideas are advanced that are tantamount to introducing an occupation administration in Donbass in order to bury the Package of Measures, which was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, and to resolve the issue by force. By the way, the Kiev authorities, including the incumbent ministers, are talking about it out loud and, at the same time, are doing their best to let go unpunished the crimes committed during the coup and after it.

With regard to Nagorno-Karabakh, Russia, including as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, will continue to promote the search for mutually acceptable solutions by the parties in accordance with the principles approved more than once by the presidents of Russia, the United States, and France.

With regard to the Transnistrian settlement, we note certain progress in implementing the tactics of small steps by Chisinau and Tiraspol. In order to preserve the positive dynamics, we propose that Chisinau and Tiraspol sign an agreement on guarantees for implementing concluded agreements.

We call upon the OSCE, within the framework of the Geneva discussions on the Transcaucasia, to facilitate approving the document with the commitment to no use of force between Georgia and Abkhazia or South Ossetia. All problems of Transcaucasia should be resolved exclusively by peaceful means.

The Organisation's activity is much needed in the Balkans, where has been an increase in instability, terrorist threats, and transnational crime. To a large extent, this is due to the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo, which should remain in the focus of both the OSCE and the UN Security Council. We caution against ill-considered steps that run counter to UN Security Council Resolution 1244. We advocate a mutually respectful Belgrade-Pristina dialogue without unilateral pressure.

The entire OSCE experience confirms the overdue need for reforms. The issue is about adopting the Charter, the rules of the work of executive bodies, bringing things up to code and ensuring transparency in finances, human resources, extra-budgetary projectsб and the chronic issues of missions, institutions and rules for NGO participation.

I am convinced that only through joint efforts and relying on the principles of equality and consensus, will we be able to strengthen the Organisation, and to achieve the goal outlined at the Astana summit which is to move towards forming a free, democratic and indivisible security community from Vancouver to Vladivostok. We are willing to contribute to this in every possible way. We are waiting for a concrete response to our proposals and concerns. Our criticism of the current state of affairs is substantive and is aimed at bringing the OSCE back to its original purpose which is to be a forum for seeking compromises and developing generally acceptable solutions, rather than a haven for propaganda war activists, or a pliant tool for imposing unilateral approaches.

In closing, we express our gratitude to the Austrian Chairmanship and wish success to the upcoming Italian Chairmanship.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2980504






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the Security of Christians in the Middle East and Beyond conference organised by foreign ministers of Russia and Hungary on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Vienna, December 7, 2017



7 December 2017 - 20:19









Mr Moderator,

I fully share the welcome address to all those who have accepted our invitation. I am particularly grateful to our colleagues – foreign ministries’ heads. My Hungarian counterpart Péter Szijjártó and I decided to draw your attention to a serious problem related to the infringement of the rights of Christians in OSCE member countries and adjacent regions.

Nowadays, it is obvious to all that Christians are encountering numerous problems in various parts of the world. Their situation in the Middle East remains especially deplorable, even though, as Russian President Vladimir Putin noted recently at a Moscow meeting with the heads of local Orthodox churches, it is the cradle of Christianity.

As a result of the irresponsible policy of several Western countries aimed at regime change in the region, vast territories in the Middle East have turned into a zone of chaos and instability and have become breeding grounds for terrorism and extremism, as well as a source of illegal migration. Believers and members of the clergy are attacked, persecuted and killed by terrorist groups, fall victim to discriminatory laws and law enforcement practice and have to flee their homes. Desecration and destruction of Christian shrines with impunity is not a rare occurrence. The mass exodus of Christians upsets the established ethnic and religious balance in the region that has evolved over centuries. I completely subscribe to what Mr Szijjártó has just said regarding the need to do everything to ensure that Christians return to the places where their predecessors have lived for centuries. At the aforementioned meeting, President Putin said that a working group created by the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church could play an important role in facilitating the return of Christians to the region. I discussed this matter today at a bilateral meeting with Archbishop Paul Gallagher.

We believe that the OSCE should take a principled position on the discrimination of Christians in the Middle East and uphold their rights more effectively. There is a need for a productive dialogue between the OSCE and its Mediterranean partners – Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. As I said, we support the Italian presidency’s plans to institute the post of special representative of the OSCE acting presidency for migration and Mediterranean affairs.

Naturally, it is essential to foster the peaceful resolution of crises and conflicts after which real return [of Christians] can be ensured. However, unfortunately, the region still abounds in such conflicts. Countries in the region need assistance in consolidating or restoring the institutions of power, as well as socio-economic rehabilitation and actively fighting terrorism. All of this will have a positive impact on the situation of Christians and provide conditions for their repatriation.

There are also glaring problems in several EU member countries, where Christian roots are being effectively abandoned. Pushing Christian traditions and symbols to the sidelines of the public space erodes European cultural and civilisational identity. Desecration of Christian values under the cover of freedom of expression and the imposition of the ultraliberal perception of “secularism,” when it turns from the principle of the separation of the church and the state into the fight against religion verging on militant atheism, are disturbing.

The harassment of the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine is acquiring alarming proportions. The desecration and seizure of church buildings by extremists and violence against members of the clergy and believers are compounded by the attempts of the authorities to enshrine in law their “right” to interfere in religious affairs and impose restrictions on the activity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate.

It should be noted that representatives of other traditional religions are also subjected to discrimination and harassment in Europe. It is unacceptable to equate Islam with terrorism or to insult believers’ feelings, let alone do so publicly in articles and cartoons. Proliferating manifestations of anti-Semitism and attempts to glorify Nazis and their minions responsible for Holocaust-related crimes also cause concern.

We consider it necessary to reinforce OSCE leverage in ensuring religious tolerance. At the 2014 ministerial meeting in Basel, we adopted a declaration on countering anti-Semitism and decided to frame similar declarations in defence of Christians and Muslims, committing that to paper. Unfortunately, a consensus could not be reached either in Belgrade in 2015 or in Hamburg in 2016 or here in Vienna due to the politicised position of certain states that view such documents – on which we all agreed – as not politically correct. We hope that the future Italian presidency will manage to solve this task and in this way we will honour the obligations that we assumed three years ago.

At this point we urge OSCE institutions to become more actively involved in upholding the Christians’ rights. We propose that the OSCE programme for next year include a separate conference on this issue. We expect the presidency’s personal representatives to raise their profiles regarding various aspects of tolerance.

We see no conflict between protecting believers and human rights. That said, we cannot abide a situation where human rights are used as a pretext for attempts to revise the fundamental norms of morality and integrity and impose approaches that are at odds with Christian and other religious tenets. This path is not only destructive for society but also anti-democratic, since it is often pursued contrary to the will of the majority.

In the past three years, together with our colleagues from the Vatican, Lebanon, Armenia and Hungary, we have conducted regular activities in defence of Christians within the framework of the UN Human Rights Council. We appreciate the value of our Hungarian colleagues’ initiative to get the OSCE involved in this important work and focus the member countries’ attention on the need to do something, not just complain about the situation prevailing now.

I am sure that the OSCE has everything that is required to promote traditional moral ideals common to the world’s main religions and cultures and to prevent inter-civilisational and inter-religious rifts. I believe that it is essential to use these opportunities actively and correctly.

Thank you.



Question:

There are cases of persecution against Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian group these days in Russia and in the former Soviet states.

For example, there are even ‘prisoners of conscience’ in Azerbaijan who were arrested for their religious beliefs. Representatives of this small Christian group are also being victimised in Russia.

The Russian Supreme Court outlawed this organisation. In your opinion, can we speak about the safety of Christians in the Middle East and also mention the persecution of this group in Russia and the former Soviet countries?



Sergey Lavrov:

As concerns Jehovah’s Witnesses, Russia bans organisations that encourage their supporters to openly break Russian laws. This is exactly what this cult was doing. They were warned several times but they would not listen and continued to involve their members in anti-constitutional activity. There may be no question about this.

Before Father Stefan answers, I would like to say the following about the two bills that were submitted to Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. We should not just be concerned about the Russian Orthodox Church whose interests will be clearly discriminated against. All OSCE members should call those who so blatantly interfere with the church affairs, to order, as they are discriminating against one canonical church as opposed to the other religious communities. I think Father Stefan will add to this.



Question (via interpreter):

Speaking of Christians in the Middle East, they were there 1,400 years before Islam. Then they lived alongside Muslims in those countries for centuries. Islam has nothing against other faiths, whether it’s Christians, Jews or Yazidis. That’s why we are so proud that Christian minorities are represented in our region. Today Christians, Muslims, Jews and Yazidis stand against the same enemy in the region, that is, terrorists, radicals and extremists who are infringing on our common fundamental values. Closing our ranks is one of the solutions to this problem. In Syria and Iraq, Christians have been subjected to violence, but the Muslims in these countries have suffered no less.



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that when dealing with the issue of religions in the Middle East, we should not forget what has been mentioned here today, which is the split within Islam. Fifteen years ago, when King Abdullah II initiated the adoption of the Amman Message, Jordan played a very important role in this issue and undertook to promote solidarity between Muslims regardless of denomination.

I believe studying the current situation in the region and restoring security is a long-term task. But we would all be happy if closing the ranks within Islam would significantly help to improve the state of affairs in the region.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2981131






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a question on the outcome of his talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the sidelines of the OSCE Ministerial Council, Vienna, December 7, 2017



7 December 2017 - 22:45









Question:

Could you comment on your meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson?



Sergey Lavrov:

The meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fairly concrete and long – about an hour. We paid particular attention to the implementation of the agreements sealed in the statement by the Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump issued in Danang on the sidelines of the APEC summit. In particular, we discussed the contacts between our foreign policy departments, the military on the ground, and raised some issues that need to be clarified in terms of what is going on. We agreed on the need to prevent any actions that would put into question or threaten our shared commitment to Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We discussed the political process under the UN aegis which was reinvigorated after the start of the Astana process and more recently has been given a push by the initiatives put forward in Sochi at the trilateral summit of the presidents of Russia, Iran and Turkey. We welcomed the resumption of the Geneva talks but expressed our conviction that the Government and the opposition should take part in them without any preliminary conditions. This was stressed and reaffirmed when this round was resumed by UN Secretary -General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. But unfortunately, some members of the opposition have taken a stand that runs counter to their own obligations and have put forward preliminary conditions. We fully agree on this point with the Americans that there must be no preconditions. Direct negotiations should begin on the preparation of a new constitution and on holding elections.

We have briefed US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the progress in the preparation for the Congress of the Syrian National Dialogue, which would involve broad representation of the opposition circles and the tribes living in Syria. In the framework of this dialogue we will try to help to initiate a constitutional reform and a discussion of practical aspects of the holding of future elections under UN supervision.

Another topic we discussed was Ukraine. On that issue we have still less common ground, although Russia and the US have many differences on Syria as well. We discussed them, and the topic was also discussed by our military. On Ukraine, we explained that there was no alternative to the Minsk Agreements. We have asked the American side to reaffirm that this remains their position as well. I hope that the confirmation does reflect the current state of affairs in Washington.

We are concerned about the attempts to turn on its head our initiative on sending UN guards to ensure the security of the OSCE mission. The initiative fits in a hundred per cent with the spirit and letter of the Vienna agreements. Our initiative would have UN guards follow the OSCE observers whenever they work and wherever they go. What we heard from US Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker is something entirely different. His approach is that without getting over-focused on the issues of the special status for Donbass, amnesty, preparation for elections through direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, an immediate introduction should begin of what amounts to a UN administration which would oversee everything that happens in the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR. Obviously, in this case there can be no question of any Minsk process because its core is precisely direct negotiations and reaching agreements on all the aspects I have mentioned.

We have drawn attention to the fact that it would be very wrong to send signals of this kind to the Ukrainians because it would reinforce their feeling that they could ignore their obligations and drift away from the Minsk Agreements. In fact some government members have said publicly that they can solve the problem by military means. We called on Washington to stop such provocations.

We discussed the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Our position there is unchanged. We are convinced that the vicious spiral of confrontation, recklessness and provocations must be stopped. We have explained how we see the opportunities for implementing the Russia-China roadmap to defuse tensions and create conditions for starting negotiations in any format acceptable to the countries immediately concerned. We are aware that North Korea wants first and foremost to talk with the US on guarantees of its security. We are ready to support and take part in assisting such negotiations. We have brought this message home to our US counterpart, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.

We have confirmed the usefulness of contacts over Afghanistan between the representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the State Department. There were contacts in September and again in December. Here, too, there is a need to understand better who wants what. We were somewhat alarmed by Washington’s announcement of a new strategy which basically envisages the use of force to resolve the Afghan crisis. This is not a realistic approach. We have discussed it. We have agreed that our representatives would continue to be in contact and compare their approaches and of course cooperate with the other countries involved in the Afghan settlement.

We have asked for an explanation of the rationale for the decisions to move the eventual US Embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. We have asked what consequences they expect that move to have for the efforts being made under the UN auspices, in the framework of the international Quartet of mediators. We have many questions. We have drawn attention to the fears expressed by Arab and Muslim countries in general, the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation that this may undermine and even put paid to the negotiations on a two-state solution when the State of Israel and the State of Palestine would live a secure full life side by side. All this is reflected in the UN General Assembly and UNSC resolutions which may now be under test.

We have agreed to continue contacts at the level of our experts in order to better understand the American approach (there are some aspects that remain to be clarified) and how to work within the Quartet of international mediators (Russia, the US, the UN and the European Union).

We have of course reminded out counterparts of all the issues on our bilateral agenda that damage our relations. We stressed again that cooperation on international issues that are of concern to the Americans is stymied by the continuing persistent, consistent and conscious attempts to destroy bilateral relations.

We have agreed that our deputies will continue contacts on this topic although the last two or three rounds have drawn a blank, as well as contacts on strategic stability of the treaties between us on strategic offensive arms reductions, medium- and shorter-range missiles and the issues arising over the Treaty on Open Skies.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2982514

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding US visas



5 December 2017 - 10:57



We consider the US promise that the issuance of visas be resumed at US consulates general in St Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok on December 11 as a step in the right direction. Since August, residents of Russian regions have been required to go to Moscow to file visa applications at the US Embassy and wait for up to 85 days for a decision. However, it has become difficult to file an online application three months in advance. The US visa procedure, which has always been complicated and expensive, considering the need for personal contact at various stages, has almost become impossible.

This threw into question the very existence of US consulates general in Russia, by the way, because one of their main functions is the issuance of visas. What else are they needed for?

We would welcome the reopening of consulates where US visas are issued. However, it turns out, as we have learned from the US Embassy, that the issuance of visas will remain restricted. This means that many trips to the US will be prevented, including travel for business, research, family and friendly purposes.

The US Embassy complains about the shortage of personnel, the number of who has been cut at Russia’s request. First, we did this in response to the mass deportation of Russian diplomats and other openly hostile actions. Second, the decision to reduce the number of personnel in the visa department was taken in Washington deliberately to create problems for people in the hope of provoking a public outcry.

They are even procrastinating with the issuance of visas for Aeroflot crews who make regular flights to the United States, which can result in cancelled flights in violation of the bilateral air transport agreement. Russian athletes have missed international competitions, which looks like deliberate discrimination against our athletes and runs contrary to US obligations regarding the competitions they host. Moreover, the travel plans of thousands of ordinary people have been disrupted.

Of course, it is for the US authorities to decide on the visa procedure and whom to permit entry to the United States. We will not force ourselves on anyone. However, Washington’s actions in the visa sphere show clearly what they think about contact between people. Instead of promoting contact, as Russia is doing in order to strengthen mutual understanding and trust, Washington is raising obstacles for Russians, as if they fear that these Russians will provide truthful information about Russia from which they want to protect their citizens. This looks as if they want to isolate themselves from us.

We hope this position will be revised in Washington. It should be noted that back in 2011 we proposed a visa-free short-term travel procedure. The response to this proposal is still pending.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2978277






Comment by the Information and Press Department on US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel



7 December 2017 - 14:11



On December 6, US President Donald Trump issued a proclamation recognising Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. He also instructed the Department of State to relocate the US Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It has been pointed out that in making this decision President Trump is following through on his election campaign promise. At the same time, President Trump has reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to “the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and willingness to support “a two-state solution, if agreed to by both sides.”

Washington’s decision has been sharply criticised and condemned by the Palestinians. President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas pointed out that the decision undermined international efforts towards a Middle East settlement. Palestinian factions in the PLO and Hamas have called for strikes and protest marches in the Palestinian territories – across the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Moscow is seriously concerned about Washington’s decision. We believe that a fair and lasting solution to the protracted Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be based on international law, including UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions that provide for settling all aspects of the final status of the Palestinian territories, including the highly delicate issue of Jerusalem, through direct Palestinian-Israeli talks. The United States’ new position on Jerusalem can further complicate Palestinian-Israeli relations and the situation in the region. In this context, we urge all the parties concerned to exercise self-control and to refrain from actions that could have uncontrollable consequences. Special attention must be given to ensuring all the believers free access to their holy sites in Jerusalem’s Old City.

Russia’s position of principle on this matter has not changed. It provides for promoting a lasting Palestinian-Israeli settlement that will bring peace and security to Israel within the internationally recognised borders and ensure the implementation of the Palestinians’ aspiration for an independent state of their own.

On April 6 of this year, it was announced in Moscow that Russia sees East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state and West Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an active member of the Middle East Quartet of international intermediaries, Russia will continue to provide assistance to the Palestinians and Israelis in their efforts to achieve corresponding agreements.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2980367






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the 30th anniversary of the INF Treaty



8 December 2017 - 09:44



December 8 is the 30th anniversary of the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty).

This event has become a milestone on the path towards abandoning the Cold War stereotypes. The treaty contributed greatly to strengthening European and global security and stability. Two classes of nuclear missiles were eliminated under the treaty. It was a crucial step towards nuclear disarmament.

However, we regret to note that Russia’s 2007 proposal to make the INF Treaty universal was never brought to reality. That would have prevented an escalation and negative tendencies related to nuclear weapon proliferation.

Throughout the three decades, the Russian Federation has strictly adhered to the INF Treaty and observed it faithfully. We have been insisting on the United States to do the same as the US seems to have interpreted the contractual obligation rather freely in those cases when the treaty hindered developing the arms important to the US. At the same time, the United States continues to bring forward unfounded accusations of Russia’s breaching the treaty.

We want to stress once again that Russia will continue to fulfill the INF Treaty in its entirety for as long as our partners do the same. We are ready to engage in a non-politicised, professional dialogue with the United States regarding the issues around the treaty. However, attempts to communicate with us in the language of ultimatums or to put military and political pressure on Russia through sanctions (which has been discussed with great excitement in Washington) are unacceptable.

We proceed from the premise that it is important to make joint efforts with our American counterparts to sustain the treaty.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2982610






Comment by the Information and Press Department on suspension of the UN World Food Programme in Ukraine in 2018



8 December 2017 - 11:56



According to the United Nations’ humanitarian aid plan for Ukraine in 2018, the World Food Programme, the world’s leading food assistance agency, was not listed as one of the administrators. In addition to the lack of funding, the measure was explained by the fact that the overall food supply situation in Ukraine no longer matches the criteria of a critical level based on the WFP classification.

At the same time, the United Nations has itself observed that food security in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions remains unstable and tends to deteriorate. Over 1.2 million people are affected. The majority of these people (800,000) live in the areas that Kiev does not control and which are under Kiev’s continuous social and economic blockade.

We can only assume that the WFP’s position is not just a result of a decline in international interest in the humanitarian needs of southeastern Ukraine and, therefore, a lack of available funding. On top of everything else, there is a political factor involved. WFP employees are not working on the ground in the areas outside Kiev’s control but are acting through various NGOs. The programme’s representatives refused to establish direct contacts with DPR and LPR authorities and to complete the registration process proposed by these authorities in order to increase the level of trust between the foreign humanitarian forces and the aid recipients.

As concerns the distribution of funding for the UN’s humanitarian aid programmes, the process is based on instructions from donor countries that usually provide targeted contributions to specific agencies, countries or for specific events. For example, in 2014 Russia donated $5 million to the UN World Food Programme to support Ukraine. Those funds were spent on vouchers for those in need in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2982976






Comment by the Information and Press Department regarding the statement of the President of the United Nations Security Council



8 December 2017 - 19:15



On December 7, the UN Security Council adopted the statement of its President expressing grave concern about reports of migrants being sold into slavery in Libya and condemning such illegal actions, which abuse human rights. The statement warned that transnational organised crime profiting from human trafficking and the smuggling of migrants is a threat to regional stability.

In this regard, the Security Council supports measures taken to resolve the conflict in Libya and calls on all Libyans to work together in a spirit of compromise in the inclusive political process. The need for coordinated efforts to tackle the root causes of large movements of people was emphasised.

The Security Council calls for the investigation and prosecution of acts of smuggling of migrants and trafficking in persons.

The Russian delegation played an active role in preparing the statement of the President of the UN Security Council and many amendments made by Russia were approved. At the same time, the authors of the text, citing the opinion of several council members, refused to take into account one important addition we proposed: the condemnation of the circumstances that resulted in the current legal chaos in Libya, including the alleged slavery. The necessity of including this point in the text was stressed in the speech by Russia’s representative when the statement was adopted.

It is deeply regrettable that some members of the Security Council do not acknowledge their responsibility for interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign state and for the negative consequences of the military intervention in 2011.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983567






Joint statement by Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation on issues related to the interconnectedness and linking of integration processes in the OSCE region at the 24th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Vienna, December 7, 2017



8 December 2017 - 16:19



We, ministers of foreign affairs of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation,

Recognising the crucial significance of the economic and ecological dimension of the OSCE concept of common, comprehensive and indivisible security and a common security space free of dividing lines,

Reaffirming that economic cooperation in the OSCE region, including interconnectedness, should be based on solidarity, transparency, equal partnership free of discrimination, as well as mutual accountability and full respect for the interests of all OSCE participating states,

Aware of the increasing role of international trade as one of the most important factors of economic growth and social progress,

Emphasising the importance of OSCE participating states giving up the logic of dividing lines and closed borders, unilateral economic sanctions, economic blockade, visa or other restrictions and isolation from regional economic projects,

Convinced that joint efforts aimed at developing cooperation in trade, transport, energy, investment, environment, as well as other economic fields, help improve trust and bolster peace and security in Europe and the whole world,

Realising that global economic challenges and the growing economic interdependence in the world call for more effective joint efforts in addressing the key global economic problems,

Acknowledging that regional and sub-regional integration processes and agreements on integration can lend a powerful impetus to the development of trade and economy in the OSCE region, as well as the OSCE participating states,

Confirming that cooperation between the participating states, as well as the international and regional organisations to which they belong, is one of the chief ways of strengthening security and stability and preventing potential conflicts in the OSCE region,

Urge the OSCE participating states to redouble their efforts for the sake of achieving the strategic goal of the OSCE Astana summit – to create a free, democratic, common and indivisible Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security community;

are confident of the pressing need to “build bridges” and move forward along the path of linking integration processes in the OSCE region, above all for the purpose of expanding economic cooperation and improving the level of trust among the OSCE participating states, as well as creating prerequisites for building a common economic space from Vancouver to Vladivostok;

propose to the participating states to take additional measures to simplify conditions for mutual trade and the development of multi-modal international transport corridors, including the creation of the necessary trans-border transport infrastructure and the harmonisation of customs formalities, on the basis of equal partnership without damaging each other’s interests; to continue helping each other to deepen the integration of our countries’ economies into the global economic and financial system, above all through the speedy accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO);

urge the participating states to use the OSCE as a platform for dialogue and concerted efforts by international and regional organisations operating in its area of responsibility, aimed at facilitating economic interconnectedness, removing barriers in various fields of economic cooperation, ensuring sustainable economic growth, developing digital economy and promoting a more dynamic interaction of integration processes in the OSCE region;

stress that the linking of integration processes in the OSCE region could make a solid contribution to building a true security community free of dividing lines, based on cooperation and mutual trust and taking into account the interests of every participating state;

urge the upcoming Italian chairmanship, as well as the OSCE participating states to step up dialogue on these issues in 2018, including through organising special events on the political and expert level.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983422

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following the 24th OSCE Ministerial Council meeting, Vienna, December 8, 2017



8 December 2017 - 16:05









Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the OSCE current chairman, Austria’s Federal Minister for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs Sebastian Kurz, and his associates for the excellent organisation of the chairmanship and the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting.

Surely you are up to date on the substance of yesterday’s discussions at plenary sessions. Pointed questions were raised and conflicting, sometimes opposite positions were stated.

We noted – and I believe it is hard to argue with this – that the security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic region has fallen on hard times, to put it mildly. Military-political tensions are escalating, including as a result of NATO’s course to “contain” Russia and continue its unchecked advance to the East, including the buildup of its capability there. The suppression of dissent, attacks on freedom of the media, language and education rights, and of course the continuing rise in neo-Nazi sentiments, which is not meeting with a fitting response, not least in the European Union, are causing concern. That said, several countries are indulging in groundless rhetoric about Russian “propaganda” and “hybrid threat” to avoid responsibility for many appalling violations of principles underlying OSCE activities. Division between OSCE countries impedes the unification of efforts to effectively counter real, not perceived threats common to all: terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime.

Russia and its CSTO and Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) allies prepared several draft resolutions on consolidation issues for the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Vienna, including the need to fight terrorist ideology pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 2354, foster integration processes in our common space and the need to firmly oppose the demolition and desecration of monuments dedicated to the victors of World War II.

On behalf of the Russian Federation, in our national capacity, we also submitted a draft resolution on reforming the OSCE’s human dimension activities. Unfortunately, our Western partners proved unprepared for a frank discussion of outstanding issues raised in these documents. These decisions were not coordinated. We will continue to work on these topics as we move along.

The CIS member countries have distributed their statement on the unacceptability of desecrating memorials dedicated to those who defeated the “brown plague.”

We have supported a generally good document on the military and political aspects of security (the first basket): on small arms and light weapons and stockpiles of conventional weapons. Regrettably, because of disagreements, draft documents on strengthening military stability and on the 25th anniversary of the OSCE Forum for Security Cooperation were not coordinated. Nevertheless, we hope that this dialogue will continue. We believe that military and political issues should be discussed substantively and constructively, without any politicisation. If this is the case, we will take a major step towards restoring trust.

This OSCE Ministerial Council meeting has approved a modest but important document on the need to intensify the OSCE’s efforts on cyber security. We hope that a number of other documents on economic and environmental issues, which are currently under discussion, will also be approved.

Regarding the third (humanitarian) basket, we welcome the newly adopted document on the suppression of trafficking in persons and another document, co-sponsored by Belarus, Italy and the United States, on preventing sexual exploitation and trafficking of children. Protection of children is among the unquestionable priorities in the OSCE’s human dimension.

Unfortunately, many other documents on humanitarian issues that were slated for consideration were not adopted primarily because of the unconstructive position of several countries. For the fourth year in a row, this position has prevented, for instance, the coordination of decisions on fighting Christianophobia and Islamophobia, as well as the declaration on fighting anti-Semitism that the OSCE Ministerial Council adopted in 2014. In an attempt to avoid condemning the attacks against Christians and Muslims in Europe, our Western partners try to justify the need for generic calls for universal tolerance. I believe that this is absolutely inadequate. This is an ostrich position. Yesterday, with our Hungarian colleagues, we held a special event dedicated to the infringement of Christians’ rights, citing specific facts. We also demonstrated how serious this problem was. Europe with its Christian roots, of course, must not sit on the fence in upholding Christians’ rights. It’s a pity that the humanitarian part of our agenda, a resolution on media freedom and pluralism, could not be adopted due to the openly politicised position of certain countries.

We addressed an array of issues related to overcoming conflicts in the OSCE space. Shifts for the better were noted in Transnistria settlement, including the opening of a bridge across the Dniester and reaching agreements on a number of issues related to citizens’ everyday life, including in education and mobile communications. The document that we adopted today welcomes the “small steps” tactics and the upcoming “5+2” meeting at the end of this year. Today, a statement on Transnistria was adopted, welcoming the progress that has been made. In this context, I would like to note that progress was made because Chisinau and Tiraspol directly agreed on specific steps to make people’s everyday life in Transnistria and Moldova more comfortable and convenient.

I also urge our Ukrainian colleagues not to neglect their obligations enshrined in the Minsk Agreements and, just as Chisinau communicates with Tiraspol, open a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. This is not even a recommendation but a demand that was approved by the UN Security Council when we unanimously endorsed the Minsk Agreements.

We also coordinated a statement by the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group (Russia, the United States and France) on a settlement in Nagorno-Karabakh, reaffirming the well-known principles that a settlement should be based on.

As you have heard, the discussion on Ukraine was rather tense. Despite all the differences, I will single out the main points. Nobody is questioning the fact that there is no alternative to the Minsk Package of Measures; all parties support the OSCE efforts to facilitate the resolution of the conflict in Donbass both in the framework of the Contact Group and through the work that is being done by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in eastern Ukraine. Unfortunately, because of the destructive position of our Kiev colleagues, we could not approve a declaration reflecting these approaches. The Ukrainian side tried to pack it with absolutely politicised, ideological and unacceptable provisions. Nevertheless, to reiterate, nobody called into question the relevance of the Package of Measures or the fact that it has no alternative.

Once again, a statement in support of the Geneva discussions on the Trans-Caucasus could not be adopted due to disagreements between the parties involved.

To reiterate my previous point, the most important thing is that we had a frank conversation on key issues in the Euro-Atlantic region. There was a lot of rhetoric and polemics, which is perhaps natural. We believe that such extreme views that are sometimes inevitably expressed in the course of discussions must not impede the subsequent practical work on drafting decisions. Even in this difficult situation in Europe, as well as the world at large, we all say that there can be no “business as usual,” but it is essential to cooperate where this is in the interest of the parties concerned. The OSCE provides a good opportunity for this, i.e., to coordinate decisions that will be based not on the rhetoric of confrontation but on the need to identify the shared elements in the positions of all sides and adopt agreements reflecting the consensus that will be ensured through a balance of interests, not some interrogative approaches.

I’m convinced that the OSCE has preserved its potential. To ensure that it is realised in full, it is necessary to take practical steps to reform the organisation. Introduced by Russia jointly with our partners, the proposals on drafting the organisation’s charter and formulating procedural rules for all of its institutions, including the ODIHR, in particular with regard to election monitoring, streamlining OSCE mission activities in member countries, as well as a host of other matters, have been on the table for years.

We welcome the fact that perhaps for the first time in the OSCE’s entire history, in November, the Secretariat prepared a document showing the status of the projects that are financed from off-budget contributions. Until recently, in response to our persistent attempts to find out how the extra-budgetary funds were being used, we were told that this was up to the donors. If you are donors and you want your project to be carried out the way you conceived it, no one can stop you from doing so directly. However, if you come to the OSCE and say that you are giving money for a project in Country X and pin an OSCE flag on it, then, in my opinion, elementary decency requires that you disclose what kind of project this is and what its objectives are.

I am convinced that we still have a shared goal that was set at the Astana Summit in 2010, i.e., to create an inclusive community based on cooperation and indivisible security across the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian space. If this political obligation, which we all assumed at the highest level in Astana, indeed shapes the practical steps of all member countries, then I am sure that we will be able to achieve more positive results than the ones we noted today.



Question:

The OSCE Ministerial Council meeting revealed that the parties take different approaches towards various conflicts in Europe. Thus, the main focus was on the conflict in Ukraine. This is especially disturbing from Azerbaijan’s perspective, considering the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. There was no evidence of such a selective approach at a recent session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Vienna. Shouldn’t the OSCE Ministerial Council act just as objectively?



Sergey Lavrov:

The resolution of any crisis always involves a combination of two approaches. These are some basic principles and direct contacts between the sides, a search for a balance of interests and compliance with the agreements that are achieved at various stages to prevent subsequent backsliding on them. Many years ago (at least seven), Russia and its partners proposed adopting an OSCE document listing principles constituting the foundation of what you have described as the same approach towards all conflicts. Of course, our Western partners said this would not do because each crisis had its specifics. That’s true. This is why, in addition to the general criteria that mediators should be guided by in resolving a conflict, the specifics of each conflict should be taken into account. For instance, with regard to Transnistria, the ongoing process involves not so much the cessation of violence (there is practically no violence there due to the presence of Russian peacekeepers) as getting things back to normal on the practical, everyday level. In Ukraine, the top priority is to stop violations of ceasefires that are declared regularly. The OSCE says there has been no shooting for several days and that heavy equipment can be disengaged. The Kiev authorities say this is according to OSCE data, but according to Ukrainian data, several shots were fired. This is specifically the problem that the disengagement of forces in the village of Luganskaya that the Normandy format leaders agreed on last October in Berlin has come up against.

Of course, it is important to understand what the priority in each conflict is at a given moment. However, it is also essential to rely on some general, as you said, “equal” approaches. These include, above all, direct dialogue between parties to a conflict, as in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Unfortunately, it has yet to make serious progress but we believe it’s encouraging that this year dialogue was conducted at the presidential level and several times at the foreign ministers’ level. We will continue to work in line with the collective approach of the Russian, US and French co-chairs. At this session, we have reaffirmed it once again. It contains the principles of a peace settlement that the sides have approved but have yet to translate into the language of practical steps. This is not an easy task but we continue to work on it.



Question:

Yesterday, you had a meeting with your Ukrainian counterpart Pavel Klimkin. As we know, you discussed the exchange of prisoners. What did you agree on? Did you talk numbers and dates? Did you address the issue of exchanging Ukrainians held in Russian prisons for Russians held in Ukrainian prisons?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, at the meeting with Pavel Klimkin, which took place on his initiative, we talked about the implementation of the framework agreement what was reached following the visit to Russia by Viktor Medvedchuk, coordinator of the Ukrainian government delegation in the Contact Group on humanitarian issues. As you know, he brought a proposal with regard to exchanging about 300 Donetsk and Lugansk representatives for over 70 Ukrainian citizens [held] in the self-proclaimed republics.

As you also know, at President Vladimir Putin’s request, Mr Medvedchuk got in touch with these republics’ leaders and urged them to support this approach. Everyone agreed with this and yesterday my Ukrainian counterpart and I simply discussed certain details regarding the numbers, as well as the need to verify certain information. I believe advisors to the Normandy format presidents will meet in Minsk tomorrow, where preparations for this exchange will be the main topic.

The issue of people held in Russian prisons was touched upon indirectly. We explained that Ukrainian citizens who are also Russian citizens are being held fully in accordance with our law; no consular access is provided in their case because they are Russian citizens. Ukrainian citizens who are being held on charges of committing some serious crimes have consular access and can meet with their relatives when necessary.



Question:

Yesterday, you had a meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, after which a statement was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website saying in part that progress in the political process in Syria in the Geneva format, as well as preparations for the National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, are linked to the total elimination of terrorist groups in Syria. Now that the elimination of ISIS has been announced, are there plans for some joint operation in Idlib?



Sergey Lavrov:

Indeed, ISIS has been dealt a complete and final defeat. The President has made such assessments. The remaining pockets pose no serious threat. They will be suppressed.

The situation in Idlib remains difficult. We are working with our Turkish, Iranian and Syrian colleagues to set up a de-escalation zone in this part of Syria and ensure its effective operation. There are no joint plans with the United States with regard to this particular area in Syria. I believe this is absolutely non-productive.



Question:

Yesterday, Washington stated that Moscow was secretly deploying ground-launched cruise missiles on its territory, thus violating the INF Treaty. Can you comment on this? Does Washington comply with this treaty?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’m not aware of this information. I’m ready to look at these reports. Then perhaps I could be more specific. However, generally, President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly commented on our adherence to the Treaty Between The United States Of America And The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics On The Elimination Of Their Intermediate-Range And Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) and looked into the background of the issue at the time the treaty was signed. The Soviet Union had only ground-launched missiles. The United States had air- and sea-launched missiles as well. So, by signing the treaty on the elimination and destruction of such missiles, of course, we seriously disarmed ourselves in this particular category of armaments. However, since then, as part of our Aerospace Forces modernisation programme, we have created sea- and air-launched missiles not prohibited under the INF Treaty. In this context, it is not clear why anything needs to be violated in the first place. If these media reports are generic, groundless, then perhaps we should not even waste time on them.



Question:

Russian citizens are being persecuted in Turkmenistan and their rights are being violated. In particular, animal rights activist Galina Kucherenko went missing yesterday. Can Russia get information about her fate, as well as the fate of [other] Russian citizens who have gone missing in Turkmenistan, in particular the country’s former foreign minister Boris Shakhmuradov?



Sergey Lavrov:

Boris Shakhmuradov was a citizen not only of Russia but also of Turkmenistan. When a person with dual citizenship is in conflict with the law or law enforcement agencies, in accordance with generally accepted law-enforcement practice, which has no alternative, his case is dealt with under the law of the country where he is at the given moment. Nevertheless, we inquired Turkmenistan’s previous authorities about his fate, as we always do the moment Russian citizens end up in a crisis situation.

I did not know anything about the woman who went missing yesterday. However, we never ignore cases that become known to us concerning any Russian citizen in any country in the world, be it Turkmenistan, the United States or European, Asian or African states.

Things happen everywhere. Nowadays, unfortunately, along with openness and opportunities for traveling all over the world, citizens are becoming less vigilant. I understand this woman engages in NGO activities protecting animals? I will ask my colleagues to bring me up to date. We will instruct our ambassador to ask our Turkmen colleagues if they know something about her fate.



Question (translated from English):

Yesterday, you had a meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson after which you said the North Korean leadership was expecting security guarantees from the United States. What was the secretary of state’s reaction to this? Do you think this is possible? My second question concerns the situation with the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem. The Kremlin’s statement says that the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could split the international community. Does Russia plan to take any steps in this context?



Sergey Lavrov:

Our position on North Korea has not changed. We are convinced that steps should be taken to de-escalate the situation. Perhaps it would be better to say this publicly. In September, our US colleagues indicated that there were no plans for any military exercises near the Korean Peninsula until spring. We read that signal as willingness – provided Pyongyang maintained calm – to start paving the way for dialogue. We passed this signal to Pyongyang. It did not say “no.” However, exactly two days later, an emergency, snap large-scale exercise was announced in October, which nobody had expected. After the exercise, Pyongyang still made no abrupt moves. Then, as if to deliberately provoke such abrupt moves, it was announced in late November that another exercise would take place in December, which, as I understand, is still ongoing: It’s the largest US-South Korean air exercise on record. After it was announced, another missile that, from all indications, had ICBM characteristics was launched. I am not trying to justify this launch. We condemned it and urged North Korea to fully comply with the UN Security Council resolution. However, the United States acted as if it wanted to provoke yet another reckless adventure, and it did so.

Now of course, it will be more difficult to create conditions for resuming dialogue. Still, we are convinced – and the North Koreans have repeatedly told us so – that they need security guarantees, especially in a situation where Washington is trying to pull out of the deal on Iran’s nuclear programme that was made a couple of years ago and provides for Iran to fully abandon its military nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

Now, when I hope we can open dialogue on the North Korean issue, on the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula, naturally, many will be asking the question (it has already been mentioned in public) about how to convince North Korea that if agreements on dismantling [its] nuclear programme are reached and sanctions are lifted, the next administration [in the United States] will not scrap that agreement in one or two years. This is a very serious matter. You know, what is said cannot be unsaid, but this is what the situation is like.

In reply to your second question, I will say that yesterday I asked Mr Tillerson how the United States thought the peace process should move forward. There is no getting away from the fact that this statement is at odds with all existing agreements.

You said it has divided the world community but if it has, it has divided it in two very unequal parts. Mr Tillerson replied that there were nuances as to how this decision would be carried out (there is a six-month waiting period and then an architect would need to be hired, etc.) and hinted that nevertheless, the United States hoped for a “deal of the century” that would resolve the Palestinian-Israeli issue in one fell swoop. We would like to know what this is going to look like now.

By the way, it may be recalled that until recently, US emissaries who visited the Middle East and talked to Palestinians, Israelis and representatives of other countries in the region, publicly called for shifting the focus on the approach toward the Middle East peace process in favour of the Arab Peace Initiative that was adopted in 2002, which stipulates that as soon as the Palestinian issue is resolved and a Palestinian state created with corresponding parameters, the entire Arab world would recognise Israel and normalise relations with it.

In its plans, which were discussed in the course of numerous trips to the Middle East, the current [US] administration promoted reverse logic: first, normalisation of relations between Washington and the Arab world as a whole, and after this happens, the Palestinian issue would resolve itself. If the administration promoted this approach, which reverses the sequence [of events] under the Arab Peace Initiative, its announcement regarding the relocation of the embassy to Jerusalem has seriously complicated its course toward normalising relations with the Arab world and then resolving the Palestinian issue.

I asked Mr Tillerson to explain the rationale behind these moves. Even from the perspective of the line that the administration has followed until recently, this statement makes no sense. Today, the UN Security Council will address this topic at its meeting. We hope that at this meeting, our US colleagues will explain how they envision further movement and in what direction.



Question (translated from English):

Yesterday, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that to make progress on ending the long-running conflict in Georgia and Moldova, as well as in Nagorno-Karabakh, [the United States must] condemn Russia’s efforts to stifle access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Can you comment on these remarks? When will you be ready to recognise the territorial integrity of Georgia and end the occupation of our regions?



Sergey Lavrov:

Perhaps there is nothing for me to comment on since Mr Tillerson urged you, not me, to condemn Russia. Do it. We respect Georgia’s territorial integrity, just as we respect the territorial integrity of the two newly independent states: the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia.



Question:

One topic of [your] conversation with Mr Tillerson was Ukraine. Following that conversation, the Foreign Ministry issued an official statement saying that while considering the situation in eastern Ukraine, the Russian side noted that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements. Does the United States call into question the fact that they have no alternative? What is the US position?



Sergey Lavrov:

They [Americans] expressed no doubts about this. As already noted, during yesterday’s discussion, all speakers said that the Minsk Agreements must be observed (at least I did not hear any different opinions).

The question is not what others think – the question is what is going on in Kiev. Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov publicly called for the Minsk Agreements to be scrapped and to think of something else instead. He even added that the Ukrainian army and security forces would soon acquire sufficient capability to tackle this issue without these agreements. Given that the United States is the main curator of the Ukrainian authorities, we urged it to face up to its responsibility and call its protégés in Kiev to account so that they do not make such statements. Unfortunately, so far, Western curators have not provided this kind of tutoring to the Kiev authorities. We are being led to believe that Kiev is being quietly, informally prodded toward compliance with the Minsk Agreements. However, I have never heard anybody say anything negative in public about the game that is being played by the Kiev authorities. The only criticism from the United States and certain European [countries] has come over the Kiev government’s attacks on an anti-corruption agency established with the US’s direct participation (somebody was arrested, somebody was jailed and somebody was charged). I believe that the zeal with which the Americans are demanding compliance with the anti-corruption schemas that were developed with their participation should be applied to demands regarding compliance with the Minsk Agreements. This is all there is to it.

Yesterday, I also commented on the topic of UN peacekeepers that the Ukrainian side wants to use in order to bury the Minsk Agreements.

The Minsk Agreements provide for the deployment of OSCE observers whose movements are to be coordinated with the side whose territory they will be present in or would like to patrol. Since there were some security issues, we proposed arming them long ago. European countries refused. They said the OSCE had no peacekeeping experience. Then President Vladimir Putin proposed creating a UN peacekeeping mission to protect OSCE monitors. Wherever they would go under their mandate, subject to approval by the party concerned, UN guards would accompany them. This does not violate the Minsk Agreements. Unfortunately, even though the United States took an apparently positive stance (at least, we heard this from Kurt Volker), our Ukrainian colleagues want to turn a UN peacekeeping mission into what amounts to an external administration in Donbass that would deal with all issues needing coordination through direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk. Instead of mutually acceptable agreements on the issue of amnesty, a special status for Donbass and elections, this administration, according to Kiev’s plans, would address issues related to bringing the region back into Ukraine’s fold without a special status. This is not being said in public but we know that if their scenario became a reality this is what would eventually happen.

Mr Tillerson did not support the “anti-Minsk” approach from such extreme positions but expressed willingness to continue looking – based, I hope, on our proposals – for some generally acceptable options with regard to the UN that would not undermine the Minsk Agreements.



Question:

What is the situation regarding the enlargement of the monitoring mission of the personal representative of the OSCE chairperson-in-office on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

Rumour in Azerbaijan’s expert community has it that Azerbaijan is refusing to grant its agrément to the appointment of Russia’s new ambassador, Georgy Zuyev, over his pro-Armenian stance. Is there a new candidacy for ambassador or is this just a rumour?



Sergey Lavrov:

The issue of increasing the number of OSCE monitors on the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh was discussed in 2016 at a meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan with the participation of the US secretary of state and the French and Russian foreign ministers in Vienna and in June in St. Petersburg with the participation of President Putin. After that, a general agreement was submitted to the OSCE. I know that the OSCE special representative is working to coordinate the practical parameters of its realisation.

Regarding our new ambassador to Azerbaijan, who will be sent as soon as current Ambassador Vladimir Dorokhin’s mission is over, I have seen the rumors you have mentioned on the Internet. We never asked the Azerbaijani government for agrément on Mr Zuyev. However, all this talk as to who has what connections and how this affects politics, of course, is not quite in line with modern civilised standards.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983345

[Alex Him]

Remarks by Alexey Polishchuk, Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department of European Cooperation, at the final session of the 24th OSCE Ministerial Council Vienna, December 8, 2017



8 December 2017 - 19:47





Mr Chairperson,

Colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I would like to express our gratitude to the Austrian Chairmanship of the OSCE and personally Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz and his team, as well as the Vienna authorities for their hospitality and the successful organisation of this meeting.

The main achievement of this Ministerial Council is the sound discussions we have held on a broad range of European issues. It is this ability rather than the number of decisions adopted that we see as the OSCE’s key role as the leading political dialogue forum.

Regrettably, the politically charged position of some countries has again prevented the adoption of important ministerial decisions, including, a common political declaration and statements on the OSCE’s efforts to facilitate a settlement of the internal Ukrainian crisis. Moreover, two states have blocked the attempts of the Austrian Chairmanship to adopt a non-confrontational document in support of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

At the same time, discussions on other conflicts in the OSCE’s zone of responsibility were more productive. We welcome the statement on Transnistria, which reflects the achievements reached towards a settlement and the resolve to settle the remaining issues. We reaffirmed our initiative for signing a Chisinau-Tiraspol agreement on guarantees for the implementation of the agreements reached.

We welcome the joint statement by the heads of the delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group three co-chair countries on a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Although no document has been adopted on the Geneva discussions on security in the South Caucasus, we believe that the discussions we held at the OSCE Ministerial Council have reaffirmed the importance of the Geneva format of direct talks between Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the focus on the achievement of an agreement on the non-use of force between them.

Regrettably, the military-political dimension has fallen victim to confrontational policies. Only one document has been adopted on small arms and light weapons and stockpiles of conventional ammunition. On the other hand, we see the discussions on ways to revitalise an equal and mutually respectful European dialogue on the de-escalation of tension as a major outcome of the Ministerial Council. For our part, we would like to point out the illogical and counterproductive nature of any attempt to push through decisions on the modernisation of the OSCE’s military-political tools. This is not up for discussion until NATO changes its policy of containment towards Russia. At the same time, we are willing to take part in the Structured Dialogue and hope that it will be depoliticised as much as possible.

It is important that a serious discussion on joint resistance to transnational threats has been held during this Ministerial Council. Building up counterterrorism cooperation is especially important now in light of an unprecedented wave of terrorism in Europe. We regret that no documents have been coordinated on countering terrorist ideology and propaganda or on extremism and radicalisation. We believe that the council decision on systematic work in the field of information and communication technologies will help form a responsible attitude among the participating states towards cooperation and renunciation of unsubstantiated allegations of involvement in cyberattacks.

Our work on economic issues has helped us coordinate a decision on the broader participation of women and young people in economic processes and on encouraging private enterprise. On the other hand, it is regrettable that some countries are unwilling to reflect the issue of integration alignment in council decisions. We expect this issue to remain on the OSCE agenda. We would like to draw your attention to the joint statement of the EAEU states on connectivity and alignment of integration processes, which was submitted to the OSCE. It is regrettable that a decision on reducing the environmental risks of economic activity has not been adopted.

Although no decisions on the “integration of integrations” have been adopted, we have taken note of the growing dialogue between organisations and associations at the OSCE platform attended by the heads and representatives of the CSTO and NATO and of the EAEU and the EU, including on the sidelines of this Ministerial Council meeting.

Discussions at the meeting have shown that the human dimension is still being seriously affected by distortions and politicisation. Russia proposed that the Ministerial Council consider a draft proposal on optimising the OSCE’s humanitarian events. We regret that this proposal has not received a consensus. Still, we hope that discussions on this issue will continue.

We welcome the decisions on combating human trafficking and on protecting children from trafficking and sexual abuse. At the same time, the issues of infringements on freedom of the media in some OSCE countries and attempts to rewrite history have not been reflected in the ministerial documents. We point out the CIS statement on preventing and precluding the destruction and desecration of monuments and other items commemorating the courage and heroism of those who fell fighting Nazism and Fascism during WWII. We expect the OSCE to address this issue.

The unconstructive stand taken by some countries has again prevented us from implementing the decision of the Ministerial Council in Basel in 2014 on adopting declarations in defence of Christians and Muslims. We urge the Italian Chairmanship to work towards settling this issue next year. An event on the safety of Christians, which Russia and Hungary have organised on the sidelines of this meeting, focused on the importance of this issue and the numerous threats facing Christian communities in the Middle East and Europe.

In conclusion, I would like to thank our Austrian colleagues for their honest efforts to formulate a balanced 2017 OSCE agenda in the interests of all member states, as well as for their most constructive approach towards reaching consensus at the Ministerial Council.

We hope that Italy will take over this positive work next year and wish it good luck in its efforts.

Thank you. I request that this statement be added to the book of minutes.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983601






Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, December 9, 2017



9 December 2017 - 12:56





Question:

December 9 marks International Anti-Corruption Day. The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) was opened for signing on December 9, 2003. What is the significance and value of this document? Are there any obstacles in international anti-corruption cooperation hampering its implementation?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Corruption that has truly destructive global consequences undermines legal systems of states, hampers their sustained development, reduces investors’ trust and erodes society’s moral foundations. No one can independently cope with this challenge.

UNCAC which currently unites virtually all UN member-states has become a universal international agreement regulating all aspects of anti-corruption cooperation. It goes without saying that the success of any multilateral cooperation depends on the sincere striving of parties to such cooperation to interact and help each other and on the extent to which their interests and priorities overlap. It should be noted that the states’ cooperation under the Convention has been depoliticised to the greatest possible extent and makes it possible to focus on real problems, including the repatriation of corruption-related assets, the provision of technical assistance, as well as the provision of legal assistance and the extradition of suspects. The tasks of this cooperation aim to prevent corrupt persons from escaping justice, from hiding in other countries, from hiding their criminal wealth there and to spread positive experience accumulated by countries, parties to the Convention. Signatory states also aim to assist each other in implementing the Convention. And the Convention requires signatory states to chart and implement efficient policies aiming to prevent and combat corruption. But I want to note that practical issues of national anti-corruption activities remain within the remit of individual states. At the same time, the Convention encourages their cooperation with civil society, media outlets and the private sector.

Replying to your question, I can say that UNCAC is making the world more transparent and is helping signatory countries to jointly combat corruption to the same extent to which they are ready to cooperate with each other.

Sometimes, it becomes necessary to strengthen the legal framework of anti-corruption cooperation during international efforts on specific anti-corruption issues. For example, the Russian Federation has suggested drafting a universal convention on the return of assets obtained through corruption-related crimes. This initiative has been discussed by BRICS countries and at other venues. Many countries are concerned with legal and practical difficulties facing states requesting assistance and those receiving these requests during the repatriation of embezzled assets that have special significance for ensuring stability and sustained development. In this connection, we believe that it would be useful to draft the appropriate international-law tools in this area. This concerns practical aspects of asset repatriation and mutual legal assistance on criminal cases and extradition issues, as well as in the area of fighting cybercrime. Russia is ready to help ensure this issue’s practical implementation.



Question:

Is it possible to talk about any new forms of corruption?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Corruption, it seems, has been around since the emergence of states, and I believe that all conceivable forms of corruption have already been invented. However, this does not make it any easier to fight corruption. Peter the Great, who reportedly said that anyone stealing more money from the treasury than the price of one metre of rope shall be hanged on that rope, was determined to fight corruption using the toughest possible methods. But we are still unable to completely destroy this evil eroding the foundations of the state and society. Therefore it is more important to continue improving various methods for fighting cases of corruption and to deprive corrupt persons of any loopholes in national legislation and international law. International anti-corruption cooperation within UNCAC is addressing precisely these tasks.



Question:

What did Russia gain from joining this document? How is the Convention being brought into practice?



Oleg Syromolotov:

The key international cooperation mechanism under the UNCAC is the Conference of the States Parties (CoSP). In November 2015, Russia hosted its 6th session in St Petersburg. Representatives of 162 countries, 12 institutions associated with the UN and nine inter-governmental organisations attended. The conference resulted in ten resolutions on anti-corruption cooperation in various fields.

Last month, the conference’s seventh session took place in Vienna during which we presented the Russian Against Corruption exhibit that covers, among other things, the importance of awareness in preventing this evil. To a large extent, it is society’s tolerance of corrupt behaviour that fuels the spread of this phenomenon. The educational component of the exhibit, with its posters that were entered in the New Look national youth contest of social advertising in Russia, triggered the greatest interest in over a thousand delegates that gathered for the conference in Vienna.

The Implementation Review Mechanism that determines the procedure and methods for evaluation of the participating state’s actions to bring their law and legal practice in compliance with the UNCAC requirements is an important aspect of international cooperation under the UNCAC. The Implementation Review Mechanism is an intergovernmental process. This mechanism is not a tool for interference in the participating state’s domestic affairs. It is based on the principles of equality and sovereignty of the participants, and the review process is not politicised or selective.

Russia has successfully completed the first cycle of the review. The subsequent report has been published in full although the UNCAC rules do not make full publication mandatory. UN experts found that Russian law and legal practice fully meet global anti-corruption standards. Russia is now preparing for the second cycle of the review. I am certain it will also be completed successfully.

As concerns your question about the benefits of joining the UNCAC, I will note that following recommendations of relevant international organisations and adherence to provisions of the convention and other international treaties advances the state’s efforts in eradicating corruption. We all understand that there is still a lot of hard work towards success, and international cooperation allows us to find loopholes and grey areas in the law which corrupt officials use for unlawful personal gain and to hide what they steal.

For example, the United Nations Convention against Corruption states that any unlawful advantage constitutes bribery of an official while Russian law defines bribery only as transfer and receipt of property or material services. This issue as well as some recommendations given to Russia by the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) must be resolved after the adoption of the draft law prepared by the Prosecutor General’s Office and the State Duma.

By the way, following GRECO’s recommendations alone, Russia has already passed more than ten new and amended more than 30 existing federal laws over a rather short period. Based on those, government bodies adopted respective regulations, including 30 Presidential Executive Orders. I would like to particularly note the National Strategy Against Corruption which provided the foundation for two-year anti-corruption plans.



Question:

How is Russia’s international cooperation on corruption-related issues developing? With what countries has it achieved the most success? Where is our cooperation losing momentum?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Russia is an active participant in international anticorruption cooperation. It regularly comes up with initiatives at various forums and demonstrates transparency and openness during verification of compliance with international commitments and recommendations. The anticorruption cooperation is more multilateral than bilateral. Of course there are a number of partners whose approaches are closer to ours, such as the BRICS and CIS countries. So, we should discuss successes or loss of momentum in the context of common international efforts.



Question:

How are civil society, the media and NGOs involved in international anticorruption cooperation?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Let me note that dozens of NGOs from all over the world attended as observers the sessions of the Vienna Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption we have mentioned. Russian NGOs are not barred from attendance either. Cooperating with civil society is an essential condition of a successful fight against corruption.

There is usually tepid media interest in international conferences, unless they are summits convened in connection with some “burning” themes. It is all the more gratifying that the Russian delegation’s participation in the Vienna anticorruption conference and the Russia Against Corruption exhibition have been given wide coverage by the Russian media.

As for the direct involvement of the media in the fight against corruption, it is on record that anticorruption efforts are more effective if they are supported by the media. Therefore, we regard media coverage of publicly exposed facts of corruption and relevant measures undertaken by the government and the private sector as an important tool in combating corruption. Let me note that the National Strategy Against Corruption I have mentioned is being implemented by, among other things, facilitating a broad and objective media coverage of the state of affairs in the anticorruption area.

I would like to mention here Russian entrepreneurs. On Russia’s initiative, the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption in St Petersburg approved an important political document in the form of a statement on promoting public-private partnership in the prevention of and fight against corruption. This was the first document of its kind directed at supporting anticorruption cooperation between governments and business communities. The statement was cosponsored by 28 Asian, African and Latin American countries. But it was initiated by the Russian business community. The Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry sponsored a conference titled Practice of Government and Business Interaction in Fighting Corruption as part of events at the St Petersburg Conference. We can describe as unprecedented the Anticorruption Charter of the Russian Business Community signed by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, the All-Russian Public Organisation of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (OPORA), and Delovaya Rossiya. The Charter is the entrepreneurs’ anticorruption code of honour, which contains the main principles of conduct to prevent and counteract corruption. We also presented at the Russia Against Corruption exhibition in Vienna the CCI’s Business Barometer of Corruption, an independent anonymous study probing anticorruption moods and assessing anticorruption policies in Russia. This was done as part of a project to exchange best practices with our foreign partners. The study evoked much interest among the participants.



Question:

How well is anti-corruption cooperation developing with the CIS and BRICS countries?



Oleg Syromolotov:

In addition to the UN Convention against Corruption, there are many other international anti-corruption mechanisms, including at the G20, the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and APEC, as well as the abovementioned CIS and BRICS. The Interstate Anti-Corruption Council of the CIS was established in 2013. The other day, Minsk hosted a meeting of an expert group that is coordinating a draft agreement on the CIS states’ cooperation in combating corruption.

Russia views the five BRICS countries as a potentially very promising platform for international anti-corruption cooperation. The BRICS states have agreed to coordinate their approaches to the most difficult elements of international anti-corruption cooperation whenever and as closely as possible, as well as to support one another’s initiatives at international forums.

Participation in these international cooperation formats is not a goal in itself for Russia. As I said before, the fight against corruption can be only successful if we join forces to deprive criminals of any opportunity to take advantage of the loopholes in national legislation, international law or law enforcement practice.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983725






Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s comment on anti-Russia attacks by the US over the INF Treaty



9 December 2017 - 17:18





Washington has found no better moment than the 30th anniversary of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) that was marked on December 8 to come up with threats against its partner under the Treaty that has become a corner stone in nuclear arms limitation and reduction processes. This is the only way readers can interpret an article in Politico, an internet publication close to the US administration, on its intention to introduce additional sanctions against Russia under the pretext of alleged violations of the INF Treaty. Moreover, the “message” is presented with direct reference to the White House.

The Americans have repeatedly alleged that we are going beyond the framework of the INF Treaty that bans land deployment of cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5,500 kilometres. But there is an interesting commonality with the notorious claims about “Russian meddling in US elections,” since they provide no real evidence. The only specific mentioned is the index of a Russian missile research project with a range much shorter than the claim suggests. Incidentally, the US can easily see this on its satellite images during field tests.

In other words, these charges are totally unfounded. They are not substantiated by either the technical characteristics of the launcher that allegedly is at variance with the INF Treaty or in-flight telemetry data. There is absolutely nothing to prove these allegations. And we know why: because it is simply non-existent.

At the same time, the United States is brushing aside our concerns with how it is handling its own commitments under the INF Treaty. For example, one can plainly see launchers at the US antimissile base in Deveselu, Romania, whose specifications enable them to launch not only interceptor missiles but also strike missiles like Tomahawks. In 2018, the Pentagon is planning to deploy identical launchers in Poland, although installing them on land is contrary to the INF Treaty.

Moreover, the Americans have openly declared their intention to develop land-based cruise missiles with the prohibited range. So, the anti-Russia propaganda campaign around the INF Treaty looks increasingly like an effort to pass the buck. The increasing charges could be a sign that Washington has decided to withdraw from the treaty like it withdrew from the ABM Treaty. They are looking for a pretext and are trying to create one based on their own conjecture.

We have repeatedly warned them, and are doing so again, that dismantling the INF Treaty would deal a heavy blow to the arms control and non-proliferation processes. The United States must understand what kind of responsibility it will assume.

For our part, we are fully committed to the INF Treaty. We have always strictly complied with it and are prepared to do so in the future. But if the other side ceases to abide by it, we will be forced, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin has indicated, to respond in kind.

As for yet another in a series of attempts to scare us with sanctions, this is laughable. Their expected expansion will only result in the cancellation of the Special Verification Commission’s meeting suggested by the United States. It is high time US politicians and diplomats understand that economic and military pressure on Russia will not work. They should at last get beyond this illusion so that both of us can stop wasting time and make an effort to improve relations, which have fallen into a serious crisis in recent years through the fault of the United States.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983745

[Alex Him]

Comment by the Information and Press Department on an attack on a UN peacekeepers’ base in the Democratic Republic of the Congo



9 December 2017 - 14:29



According to incoming reports, militants from the United Democratic Forces group operating in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo attacked a UN Stabilisation Mission stronghold in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO) in North Kivu Province on the evening of December 7. Fifteen Tanzanian soldiers from MONUSCO are reported killed, over 50 more have reportedly been wounded, and three are missing.

We resolutely condemn any manifestations of violence against UN peacekeepers. We offer deep condolences to the families and friends of the deceased, the Government of Tanzania and senior MONUSCO officials. We wish a fast recovery to the wounded.

We urge senior MONUSCO officials and Democratic Republic of the Congo authorities to take comprehensive action to prevent similar incidents in the future, to investigate this cynical crime as soon as possible and to hold its masterminds and perpetrators responsible.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia will continue to support MONUSCO efforts to stabilise the situation in the eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983735






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the meeting of foreign ministers of Russia, India and China



10 December 2017 - 10:50



On December 11, the foreign ministers of Russia, India and China (RIC) will meet in New Delhi.

The participants will exchange views on the current situation in the region and in the world, and will discuss ways to establish a comprehensive, equal and indivisible security architecture and ensure inclusive sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region (APR). The External Affairs Minister of India Sushma Swaraj will be chairing the meeting.

As in their previous meetings, the three ministers will focus on the situation in Afghanistan, the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, and will discuss joint efforts to combat terrorism, illegal drug trafficking, strengthening international information security, as well as countering money laundering and financing of terrorism.

This format emerged from trilateral meetings on the margins of UN General Assembly sessions in New York in 2003−2005, as well as the ministerial segment of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, held in Alma-Ata in October 2004. The foreign ministers of RIC have been holding separate meetings outside international formats since 2005, taking turns in hosting the meetings.

Against the backdrop of an emerging multipolar world order, this troika can be viewed as an example of effective joint efforts to find answers to urgent matters related to security and economic development, both at the global and regional levels. The Russian Foreign Ministry believes that the purpose of RIC is to promote the principle of equal multilateral cooperation on international matters.

The RIC format is designed to help the three countries gradually step up cooperation in various areas. During their meeting in April 2016 in Moscow, the foreign ministers of the three countries agreed to expand the RIC agenda to include a number of new topics of mutual interest. This led the three countries to launch consultations on the foreign ministry level on APR-related matters, as well as between financial intelligence services, experts on counter-terrorism and international information security, as well as between young diplomats.

Russia is committed to further strengthening dialogue within the troika and to working together to promote common positions on the urgent issues in today’s world, including better coordinating foreign policy initiatives on international and regional forums.

A joint statement on coordinated approaches will be released following the meeting.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983774






Comment by the Information and Press Department on the upcoming visit to Russia of Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya’s Government of National Accord, December 11-13, 2017



10 December 2017 - 10:51



On December 11-13, 2017, Foreign Minister Mohamed Siala of Libya’s Government of National Accord will make a working visit to Moscow at the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The agenda of the upcoming talks includes in-depth discussions on the intra-Libyan settlement in light of the agreements reached by Chairman of the Presidential Council of Libya and Prime Minister of Libya’s Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj and Commander of the Libyan National Army Khalifa Haftar designed to amend the Libyan Political Agreement signed in Skhirat on December 17, 2015, as well as in the context of the Action Plan for Libya, which was proposed by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Libya Ghassan Salamé and approved following the High-Level Event on Libya at the UN General Assembly on September 20 of this year.

Our vision of an intra-Libyan settlement rests on several principles, such as promoting an inclusive dialogue based on respect for the interests of all the main political forces, tribes and regional groups in Libya without foreign interference, as well as the concerned parties’ renunciation of the use of force in settling the crisis.

Guided by the imperative of preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Libya, Russia has been working persistently with representatives from the conflicting Libyan parties so as to encourage them to overcome their differences and search for mutually acceptable solutions to all the disputed issues.

At the same time, Russia has not taken sides with any party to the intra-Libyan conflict. It is our position of principle that the future of the country must be decided by the Libyans themselves. We consider any attempts to provide ready solutions to them as counterproductive.

We believe that a revised Skhirat agreement and the UN Action Plan will be used as the basis for the subsequent efforts to address the other outstanding issues on the Libyan agenda. These include restoring order in the area of security, economic rehabilitation, the mitigation of a dramatic humanitarian situation as the settlement of accumulated problems concerned with illegal migration, cross-border crime, and trafficking in weapons and drugs.

Other issues on the agenda of the talks with Mr Siala include the development of Russian-Libyan trade and economic ties. We support the Russian companies’ intention to return to Libya so as to join development projects on mutually advantageous conditions, including in energy and in industrial and transport infrastructure, as soon as the situation in Libya is normalised and provided their safety is guaranteed.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983764






Comment by the Information and Press Department on Human Rights Day



10 December 2017 - 10:56



December 10 is the day the international community observes Human Rights Day, established by the UN. On that day in 1948, the UN General Assembly approved the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which laid the foundations for universal cooperation in this sphere.

The UN member states adopted the Universal Declaration driven by the desire to promote respect for human dignity and to revive its value. This was logical after World War II which was last century’s worst disaster. Tens of millions of lives and hundreds of millions of broken lives were the price paid by humankind for this painful lesson: there is no and can be no place for the ideas of Nazism and racial superiority in the civilised world.

Next year will mark the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration. The human rights situation in the world has improved significantly over that period. However, much remains to be done. There is no state on the planet that is free from human rights violations, and human rights issues often cross borders, and are, in many cases, of a global nature. It is only through joint efforts that we can fight against the growing threat of terrorism, radicalism, racism, xenophobia, aggressive nationalism, anti-Semitism, religious and ethnic intolerance, neo-Nazism, and counter human trafficking and illegal migration.

The year 2018 will mark another important event, which is the 25th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. These documents were adopted in the wake of the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna in 1993 where the international community reaffirmed the priority goals to strengthen the international processes for protecting human rights and proclaimed their universal nature, indivisibility, interdependence, and interconnectedness. In addition, the conference enshrined the principles of equality for all categories of human rights and the voluntary cooperation of states in implementing them.

A special theme-based meeting devoted to these major dates will be held at Russia’s initiative as part of the high-level segment of the 37th session of the UN Council on Human Rights and the anniversary plenary meeting of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly.

Russia is firmly committed to its human rights obligations and consistently upholds such fundamental values ​​as freedom, justice, life, welfare and human dignity, and continues to pursue a policy to further strengthen democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination. Our country is making major efforts to ensure the broad participation of citizens, political parties and other public institutions in forming state policy, including in decision-making, improving the legal system and the integrity of the judicial system in order to eradicate corruption and ensure the rule of law, to further expand economic and entrepreneurial freedom, and to support the national traditions and cultures of the peoples of Russia as the main factor of consensus in society, the unity of the nation, and the steady development of our country.

Russia advocates the promotion of a constructive international dialogue on protecting and promoting human rights, avoiding double standards, respecting the national and historical specifics of each state in the process of democratic transformation without imposing any borrowed value systems or interfering in internal affairs of other states.

We are confident that human rights are called upon to become a factor conducive to the rapprochement of various states and groups of states, as well as the strengthening of the atmosphere of trust and mutual respect in international relations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983798

[Alex Him]

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the meeting of foreign ministers of Russia, India, and China (RIC), New Delhi, December 11, 2017



11 December 2017 - 10:38









Colleagues,

Allow me to begin by thanking our Indian friends for their warm hospitality and wonderful arrangements for this 15th regular ministerial meeting between Russia, India and China. We have a packed agenda before us, which confirms the commitment by our respective countries to maintain our cooperation to make the RIC mechanism even more effective and better coordinate our international approaches.

Using the RIC format to promote cooperation is an important element in efforts designed to bring about a multipolar architecture that will be more just and democratic. Working together offers an opportunity to promote universal values on the international stage such as multilateralism, equality and the supremacy of international law. Guided by our commitment to mutual understanding and trust we are searching for the best solutions to a broad range of urgent issues that exist in today’s world, from ensuring regional security to promoting economic integration across the Eurasian space.

We can see that the RIC format is about to become one of the key drivers of overall regional efforts to improve the architecture of interstate relations within the Asia-Pacific Region (APR), which should be based on the principles of inclusive, equal and indivisible security. Guided by this vision, our countries seek to step up dialogue with their regional partners, above all with ASEAN members.

We have achieved substantial results lately in expanding our interaction within this trilateral framework. But we cannot be complacent. At the trilateral meeting we held in Moscow in April 2016, we agreed to expand RIC operations by adding new promising topics of mutual interest to our agenda. Since then, a lot of effort has been put into preparing this work, so that today we can discuss its outcomes.

Russia stands for stepping up multi-dimensional cooperation within this trilateral format, or troika, including with the view to promoting joint approaches to global and regional stability and sustainable development on the international stage. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to close cooperation and coordination on foreign policy matters within the UN, the G20, BRICS and the SCO.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983906






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a news conference following the meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, India and China (RIC), New Delhi, December 11, 2017



11 December 2017 - 13:51









Ladies and gentlemen,

I share the feeling of gratitude expressed by other participants with regard to Foreign Minister Swaraj and the Government of India for organising this 15th meeting of the RIC foreign ministers.

The meeting confirmed the fact that this format is useful and improves our ability to see the steps which can help us form an opinion about the modern world. Russia, India and China share this vision. We want to see the world polycentric (this is an objective trend) and based on international law and respect for all the principles of the UN Charter.

We had a friendly, candid and trust-based exchange of views. We see eye to eye on most of the issues that we discussed. The similarity of our approaches and interests is reflected in a detailed and very specific joint statement, which will be circulated following our meeting today.

We are concerned by current developments, such as erosion of international law and increased use of force in international affairs. Given these circumstances, our joint work becomes particularly significant. We agreed to continue and improve the coordination of our steps within the UN, G20, the SCO, and BRICS, as well as at various platforms in the Asia-Pacific region (APR), especially as part of the East Asian summits.

We have a shared position on the need to step up efforts aimed at forming a multilateral, open-ended and inclusive architecture of security and cooperation in the APR.

By the way, we agreed, as my colleagues have already mentioned, to hold tripartite consultations on APR issues on a regular basis. The first round of consultations took place in China, and our Indian friends invited us for the second round. We gladly accepted their invitation.

We have specifically emphasised the need to strengthen multilateralism in international affairs and to seek collective solutions. In the adopted Statement we strongly reject unilateral measures of economic pressure, such as sanctions, which, as we underline, run contrary to the norms and principles of international law, and undermine the authority of the UN Security Council.

We advocated the continued reform of the international monetary system. This topic is being promoted both in the RIC format and in the BRICS format, in conjunction with like-minded people in G20. We stand for ensuring the open-ended, non-discriminatory nature of the international trading system. In this context, we discussed in detail the prospects for harmonising various integration processes in Eurasia. In this regard, I note that India and China have started talks with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on promoting cooperation and trade liberalisation. I am confident that these talks will be beneficial for everyone.

We noted the importance of expanding cooperation based on our projects designed to implement the transport and transit potential of the three countries. We see this as another contribution to forming the Great Eurasian partnership, as was discussed during the summits, with the participation of our leaders.

We focused particularly on fighting terrorism. We underscored the uncompromising nature of the war on terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including the spread of terrorist and extremist ideologies. We stressed the importance of the unique experience of anti-terrorist cooperation, gained, in particular, by the SCO, which adopted a one-of-a-kind Convention on Countering Extremism this year. Russia, India and China are also willing to share with other partners their experience in countering the financing of terrorism and in fighting foreign terrorists and militants. The database on foreign terrorists and militants created in Russia is a convenient form of cooperation, in which our Chinese and Indian partners are already participating.

We also stressed the need to step up efforts to curb the spread of WMD. Our partners supported our thesis on the importance of an early start to the work on the Convention on Combating Chemical and Biological Terrorism.

We share approaches to security issues when using information and communication technology, including the adoption of universal rules for responsible behaviour of states in the information space, under the auspices of the UN. This initiative was spearheaded by SCO members as well.

We also unanimously oppose the deployment of weapons in outer space and will coordinate our actions in this sphere of ​​international cooperation.

With regard to regional matters, we shared views on the situation on the Korean Peninsula, which is extremely tense. We consider it unacceptable to ratchet up military tension and confrontation, which can slip into hostilities amid current propaganda efforts. We underlined the lack of an alternative to resolving this problem solely by political and diplomatic means. As you are aware, there is a Russian-Chinese road map to this effect.

We compared notes regarding the situation in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Libya.

With regard to the Syrian settlement, we spoke in favour of an early start to the national settlement process, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254. In this sense, we indicated that the successful promotion of the Astana process and the initiative on convening the Syrian National Dialogue Congress are conducive to achieving this goal.

We underscored the need for strict and full compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2202, which unanimously approved the Minsk Agreements on resolving the internal Ukraine crisis.

We reviewed the implementation of the ideas that were discussed during our previous meeting in Moscow in April 2016 and noted that concrete progress has been made in creating new formats for our interaction since then. In particular, we noted the successful first meeting of young diplomats from Russia, India and China, which was held in China this year. Next year, it will be held in India, and then the young diplomats will meet again in Russia in 2019.

In closing, we stressed the importance of the political think tanks focusing on matters discussed at the state-to-state and intergovernmental level in the RIC format. In this regard, I would like to note that the 15th trilateral academic conference was held in India this year, and the 16th conference will be held in Russia in 2018. This has major intellectual potential which will help us deepen our strategic partnership.

I held bilateral meetings with Minister of External Affairs of India Sushma Swaraj and China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi. We reviewed the implementation of the agreements reached at this year's Russian-Indian and Russian-Chinese summits, and outlined steps to prepare future contacts for our leaders as well as contacts at other levels.

Once again, I express my gratitude to Ms Swaraj and all our Indian friends.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2984153






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Vivekananda International Foundation New Delhi, December 11, 2017



11 December 2017 - 22:35









Dear Mr. Arvind Gupta,

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have the honor to launch this project of the Vivekananda International Foundation dedicated to the prominent Russian diplomat Alexander Kadakin. My sincere gratitude goes to our Indian friends for the high appreciation accorded to the achievements of our late colleague, for the efforts taken to immortalize his name including in the form of Kadakin memorial lecture. Alexander Mikhailovich – or Sasha, as his friends called him – had a bright and remarkable personality. He was a true professional. He loved India which, in his own words, became his karma. He invested literally all his energy and talent in the shaping and strengthening of the Russia – India special and privileged strategic partnership.

Diplomatic relations between our two States were established 70 years ago. The past seven decades have brought remarkable results. We have every right to be proud of them. Our nations and peoples are bound by strong ties of friendship, mutual sympathy, trust, respect for each other’s culture, traditions and interests. Political dialogue develops in a dynamic manner – annual summits enable us to take stock of what was achieved in key areas of cooperation and outline future perspectives. A solid treaty base has been formed and is being developed further. Large-scale projects have been launched in various spheres, from energy to pharmaceutics. The Inter‑Governmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation and the Inter-Governmental Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation meet regularly producing effective results.

At the same time, we should not rest on our laurels, especially given the current rapid changes in the world. Building on the experience and broadening our interaction in a creative way, we should move forward and pursue new promising avenues for cooperation. First of all, in order to achieve a breakthrough in trade and investments. Obviously, the current volume cannot be found satisfactory for our two countries. We aim to increase it to USD 30 billion by 2025. This goal can be achieved through combining our natural competitive advantages and promoting spectacular joint endeavours, such as in aerospace industry or shipbuilding.

The Russian-Indian Working Group on Priority Investment Projects – which functions within the bilateral Economic Commission – have selected twelve most promising projects to be launched – in particular, in the States of Gujarat, Karnataka and others where Russian companies will invest in construction of a butyl rubber plant, production of lighting equipment, development of a "smart city" prototype for India. These plans, which correspond to the Make in India concept announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, make it even more urgent to ensure the early conclusion of an inter‑governmental agreement on reciprocal investments protection that would reflect a balance of interests of both sides.

Moscow shares with New Delhi innovative know-how in peaceful uses of nuclear energy, thus contributing to the energy security of your country. Implementation of the flagship project – construction of the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in Tamil Nadu – is in full swing. The first unit is already fully operational; the second one has been delivered to the Indian side. Work continues on units 3 through 6. Let me recall that the Strategic Vision for Strengthening Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy between the Republic of India and the Russian Federation signed in December 2014 sets an even more ambitious goal – to build at least 12 power units by 2020.

Our military and technical cooperation with India is characterized by unique level of trust – be it direct supplies or joint production of weapons and various military equipment. The experts know only too well that Russian offers on most of the military technical cooperation remains the best options for India. These will become more competitive even further with the steps being taken to improve after-sales maintenance. The joint enterprize producing the world’s best supersonic cruise missile "BrahMos", is our common special pride. Plans are being discussed for joint development of other weapons, including for their promotion in third countries. This will involve further transfer of the Russian military know-how.

Contacts between regions and business communities of the two countries enrich our bilateral links. Last June at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum Prime Minister Narendra Modi after having held full-fledged negotiations with President Vladimir Putin, also had a very fruitful meeting with the governors of several constituent entities of the Russian Federation. We welcome the participation of the Indian delegation led by Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj in the third Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok last September and a very fruitful Russian-Indian business dialogue which took place there.

Russia has something to offer in the field of education and personnel training. More than one generation of Indian engineers, medical and other specialists have received education in our country. We should build upon this experience and develop it further – inter alia, in the context of implementing the Skilling India Programme initiated by the Indian Government. Efficiency of our common efforts in this areas and their practical relevance to our citizens will be greatly enhanced when an ongoing work is finalized on the draft inter‑governmental agreement on mutual recognition of education and academic degrees in general and medical fields.

Our privileged strategic partnership implies close and long-term coordination on international arena. We value our interaction on the world issues. The independent and responsible foreign policy of India has always been an important factor contributing to global and regional security and stability. We hope this legacy will be protected and strengthened.

In the UN and other multilateral fora India and Russia have been consistently advocating compliance with the UN Charter and other norms and principles of international law, including territorial integrity, independence and sovereign equality of States, respect for cultural and civilizational pluralism of the world, as well as for the right of peoples to choose freely their own political and socio-economic development models. Together with many like-minded friends India and Russia seek to make international life more just and democratic, increase the role of developing countries in multilateral institutions, such as the UN, IMF and WB. Consolidation of efforts to promote necessary reforms continues on in various formats. Just today we held the 15th meeting of Foreign Ministers of RIC – the group launched in late 1990s which gave birth to BRICS. In its turn, BRICS became a very influential player in G-20, especially since several other participants of the group coordinate with our five countries on issues related to the reform of international monetary and financial system.

Accession by New Delhi to the SCO as a full member has significantly enhanced the political profile and potential of that Organization as well – not least as regards its capacity to help stabilize the situation in central and South Asia and resolve the crisis in and around Afghanistan.

Strengthening Indian-Russian cooperation can help find fair and durable solutions to numerous challenges in the Asia-Pacific region. We believe that sustainable security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region cannot be achieved through closed block arrangements and is only possible on an open-ended collective basis building upon the principles of indivisible security, rule of international law, peaceful settlement of disputes, non-use of force or threat of force. We are glad that India not only shares our approach but is also an active partner in the discussions of regional architecture which have been launched in the framework of the East Asia Summits, the place of regular dialogue mechanism was established in Jakarta at the headquarters of ASEAN on the strategic development issues of the region.

The unprecedented outburst of international terrorism poses the most serious threat for all nations. This evil can only be efficiently dealt with if we all join our efforts and act together as truly universal anti‑terrorist coalition acting without double standards and hidden agendas. The tasks of defeating ISIL and “NUSRA” – in all its incarnations, countering the transborder movements of foreign terrorist fighters and curbing the spread of terrorist ideology, are priorities of today. At the EAS Summit in Manila on November 14, a declaration proposed by Russia was adopted on combatting ideological challenges of terrorism, terrorist ideas and propaganda. We count on continued cooperation with our Indian partners on this track.

It is obvious that well-being of all people living across the vast Eurasian mainland can hardly be ensured without robust and indivisible economic development. It must be really and genuinely inclusive, not based on subjectively conceived closed trade blocks contradicting the principles of the global trading system under the WTO. Last June President Vladimir Putin suggested to think of a fundamentally new economic initiative in Eurasia, whereby existing subregional integration arrangements will gradually move towards liberalizing trade and investments regimes between their members. What we have in mind is to build upon the interest shown by many countries and groups to seek free trade agreements with Eurasian Economic Union. India is among those who begins relevant negotiations next month already.

At the next stages it is envisaged to expand the process to involve member countries of the EAEU, SCO, ASEAN and – why not – EU (if they opt for promoting their basic economic interests) to build what we can call a Grand Eurasian Partnership. I believe that regional cooperation schemes existing in South Asia could also benefit from joining.

Ladies and gentlemen,

There are all prerequisites in place for fuller engagement of the truly inexhaustible potential of the Indian-Russian strategic partnership. We have experience accumulated to date, we have political will, coinciding priorities. The two governments have agreed how to move forward in the best interests of ours two countries. However, whatever we do at the official level must be strongly supported by the people, including scholars and expert communities. I have no doubt that political scientists of both countries have bold and realistic ideas on future steps to take forward our special and privileged strategic partnership.

In October this year in Moscow there was a conference – to which Mr.Gupta just referred - jointly organized by the Russian Foreign Relations Council and the Vivekananda International Foundation. The agenda was about strategic vision of Russian-Indian Relations and of the changing world order. I believe that a dialogue on these issues should become regular. The answers to the multitude of extremely complex and complicated issues confronting the modern world require collective thinking.

I would conclude by thanking your Foundation for making a great contribution to these efforts, including through establishing initiating “Kadakin Lectures”.



Question:

My first visit to your country was in 1981. Excellency, my intervention is triggered by global affairs. The RIC – Russia, India and China, which was conceived by Primakov long ago seemed at that point of time to be a non-starter. Today China dominates RIC economically, militarily and otherwise. Between us and Russia we do not have any issues at all, but with China we have the nuclear issue, the terrorism issue, trade imbalance. Is there any meaningful future for this organisation?



Sergey Lavrov:

Had it been immediately after the first meeting that you were asking this question, maybe I would be pondering. But after the fifteenth meeting I think the answer is obvious. By the way, today we ended by a lunch with Minister Swaraj suggesting a toast to promoting better relations not only between China and India, but also between India and Pakistan. We all would be only glad if the controversies and misunderstandings, misgivings could be openly addressed and honestly resolved. To continue thinking how we can overcome issues mentioned by you, I believe the next speaker in this audience should be the foreign minister of China.



Question:

There is a convergence of views between Russia and India on what the situation should be in Afghanistan. But there appears to be a divergence as to how to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan because of the softness Russia has been showing towards the Taliban. That remains the route of problems in Afghanistan, and the distinction that is being drawn between ISIL and the Taliban, given that ISIL in Afghanistan is part of a faction of the Taliban. What is the position Russia seems to have on the Taliban? If I may, I have another question. Russia seems to be interested in participating in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, at least this is what the Pakistanis say. The Chinese are ready to lose 80 percent of their investment in Pakistan. Do the Russians have any estimate of how much they are going to lose when investing in Pakistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

I think that you have been deeply penetrated by some propaganda. On the Taliban: never ever was there any proof, any fact that Russia supported the Taliban as some of the American officials alluded or that we even armed the Taliban. We have contacted the Taliban only for two reasons: when our citizens or citizens of our allies got into harm’s way and we needed to extract them from there, and the second reason is to persuade the Taliban to sit down and to negotiate. But we always reserve and say that they must join the negotiations provided they respect the criteria established by the Security Council: renounce terrorism, I mean renounce violence, severe any links to terrorist organisations and respect the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Having been criticised by the Americans for quite some time, lately I heard a US official saying that we call upon the Taliban to join the negotiations without any criteria being respected. So make your own conclusions.

I don’t think that the recent American strategy on Afghanistan which was announced and which puts emphasis on the use of force, to defeat those who would not be cooperating and those who would be engaged in violence, I don’t think that it would work, frankly. Like for the last sixteen years the presence of the huge army of NATO did not manage neither to curb extremism and terrorism nor to stop drug production which reached its all-time record this year. Opium and heroin production in Afghanistan since 9/11, I think, maybe quadrupled or even more. It is to be understood and accepted that this is something which feeds terrorist activity directly. It should also be understood that without precursors this drug production would not be possible. Most precursors come from Europe. What we need is to have no-fool, no double standards, united front against terrorism in all its incarnations, in all its forms, including financing of terrorism, including the drug industry that feeds terrorism, and so on and so forth.

On Afghanistan, specifically, there used to be a group called the 6+1. That was the time when the Taliban were ruling in Afghanistan. The group met several times, and it was useful to see what some of the neighbours plus Russia, plus the United States and the UN of course, can do about the situation. Since then there is a legitimate government in Kabul, even though we can argue how the government was assembled, what kind of elections took place, who was winning, who announced the recount of the vote the results of which were never made public. We can also argue about the role outside players had in creating this particular political system is Afghanistan. Never has a system imposed from the outside can be sustainable. We see this in Afghanistan, were problems are accumulating domestically, we see this in Yemen, where a deal agreed by outside players was just imposed on the country, so we have what we have in Yemen.

Then there was the quartet: Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and the United States. They met several times, then they stopped meeting, now they think of meeting again. Then there is the Kabul Process, which for me is too large at this stage. It would be necessary when it comes to reconstruction and mobilising support for rebuilding the country, but in order to find a solution to a political crisis and to moving from a violent state of play into negotiations, you need a smaller group of countries, and in our view that should be all the participants of 6+1, but also all Central Asian countries, because each and every of them, not only Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as neighbours, but others as well, they feel the bad influence of what is going on in Afghanistan. We convened it, we called it the Moscow Process. Unfortunately, the Americans declined, I do not know why. Instead they are now playing a game with 6+1.

My point is that you cannot resolve the situation without having everybody on board, everybody around the table: the government, the Taliban and those who can really influence the situation, including neighbours. That was what Russia basically did a couple of times. People who participated said that it was useful. In any case, with India and Pakistan having joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, we revived the Shanghai plus Afghanistan Contact Group. It met in October this year in Moscow. It is meeting early next year in China, and we would be certainly India’s initiative to invite another meeting of this contact group to Delhi.

Then there was something about the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. You know, we have our own corridors. We have a huge territory and do not need any other corridors. We need to develop our own corridors instead of playing in the hand of our competition. Why should we do it? The overall picture of Eurasian economic development is certainly to be borne in mind. In fact, Kazakhstan is offering its territory, Azerbaijan is interested to link Central Asia with the Caspian Region, and China has the concept which we believe is very interesting and needs to be explored in the context of building a harmonious relationship in terms of trade, investment, transport, as well as logistics in Eurasian continent. I know that India has problems with the One Belt, One Road concept, as we discussed today. However, the specific problem in this regard should not make anything else conditional on resolving political differences. India is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, so are Russia, China and practically all Central Asian countries. All of them have already signed documents with China on cooperation in the context of One Road, One Belt. Russia and other members of the Eurasian Economic Union concluded an economic cooperation agreement with China. These are facts from the ground that are going to be developed further. I am 100% convinced that India has enough very smart diplomats and politicians to find a way which would allow you to benefit from this process, and at the same time not to sacrifice your positions of principle.



Question:

Why is Russia and some of its colleagues in the UN Security Council, and please correct me if I am wrong, they are so reluctant to call Pakistan sponsoring terrorism. There is enough evidence already available in the public domain about its complicity or duplicity on the issue of terrorism. So in your estimations, is Pakistan a fit case for being designated as a state-sponsor, or you think Pakistan is a nation you can speak with?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is no such thing as a UN list of states sponsoring terrorism. There is an American list which they use as they please. But there is no such thing in the United Nations as a list of states sponsoring terrorism. The Security Council agrees on criteria to include specific organisations and to list them as terrorist organisations. If you take a look at Security Council documents, as well as the declaration of the BRICS Summit in China last September, you will see quite a list of organisations which we all condemn as terrorists. Maybe this information will be useful for you. Otherwise we all want terrorism to be eradicated from Afghanistan, from Pakistan, from each and every country on Earth. Yes, we understand Pakistan’s interest in solving this, to get rid of terrorist groups which use its territory and we would be ready to support the Pakistani government in this regard. I believe everybody should.



Question:

With regard to the Make in India program in the defence sector, how far is Russia willing to go in terms of the technology transfer?



Sergey Lavrov:

As I said in my statement, as we continue and deepen our cooperation with regard to technical matters, this would involve more know-how from Russia transferred. If you want me to some details, I do not know, maybe you are a representative of a competitor.



Question:

Recently senior air force officials made a report and a presentation for the government about the FGFA. There appears to be some doubt. Can you tell me whether this information on the fifth-generation fighter aircraft has been given to the Russian side?



Sergey Lavrov:

Information about what?



Question:

They have doubts about the FGFA. The report was written by vice-marshal of the air force and handed over to the defence minister, and there was also a presentation. Second, after so many years and so much money spent, can you tell us if a second Akula will be transferred to India?



Sergey Lavrov:

First of all, there is a special place to discuss these things, and if you want to satisfy your curiosity, I am sorry, this is not a subject which is appropriate for this particular purpose. I can only say that if we have agreement on both sides on any project, be it military, military-technical, be it economic, logistical, what have we, then this project is going to be implemented. If one side, one party is not interested, this is the situation. Nobody is going to twist hands or impose something.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2984577






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to media questions on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting in the Russia-India-China format, New Delhi, December 11, 2017



11 December 2017 - 23:13









Question:

The Palestinians have said they no longer accept the United States as a peace mediator and are looking for other intermediaries. What are the chances of Russia taking over the leading role in a Palestinian-Israeli settlement?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, we never pretended to be able to settle the Palestinian-Israeli problem unassisted. We have always worked on this issue within a group, that is, the quartet of international intermediaries, which enjoys international support and includes Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU. Regrettably, the US side regularly made statements under the previous and current administrations that it alone will settle the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Unilateral leadership is not what we want in this case. We are focused on results rather than propaganda scores. I believe that no country alone is capable of settling this problem.

I have seen the recent Arab League statement on this issue. The Arab leaders have expressed hope that this US decision will be revised and have reaffirmed the previously coordinated principles, including on the status of Jerusalem in the context of a broader solution regarding the status of the future Palestinian state. We are committed to these principles.



Question:

A White House official has said the Palestinians are walking away again from an opportunity to discuss the future of the region by refusing to meet with US Vice President Mike Pence. Does this mean the deal of the century has fallen through?



Sergey Lavrov:

I do not know if the deal of the century has fallen through or not because nobody has seen it anyway. It has been announced, but somewhat unclearly. We do not know its essence. As for walking away from a peace deal, this is for public consumption. It would be better to avoid unnecessary polemics over this delicate issue. But meetings must be held, of course. We believe that all sides, including the most serious adversaries, should hold talks.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2984617

[Alex Him]

Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department for Humanitarian Cooperation and Human Rights and Commissioner for Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law Anatoly Viktorov in an interview with Rossiya Segodnya



11 December 2017 - 14:40





Question:

Why are we unable to do anything in the case of Viktor Bout, Konstantin Yaroshenko and many other Russian citizens who have been serving sentences in US prisons, many of them for years? Has Washington advanced any preconditions for turning them over to us, for example an exchange of prisoners?



Anatoly Viktorov:

The Russian consular staff regularly visits Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko and maintains contact with their lawyers and families. They have taken action several times to alleviate these Russian citizens’ prison terms and conditions and to ensure their right to receive quality medical care.

Overall, we are unable to get things moving in the cases of the Russians who are serving prison terms in the United States because of the Americans’ categorical unwillingness to revise their sentences although they were often tried on contrived charges. Moreover, former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told us frankly that Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko, who had flatly refused to plead guilty in court, would serve their full sentences to teach others not to follow suit. In other words, their fate should make our other compatriots who happened to be caught in the grip of “American justice” more compliant.

The Russian Foreign Ministry continues to do everything possible to return these Russian citizens home. We regularly discuss this issue with American officials at different levels, including high levels. This issue has been discussed many times during Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s conversations with his former and current counterparts – Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Rex Tillerson.

In February 2017, a personal written appeal for Yaroshenko’s pardon was delivered to President Donald Trump on behalf of the pilot’s mother. We are sorry to say that she did not survive the negative response she received from the US Department of State. Her heart stopped on May 7.

In June this year, Yaroshenko’s spouse sent a new appeal to President Trump, asking him to grant his mother’s last wish by releasing Konstantin who is suffering from numerous grave diseases. However, Washington officials refuse to discuss the situation with the illegally sentenced Russian pilot in spite of the obvious humanitarian circumstances. This is also true of our initiative, which we have proposed several times, that Konstantin be turned over to Russia in keeping with the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons.



Question:

The State Duma has adopted a law under which foreign media outlets receiving funds from abroad can be declared foreign agents. The Foreign Ministry has submitted its conclusions on this law. Will this law infringe on freedom of expression just as the United States has done with regard to Russian media outlets?



Anatoly Viktorov:

This law has been adopted in response to US actions against the RT television network and the Sputnik radio and news agency and does not infringe on freedom of expression in any way.



Question:

What is Russia’s attitude to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) adopted by judges for whom Russia did not vote due to the restrictions on its work in PACE? Are these decisions legitimate? Will we confirm our intention to comply with the ECHR decisions in conditions of the current crisis?



Anatoly Viktorov:

The situation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) is fairly depressing. Russia has not taken part in its sessions since the end of 2014 when the powers of our delegation were seriously restricted. At the same time, many important decisions are within its competence, for instance, the election of judges to the ECHR. In the meantime, 18 out of 47 ECHR judges assumed office in 2015-2017.

It is important to understand that the ECHR is a mechanism to ensure compliance of the Council of Europe member states with their commitments under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

This judicial body has serious powers. Implementation of its resolutions is monitored by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CMCE). In this context it is particularly important for the Court to make well-balanced decisions and substantiate all its points with impeccable legal arguments, relying on the norms of international law and preventing any willful, broad interpretations.

It should not be forgotten that the Convention and the Court that was instituted in accordance with it are actually the creations of the High Contracting Parties, that is, the member states of the Council of Europe. It is the states that are playing the key role in developing international law and international relations. In signing international treaties they assume certain commitments but at the same time they are vested with rights to form relevant judicial entities that, in turn, will subsequently interpret these commitments, proceeding, once again, from the stated wishes of these countries.

In this context the Russian Federation is justifiably concerned over its inability to make decisions on such important and far-reaching issues as the election of ECHR judges. Indeed, the legitimacy of decisions adopted against this country by the body in whose formation its stated wish was not considered is disputable. Hence, the implementation of such decisions can be also put into question.

If nothing is done about Russia’s participation in PACE, similar problems may emerge as regards other executives who are also elected in PACE – the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe in the near future, and the Secretary General in a more remote future.



Question:

How many of the court’s decisions are implemented in Russia?



Anatoly Viktorov:

According to the Justice Ministry of Russia, we implement the majority of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, or more precisely, about 99 per cent of decisions. Our colleagues from the Council of Europe have confirmed this. According to the council’s statistics, Italy is 50 per cent ahead of Russia (2,350 versus 1,573) in terms of cases at different stages of consideration by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers (CM) in 2016, while the population of Russia is more than twice as big as that of Italy. The other countries leading by the number of such cases are Turkey (1,430 cases) and Ukraine (1,147), which is only slightly smaller than in Russia although our population is several times larger than the population of these countries. In other words, the statistics that you have asked about should be regarded in the context of several factors. Moreover, it should be said that the hearing of any case by the council’s Committee of Ministers does not mean that the country in question has refused to implement the court’s decisions. For example, Russia took the necessary measures to implement the court’s decisions on 261 cases, Italy on 108 cases and Ukraine on only four cases in 2016.

The CM has not yet published the data for 2017, but we expect the statistics to change a little in light of recent developments. On October 12, 2017, the court’s Grand Chamber adopted a decision on the Case of Burmych and Others v Ukraine, the applications under which were part of a group of 12,143 follow-up applications that concern the non-enforcement of domestic court decisions in Ukraine. The court pointed out this structural problem of the Ukrainian justice system back in 2009 in the case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v Ukraine, yet Ukraine has not implemented the court’s decisions to this day.

In other words, the scale of non-enforcement of some of the court’s decisions in Russia should not be overestimated. Actually, the issue only concerns a few of the court’s decisions, which are based, in our opinion, on wrong premises and on positions that contradict the court’s subsidiary/auxiliary role and sometimes even international law.



Question:

Russia has not supported the UN General Assembly resolution on human rights in North Korea, saying that it rejects the UN human rights agencies’ practice of submitting selective and lop-sided resolutions on the situation with human rights in individual countries. Nevertheless, do we accept the fact of gross human rights violations in North Korea? Who is responsible for this? What can be done to improve this situation?



Anatoly Viktorov:

We believe that the states themselves are responsible for upholding and protecting human rights in their national territories.

No country is ideal in terms of the situation with human rights. On the other hand, some countries, which have come to believe in their infallibility, prefer to close their eyes to their own problems with human rights and think that they have the right to tell others what they must do and force their arguable human rights concepts on others regardless of their cultural and historical specifics. These countries sometimes use the human rights rhetoric to achieve their own immediate political goals. This approach often has tragic consequences for entire nations and regions. The international community can draw conclusions about the destructiveness of this approach from the developments in the Middle East, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Russia does not accept patronising and label-sticking. Practice has shown that this does not help improve the situation on the ground but only results in some countries’ isolation and refusal to cooperate. We believe that the international community should deal with any human rights grievances through a constructive and equal dialogue based on mutual respect, technical assistance provided at the request of the concerned countries, as well as the exchange of positive experience in dealing with human rights problems.

North Korea is a signatory to several international treaties on human rights, under which it must submit regular reports on compliance with its obligations under these treaties to the concerned international monitoring mechanisms.

In addition, the UN Human Rights Council launched a process of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) many years ago. The UPR has proved to be a useful tool of international monitoring of the human rights situation in individual countries. North Korea has participated in two UPR cycles and is to submit a report under the third cycle in 2019, when all interested states can voice their concerns and make recommendations on improving the human rights situation in North Korea. Russia will certainly take part in this dialogue with North Korea in the spirit of equal cooperation based on mutual respect.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2983301






Deputy Foreign Minister Oleg Syromolotov’s interview with Interfax news agency, December 12, 2017



12 December 2017 - 15:59





Question:

After almost all of Syria’s territory has been cleared of ISIS, what tasks in the sphere of combating terrorism are coming to the fore?



Oleg Syromolotov:

International terrorism in Syria is not limited to ISIS. Many other al-Qaeda offshoots are operating in that country, such as Jabhat al-Nusra. To reiterate, despite changing its name several times, it remains on the UN Security Council’s sanctions list, and its members, just like the militants of other illegal formations, must be brought to justice for their crimes.

However, I agree that the defeat of ISIS as the current leader of the “terrorist International,” especially amid the intensified political process in Syria, truly marks a new stage in the counter-terrorism efforts. Neutralising the remaining terrorist threats is coming to the fore. Ensuring the rule of law and order, this time through the efforts of the Syrians themselves, without arbitrary external interference that, as a matter of fact, led to destabilisation in that country in 2011−2012 and to rapid growth of terrorism there and across the region, is of paramount importance now.

Under the new circumstances, it is becoming increasingly clear that the greatest danger is coming from the spread of terrorist ideology in the information space. The issue is not only about the efficiency of the terrorist groups’ masterminds or sponsors, but also about the fact that those in the West who manipulate international public opinion and refer to outright terrorists as “freedom fighters” or “violent extremists” play the leading role in the cyberspace and social media.

Russia is convinced that opposing the disastrous spread of terrorist and extremist ideas is only possible through combining the capabilities of the state and society on a single solid basis of international law and honest cooperation and rejecting double standards and attempts to justify terrorist activities.



Question:

Were we successful in moving the terrorist threat further away from Russia's borders as a result of our operation in Syria?



Oleg Syromolotov:

Without any doubt. Most of the terrorists, especially their ringleaders who planned to export jihad from the Middle East to other regions of the world, including Russia, were destroyed. This work continues and it is being done effectively. Russia has all the legislative and organisational means to be successful. Actually, the terrorist threat has been moved further away not only from Russia’s borders, but also the borders of our allies and neighbours, and many other international partners of ours. It is important to bolster state-to-state interaction and remain united as we fight our common enemy.



Question:

According to some reports, a fairly significant number of foreign mercenaries were Russian nationals who fought in the ranks of ISIS in Syria. Have they been destroyed, or are they likely to melt away now and turn up later in other regions, including Russia?



Oleg Syromolotov:

There’s no need to overstate the role of the Russian or other CIS countries’ nationals in ISIS. Indeed, several thousand citizens from former Soviet republics joined this terrorist organisation, which had tens of thousands of militants at its peak. Most of them were used as cannon fodder. Those who managed to escape from Syria, may get some help in order to melt away. We are aware of this and keep tabs on their accomplices. I will tell you one thing – nothing will come out of it. These terrorists face only one choice: justice or elimination.

The ongoing rumours about Russia as the main supplier of terrorists is a trick designed to shift the blame on us, and to divert attention from real reasons for the growth of terrorism across the world and in the MENA region. The reasons lie in an ill-conceived policy of Western states which decided – in order to promote their geopolitical interests – to destabilise the MENA region and to destroy, in particular, the traditional foundations of security.



Question:

According to experts, following the defeat in Syria and Iraq, ISIS has chosen Afghanistan as its main foothold, and is getting closer to the borders of Russia and our CSTO allies. Do we see an option of using the Syrian format in Afghanistan, which involves using various local opposition groups to fight ISIS?



Oleg Syromolotov:

We can see the threat of ISIS in Afghanistan, especially in its northern parts along the borders with the Central Asian republics. However, we are much more worried by the fact that the now fairly variegated terrorist potential in Afghanistan has been steadily building up over the course of the 16-year military presence of NATO and its allies there. However, NATO has no strategy to deal with it. One can get an impression that someone is benefitting from keeping up this controlled chaos. Now what, we will have to fight terrorists instead of them in Afghanistan, too? What other Syrian format is in question? What do opposition groups have to do with this? Do not forget that the Russian Aerospace Forces’ operation in Syria is a fully legitimate effort carried out at the request of the Syrian government.



Question:

Do we assess as successful the model of counter-terrorism cooperation with the United States and the US-led coalition in Syria? Do we consider it necessary to continue such cooperation during the post-conflict period in order to strengthen security and prevent terrorists from rearing heads in Syria?



Oleg Syromolotov:

We would very much like our interaction with the United States to be successful and to focus on countering terrorism. So far, our relations with the Americans in Syria have been reduced to ensuring military de-confliction. However, counterterrorism cooperation implies comprehensive activities involving competent authorities. There is the Anti-Terror Working Group’s mechanism. We are ready to resume its work, and, strictly speaking, we never closed the door to dialogue and cooperation.

Let me remind you about the all too familiar instances when the United States took or ignored actions that allowed terrorists, including ISIS fighters, to avoid being hit, or to escape occupied areas and recover in order to pursue their terrorist and combat activities against the Syrian army. That is why we cannot talk in earnest about counter-terrorist interaction with the Americans in Syria. Moreover, that created threats for the Russian servicemen. This is unacceptable.



Question:

Do we see an opportunity to apply the experience of cooperation with the United States in Syria to Afghanistan? Is it realistic to expect to settle the Afghan conflict and to eliminate the terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan, which jeopardises the region and the world, without interacting with the United States or NATO?



Oleg Syromolotov:

I think I gave you quite an exhaustive answer. Allegedly, NATO and its allies who sent military there under the mandate of the UN Security Council were supposed to resolve the problem of terrorism in Afghanistan. It is not working out at all. The situation is only getting worse. Do they interact with Russia or numerous other states in the region? Unfortunately, not or not enough. As soon as our Western partners realise that there is no alternative to cooperation, there definitely will be less terrorism in Afghanistan and the rest of the world.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2985345






Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov’s meeting with UN Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix



12 December 2017 - 16:43



On December 12, Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov met with United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations Jean-Pierre Lacroix, who is in Moscow on a working visit.

The officials exchange opinions on promoting and improving the UN peacekeeping efforts. Jean-Pierre Lacroix spoke in detail about the thrust of the reforms that the UN leadership is carrying out in this area.

The Russian official stressed that in carrying out any reforms, in particular, in introducing a practical dimension to concepts like “intelligence” in the UN peacekeeping effort, it is necessary to be guided by the importance of keeping the UN as an interstate organisation based on the democratic principles of its decision-making procedure, with due account for the position of all member countries.

The parties also emphasised the need to strictly observe the basic peacekeeping principles, including securing the agreement of the parties to the conflict, as well as the impartiality and non-use of force, except in the case of either self-defence or carrying out a mission under the UN Security Council mandate. They also stressed that it is unacceptable to rely too heavily on strong, much less preventive actions, involve peacekeepers in offensive and counterterrorist operations and allow peacekeepers to use force against the state receiving a peacekeeping mission on the pretext of defending its civilians.

During his visit to Moscow, Jean-Pierre Lacroix was also received at the Russian Ministry of Defence, the Interior Ministry and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation Secretariat.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2985380






Remarks by Deputy Director of the Foreign Ministry’s Fourth European Department Leonid Abramov at an official ceremony marking the 140th anniversary of the capture of Plevna on December 10, 1877, Moscow, December 10, 2017



13 December 2017 - 10:22





Your Excellency Mr Ambassador,

Dear Bulgarian friends,

Esteemed representatives of federal agencies, public organisations, the clergy and civil society,

On behalf of the Foreign Ministry, I congratulate you on this momentous 140th anniversary of liberating Pleven (Plevna), a city of unfading military glory.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877−1878 will forever live in the memory of Russian and Bulgarian nations. This can be rightfully called our common anniversary.

The capture of Plevna on December 10, 1877 turned the tide of the Liberation War. This victory not only led to the reinstatement of a sovereign and constitutional Bulgarian state, but awakened other Balkan nations and eventually relieved them of the Ottoman Empire’s colonial yoke. All of us should remember that the current independence of the Balkan countries was first made possible by the blood of Russian soldiers and Bulgarian militia.

Today, we are honouring the memory of the best sons of the Russian and Bulgarian nations. Our longtime friendship is made even stronger by the blood of the soldiers who fought shoulder to shoulder for a brighter future of the Balkans. Bulgaria was the first country to be liberated from foreign rule that imposed an alien religion and culture on it.

And 140 years later, we in Russia remember and are proud of the fact that the liberation of a fraternal Slavic nation had been made possible by the great heroic feat of our ancestors. This is another example of how the heroism and selflessness of Russian soldiers that have repeatedly been manifested in the recent history of our country are combined with sound historical memory and the younger generation’s loyalty to the memory of their ancestors. This manifestation of the strong spirit of the Russian nation is rooted in a love for the Motherland and feelings of fraternity. This has always been; it is true today, and will always be true. Therefore any attempts of our enemies to falsify and distort history are doomed to failure.

I would like to emphasise the fact that Russia provided sincere and selfless support to a resurgent Bulgaria, and that this support was offered contrary to the extremely contradictory policy of leading European powers. Russian Chancellor (Foreign Minister) Prince Alexander Gorchakov instructed the country’s Commissioner in Sofia that, instead of strengthening Russia’s influence, it was necessary to strengthen the independence of the young Bulgarian state, so that it could counter any hostile encroachments on its own. Russia has always adhered to this position. But certain circles in Brussels and in the United States are guided by a diametrically opposite policy.

Longtime spiritual ties, mutual understanding and sincere feelings, our close and intertwined cultures have always been the foundation of Russian-Bulgarian relations. We see the significance of these fundamental pillars particularly vividly on the day honouring the memory of the heroes of Plevna and on the threshold of the 140th anniversary of liberating Bulgaria, to be marked next year. I am confident that they will remain a reliable guarantee of expanded mutually beneficial cooperation and stronger friendship between the peoples of our countries. As the famous Bulgarian proverb says, blood will not turn to water.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2987061