Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old April 29th, 2017 #61
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 27, 2017



27 April 2017 - 18:23





Upcoming celebration of the 72nd Victory anniversary

In connection with the upcoming celebration of the 72nd anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, the Foreign Ministry and our missions abroad plan to hold a series of memorial, protocol, informational and cultural events. These include official receptions and gatherings, meetings with war veterans, ceremonies at monuments and memorials to Soviet soldiers and various public events with the participation of our compatriots.

The Victory anniversary celebration will feature the Immortal Regiment event, which will take place in over 50 countries, and the St George Ribbon campaign in more than 90 countries, both initiated by organisations of Russian compatriots. Other events will include the Memory Candle, the laying of flowers at the graves of those who laid down their lives in the fight against Nazism, requiem rallies, concerts and period song festivals.

I would like to note that these are public events organised by our compatriots and members of civil society. Needless to say, Russian missions abroad are providing them the required organisational assistance.

In addition, a dance festival called Victory Waltz, symbolising the bond of generations, countries and nations, will be held in some CIS countries, in particular, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Let me remind you of a line from Klavdiya Shulzhenko’s song: “Oh, how my head is spinning, how it’s spinning.”

We expect local residents, veterans and members of antifascist organisations to join these events in a number of countries together with our compatriots, as they did last year. We hope that the authorities of the countries where these formal and memorial ceremonies will be held will not obstruct them but on the contrary, will themselves pay tribute to the memory of those who defeated fascism.

Participants in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 living abroad, survivors of the Leningrad siege and juvenile inmates of Nazi concentration camps will receive personal greetings from the Russian president.

Special attention is paid to performing maintenance on Russian (Soviet) war burial sites in other countries.

On May 9, the traditional military parade will take place on Red Square, which is due to be attended by the heads of foreign diplomatic missions accredited in Moscow.

We are confident that the celebration will, as always, take place in a special spirit, with a sense of enthusiasm, in an informal and warm atmosphere, and that it will attract all people who are eager to preserve historical memory and prevent the revival and glorification of Nazism.

There will be another special event. I will not go into detail at this point but will just raise the curtain a little. The Turetsky Choir is preparing a special surprise for us. We will keep you in suspense for a while but I will soon tell you about this event in detail.



10 years since Tallinn’s Bronze Night and Dmitry Ganin’s death

April 27 marks 10 years since the tragic events known as the Bronze Night took place in Tallinn when the monument to the Soldier Liberator was dismantled and the nearby remains of the Soviet soldiers who liberated the Estonian capital from the Nazis were exhumed despite repeated protests from the Russian side and in outrageous violation of the norms of international law and basic human moral principles. The street protests of those who tried to protect the memorial were put down by force.

That night’s events are still painful to remember for our compatriots and all those who care about the great exploit of the soldiers who sacrificed their lives to secure peace in Europe as it is today. Every year, hundreds of people come to pay tribute to the perished soldiers and the Bronze Soldier, which were moved to the war cemetery in Tallinn. The Immortal Regiment procession is organised, and a guard of honour protects the memorial.

We are extremely concerned about the way the Estonian authorities are conducting the investigation into the murder of Dmitry Ganin, a Russian citizen who died in the protests of April 2007. After 10 years of inaction, the Estonian law-enforcement bodies are clearly seeking to drop the case, citing the expiry of its period of limitation. They are also ignoring the Russian Investigative Committee’s proposals to provide legal assistance.

Such an approach is unacceptable. We demand that the Estonian side take all possible measures to identify the culprits behind the Russian citizen’s murder, and to hold them responsible.



Anniversary of the May 2 events in Odessa

May 2 marks three years since the tragic events in Odessa, in which dozens of people died and hundreds were injured at the hands of thugs behaving like fascists. I regret to say that those responsible for that inhuman crime have not been punished yet and that the investigation has stalled in the face of the tacit indifference of the West and international human rights institutions. Just compare it with the storm of indignation, especially in EU parliamentary circles, that erupts over a visit by a European politician or a public figure or a member of parliament, for example, to Syria. A tidal wave erupts there. The man is humiliated to such a degree that he is ready to admit to anything, that he is an agent of every secret space agency, and to turn himself in to all authorities. He is utterly humiliated by the stream of media attacks.

We have seen nothing of this kind over the past three years from the West in terms of demands to investigate the Odessa events. Let me repeat that this tragedy was not just a political rally, or the dispersal of demonstrators or mistreatment of people. People were burnt alive, and they were not servicemen but civilians who were defending their right to a dignified life.

The inaction of the Kiev authorities and the pure connivance of their external sponsors are fuelling radical sentiments in Ukraine. It is troubling that more and more often we hear extremist forces say that they intend to disrupt memorial events, and make threats against those who have not forgotten the victims of the Odessa tragedy.

Let me stress that the authorities, who have halted the investigation, are not the ones coming under pressure but rather those who witnessed the events and still care about the search for truth.

We are calling on Kiev to ensure law and order in Odessa in the coming days and swiftly handle any provocations by nationalist radicals.

Sadly, we are often right about these things. Once again we would like to warn our Ukrainian colleagues that condoning, inciting and nurturing radicals will come back to bite you hard. I will not even say “the day will come” – it has, in fact, already come.



The situation in Syria

The situation in Syria is still a focus of our attention. We anxiously monitor reports about the situation in Syria. Unfortunately, there is still plenty of cause for concern.

On April 25, it was reported that Turkish jets carried out a series of strikes on the positions of Kurdish self-defence detachments near Mount Karachok in northeastern Syria and near Mount Sinjar in northern Iraq. I would like to remind you that Kurdish detachments are the most effective fighting force in the war against ISIS terrorists in northeastern Syria. We were greatly disturbed by reports of Ankara’s operations. There is reason to believe that if it was not for the hasty US attack on Syria’s Shayrat Airbase, which was outside the bounds of international law, Turkey would not have carried out the recent strikes. It is necessary to put an end to arbitrariness on Syrian soil. We urge all international and regional partners to respect the sovereignty and independence of Syria and Iraq, as well as of other countries.

I would like to draw your attention to another issue. The targets that the Turkish Air Force hit in Syria included media facilities: a local TV and radio broadcasting station. Reports say some of your colleagues from the media centre of Kurdish self-defence forces were killed, among others. I would like to see the reaction of the relevant organisations and the journalistic community.

Syria’s government forces are successfully advancing on the positions of ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists. The offensive in the north of Hama Province is moving forward. Despite the fierce resistance put up by Nusra and its allies, the large towns of Halfaya and Taybat al-Imam have been liberated. At present, the army is exploiting its strategic success, advancing toward the border of Hama and Idlib Provinces.

On April 19 and 21, Russian Aerospace Forces aircraft destroyed Jabhat al-Nusra’s large training camps in Idlib Province. The strikes were carried out with coordinates received from the so-called competing group, Jaysh al-Izzah.

The dynamic of events in Syria underscores the pressing need for an international meeting on Syria in Astana. The next meeting is scheduled for May 3-4. We hope that the Astana process will help record positive trends in the development of the situation in Syria, prevent the deterioration of the military-political situation and help the Syrian parties in search of compromise solutions, which would put an end to the protracted intra-Syrian confrontation and prevent terrorists from gaining full control of Syria and the entire Middle East region.



Missile attack on Damascus International Airport

According to media reports, in the early hours of April 27, Israeli Air Force jets conducted a strike on Damascus International Airport. According to Syria’s SANA news agency, a source in the Syrian Army described the attack as Israeli aggression against Syrian military installations southwest of the Damascus airport. The Israeli military declined to comment on reports of the strike. At the same time Israeli Transportation and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz said in an interview with IDF Radio that “the incident is completely compatible with Israel’s policy principles.”

Moscow condemns acts of aggression against Syria and considers them unacceptable and at odds with the principles and norms of international law. We urge all parties to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, a UN member state. It would be not a bad idea to reflect on international law and its violations – something that our Western colleagues have talked so much about in recent years, for example, our EU colleagues, who suddenly began to remind everybody about the need to observe international law. It would be useful to assess the extent to which it has been violated now.

Whatever reasons might be invoked to justify gross violations of Syria’s sovereignty, they are unacceptable. They pose a threat to international peace and security and destabilise the existing world order. Among other things, such actions play into the hands of ISIS and al-Nusra terrorists, which also seriously undermines the efforts aimed at achieving a political settlement of the Syria crisis as soon as possible, based on internationally coordinated decisions, above all UN Security Council Resolution 2254.



The humanitarian situation in Deir ez-Zor

Improving the humanitarian situation in Syria and providing aid to those in need is one of Russia’s priorities in Syria.

We have often talked about the Russian military’s contribution to achieving this goal. They deliver food, water and basic necessities to the Syrian people, often at the risk of their lives.

The situation in Deir ez-Zor, where about 200,000 people have been under ISIS siege for over three years now, is also the focus of our attention. Russian airplanes regularly deliver humanitarian aid to the besieged people by using parachute platforms, including aid that the Syrian authorities receive from the UN. The most recent aid delivery – 21tonnes of food – was made on April 24-25.

According to the UN, more than a half of Syria’s population – 13.5 million people, including 6.5 million children – need humanitarian aid; 11.5 million people need medical care and 12.1 million have no access to drinking water.

Russia is doing its utmost to ease the suffering of the Syrian people regardless of their ethnic or religious background, political sympathies or antipathies. We call on our Western colleagues to do the same, depoliticise the humanitarian aid issue in Syria, and focus on the interests of those in need. People need bread, water and fuel to keep their homes warm; they need basic aid to survive. Alas, our Western partners, who tend to worry over non-issues, prefer to impose new sanctions, which only make the situation worse.



The White Helmets

I would like to draw your attention to new facts exposing the activity of the White Helmets, a notorious organisation that is discrediting itself. This entire activity can be described as pseudo-humane or pseudo-humanitarian. There is evidence that some actions taken by members of this organisation not only prevent it from claiming the status of a humanitarian NGO or “saviours of the Syrian people,” but can be put in the same category as extremism and war crimes.

The real Syria Civil Defence organisation was established in 1953 and registered at the International Civil Defence Organisation (ICDO). Contrary to Western media reports, the White Helmets have nothing in common with Syria’s national emergency response system or the organisation of relief and rescue operations in case of accidents or disasters. As militants moved into Aleppo, they seized ambulances, firefighting trucks and other gear and equipment, while the majority of civil defence officers were shot.

The White Helmets not only feel at home on Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS-controlled territories but openly sympathise with them and provide them with information and even financial support. How is that for double standards? There is documentary evidence of the White Helmets’ involvement in some of al-Nusra’s operations and cover-up over civilian deaths. A case in point is a video presumably made in March 2015 that shows the White Helmets mingling with terrorists and beating a defenceless man captured by al-Nusra. In a video dated May 2015, they carry out a kind of a clean-up operation at the site of civilian executions in northern Aleppo. There is footage of torture of Syrian soldiers with their subsequent execution in the presence of the White Helmets.

The biased Western media outlets absolutely ignore the facts that expose the White Helmets’ propaganda and are silent about the falsification of casualty figures in Syria and the fabrication of acts of violence or the use of dangerous kinds of weapons. Eyewitnesses talk about looting, juggling facts and faking the provision of medical aid by members of this “humanitarian” NGO.

The White Helmets often come forward as the only witnesses to the destruction of civilian facilities and casualties as a result of alleged operations by the Russian Aerospace Forces or the Syrian Air Force. On the internet, people tired of propaganda do frame-by-frame analysis of their fake videos of civilian relief operations and discover footage with the participation of professional makeup artists. I believe you have seen them.

The White Helmets’ actions in Syria’s Khan Shaykhun on April 4 merit special mention. Their purportedly “incontrovertible” evidence gave the Americans a pretext for carrying out an act of armed aggression against Syria’s Air Force Shayrat airbase on April 7. Representatives of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, an NGO, analysed the video footage and came to the conclusion that the saving of children shown there was in fact a dangerous manipulation of children’s bodies pumped with narcotics.

Importantly, funds controlled by some Western governments or business circles close to them are directly involved in financing the White Helmets. He who pays the piper calls the tune, especially since this music fully corresponds to the official position of Western countries regarding regime change in Syria – as we clearly realise, the only purpose of their presence there.



Criticism of the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights NGO

We have taken note of the criticism and open pressure put on the NGO, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, after it questioned the allegation by the United States and several other countries that it was the Syrian Army that was responsible for the April 4 chemical attack in Idlib.

It has become a kind of tradition to attack and persecute independent NGOs for their alternative views. These NGOs are branded Kremlin agents and accused of attempts to discredit or undermine trust in the West’s version of events. At the same time, the Western capitals give a pat on the back to all kinds of pseudo-experts and pseudo-NGOs, such as the White Helmets, for promoting allegations and accusations against the Syrian Government. They also pretend not to see the shameless falsifications practiced by these NGOs.

The situation with Swedish Doctors for Human Rights is fresh evidence of the Western practice of double standards regarding freedom of speech: it appears that the only information that can be made public is that which strictly corresponds to the policies of Washington and Brussels.



Dutch war correspondent Arnold Karskens on refugees

We have provided our views more than once on the tragedy that is underway in the Middle East and North Africa because of the short-sighted democratisation policies of our Western colleagues. If our Western colleagues continue to talk about the democratisation of the Middle East and North Africa, knowing that they cannot retrace their steps, maybe we should choose a simpler solution, that is, change the definition of democratisation? Maybe we should write an article for Wikipedia saying that democratisation as understood in the West amounts to total destruction of states, and provide the numerous examples?

We have also noticed that the opinions of many Western experts who take an objective view on the situation in the region, its causes and their consequences, increasingly often coincide with our conclusions.

Independent Dutch war correspondent Arnold Karskens has written that Western politicians are guilty of the death of Mali refugees who drowned in the Mediterranean while trying to reach Europe. Speaking on behalf of the families of the drowned Mali refugees, Karskens has filed charges of manslaughter, and aiding and abetting human trafficking against the European Union. He has named First Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans as the defendant in the case. According to Arnold Karskens, over 12,000 people have drowned in the Mediterranean since 2015 because of the failure of European refugee policies.

We fear that this journalist is unlikely to win the case in a Dutch court, but we hope that at least this case will draw public attention to the tragedy of this modern exodus and its causes and consequences. At the same time, we hope that Dutch law enforcement agencies will have the good sense not to accuse this journalist of being a Russian propagandist in the West. But then, who knows?



The situation in South Sudan

We are closely monitoring the developments in the Republic of South Sudan. We believe that the South Sudanese themselves are responsible for normalising the situation in the republic. It would be inaccurate to blame the Juba government for the continued violence, considering that Juba has declared a unilateral ceasefire. The next important step is for the opposition to respond in kind.

We believe that stabilisation in South Sudan is possible if the parties strictly comply with the ceasefire terms and also launch an inclusive process of national reconciliation. We hope for the success of the National Dialogue initiative advanced by South Sudan President Salva Kiir, which would include all ethnic groups, political forces and social strata in preparing and holding a national conference on a peaceful settlement.

We still have a negative attitude to the toughening of sanctions against South Sudan. It coincides with the views of the African Union (AU), the East African Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the main regional players. We believe that pressure and threats will not help defuse the crisis but will only aggravate it.

We welcome the agreements reached on the margins of at the 28th Ordinary Session of the AU Summit in January 2017 to coordinate the mediation efforts of the UN, the AU and the IGAD towards lasting peace, stability and security in South Sudan. We believe that the IGAD should play the key role in this process.

We are concerned about the continued deterioration of the humanitarian situation in South Sudan. It is obvious that the internal armed conflict is not the only cause of the humanitarian crisis, which is the direct result of the draught that has hit the region. We urge South Sudanese parties to take the necessary efforts to deliver international humanitarian aid to the people. We appreciate the considerable assistance provided by the adjacent countries, which have given shelter to many refugees from South Sudan.



Situation in Venezuela

Let me respond to the multiple requests we received regarding our perspective on the developments in Venezuela.

Looking at the political situation in this country, we see that both camps, the Chavistas and the opposition, enjoy strong support throughout the Venezuelan society. Neither side can deny the other the right to exist and stand up for its interests. At the same time, we strongly believe that attempts to achieve political results through riots are at odds with the democratic process. The country can resolve the challenging and urgent issues it faces only by promoting meaningful and effective dialogue as the only civilised way to bridge the differences within the society based on Venezuela’s constitution and current laws, while preventing violations of sovereignty or interference in domestic affairs in any form. Only those who stand for settling disputes by force can scorn at holding talks.

We cannot fail to note that outside forces clearly have a major disruptive impact on the situation. Their actions have already resulted in the death of as many as 26 people during riots. Russia mourns these victims together with the people of Venezuela. Unfortunately, those behind the violent action and acting with a sense of impunity can cause even more harm. I suggest that those so-called social engineers who preach civil disobedience take a closer look at what they achieved in Syria, Libya, Yemen, and also in Ukraine. What are outside forces trying to achieve in Venezuela? Are they looking for the same results? We reiterate that only the Venezuelan people themselves can resolve the issues their country is now facing, based on the constitution and through dialogue.



The situation on the Korean Peninsula

The situation on the Korean Peninsula continues to deteriorate. This trend is underpinned by the unwillingness of the conflicting sides to renounce confrontational approaches and attempts to resolve the existing issues by force, instead of focusing on dialogue and a positive agenda. The concentration of a US Navy strike group in Northeast Asia and the retaliatory war-like rhetoric coming from Pyongyang are a matter of concern. This is why the situation is escalating.

Against this backdrop, it is important to prevent the situation from sliding into a crisis mode and then leading onto an overt military conflict. We call on all the sides to exercise restraint and soberly evaluate the possible outcomes of escalating tension for the Korean Peninsula and the region in general.

Today, united efforts to achieve general military and political détente and find ways to settle all the existing issues at the negotiating table are needed like never before.

We expect a constructive discussion of the situation on the Korean Peninsula to take place at a special meeting of the UN Security Council on April 28 that will be attended by Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov.



Combating piracy off the Horn of Africa

The growing pirate activity off the coast of Somalia is a matter of concern. In March-April alone, six pirate attacks on foreign merchant vessels were recorded in this area, with the attackers managing to seize vessels and their crews in five cases. There are no Russian nationals among those taken prisoner by the pirates.

Russia calls for continued efforts to fight piracy, including within the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia (CGPCS), the only universal anti-pirate mechanism with a substantial potential and experience of collectively combating this phenomenon. We firmly believe that the attempts of some of our Western partners to curtail the activity of the Contact Group under the pretext that it has allegedly fulfilled its mandate are counter-productive and even dangerous in the context of developments off the coast of Somalia.



Russia’s re-election to UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs

On April 19, Russia was unanimously re-elected to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs for the 2018-2021 period at an ECOSOC Coordination and Management Meeting.

We believe that Russia’s re-election testifies to this country’s active and consistent efforts in favour of strengthening the international drug control regime based on the three UN anti-drug conventions.

Moreover, we persistently advocated closer international cooperation in resolving the situation with drug manufacture in Afghanistan and other regions with poor drug security. We firmly and systematically emphasised the clear connection between drug-trafficking profits and the financing of terrorism, including in the context of the so-called Islamic State’s attempts to establish control over Afghan drug trafficking, which is currently managed by the Taliban. The Russian Federation’s delegations working at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs will continue to focus on these and other issues of the drug problem.

Together with our supporters we intend to continue steering consistently towards a drug-free world, which, in our opinion, fully corresponds to the UN Charter’s principles and goals.



Refusal to accredit Radio Sputnik, RT and Ruptly video news agency by the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s electoral staff

We noted what we see as an outrageous decision to deny accreditation to three Russian media outlets – Sputnik, RT, and Ruptly video news agency – accepted by the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron’s electoral staff. It should be mentioned that these Russian media outlets submitted their relevant repeated requests in good time and observed all the formalities. Given that no obstacles were put in the way of other foreign media, we regard these prohibitive measures as purposeful and blatant discrimination of the Russian media by a candidate to the presidency of a state that historically stood up for freedom of speech.

Regrettably, this latest encroachment on the rights of the mass media by the Macron team fits in well with his associates’ earlier unsupported accusations against RT and Sputnik, including allegations that they influence the democratic life of the country. We think that democratic life can really be influenced by unhindered media operations promoting the pluralism of opinions and providing people with more opportunities to access information, including alternative points of view.

Many international acts, including the OSCE’s Astana final document of 2010, emphasised the special role of the media in ensuring free and honest elections. However, despite their ostensible public defence of democratic values, French politicians disregard certain human rights imperatives formalised at top level.

We call on specialised international organisations and the relevant authorities of the French Republic to pay special attention to the violation of media rights in the course of the presidential elections [in France], and take steps to prevent these encroachments from being repeated during the second electoral round in May.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

At the 6th International Security Conference, which has just ended in Moscow, one of the topics discussed at a plenary session was information aggression and what to do about this phenomenon. Practical examples of its use by Ukraine etc. were cited. How can this latest form of information aggression be countered under the current conditions?



Maria Zakharova:

Although I was out of Moscow and could not take part in the conference, I followed all the speeches and comments. I paid attention to the reaction to them and to everything connected with information, information wars and information aggression. What are we doing to counter all this?

First of all, we work directly with the audience and present timely quality information, confirmed by facts, figures and concrete examples. I think this is the main means of countering information aggression.

Second, we expose the people and agencies hiding behind the media brands who smuggle in misinformation and create fake news. The Russian Foreign Ministry website has opened a section devoted to fake news. It is functioning, publishing several items every week. Our initiative met with a very skeptical reaction from our Western colleagues. They immediately started to criticise us claiming that Russia just names the articles and brands them as fakes without giving the reason. That is untrue. We provide very detailed information, give our assessment and identify what we consider to be absolutely untrue information. This is a very effective method and an effective instrument. Today, when they ask me why Russia is spreading fake news I ask them to cite at least one example. Our examples are on the Russian Foreign Ministry website, not all of them of course, but only some of the millions of fake reports flooding the media.

Third, we use international legal institutions. It is important that not only the Russian Foreign Ministry but the media community work with the organisations concerned. The media must become aware of the danger of the very profession of journalist being undermined by the biggest and oldest media holdings. Audiences are drifting away from the traditional media outlets and turning to the internet, which is absolutely impossible to control in terms of verifying the facts. This is the job of professional communities and international institutions.

Just the other day, as part of the work of the UN GA Committee on Information, we made a proposal for the text of the resolution on which the Information Committee members will be working in the next few days on developing a strategy to combat the spread of fake news. We talked with Acting UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications and Public Information Maher Nasser on the sidelines of the session. He was totally supportive of the idea, partly because he himself highlighted this problem in his speech to the Committee members. The initiative is meeting with support. I hope it will not be blocked by some countries. We shall see how it goes. If somebody attempts to block it, we will inform you promptly. That would be interesting.

The UN Secretariat has a Public Information Department. It is doing a good job although it is working against heavy odds because it upholds not a country or party position, but reflects the opinion of the UN. It has to be weighed and balanced. The Department’s work is very complicated and taxing professionally. They, of all people, should know and understand what a supranational approach could be to developing a strategy of countering the spread of fake news.

This involves several areas of effort. Besides, I think the voice of every country and every journalist must be heard. It is not right to be indifferent and to think that it is no big deal if someone has failed to react to fake reports. That is not so. Each fake brings another fake in its trail. As of today, I consider the Western media reports about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine when the first humanitarian convoys were sent to Donbass to be the most egregious and high-profile case of the spread of media fakes. This is not to mention Colin Powell, who probably feels very uncomfortable after the notorious episode with the vial. White vans with corresponding markings that were closely monitored by the Russian side, the Ukrainian colleagues and humanitarian groups started delivering humanitarian relief to the population which was deprived of bare necessities. The Western media unleashed a campaign alleging that Russia had started an invasion of Ukraine and that Russia was bringing in tanks in white vans. They claimed that the vehicles had not been inspected and that Russia opposed inspections. The reverse was the case. Russia was ready to comply with any inspections. I repeat, all this was happening before our eyes because the Russian Foreign Ministry was actively involved in this process. The media unleashed a barrage of fakes. Look it up online and find these media outlets. No one apologised, no one issued a disclaimer, no one sprinkled ashes on their heads and said they had been wrong and had been misled by false information. No one even wrote about it although very serious things were at issue. It was announced to the whole world that the world’s biggest country was perpetrating aggression against a neighbouring state. To me it was an ultimate example of the war of fakes.

These are just some illustrations of how fakes can be countered. In fact a strategy needs to be put in place. When I said that this is the job of the professional community I knew that it was already working on it. Some major organisations and social networks are currently negotiating among themselves the introduction of technologies to counter the spread of fakes. Major media outlets have made similar attempts to establish contacts. I think if the UN takes a step to work out a strategy and offer a venue for such experimental work, everyone will benefit from it.



Question:

You mentioned the Acting Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications and Public Information and the reaction from the UN Department of Public Information. Have your other colleagues taken this initiative seriously? To what extent is this possible in the context of existing political and media realities, given the current media confrontation?



Maria Zakharova:

You wouldn’t believe how seriously all of this was taken. The next day, someone sent me a link to a Washington Post article. I’ll read it in English and you please do the translating. I’ll read what it says. It’s not April 1, they really think this way: “Russians are fighting the war of words against the U.S. with American words.” We are accused of using American words in an information war with the US. This is the absolute limit! Read this amazing thing! We are being accused of having the nerve to use, I emphasise, “American” words in an information battle. I don’t know if there is any space left to fall any further. Are the US media probing the bottom? There are no other options. I think it is high time they started thinking about the heights, because they can’t fall any further.



Question:

What about your colleagues at the UN?



Maria Zakharova:

Our colleagues are working. The Committee will hold sessions until early May. Let me repeat that we are proceeding from what the UN Secretariat itself says. These were the remarks by the Acting Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications and Public Information. Many of our colleagues broached this theme in their remarks as well. Haven’t we had enough talk? It’s time we did something. This is why we made this proposal. The Washington Post article says we allegedly have the temerity to use “American” words. Personally I was accused of using the words “fake news,” but I couldn’t use this collocation because it was their find and invention that can be used only by them and not by us. Whose idea was this? The phenomenon is there, but you can’t say the words. It’s not serious.



Question:

They are not English words, but American.



Maria Zakharova:

This fits in well with the concept of exceptionalism.



Question:

Another anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster was marked on April 26. What efforts is Russia taking to overcome the aftermath of Chernobyl?



Maria Zakharova:

We bow our heads in memory of the liquidators and we symphathise with all those who had to take part in the relief efforts following the industrial accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. We sympathise with those who had to relocate from their hometowns and cannot return.

The Russian Federation, as one of the countries that sustained the greatest damage, has traditionally been an important participant in the multilateral efforts to overcome the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. Since 1992, the Russian Government has adopted and implemented five targeted programmes, four programmes aimed at child protection and two programmes to provide housing to the liquidators.

Our country highly values the efforts of international community to eliminate the aftermath of Chernobyl. The issue of recreating normal living conditions for people in the areas affected by the disaster has long been discussed at the United Nations. In December 2016, the 71st Session of the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the long-term consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Apart from Russia and Belarus, the document was co-authored by 33 countries, including Ukraine.

In 2016-2017, the Russian Government also agreed to allocate 10 million euros to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund as an additional contribution. Since 2008, Russia has paid over 60.3 million euros to the fund. In 2009 and 2012, Russia also contributed 12.5 million euros for nuclear security purposes. The money is spent on the construction of the at-reactor dry storage facility in the Chernobyl nuclear power plan area.

Much work has been done in this area as part of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. A programme was implemented on joint efforts to overcome the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster until 2016. The funds allocated from the Union budget are spent on comprehensive medical aid for Russian and Belarusian citizens who were affected by radiation. Our country believes that the memory about the Chernobyl disaster should unite all countries of the world in their efforts to develop safe nuclear energy.



Question:

Many foreigners fill in a migration card when entering Russia. This creates big queues at the airports.



Maria Zakharova:

There are big queues at the JFK Airport in New York. There are big queues there, but in Russia, we do not have such big queues. I have not seen big queues in Moscow and at Moscow airports for a long time.

In New York, there are huge queues. Recently, I witnessed this first-hand and this was despite the fact that I had a diplomatic passport, as I was on an official business trip. Let’s be objective: much has been done at both federal and regional levels to ensure that these terrible queues are a thing of the past. I can definitely say this not because Russia is my native country and I am just defending it. You know that if there are objective difficulties and shortcomings, I always say that we will work on them. I really do take my hat off to how everything is now organised: clean, neat, beautiful, very friendly and in full accordance with the highest international requirements.

I understood your question about the migration card, but you have come to the wrong shop. This issue is in the competence of an agency, which was previously called the Russian Federal Migration Service, and now it is merged with the Interior Ministry. We will be pleased to forward your request to the relevant officers at the Interior Ministry. They will respond through us or directly. This is the sphere of competence of the Interior Ministry.



Question:

Recently, Commander in Chief of United States Army Europe Ben Hodges gave an interview to a Bulgarian news station saying military exercises will be held in Bulgaria, even though most people in Bulgaria do not perceive Russia as a threat. Instead, they say they see a threat in migrants who come to their country. What can you say to that?



Maria Zakharova:

Perhaps, they will conduct exercises against migrants, since Bulgaria feels that the threat is coming from them, and NATO happens to be conducting military exercises there. Perhaps, you could ask them to answer this question?

I’m not sure how to answer your question. Ukraine comes to mind, where the people didn’t see any threat coming from Russia, but NATO conducted military exercises there nonetheless. Everyone can see how it ended for Ukraine as a state. If you don’t heed what the people in your country want, you may end up facing sad consequences, which is what happened in Ukraine, in particular.



Question:

Special Presidential Envoy to Afghanistan and Director of the Ministry’s Second Asian Department Zamir Kabulov said that Moscow is willing to provide a platform for a dialogue between representatives of the Afghan leaders and the opposition. Have any steps been made to set up such a meeting?



Maria Zakharova:

The willingness to provide a platform is a fairly concrete step. This is an invitation to dialogue and is also indicative of Russia’s commitment to create the proper environment. I will find out if there was a response.



Question:

What diplomatic goals will Russia pursue during upcoming talks with the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia?



Maria Zakharova:

Our goal is to make our contribution to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.



Question:

Late April will mark the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency. What does Russia think about him after these three months? Is there any chance that relations between Russia and the United States will improve?



Maria Zakharova:

It’s up to the American people and the people who voted for him or another candidate to decide on how well Donald Trump is doing as US president. US citizens can and should provide corresponding assessments. This is their tradition, their undeniable right. Some countries have the tradition of using the first 100 days as a benchmark, while others don’t.

Russia has its own segment. First, it’s bilateral relations. Second, interaction on international issues, on which we cooperate either as part of an established tradition, or because we are involved in resolving international conflicts. In this, we also have common ground.

As for our bilateral relations, dialogue is underway. Several meetings of foreign ministers and more than one telephone conversation have already taken place. We need contacts not for the sake of having contacts. We already had a situation where we were receiving calls on an almost daily basis. The outcomes and the effectiveness of such contacts is what matters to us. This is a matter of primary importance for us. Saying that there’s some kind of great positive dynamics would be a stretch. There’s a beginning approach to how we could start our interaction and take the situation out of free fall. In my opinion, both sides are properly equipped to speed up this work many times over. There are no problems on our side. But we understand perfectly well what is happening at the other end. This is a political fight, bargaining, and a clash of pre-election political opponents in a scramble for budgets, allocations, eventual portfolios, and spheres of influence. Of course, the other side is limited in what it can do.



Question:

Will Russia-Iran relations change if a new president comes to power in Iran?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain a conventional position. We respect the people's choice, and the electoral process based on the primacy of the UN Charter, which clearly states that is it unacceptable to interfere in the internal affairs of other states or exert any influence on them, all the more so since this cannot be done when the people of a country have a legitimate right to use democratic institutions to address their problems and determine their future. The election in Iran is the exclusive concern of the people of that country. We will work with the people who come to power. We operate on the premise that relations between our countries should continue the good dynamics and the historical ties that we have. We maintain a bilateral dialogue. We actively cooperate on international and regional issues.



Question:

Following his meeting with Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Adel Al-Jubeir said that he looks forward to Russia providing assistance to resolve the Yemen conflict. How can Russia help Saudi Arabia in this process?



Maria Zakharova:

We maintain diplomatic and military contacts. They give us the opportunity to interact. It is also important in the sense of searching for joint steps to improve the humanitarian situation, which is simply disastrous in Yemen. We will continue to work in this area.



Question:

Israel insists that the strike on Syria targeted a Hezbollah armament depot.



Maria Zakharova:

The notion of state sovereignty has not been rescinded by anyone. No one is saying that any state cannot fight terrorism, especially so if the population of the country in question is suffering from such a terrorist threat on its territory. We are well aware of the hardships the people of Israel have gone through in their fight against terrorism, and we understand perfectly well how difficult it is to combat the terrorist threat. However, there are legitimate ways of interacting with a sovereign state which is member of the UN on matters related to countering the terrorist threat. There’s a dialogue maintained by the special services, the military, and the diplomats, which can be readily used so that the fight is underpinned by legal grounds.

Many countries launch attacks on Syria, saying they are doing so out of good intentions. However, the Syrian infrastructure used to fight terrorism is being damaged in the process. A global response could include the creation of a united front under the auspices of the United Nations to resolve the Syria crisis as part of the terrorism-fighting effort. However, global powers didn’t show any interest in that. It was Russia’s initiative. So, what’s left are bilateral or multilateral contacts which will provide the legal basis for fighting terrorism in neighbouring states.

I would like to remind everyone that Syrian representatives stated over a year ago that the idea of the third countries interacting with Russia, for example, along the lines of the Airspace Forces or the military experts, in order to coordinate their counter-terrorism activities in Syria, sits quite well with Syria and would address Syria’s concerns about sovereignty violations.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2739385
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #62
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic



27 April 2017 - 19:21



On April 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic on the Serbian side’s initiative.

The sides confirmed mutual willingness to consolidate and develop strategic partnership between Russia and Serbia, and pursue close interaction in joint projects.

Mr Lavrov said Russia shared Serbia’s deep concerns over the politicised decision of a French appeals court which ruled to set free notorious Kosovo militant leader Ramush Haradinaj, thereby turning down Belgrade’s Interpol appeal.

We believe all the Kosovo politicians involved in war crimes must be held responsible regardless of their current posts.

The double standards of Paris are a vivid example of connivance in the face of the increasingly aggressive pursuit of the Greater Albania project capable of upsetting the fragile stability and causing a relapse of the bloody conflict in the Balkans.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2739416
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #63
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the investigation launched by France into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun



27 April 2017 - 21:40



A report by the French intelligence services containing France’s conclusions about the alleged use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun in Idlib Province, Syria, has been released in Paris. France is the third country after Turkey and Britain to have conducted a probe into the chemical attack. The impression is that the above countries either do not trust the OPCW or are trying to steer its investigation in a particular direction.

Even the initial analysis of the five-page French document has raised quite a few questions. First, it begs the question as to the circumstances under which France has obtained samples that it claims were taken directly at the scene of the incident. If they were taken by the French intelligence services themselves, it means they have free access to an area controlled, according to the report, by the armed groups of Syrian opposition forces linked to al-Qaeda. If the samples were obtained from a different site located, for example, on the territory of one of Syria’s neighbours, the credibility of the analysis carried out by France would immediately be called into question.

It should be said again that in keeping with the international rules, the integrity of samples taken for analysis must be ensured all the way from the scene of an incident to the laboratory.

In a bid to prove that sarin gas that was allegedly used in Khan Shaykhun was produced in Syria, the contributors to the report refer to the sarin gas formulation, saying it points to the use of the techniques developed in Syrian laboratories. It remains unclear why they are so confident since Syria has never possessed sarin gas as a finished product – they had only the precursor ingredients for this gas, the entire arsenal of which was taken out of Syria in 2014. The mobile installations that could be used to synthesise sarin have been destroyed and this has also been confirmed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

The only evidence produced by the report’s authors is the alleged similarity between the results of the analysis that has recently been carried out and those obtained by France in 2013 when it tested samples taken at the site of another incident that was also associated with the use of sarin gas. However, this argument looks inconclusive because in 2013 the UN mission failed to either independently confirm the information contained in the French report about the incident in Saraqeb or check on compliance with the procedure for ensuring the integrity of evidence, including during the transportation of the samples taken at the scene of the incident. The only material evidence which the contributors to the report refer to is a hand-grenade filled, judging by the photograph, with sarin gas, which was allegedly dropped from a Syrian helicopter. Using a grenade to deliver sarin gas is something altogether new and, as far as we know, without precedent in the history of chemical weapons. To put it mildly, this exotic chemical piece of ammunition is not safe for those who use it.

In short, there are many obvious discrepancies which testify to the poor quality of the investigation. The only real possibility of establishing the truth would be to send the OPCW fact-finding mission to Khan Shaykhun and the Shayrat Airbase, where sarin gas that has been used in Khan Shaykhun was allegedly stored, to conduct a field investigation, using all the procedures provided for in the Chemical Weapons Convention and this mission’s mandate. It is also important that the make-up of the mission fully complies with Paragraph 8 of the mandate, under which the geographical basis for forming groups of experts should be as representative as possible. Only in this case, all the countries will be able to give credence to the conclusions of the international probe.

This was the aim of the draft proposal submitted recently by Russia and Iran at a special session of the OPCW Executive Committee. Regretfully, it has been vetoed primarily by Western countries, including France, which has carried out its own investigation – as an alternative to an unbiased international probe – and, frankly speaking, in terms of its professionalism, it was not perfect.

We are calling again to abandon the dishonourable political games involving the Syrian chemical track record and take the steps which Russia has been insisting on for three weeks now, that is, to send a group of specialists directly to Khan Shaykhun and the Shayrat Airbase which will include representatives of countries not blinded by the hatred of the legitimate Syrian Government.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2739484
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #64
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on aggravated domestic political situation in Macedonia



28 April 2017 - 13:32



We are very concerned about the latest developments in the Republic of Macedonia. On April 27, the opposition that lost the parliamentary election basically attempted to seize power in the country by electing the Speaker of the Assembly (Parliament) basically by force on its own initiative and in violation of established procedures. People were injured during an ensuing fight that involved protesters opposing the “impostors,” and some of them were hospitalised.

Official representatives of the European Union, the ambassadors of some European countries and the ambassador of the United States unhesitatingly praised the new “Parliament speaker” who is, incidentally, a former field commander in the so-called pro-Albanian National Liberation Army. This well-coordinated and quick response, doubtless, attests to the fact that these developments had been planned in advance, with the covert connivance of “foreign curators” of the Macedonian opposition. This once again confirms the fact that the current domestic political crisis in the Republic of Macedonia has been mostly caused by blatant interference in the domestic affairs of this country. We are witnessing an impudent tampering with election returns through the removal of the legitimate government from power.

Subsequent developments along this scenario, attempts to change the country on the basis of the so-called “Tirana platform” are fraught with even greater risk, and the situation might escalate into a conflict, including an inter-ethnic conflict. That same day, a French court released Kosovar Ramush Haradinaj despite a Serbian extradition request to Interpol, and this event shows that the West is obviously pandering to the advocates of a Greater Albania.

In this situation, it is possible to find an adequate solution only through intra-Macedonian dialogue based on the national constitution and legislation. It is necessary to stop all external pressure and to allow the responsible political forces in the Republic of Macedonia to independently determine the country’s future.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2739769
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #65
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the vote in Skupstina on Montenegro’s accession to NATO



28 April 2017 - 17:40



In connection with the vote in parliament on April 28 approving Montenegro’s accession to NATO, it is with deep regret that we must acknowledge that the country’s current leadership and its Western sponsors ultimately failed to heed the voice of reason and conscience. The adoption of fundamental acts, affecting core issues of national security, with a bare majority of individual MPs cobbled together in defiance of the opinion of the people of the country openly flouts all democratic norms and principles.

Those who voted in Skupstina to support NATO accession, citing the alleged Russian threat as a pretext, will bear responsibility for the consequences of plans implemented by external forces seeking to deepen the existing dividing lines in Europe and the Balkans and fracture the foundations of the deep-rooted historical traditions of friendship of the Montenegrins with the Serbs and the Russians. The shameful episodes of NATO’s illegal bombing of Yugoslavia, which caused casualties among Montenegrins as well, including children, were hypocritically interpreted in such a way as to suggest that Serbia was to blame because it confronted the alliance. The will of almost half of the country’s population, who oppose such NATO-oriented foreign policy priorities, was ignored. How utterly cynical one has to be to declare that there is no need to ask the opinion of the people for such a decision, as Montenegro’s President Filip Vujanovic said a few days ago.

Given Montenegro’s capabilities, it will hardly be a significant “added value” for the North Atlantic alliance. Even so, Moscow cannot disregard the strategic consequences of this move. Therefore, faced with this situation, we reserve the right to take decisions to safeguard our interests and national security.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2740071
 
Old May 3rd, 2017 #66
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on statements by Ukrainian officials regarding the UN International Court of Justice’s decision on provisional measures



2 May 2017 - 12:35



We have noted the numerous comments of Ukrainian officials, various ‘experts’ and the media concerning the announcement of the April 19, 2017 decision of the International Court of Justice on provisional measures in the Ukrainian lawsuit against Russia under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The statements declare this decision ‘a clear victory’ and a ‘success’ for Kiev, as the Court, according to the Ukrainian side, allegedly demanded that Russia “cease the persecution of the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian population of Crimea,” “reverse the decision to close the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people,” etc.

Adding to the Information and Press Department’s comment of April 20, we would like to note the following.

First of all, it must be emphasised that Ukraine’s accusations of Russia’s non-compliance with its obligations under the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism have been deemed improbable by the Court. Despite the lengthy preparations, the Ukrainian side was not able to provide any convincing evidence of such violations.

As for the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, first, the International Court of Justice did not support any of the provisional measures requested by Ukraine, or the central argument in this part of Ukraine’s claim that Russia is allegedly “pursuing a policy of erasing the cultural identity of the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar communities.”

Second, the text of the decision on provisional measures does not contain such words as ‘repression,’ ‘persecution,’ etc., to describe Russia’s actions toward Crimean Tatars or Ukrainians living in Crimea.

Third, contrary to Ukrainian statements, the International Court of Justice has not ordered the Russian Federation “to rescind the ban on the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people.”

Fourth, the Court took a principled position and dismissed Ukraine's statement about the alleged ‘aggression’ and ‘invasion’ of Crimea as irrelevant to the essence of the case.

Fifth, the International Court of Justice disregarded part of Ukraine’s accusations against Russia as unjustified, including alleged ethnically motivated disappearances, murders and detentions in Crimea, persecution of the media and public organisations, prohibition of rallies and public events held by representatives of the Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar communities and the lack of access to education in the Crimean Tatar language.

Thus, it seems that Ukrainian officials are now mechanically reading out statements prepared long before the International Court of Justice made its ruling, without any regard for what the Court actually decided. We urge them to find the time to carefully read the order.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2741603
 
Old May 3rd, 2017 #67
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Ambassador Mikhail I.Ulyanov, Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Vienna, May 2, 2017



2 May 2017 - 20:33





Mr. Chairman,

Colleagues,

We are starting the next NPT review cycle in rather difficult circumstances. The Treaty is still facing serious challenges. Of course there were problems before but in recent years they have become particularly visible. We observe the increasing radicalization of approaches to nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and even to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. NPT-relevant issues are being discussed at alternative fora with work there arranged not on the basis of mutually respectful dialogue and the rule of consensus as it is the case in the framework of the NPT, but on simple voting. The current situation does not contribute to the integrity and viability of the Treaty which makes us look into its future with concern.

Nevertheless, the NPT which will mark its fiftieth anniversary next year continues to be a pillar of the global strategic stability. It deserves to be titled the cornerstone of the modern system of international security. The “founding fathers” of the Treaty managed to find such solutions that have been repeatedly tested and they still ensure an effective response to modern challenges. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme clearly confirms that. The agreement was reached mostly thanks to the fact that it is based on the NPT and the balance of rights and obligations stipulated in it.

The strengthening of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime has always been one of the priorities of the Russian foreign policy.

We are convinced that consistent implementation and strengthening of the NPT in all of its three pillars — prevention of nuclear proliferation, peaceful uses of nuclear energy and nuclear disarmament — on the basis of the 2010 NPT Review Conference decisions adopted by consensus and within the framework of fundamental provisions of the Treaty objectively meets the interests of all countries. It is not without reason that this Treaty has become almost universal in terms of its membership.

A balanced approach of the NPT States Parties to all the mentioned three pillars is the pledge of its effective functioning. Unfortunately, in recent years this balance has been disturbed. In the framework of review cycles, disarmament aspects are prioritized while issues of non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy are being pushed to the sidelines. It is high time to address this imbalance.

As a step to that end, we would like first of all to highlight the peaceful uses, especially since it has become a tradition to start a review cycle in Vienna, where the IAEA headquarters are located. According to its Statute, the objective of the Agency is to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. Russia not only in words but also in deeds consistently supports the IAEA efforts in this field. The Agency’s unique experience and best practices, as well as the unprecedented results make it the most influential platform in the area of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We attach particular importance to further strengthening the potential of the Agency by providing necessary expertise and material resources to it. On our part, we do a lot in that regard. We support the broad access of the NPT States Parties to the benefits of peaceful uses.

The NPT States Parties have the opportunity to come up with a unified agenda based on the growing interest to development and implementation of nuclear and radiation technologies in various fields. We are convinced that the current level of technology development ensures a smooth combination of nuclear energy and other types of power generation, paving the way for more advanced, flexible and effective energy systems and cooperation models. We specifically note the particular role of innovations in this context. The dynamic implementation of the IAEA International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO) launched on Russia’s initiative is a clear evidence of global interest to that.

Mr. Chairman,

Full-fledged development of nuclear energy is impossible without a reliable nuclear non-proliferation regime. Its effective implementation is ensured by the IAEA safeguards system.

The trust of the NPT States Parties in the IAEA safeguards system is a key factor of the sustainability of the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime. It has always been based on the objective character of the Agency's verification mechanism, its resilience to political conditions and its compliance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States. The efforts to improve the IAEA safeguards system should be arranged in such a way that it remains impartial, technically credible, non-politicized and based on rights and obligations of the parties under their safeguards agreements.

Therefore, the development of new approaches to apply the IAEA safeguards should be transparent. Political decisions on the IAEA safeguards, including amendments to their implementation, should be adopted by the IAEA Policy-Making organs – the General Conference and the Board of Governors. Development and implementation of new approaches behind the scenes is unacceptable.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is still at the forefront of global efforts in developing international rules of transfer of nuclear and dual-use goods and adapting them to evolving traditional and emerging new non-proliferation risks and threats. The interest of a number of States in joining this multilateral export control regime is a clear confirmation of the relevance of the Group and its objectives.

Mr. Chairman,

The establishment of a zone free of nuclear and all other weapons of mass destruction (WMDFZ) in the Middle East remains among the central issues of the review process. Despite the pause after the 2015 Review Conference, this objective is still on the international agenda. It is evident that as 2020 approaches, the situation around the WMDFZ will be more heated. It is in our common interests to achieve progress in this area well in advance, preventing this issue from coming to the boiling point.

Convening a conference on the WMDFZ remains an urgent and achievable objective in the context of implementing the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East. Preparation for this event, including achieving the agreement on all organizational modalities and substantive issues should be started as soon as possible. Russia as one of the co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution is willing to fully support this process.

In general, the establishment of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ) is a key instrument to enhance regional and international security and to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

In this context, we would like to outline the 50-year-exerience of the operation of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (the Treaty of Tlatelolco), which has rigorously proven its viability and effectiveness and contributed significantly to the establishment around the world of NWFZs that today unite over 100 countries.

The growing geography of such zones is vital to address the issue of legally binding security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States. Russia is ready to hold consultations with countries of the South-East Asia to ensure the earliest possible signature of the Protocol to the Bangkok Treaty on security assurances to the Parties to the zone. It is also critical to finalize international legal status of the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia through ratification of the Protocol to the relevant Treaty by all nuclear weapon States. Russia has already done so.

Twenty years have passed since the opening of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) for signature. However, despite all the efforts, the Treaty failed to enter into force. We are extremely concerned by the lack of any progress on the track.

Russia ratified the CTBT seventeen years ago and remains committed to the Treaty. As the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin stressed in his statement on April 11, 2016, we consider the Treaty’s early entry into force as an our priority. In this regard, we call upon the United States and other States key for the CTBT’s entry into force to make every effort to urgently become Parties to the CTBT. It is in your hands to finally make this crucial Treaty fully operational.

Mr. Chairman,

At NPT-related events, we often hear claims that nuclear disarmament is at a stalemate and even does not exist anymore. This is totally wrong. In fact, over the last thirty years an immense progress has been achieved in this area. Concerted actions of Russia and the United States helped to overcome at least 80 % of the path towards a nuclear weapon free world. This is proved by objective statistics that we have voiced on numerous occasions at international fora. Such impressive results have required efforts of thousands of experts and billions in expenditure. And it is impertinent to ignore it for the sake of propaganda.

Despite the fact that international climate could be more favorable, Russia continues to take specific measures to reduce its nuclear arsenals. The implementation of the 2010 START Treaty goes as planned. We intend to reach the agreed levels by February 5, 2018. This brings us to the point where all States with nuclear military capabilities must join the disarmament process.

Any further prospects should be considered in the general strategic context. In real world all factors affecting strategic stability and international security should be taken into account. Approaches that are far from reality, no matter how noble they may be, do not belong here. The future of nuclear disarmament will inevitably be shaped by the international context. Enhanced strategic stability and equal and undiminished security for all should be the governing principle in this field. There is no alternative.

Many NPT Parties are tempted to reach complete nuclear disarmament overnight. While understanding the motivation that pushed them to start negotiating the prohibition of nuclear weapons, we believe they took the wrong path that endangers the viability of the NPT regime. We know that the sponsors of the negotiation process have different opinion and expect that a nuclear weapons ban treaty would complement or even strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty. We cannot accept this logic. We will explain our position during the current session of the Preparatory Committee within the nuclear disarmament cluster.

Mr. Chairman,

Despite a whole range of NPT-related problems, there are still indisputable achievements. First and foremost, – the JCPOA. This instrument might be imperfect. It is however a balanced and a very fragile compromise that needs to be treated in a very delicate way. Enough time has passed to declare with certainty that the deal is effective and fulfills its mandate. Iran strictly implements its commitments which is regularly confirmed by the IAEA. All elements of the JCPOA have already become fully adjusted to each other and enjoy growing trust of the international community. We encourage all, first and foremost the participants of the JCPOA, to do their utmost to meet the aspirations of the international community in terms of keeping for a long term this symbol of successful diplomacy that has proven that NPT-based negotiations could solve any complex issue.

Similar or even more intense diplomatic efforts are required today on the Korean Peninsula. No minute should be lost. Otherwise the confrontation logic may become overwhelmingly dominant. Russia rejects the nuclear status of the DPRK. We do not accept nuclear tests conducted by Pyongyang and its defiance of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We are nonetheless convinced that existing tensions on the Korean Peninsula are caused not only by Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes, but also by an increased military activity in the North-East Asia of some regional and especially non-regional States. It is evident that Pyongyang will not abandon its nuclear weapons as long as it sees itself directly threatened.

Mr. Chairman,

This review process will be complicated. We stand ready to support you and to do our best to bring our difficult though necessary work to a success. We call upon all the delegations to cooperate in a constructive and pragmatic way.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2742964
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #68
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on aggressive rhetoric coming from Kosovo Albanians



3 May 2017 - 19:14



We took note of the aggressive remarks made by infamous Kosovo Albanian leader Ramush Haradinaj with regard to Belgrade and the Serbian leadership.

It is unacceptable that the patrons of Pristina, especially the EU and the United States, have not responded accordingly to such statements of unbridled extremism. Is it because our Western partners consider this normal? Is this acceptable in modern Europe? Do Brussels and Washington support what Mr Haradinaj had to say? Or are they just unable to talk sense into their underling?

We support the Serbian leadership’s firm response to the crude attack by this militant who was involved in particularly heinous crimes against civilians during the Kosovo conflict of the 1990s.

Unfortunately, this turn of events and the flaring of passions should have been expected in light of the decision of the French court which ignored the legally justified request of the Serbian side and released Ramush Haradinaj, who is accused of committing numerous abductions, rapes and murders.

This episode goes to show that the Kosovo quasi-state is the main source of regional instability, and the indiscriminate connivance of Greater Albania aspirations leads to heightened interethnic tensions and a greater potential for conflict in the Balkans.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2743616
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #69
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with Finland’s Foreign Minister Timo Soini, Haikon Kartano Manor, Porvoo, May 4, 2017



4 May 2017 - 15:18





Question (addressed to both ministers):

The possibility of a meeting between President Putin and President Trump in Helsinki is being actively discussed. How realistic does this idea seem to you? What do you think about Finland's role in such international issues?



Sergey Lavrov:

This question has already been asked during the news conference held by our presidents in Arkhangelsk. President Putin said that if the United States is interested and willing to establish such a contact, Helsinki seems like a convenient place to us. Finland is our neighbour and a friendly country. We are bound by a centuries-old history. Of course, like other countries, we highly value the international reputation of Finland, which it has earned due to its consistent policy of neutrality. So far, there have been no plans to hold a meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States within the next couple of months. President Putin and President Trump had a telephone conversation several days ago. It was a good conversation. They mentioned the upcoming contacts between them. The G20 meeting in Hamburg in July was named among the nearest available such opportunity.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

Have you managed to find a way out of the impasse on the issue of turning on the military aircraft transponders in the Baltics?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Timo Soini):

As you are aware, we supported President Niinisto’s initiative regarding transponders during last year’s meeting of our presidents. Moreover, we expanded the corresponding approaches and included additional safety measures. We advanced these proposals at a Russia-NATO Council meeting last summer. Unfortunately, our NATO partners, who, up to that moment, frequently expressed their concern over air safety in the Baltics, heard our proposals and responded to them almost six months later. Only recently, they told us they were ready for a substantive discussion of our proposal, but it has failed to materialise so far. While our NATO colleagues are pondering this, we support the course of action proposed by Finland. Our Finnish colleagues suggested using the Baltic Sea Project Team, which operates within the ICAO framework. The group held its meeting in March, and the next meeting will be held in Helsinki later this month. We hope that NATO members will also make up their mind by that time and will get involved in this work.



Question:

Russia and the United States are engaged in important talks, including the Syrian settlement. The countries maintain dialogue. The possibility of a presidential meeting is being discussed. On the other hand, the United States is discussing the possibility of influencing the presidential elections in that country. What do you think about Russia-US relations? What should we think about them?



Sergey Lavrov:

We want to think positively about any relations with any country. We want to develop normal, mutually beneficial and pragmatic ties. This can only be done based on mutually beneficial respect, equality and a balance of interests. As far as we understand, in the course of his election campaign, President Trump spoke from more or less the same positions, advocating mutually beneficial cooperation with all countries, including Russia. This commitment was confirmed during a recent phone conversation between President Putin and President Trump. Unfortunately, at the time when the White House administration was changing, our relations were at a very low point, as the Obama administration did its best to undermine them. Sadly, the Russophobic campaign unleashed by the Obama administration has kept its momentum in the United States.

Clearly, this is done, primarily, in order to try to use the Russophobic card in the internal political fight in the United States, including on the part of those who failed to come to grips with the outcome of the election, held in full accordance with the US Constitution. We hear numerous hysterical accusations of Russia of all mortal sins. We see the US Congress create obscure interdepartmental groups to investigate the “Russian threat.” However, we haven’t seen or heard a single fact so far, which would corroborate at least something that we are being accused of. Likewise, we haven’t heard or seen a single fact about our alleged involvement in the internal affairs of France and Britain. Recently, even your Swedish neighbours said that we are threatening them in terms of influencing the election outcome and the political situation. We can discuss facts, if there are facts. If there are no facts, we perceive these allegations exclusively as propaganda aimed at achieving not very plausible goals.

Judging by the fact that this question was announced as the last one, I take it that Finland has won this news conference 2-1.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2743998
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #70
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Sevastopol, May 4, 2017



4 May 2017 - 16:48





Celebrating Victory Day in Sevastopol

It is more than symbolic that today’s briefing in the run-up to Victory Day is being held in the Hero City of Sevastopol. On May 9, the residents of Sevastopol will celebrate the 72nd anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 and the 73rd anniversary of liberating the city from Nazi invaders.

During these days, Sevastopol will be home to festive gatherings, rallies, concerts, the Mountain Height international festival, the historical patriotic festival The Flags of Victory, a military historical re-enactment of the Assault on Sapun Mountain on May 7, 1944, and athletic contests.

I'm not saying this for you – Sevastopol residents – but for the rest of the world, so that they can understand how Sevastopol understands and preserves its history and memory.

The bulk of the celebrations will take place on May 9. The most important events will include laying wreaths and flowers at the Memorial Wall to commemorate the heroic defence of Sevastopol in 1941-1942, the military parade, the Parade of Victors, the Immortal Regiment march, a gala performance on Nakhimov Square in downtown Sevastopol, and fireworks.



The anniversary of the liberation of Crimea

I would very much like the rest of the world to learn more about this land. I would like to remind everyone that every anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War is a good occasion to recall the feats in battle performed by the soldiers who defended Sevastopol and Crimea at the beginning of the war and liberated this peninsula during the Crimean offensive of 1944.

Under German occupation, the peninsula went through the same hardships and adversities of the occupation as many other Soviet territories, so when Crimea was liberated by the Soviet army, the people of Crimea valued their hard-won freedom all the more.

Many descendants of the people of Crimea remember the extremely bloody operations of the first stage of the war, such as the Battle for Perekop and the battles for the Ishun positions, the difficult moments of the Kerch-Feodosia landing operation, but also remember the spring of 1944, when the peninsula, which the Wehrmacht and the Third Reich literally sucked dry, was finally and forever liberated. They remember the joy of the people of Crimea as they greeted their liberators.

The liberation of strategically important Crimea gave new hope to the victorious Soviet people at that difficult time. There was still a whole year of fighting and losses to go before the end of war, but in the spring of 1944, after the Nazi invaders were driven from the Soviet land of Crimea, it became clear that Victory in that war would rightfully go to the Soviet people.

Marshal of the Soviet Union Alexander Vasilevsky put it best when he talked about the importance of liberating Crimea and Sevastopol from Nazi invaders. I would like to cite his book, The Cause of My Life: “The Crimea offensive of the Soviet forces ended on May 12, 1944 with the crushing defeat of the 200,000-strong 17th German Army. It took us 35 days to break through the enemy fortifications in Crimea; of these 35 days, three days were used to crush the defences outside Sevastopol – which were much more developed than ours back in 1942 – and to liberate the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Moscow gave five firework salvos to honour the Army and the Navy liberating Crimea from the Nazi invaders. I really wanted to see Sevastopol on the very first day following its liberation ... .”

This is a reminder for all those who do not know or do not want to know the history of Sevastopol and Crimea. Those who tried to establish their own rules with their dirty hands there. It did not work and will never work.



Anniversary of the tragedy at the House of Trade Unions in Odessa

Regrettably, during these days we are commemorating another anniversary. May 2 marked three years since the tragic events in Odessa, where, as a result of a barbaric, despicable act of arson committed by Ukrainian radicals, the House of Trade Unions, in which dozens of civilians had taken shelter, burned, causing the deaths of 48 people. All these people were guilty of was expressing their civic commitment based not on imaginary values, but on the values their grandfathers and fathers had won, arms in hand, at the cost of their lives, and rejecting the unconstitutional coup perpetrated in Kiev and did not want to let ultranationalist radicals into their land.

We have repeatedly noted that those responsible for that inhuman crime remain unpunished. Over the past three years, the Kiev authorities have failed to conduct a thorough, objective and real investigation of this crime – because they simply do not want to – so as to clarify all the circumstances of the tragedy. They are much more concerned about how to make people forget what happened and how to silence them, rather than prosecuting the culprits. This is not the first year that, on the eve of the tragic anniversary, unprecedented amounts of military hardware and fighters from radical nationalist groups like Aydar and Azov are being moved into the city. People who want to pay tribute to the victims are not allowed to come near the House of Trade Unions, and foreign journalists coming to Ukraine to cover the memorial ceremonies are turned back at the border.

The most frightening part of it all is that unless the people of Crimea had made their independent, historic choice in favour of Russia back in 2014, the same horrible fate would have awaited scores of others. We all know that as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated, threats to do away with the population of the peninsula grew louder, as did vows “to drown them in the Black Sea” and exterminate them up to the last family member simply for preserving their historical memory since childhood, speaking Russian and remaining faithful to their principles and ideals. Had we let that happen, there would have been many more deaths. Thank God, the Crimeans had sufficient will and Russia had sufficient strength, and we are together now.



Ukraine’s construction of a concrete dam on the North Crimean Canal

We are no longer surprised by decisions the Ukrainian authorities make with respect to Crimean residents. They seek to hurt them while in reality their actions hurt the Ukrainian economy.

For instance, Ukraine’s transport blockade of Crimea has led, in fact, to the complete severing of economic ties and the reduction of people-to-people contacts. Businesspeople on the peninsula have naturally turned to establishing ties with the business communities of other Russian regions. Such ties are getting closer and will grow stronger in the future with the opening of the highway and railway bridge across the Kerch Strait, which is being built at an accelerated pace.

The food blockade that Kiev introduced to create food shortages on the peninsula resulted in Ukrainian producers losing their share of Crimean market, which naturally was filled with Russian goods. The energy blockade, launched with the tacit approval of the Ukrainian authorities by extremist organisations banned in Russia – the Right Sector and the so-called Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People, who carried out blatant acts of terrorism, blowing up electric grid pylons – has only hastened the opening of the Crimea-Kuban energy bridge to make Crimea independent of Ukraine for its energy needs. I reiterate that the Russian side regards the crippling of energy sources as an act of terrorism.

I would like to inform those who don’t know that the foundational international law documents signed by European countries, particularly the European Union member states, say that deliberate damage to civil infrastructure should be regarded as terrorism. We have not seen even a slightly critical international response. As the result of its own actions, Kiev has deprived itself of the opportunity to purchase electric energy in Russia at manufacturers’ prices.

The Ukrainian authorities announced the other day that a dam will be put into operation to block Crimea’s access to water from the Dnieper. Reportedly, the dam is meant to perform an “essential geopolitical mission”. The pointlessness of this step is evident because water has not been supplied to the peninsula since spring 2014 and the Crimean people have learned to procure water from other sources.

As we look at the Ukrainian authorities’ actions, we cannot but wonder whom they are trying to hit the hardest: the Crimean people whom they regard as their own citizens? They were jubilant when websites described Crimea as Ukrainian territory. That would mean they are bullying their own people, leaving them without water. This is not the way to treat one’s own people. We have a feeling that someone in Kiev (we all know who) is trying to punish the Crimean people for the choice they made in 2014. The amount of cynicism and hypocrisy on display is stunning. These actions prove only one thing: that the right choice was made.\



The situation in Syria

The situation in Syria remains difficult. The Syrian government forces continued active fighting to destroy terrorists from ISIS, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other affiliated terrorist groups in the provinces of Damascus, Hama, Homs and Deraa.

The government troops pursued an offensive in northern Hama. The terrorists took out their failure on the frontline on civilians, shelling several towns, including the Christian town of Mahardah, using mortars and missile systems.

In Eastern Ghouta, violent clashes took place between the Army of Islam and their recent so-called comrades-in-arms from the Nusra-led Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Faylaq ar-Rahman. The Lions of the East Army, part of the Syrian Free Army, attacked ISIS in Eastern Kalamun.

The ambiguity surrounding the April 4 incident in Khan Sheikhun persists. We are concerned about the lack of an adequate response on behalf of the OPCW to Russia’s proposal to send a professional mission, including experts of this organisation, to Syria. As we proposed, the mission should be geographically balanced in order to fully and impartially establish all the details involved in that incident. Instead, we are being “fed” all sorts of findings by self-appointed experts who built their case about the unconditional culpability of the Syrian government in using chemical weapons in this locality from a distance, without ever going to the site of the supposed attack, allegedly committed by Syrian air forces. All their findings are based on analysing online materials largely concocted by radicals from the Syrian opposition.

I would like to say to those who are trying to find evidence in this manner: you are looking in the wrong place, gentlemen. The perpetrators must be sought among those who are interested in escalating the situation, not in establishing a political process and preserving peace on Earth. The Syrian government cannot be interested in continuing bloodshed by any stretch of imagination. It’s been already said more than once, and I would like to point it out once again: it is important to conduct a full-fledged international investigation, which will show what really happened in Khan Sheikhun. The way our Western partners are using every avenue to block this particular angle of such a mission confirms our opinion that they are not interested in establishing the truth.

The humanitarian situation in Syria remains the focus of our attention. People residing in the provinces of Aleppo, Latakia, Homs and Es-Souveida received food and essentials with the help of the Russian military. An air bridge and the parachute system were used by Russian aircraft to deliver goods to Deir-ez-Zor, which is surrounded by ISIS. Work with all parties to the conflict made it possible to ensure the arrival of a UN humanitarian convoy consisting of 51 trucks in the large city of Duma located to the northeast of Damascus.

I would like to note that the forces trying to politicise the provision of humanitarian aid continue to speculate on the “lack of medicines” in the areas controlled by the militants. Information juggling and deliberate misleading of international public opinion have been recorded on many occasions, including by representatives of international humanitarian organisations, as was the case, for example, in late 2016, following the liberation of eastern Aleppo from militants, where drug depots were found, or just the other day, following the completion of an operation to evacuate militants from Madai and Zabadani, where civilians have already begun to return. In this regard, of particular concern is the information about the terrorists seizing medications from pharmacies and clinics that provide their services to the civilian population of Eastern Ghouta, and sending them to jihadist camps in Arbin, Zamalka and Duma. Their goal is clear: to raise a clamor that the local population allegedly has no access to medical care.

As you know, the fourth high-level international meeting on Syria ends in Astana today. In addition to Russia, Iran and Turkey – the guarantor countries behind the ceasefire regime – a delegation of the Syrian government and a number of armed opposition groups are taking part in it. The United States and Jordan are participating as observers. Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, is also among its participants.

We are waiting for the official end of the meeting, after which we will be able to analyse the results, and substantively discuss the outcome, new proposals and initiatives which, in our opinion, will contribute to consolidating the ceasefire in Syria. This also applies to the idea of creating de-escalation zones in Syria and all related issues.



Developments in Afghanistan

The developing military and political situation in Afghanistan does not leave room for optimism. Recently, the Taliban movement made a statement announcing the start of its regular spring offensive. This time, the Taliban called it “Operation Mansouri,” to commemorate Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the previous leader of the movement. According to the statement, along with military operations, the movement also aims to engage in “state-building” and regulating life on Taliban-controlled territories. We believe that the Afghan government has cause for serious concern, all the more so as the Taliban have already started to turn their promises into actions by seizing Zebak district located in Badakhshan Province close to the border with Tajikistan.

The terrorist activity of the armed opposition is not diminishing either. On May 3, eight people were killed in a suicide bomber attack of a US military convoy in Kabul and another 25, including three NATO soldiers, sustained injuries of varying degrees. According to the latest reports, ISIS’s Afghan wing has claimed responsibility for the attack.

We took note of the return to Afghanistan of the leader of the Hezb-e Islami opposition political party, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who made a peace agreement with the Afghan government in September 2016 and was removed from UN Security Council sanctions list. His calls to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and Afghanistan's Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah to resolve the existing differences between them, and for the resignation of one of them if they fail to do so, reveal the ambitious plans of this political figure. We hope that Mr Hekmatyar can have a stabilising influence on the domestic political situation in Afghanistan, and contribute to the process of national reconciliation in this country.



Amendments to the Polish law on the prohibition of propaganda of communism and any other totalitarian regime of April 1, 2016

The Polish Senate has approved amendments to its law prohibiting propaganda of communism or any other totalitarian regime, of April 1, 2016, which is also known as its decommunisation law. Now it also concerns monuments and other memorial signs outside cemeteries in honour of Soviet soldiers who liberated Poland from Nazi occupation in 1944–1945 with a tremendous toll of lives. The owners of land plots where these commemorative tokens are situated will be instructed to dismantle them within 12 months. It is planned to reimburse them with relevant outlays from the state budget. The endorsement of these amendments is not over yet but, doubtless, the remaining formalities will be settled with no great problems.

It is perfectly evident that the ideology underlying this legislative initiative helps to impose untenable views on the Polish public – views that have little in common with historical truth. As a result of its so-called struggle against totalitarianism, the Polish authorities are themselves practicing prohibitive measures and are denying not only the feat of glory performed by the Red Army, but also their own postwar history.

This notorious decommunisation encourages those who deem it normal to desecrate the sublime memory of the joint heroic struggle for liberation from Nazism. This is revenge-seeking and utter ignorance of what it all might lead to in the future. Today’s problems in Russian-Polish relations will recede into the background someday. However, it would be bizarre to talk about normalisation near the ruins of our monuments and desecrated graves.

We know the Polish people. Many of them are Russia’s true friends. Russia is a congenial country to some of them, while others don’t have any strong emotions toward our country, though they realise that to develop relations and cooperation is more beneficial than to turn again and again to the revision of history. We understand quite well that there are people in Poland who painfully perceive our joint history due to their own family history. Such things do happen, and it concerns us, too.

I have a question to ask ordinary Polish people: Aren’t you afraid that in five or 10 years, the schoolbooks that your children study will say that Poland, particularly Warsaw, was liberated from Nazis by extraterrestrials? Are you ready to face this? At any rate, it seems to us that this is where things are leading.



Using social media to spread misinformation

On April 27, Facebook released a report on information operations within this social network initiated by various governments or non-state actors to manipulate public opinion. These actors used fake Facebook accounts to spread false news and misinformation, spam, malware, financial fraud, and break into user accounts. The social network said that it intended to develop and implement a set of measures to fight this kind of actions.

The Foreign Ministry welcomes Facebook’s decision to draw the attention of the international community to the risks associated with social media, especially the issue of misleading information campaigns that we have called out on a number of occasions, including at our press briefings. Russia is regularly targeted by sophisticated information attacks, mostly through social media.

Despite our numerous requests, Facebook never blocked fake accounts of the Russian embassies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. In addition, we have recently identified similar fake accounts of the embassies in Sweden and Uganda, which are used to deceive Facebook users. By refusing to act, Facebook encourages misinformation. Although we are grateful to the company for taking prompt action to unblock accounts of Russian missions abroad, but honestly this was the least they could do. In fact, Facebook should do more to prevent fake accounts from spreading further. In this connection, let me remind you that the list of the official accounts of the Foreign Ministry and its missions abroad is available on the ministry’s official website: go to the Press Service section and click Social Media.

Unfortunately, Facebook moderators continue to block accounts of our missions abroad for unknown reasons. In 2016, a number of embassies had to create new accounts in order to be able to remain in touch with the readers, mostly our compatriots living abroad. Let me emphasise that we view social media as an important tool for interacting with our subscribers across the world and hope that all the issues will be resolved in the near future, especially now that the company has recognised the existence of problems within its network.



Presentation of a book by the Chairman of the State Council of Crimea

I would like to share with you that a presentation of the English-language version of Follow Your Path, a book about the Crimean War by Vladimir Konstantinov, Chairman of the State Council of the Republic of Crimea, will take place on May 11 at the International Press Centre of Rossiya Segodnya, to which we are grateful for today’s news briefing.

We invite all to take part in this event.



The Turetsky Choir: Victory Songs in Berlin

As I said at the previous briefing already, the Turetsky Choir is preparing a unique surprise for Victory Day. There will be many delightful surprises all over Russia, while the Turetsky Choir is preparing a gift for our compatriots residing in Germany – veterans, former concentration camp inmates, and all who remember WWII firsthand.

At 4 pm on May 7, the Russian Science and Culture House will host a media scrum on the occasion of this ambitious project to promote peace, goodwill and friendship – Victory Songs in Berlin.

The large-scale peace action Victory Songs will open on Gendarmenmarkt at 6 pm, right after the talk with the media. Admission is free. Invitations can be obtained on the website http://biletkartina.tv.

The diverse programme of the concert will include such moving songs as The Tocsin of Buchenwald, the universally loved Katyusha, the lyrical The Swarthy Girl, and many others.

We hope that this project for peace and against Nazism and all others forms of fascism, terrorism and xenophobia will be success.

More information will appear on the Foreign Ministry official website.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

There is a tendency for the volume of tourists visiting Crimea from Ukraine to increase during the May holidays. This is good for Crimea, as Ukrainian citizens can see the current situation. Is it worth stepping up work to attract tourists from Ukraine?



Maria Zakharova:

As for attracting Ukrainian tourists to Crimea, I think we should not focus on tourists from certain countries but develop the Crimean infrastructure and promote tourist facilities in general. I have come here, to this holy land, for the third time. Coming here for the last three years, I can see the civil and tourist infrastructure gaining momentum. It can be seen with the naked eye. This is also reflected in the figures which are given as statistical data by the relevant ministries and agencies, noting a continuous increase in tourists in Crimea. Therefore, we should develop this area, focus on developing the tourist infrastructure and promoting it, including for Russian tourists. Many Russian citizens have never been to Crimea, so acquainting them with it should become one of the priorities. I have been to many places, but the beauty of the Vorontsovsky Palace is really unique. The palace and the park are enough to make a holiday unforgettable, not to speak of the modern infrastructure, wonderful hotels and sights of Crimea. Yesterday, I was in Yalta, which has a stunning embankment, wisteria and chestnuts. Therefore, it is extremely important to develop the domestic potential and at the same time to wait for foreign tourists and guests. We always assist you with this issue.



Question:

Yesterday, President Vladimir Putin met Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. They noted that relations between Russia and Turkey have improved. How will this influence the development of Crimea?



Maria Zakharova:

Unfortunately, our relations were frozen, and their development was suspended after tragic events that happened through the Turkish side’s fault. It is always easy to sour something, but it is much harder to restore something, especially if we are talking about expanded relations. Foreign ministries and representatives from the appropriate services are now establishing bilateral contacts. We are cooperating more actively on the international arena, including cooperation on a Syrian peace settlement. Turkey largely expresses its own opinions and interests in this region. However, the dialogue continues and, most importantly, it is not stopping.



Question:

Many countries are interested in Crimea, with numerous delegations visiting us. Do delegation members provide their superiors with authentic information after returning back home?



Maria Zakharova:

The Foreign Ministry is doing everything we possibly can to convince people who are boldly talking about Crimea and Sevastopol from international rostrums to come here and see for themselves. It is easy to draw conclusions by relying on fake news and social network accounts that are a far cry from reality. People need to pluck up courage, and come and take a look. No one is saying that there are no problems here. There is no place in the world that does not have some problems or another. The question is whether the state has the will to address these problems and to overcome these difficulties together with the people. Over the past three years, Crimea has traveled down an unprecedented road as part of the Russian Federation. You cannot find any other example of this development when people were able to assert themselves in this manner and to start from scratch over the shortest possible period of time continually under pressure from the international community, putting up with conditions of unbridled sanctions, during a total lack of understanding and absolutely unjustified condemnation. All of us know that the development of Crimea was seriously hampered, and the same concerns its tourist potential as well when it was part of Ukraine. What we see now in Crimea is really unprecedented development. Surely, anyone coming here isn’t going to keep mum. They will talk even if they don’t have a public rostrum for spreading their viewpoint to the public. In any event, information is creeping through, and we are doing everything possible with a view to this end.



Question:

The leaders of Russia and the United States spoke by telephone this week. The presidents agreed to re-invigorate the dialogue between the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State on Syria, to establish contacts and to do joint work geared towards the Korean Peninsula settlement. How will this work be carried out by our respective foreign policy departments?



Maria Zakharova:

It will be primarily implemented by the Russian Foreign Ministry and the US Department of State. An upcoming meeting of Mr Lavrov and Mr Tillerson has already been announced. Later, we will inform you about its format, date and time. It will provide an opportunity to implement the instructions issued by the presidents of the two countries to find common ground and search for solutions to major international issues. I believe this meeting will help make it happen.



Question:

Crimean researchers have been practically cut off from the rest of the academic world over the past three years. Crimea hosts significant Russian and even international conferences. However, none of them has ever made it to the Scopus international database. In addition, a department of Sevastopol State University signed an agreement with the University of Berlin last year. However, the German Foreign Ministry did not issue visas for our researchers, and they are unable to travel. Here’s my question: can the Russian Foreign Ministry help Crimean researchers in that regard?



Maria Zakharova:

Please send us all the papers, and we will make appropriate steps. I’m aware of this issue. It concerns not only your university, but many others as well, because, I reiterate, let’s face it: people are being punished for the choice they have made. They punish individuals, and, unfortunately they do so in a perverted manner making sure it hurts. Well, that’s what the historic choice is all about. So, please let us have your information and we will see what we can do for you.



Question:

The rector of our university asked me to ask you the following question. Do you think that, since we are not welcome in the West, our university, as well as other higher educational institutions of Crimea, could become an instrument of Russia's soft power in the Black Sea region, the Middle East, or the Mediterranean?



Maria Zakharova:

I think that the mission of any university is to become a high-class educational institution that turns out top-notch specialists. This is their number one goal. If it’s achieved, and if these specialists enjoy demand both in our country and abroad, then this will be a soft power tool. Being on this soil, having proper knowledge and showing their best qualities, the people can use their actions and skills to tell the world about Crimea.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2744098
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #71
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk agreements, Vienna, May 4, 2017



5 May 2017 - 11:36





Mr Chairperson,

The situation in the conflict zone in Ukraine remains tense. Ceasefire violations are reported daily. There are civilian casualties. The Armed Forces of Ukraine continue shelling residential areas and territories controlled by the self-defence forces. Specifically, the Special Monitoring Mission reported collapsed buildings in Stakhanovo and Kominternovo, while not being able to report on the consequences of a number of other shelling incidents. Data obtained from SMM cameras in Avdeyevka and Shirokino indicates that intensive shelling in these areas was provoked by fire coming from territories controlled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

There is now less substance in SMM reports due to patrolling restrictions imposed for security reasons. Russia expresses its support to the mission that continues its work despite all the challenges it faces. The mission plays an important stabilising role in the conflict zone. It is essential that the contact line and adjacent territories remain under its intense scrutiny.

The explosion of an SMM vehicle on April 23 right at the contact line near the village of Prishib, the Lugansk Region, should be investigated in a thorough, impartial and unbiased manner. It is important that all parties involved, including the OSCE, the Ukrainian authorities, specific districts within the Lugansk Region, the Contact Group and the Centre on Control and Coordination are involved in these efforts. Russia would be grateful to the OSCE Chairmanship and its Secretary General for a more detailed insight into what is being done in this respect by the OSCE.

Both sides are restricting the SMM’s freedom of movement. Accusations against the militia in staging an ‘anti-SMM campaign’ are groundless. SMM reports show that the militia warn the SMM of impending danger. In fact, on April 28 at a Lugansk checkpoint (Molodezhnoye), a militia fighter indicated to the monitors that they had to leave immediately. As soon as the SMM staff got inside an armoured vehicle, they heard a shell exploding in the air just 50 to 100 metres to the northwest. There was no possible doubt as to who was shelling the checkpoint. On April 27, a minesweeping team from Lugansk and Russian officers from the Centre on Control and Coordination helped the monitors recover a mini drone that landed in a mine-infested area in Stanitsa Luganskaya.

Russia highly values SMM’s efforts to facilitate the repair and recovery works, which could bring power and water supply back to the people living along the contact line. On May 2, the Donetsk water purification plant was once again shelled by the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and its staff had to be evacuated. To our knowledge, power supply has not been restored so far.

Colleagues,

The atrocities committed by Ukrainian radicals continue to go unpunished. On May 2, it was three years since the Odessa tragedy. Some present here today would prefer to forget about it, but it is our duty to refresh their memory. On May 2, 2014, Ukrainian nationalists forced defenceless people into the Trade Unions House and burned them alive. The perpetrators have still not been held to account. The Kiev authorities did everything in their power in order to obscure the facts and destroy evidence, just as with the Maidan snipers. It is outrageous that the Kiev authorities arrested the victims, singling out those involved in a peaceful protest against an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, rather than those who threw Molotov cocktails at them. These peaceful protestors are the actual political prisoners in Ukraine. They must be freed as soon as possible.

During these three years the Kiev government failed to come up with any kind of an intelligible explanation, despite all its efforts. Joining the international community, Russia would like to reiterate in this room the request for a transparent and fair investigation, so that the perpetrators are held to account. However, we do not believe in the ability of the current authorities to do this. The SMM has reported on a number of occasions that the courts are influenced by radical elements, including in the case of Trade Union House fire.

When protestors were burned alive in Odessa, it signalled a turning point in the civil war in Ukraine. It showed the whole country and the entire world what the Ukrainian radical nationalism is all about. Everyone saw what nationalists can do to those who do not agree with them, and how the new authorities would respond. This was confirmed by what happened in Donbass. It is this mayhem and outrage that people in Donbass are seeking to prevent.

Today, radical nationalists in Ukraine feel total impunity. Some may have a feeling that it will not last forever, and hide their faces under masks or bandanas. We are sure they will be called to account.

The radical nationalists and the war party in Kiev are still the main forces opposing peaceful settlement in Ukraine, and are doing everything in their power to delay the implementation of the Minsk Agreements as long as possible. It is obvious that they are opposed to bringing back into the Ukrainian legal framework the millions of people who seek friendly ties with other nations, including Russia, and reject the neo-Nazi ideals professed by Bandera followers.

While Kiev is beginning to understand that another attempt to cleanse Donbass by force would lead to a catastrophe, the authorities are increasingly consistent in their efforts to alienate Donbass, separating it and its people from the rest of Ukraine. Ukrainian financial institutions no longer provide services there, pensions and other social benefits are not being paid, and the region is facing a trade and transport blockade. The people living there have a very hard time obtaining Ukrainian documents, including renewing passports or registering cars. Inter-regional economic ties across the contact line have been disrupted. Power supply has been cut off, and water supply will follow.

In fact, only the Minsk Agreements can now guarantee Ukraine’s territorial integrity. However, implementing them would be very difficult without exerting resolute and coordinated pressure on Kiev’s nationalist forces.

Nevertheless, there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements as far as settlement is concerned. The main tasks should be to stabilise the situation along the contact line, and stop the shelling of residential areas and infrastructure, which could be achieved by having the two sides withdraw forces and weapons. There is a need to step up efforts to implement the political provisions of the Package of Measures, establish direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk, enact legislation on the special status of these regions, hold elections and carry out a constitutional reform.

Thank you for your attention.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2744654
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #72
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the decision on Crimea adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers



5 May 2017 - 17:32



By a majority vote, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CE) adopted a decision on May 3 alleging the ongoing deterioration of the human rights situation in what is described as Ukrainian Crimea and Sevastopol. Kiev’s representatives submitted that draft in an effort to divert attention from the outrageous violations of the rule of law, democracy and human rights – fundamental principles for the Council of Europe – in Ukraine itself. Unfortunately, the Committee of Ministers and CE monitoring agencies traditionally take a lenient view of the issue, which is just a step away from shielding the crimes committed by the Ukrainian authorities or on their behalf.

Kiev’s allegations about the “dire situation” facing people in the non-existent place known as Ukrainian Crimea, rubber stamped by the Committee and presumably built by analogy with the situation in other regions that are under the control of Ukraine’s current nationalist authorities, have nothing to do with the state of affairs in the Russian Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. Their population is under the full protection of Russian laws and UN and CE conventions, including the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Incidentally, just like any other Russian region, they are open to visits by any monitoring teams from the CE or other international organisations. However, this requires taking a genuine interest in the human rights situation on this Russian territory instead of looking for illusory evidence to support Kiev’s propaganda slogans.

The members of the Committee of Ministers who voted for this decision turn a blind eye to the EU’s visa reprisals that run counter to the principles of international law, as well as to the actions of Ukrainian nationalists to cut off water and energy supplies to Crimea. The same old allegations about the “deteriorating situation facing Crimean Tatars” ignore the fact that real positive changes in reinstating their rights took place only after Crimea’s reunification with Russia.

The Committee’s decision is not about people or human rights. It is about using this issue for political purposes without any concern for the Committee’s own credibility. As a state responsible for the situation in the Council of Europe, including the Committee of Ministers, Russia will have to consider steps to end the practice of opportunistic politicking in CE agencies regarding human rights across the CE space.

Russia in no way regards itself bound by the Committee’s decision and believes its use by Ukraine for propaganda purposes is illegitimate. As far as we are concerned, given that it was not adopted by consensus, it is null and void. For our part, we submitted for the Committee’s consideration draft decisions in support of the Minsk process and on human rights violations in Ukraine. We hope they will be given a substantive hearing at the Committee’s next meeting.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2745902
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #73
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the decision on Georgia adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers



5 May 2017 - 19:05



On May 3, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers adopted another non-consensus decision on Georgia, previously submitted by Tbilisi. The document is remarkable for its bias and for being out of touch with reality to the point of absurdity. It alleges that Abkhazia and South Ossetia belong to Georgia and seeks to hold Russia responsible for Georgia’s conflicts with these former Georgian republics and for the internal situation there.

Tbilisi, supported by its Western sponsors, continues to generate political and propaganda non-issues at international venues, which are designed solely to legitimise Georgia’s reluctance to normalise relations with its neighbours. No wonder the Georgian delegation systematically refuses to work constructively at Geneva discussions on security issues in Transcaucasia. In this situation, whether to continue the Geneva meetings in their present format will have to be given serious consideration.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2745952
 
Old May 7th, 2017 #74
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Memorandum on the creation of de-escalation areas in the Syrian Arab Republic



6 May 2017 - 12:41



The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the observance of the ceasefire regime in the Syrian Arab Republic (hereinafter referred to as “Guarantors”):

guided by the provisions of UNSC resolution 2254 (2015);
reaffirming their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic;
expressing their determination to decrease the level of military tensions and to provide for the security of civilians in the Syrian Arab Republic,
have agreed on the following.

the following de-escalation areas shall be created with the aim to put a prompt end to violence, improve the humanitarian situation and create favorable conditions to advance political settlement of the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic:
Idlib province and certain parts of the neighbouring provinces (Latakia, Hama and Aleppo provinces);
certain parts in the north of Homs province;
in eastern Ghouta;
certain parts of southern Syria (Deraa and Al-Quneitra provinces).
The creation of the de-escalation areas and security zones is a temporary measure, the duration of which will initially be 6 months and will be automatically extended on the basis of consensus of the Guarantors.

Within the lines of the de-escalation areas:
hostilities between the conflicting parties (the government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the armed opposition groups that have joined and will join the ceasefire regime) with the use of any kinds of weapons, including aerial assets, shall be ceased;
rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access shall be provided;
conditions to deliver medical aid to local population and to meet basic needs of civilians shall be created;
measures to restore basic infrastructure facilities, starting with water supply and electricity distribution networks, shall be taken;
conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons shall be created.
Along the lines of the de-escalation areas, security zones shall be established in order to prevent incidents and military confrontations between the conflicting parties.
The security zones shall include:
- Checkpoints to ensure unhindered movement of unarmed civilians and delivery of humanitarian assistance as well as to facilitate economic activities;

- Observation posts to ensure compliance with the provisions of the ceasefire regime.

The functioning of the checkpoints and observation posts as well as the administration of the security zones shall be ensured by the forces of the Guarantors by consensus. Third parties might be deployed, if necessary, by consensus of the Guarantors.

The Guarantors shall:
take all necessary measures to ensure the fulfillment by the conflicting parties of the ceasefire regime;
take all necessary measures to continue the fight against DAESH/ISIL, Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL as designated by the UN Security Council within and outside the de-escalation areas;
continue efforts to include in the ceasefire regime armed opposition groups that have not yet joined the ceasefire regime.
The Guarantors shall in 2 weeks after signing the Memorandum form a Joint working group on de-escalation (hereinafter referred to as the “Joint Working Group”) composed of their authorized representatives in order to delineate the lines of the de-escalation areas and security zones as well as to resolve other operational and technical issues related to the implementation of the Memorandum.
The Guarantors shall take steps to complete by 4 June 2017 the preparation of the maps of the de-escalation areas and security zones and to separate the armed opposition groups from the terrorist groups mentioned in para.5 of the Memorandum.

The Joint Working Group shall prepare by the above-mentioned date the maps of the de-escalation areas and security zones to be agreed by consensus of the Guarantors as well as the draft Regulation of the Joint Working Group.

The Joint Working Group shall report on its activities to the high-level international meetings on Syria held in Astana.

The present Memorandum enters into force the next day after its signing.

Done in Astana, 4 May 2017 in three copies in English, having equal legal force.



Signatures



Islamic Republic of Iran
Russian Federation
Republic of Turkey





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2746041
 
Old May 11th, 2017 #75
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the latest reports by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission and Human Rights Watch on the use of chemical weapons in Syria



6 May 2017 - 17:11



The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (OPCW FFM) in Syria has recently published a report on the September 16, 2016 chemical attack in the village of Maarat Umm Hawsh in Aleppo Province, Syria. We provided assistance to the OPCW FFM in keeping with Clause 6 of Article X of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). In particular, the Russian Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Protection Forces provided the samples and factual and material evidence collected at the incident site to the authorised representatives of the Syrian Government. In December 2016, these samples and materials were forwarded to the OPCW FFM, and in January 2017 these were delivered, with Italy’s assistance, to The Hague for OPCW analysis.

The conclusion regarding the use of sulphur mustard (mustard gas), which we made jointly with our Syrian colleagues, has been reaffirmed by the OPCW. We note this with satisfaction.

We proceed from the assumption that all materials available to the OPCW FFM will be turned over to the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM), which will investigate them accurately in accordance with its mandate. Those responsible for this chemical incident and those outside Syria who possibly guided their actions must be identified.

We are saying this also in order to remind everyone about the established procedure for the international agencies’ operation in situations such as this. It is regrettable that our foreign colleagues, including French and British officials, as well as representatives from Human Rights Watch, which is a highly respected human rights organisation, have opted to act differently. It took them only a few days to reach an incontrovertible conclusion that placed the blame for the alleged use of aviation bombs filled with sarin at Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib on the Syrian Government.

We have provided our assessments and comments on the French investigation of this incident. We consider the conclusions of this investigation, according to which the Syrian military allegedly used hand grenades filled with sarin, which is a highly toxic nerve gas, as unbelievable and even exotic. This is the most shockingly fraudulent conclusion in the history of chemical weapons. It is obvious that these unbelievable statements are made in order to further demonise the Syrian Government.

Information planted in Paris and London refers to the results of an analysis of samples collected at the incident site. However, it is unclear who collected these samples, when and how, how they were delivered from the site and which laboratories analysed them, and whether the OPCW procedures for chain of custody were maintained. And lastly, the key question is why France and Britain conducted independent national investigations into a chemical incident that took place in an OPCW member state, or whether the Syrian Government had asked them to conduct these investigations in keeping with Article X of the CWC? The answer is, clearly, No.

The Human Rights Watch conclusions regarding the incident at Khan Sheikhoun do not stand up to scrutiny either. They are based on witness testimony collected remotely, and all the witnesses are members of the Syrian opposition. This does not add objectivity to the process.

An official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry has provided exhaustive proof and laid bare the allegations on the use of Soviet chemical agents at Khan Sheikhoun. We must point out that neither the Soviet Union, nor the Russian Federation has ever exported munitions for the delivery of chemical warfare agents.

We again urge everyone who is interested in the Syrian chemical file to read the materials published on a special page of the Foreign Ministry’s website. This will help them understand what really happened and what is happening in Syria.

We insist that OPCW FFM experts be dispatched for a professional and objective investigation to Khan Sheikhoun and the Shayrat Airbase, where chemical munitions containing sarin were allegedly stored, as soon as possible. This is only possible with due regard for OPCW procedures.

We support the intention, made public by OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu, to send OPCW FFM experts to Syria in cooperation with the concerned UN agencies. We hope that they will visit Khan Sheikhoun and Shayrat, which would be fully in keeping with Paragraph 12 of the Terms of Reference for the OPCW FFM in Syria.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2746077
 
Old May 11th, 2017 #76
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Ambassador Mikhail I.Ulyanov Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Cluster II. Non-proliferation and IAEA safeguards), Vienna, May 8, 2017



8 May 2017 - 17:30





Mr. Chairman,

We consider prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation a primary objective for the States Parties to the NPT; only through achieving it, a more secure and stable world could be ensured.

One fundamental achievement on this track is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. Today, Iran is the most verified country by the IAEA. The Agency has been rapid enough in arranging quite a sophisticated verification mechanism and is now effectively fulfilling its tasks that allow controlling all the aspects of the JCPOA implementation and safeguards application in Iran. We thank the IAEA and the personnel of the Secretariat for their professional work. On our part, we provide multifaceted support to the Agency on the Iranian issue, in particular, by organizing special training courses for inspectors on uranium enrichment and stable isotope production.

In his reports, the IAEA Director General regularly confirms Iran’s fulfillment of its JCPOA obligations. The country also implements the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement. We hope that such a large scope of verification measures will facilitate Iran’s early receipt of the so called broader conclusion confirming the absence of undeclared nuclear material or activities. There is no place here for politicizing or artificial dragging the process.

The JCPOA is by all means a unique arrangement. In particular, it envisages a unique verification mechanism and additional confidence building measures. It is for a good reason that the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 adopted in support of the Plan of Action contains a separate operative paragraph stipulating that measures defined in the JCPOA could not be considered as a precedent. We encourage all Parties to strictly adhere to this provision and refrain from any attempts to extend JCPOA verification mechanisms to other countries.

Nevertheless, certain Iranian experience might be helpful and applicable in the context of the most relevant and volatile threat to the non-proliferation regime, which is the nuclear issue of the Korean Peninsula. First and foremost, it is about the possibility to deal with complex problems through creative diplomatic and political solutions, and diligent talks. That is what lacks today on the Korean Peninsula.

Russia rejects the DPRK’s self-proclaimed nuclear status. We openly declare to Pyongyang our conviction that the policy of nuclear missile capacity building will not contribute to the security of the country. On the contrary, it will have devastating consequences for the DPRK and for the region as a whole. We advocate Pyongyang’s strong commitment to the relevant UNSC decisions, cease of all nuclear and missile tests and return to the NPT regime. It is important though to prevent restrictions from narrowing the window of opportunities for the negotiations, as well as from escalating the humanitarian situation in DPRK.

Still we are convinced that the reason of tensions on the peninsula lies not only in Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes but also in the increased military activity of the United States and its allies in North-East Asia. It is evident that Pyongyang will not abandon its nuclear weapons as long as it feels that its security is directly threatened. And that is how it interprets regular maneuvers and exercises carried out by US-centered military and political alliances in North-East Asia, alongside the escalation of the US military presence, in particular, deployment of THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems in South Korea.

The problems of the Korean Peninsula, including the nuclear issue, should be dealt with through an integrated solution to the whole spectrum of issues arising between the parties concerned so as to further create conducive environment for denuclearization. This requires de-escalation of overall military and political tensions, abandonment of further military infrastructure build-up, reduction of the ongoing maneuvers, and establishment of a trust-based climate among the States of the region.

Mr. Chairman.

The IAEA safeguards applied in accordance with paragraph 1 of the Article III of the NPT are a key element of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The trust of the NPT States Parties in the IAEA safeguards system is a key factor of the sustainability of this regime. It has always been based on the objective character of the IAEA verification mechanism, its technical credibility, independence from political circumstances, as well as its resting upon safeguards agreements concluded by States. To maintain the NPT, the IAEA safeguards system should continue to be based on the above mentioned principles, including in occurrence of any reform.

It is vital to avoid introduction of any subjective element in the IAEA verification mechanism. The Policy-Making organs of the Agency – the General Conference and the Board of Governors – should play a key role in political decision-making related to the safeguards, including modifications to their application and monitoring of the Secretariat activities. The Board of Governors has also a vital role to play when making decisions related to Agency's response in case of violations by States of their NPT obligations.

We have followed closely the situation around the reforming of the safeguards system related to the introduction of the State-Level concept of applying safeguards. Though the content of the reform has been modified to better reflect views of the Agency’s Member States, the process is far from over and the reform is far from perfect. We believe that the development of new approaches to safeguards application should be open, whereas decisions on modifications to IAEA safeguards application practice should build upon wide support from the Member States of the Agency and be adopted by its Policy-Making organs. It is important that the Secretariat regularly informs the Agency’s Policy-Making organs on the ongoing and future steps in this regard. Particularly important is the preparation of a comprehensive report on the implementation of State-specific approaches to the application of safeguards in States that have comprehensive safeguards agreements, additional protocols and broader conclusions confirming that all their nuclear material is used for peaceful purposes.

Mr. Chairman,

In the context of implementing State-Level approaches to safeguards a question of handling information on possible non-compliance with non-proliferation obligations received from external sources and not as a result of the Agency verification activity becomes particularly sensitive. All information used by the IAEA Secretariat in preparing safeguards conclusions should have an evidence-based character proving its accuracy and ensuring that this information may be relied on during political discussions in the Policy-Making organs. The IAEA Secretariat should be prepared, if necessary, to defend accuracy of such information at meetings of the Board of Governors.

It is vital that, notwithstanding the reform, the IAEA verification activity would still focus on those materials and facilities that could represent a real proliferation threat. The genuine importance is not to be found in declared intentions or the image presented in mass media. The genuine importance lies in the country's potential. Policy may change quickly but potential or its absence is a more stable thing.

Mr. Chairman,

We find it important to ensure a sustained strengthening of the IAEA safeguards system through universalization of the Additional Protocol and the Safeguards Agreement, which alongside the Agreement is meant to become a globally recognized verification standard for the States' fulfillment of their non-proliferation obligations. Recognizing that signing the Additional Protocol with the Agency remains purely voluntary for the NPT State Parties, we call upon the countries that have not yet done so, to conclude as soon as possible the Additional Protocol to Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements with the IAEA.

Mr. Chairman,

In the Russian Federation, more than 30 nuclear facilities are listed as those to which the IAEA safeguards could be applied, in accordance with the Agreement of 21 February 1985 between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

On July, 1 2010, the Agency chose the facility of the International Uranium Enrichment Centre in Angarsk to start applying safeguards. The first full-fledged Agency’s inspection on the site took place in 2010 and since then inspections have been carried out regularly with the latest one taking place in November 2016.

The Russian Federation has been actively cooperating with the Agency to enhance the safeguards system by providing financial and technical assistance through implementation of a national scientific and technical safeguards support programme. For over 30 years of the existence of this programme, significant work has been done to strengthen the technical base of the IAEA’s Department of Safeguards, and to provide it with new objective measurement methods, samples of materials and sources, as well as trained personnel.

In particular, under this program, the Russian Federation provides the IAEA with assistance in analyzing in Russian laboratories of environmental samples collected by the Agency during its inspections. New technologies to detect undeclared nuclear materials and activities are being developed. We place great emphasis on the training of the Agency’s inspectors. This training goes beyond traditional application of non-destructive methods of nuclear materials control. We train IAEA inspectors to conduct verification at isotopic enrichment plants. We also continue training the personnel of the Agency’s Secretariat and expects from IAEA Member States on nuclear material accountancy and control in Russian specialized institutions.

Mr. Chairman,

This year marks the 20th anniversary since the opening for signature of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). 183 States have already signed the Treaty and 166 have ratified it. The importance of CTBT’s early entry into force has been confirmed at various fora in Vienna and New York dedicated to the anniversary of the Treaty. For the first time in history, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution (resolution 2310) in support of the Treaty. A separate statement was arranged upon by the P5 on the CTBT. Russia ratified the CTBT
17 years ago and has consistently been committed to the Treaty. In his statement on April 11, 2016, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin underlined our willingness to promote its early entry in force.

Nevertheless, despite international efforts, the CTBT has not entered into force yet. Total lack of positive developments in the position of eight States whose ratification is required for its entry into force, is a matter of deep concern. We should avoid the situation that such an important Treaty could risk a doom. We encourage the remaining eight States, among which the United States has special responsibility, to do their utmost to accede to the CTBT without further delay. It is in your hands to finally make this vital Treaty fully operational.

Let me also draw your attention that in the context of vague prospects for the Treaty’s entry into force, it is necessary to carefully and prudently consider any initiative aimed to qualitatively change the situation around the Treaty. Moratoria, though important, cannot substitute for the legally binding obligations under the CTBT. Besides, we believe that any further lack of progress in the Treaty’s entry into force calls into question the need for the accelerated development of the Treaty’s verification mechanism.

Mr. Chairman,

In the context of implementation of Article III of the NPT, Russia attaches great importance to the work of international export control regimes, namely the Zangger Committee (ZC) and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). These regimes have proven in practice that it is feasible to effectively counter nuclear proliferation risks on a nondiscriminatory basis and without prejudice to the international cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Russian national export control system is based inter alia on the ZC and the NSG guidelines and control lists. We have consistently stated that participation in the NSG of all States - major suppliers of nuclear and dual-use goods that are controlled by the Group, including those States that are not Parties to the NPT, provided that they pledge to comply with the NSG Guidelines and to promote non-proliferation, will strengthen nuclear export control regime.

Mr. Chairman,

Russia is engaged in the negotiations regarding a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). In particular, our expert has become a member of the FMCT High Level Expert Preparatory Group, which will hold its first meeting this summer. However, let me note that the adoption of such an agreement is well overdue. A FMCT could have become an extremely valuable agreement in the late 1960s – early 1970s. In the course of time, its ‘added value’ has significantly dropped with four nuclear powers introducing a voluntary moratorium on the production of fissile materials, while non-nuclear States acceded to the NPT, which de facto already prohibits for them the production of fissile materials. We do not consider the conclusion of this treaty as a priority for the nuclear non-proliferation regime. However, we stand ready to participate in negotiations understanding that they will take place at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva within its balanced programme of work and in accordance with the Shannon Mandate (contained in the document CD/1299).

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2751009
 
Old May 11th, 2017 #77
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Statement by Ambassador Mikhail I.Ulyanov Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and all Other Weapons of Mass Destruction, Vienna, May 8, 2017



8 May 2017 - 18:00





Mr. Chairman,

Colleagues,

The establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction (WMDFZ) remains on the agenda of the NPT Review process and is likely to be a central issue of the current Review cycle. Unfortunately, we see no tangible progress here. Moreover, over almost three years there has been mainly an overall stalemate in this area except for the NPT Review Conference held in May 2015, when we nearly agreed on quite a strong and promising solution. Further lack of progress on this track risks to complicate an already fragile situation in the framework of the NPT. Thus, it is crucial to prevent bringing the situation to the boiling point before or during the 2020 Review Conference, and to that aim to hold at the current session a constructive discussion on ways to resume a dialogue on convening a WMDFZ Conference that remains a relevant and feasible objective in the context of implementing the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East.

As food for thought, the Russian Federation has prepared and submitted a working paper that outlines our vision on further possible steps on a WMDFZ. While working on it, we sought to account different views and existing concerns in order to ensure early convening of the Conference with the participation, if possible, of all countries of the Middle East region.

The main points of our proposal are as follows.

We assume that the 2010 mandate to convene a Conference on a WMDFZ is basically valid. To ensure a successful outcome of the event, thorough preparation is essential. It should aim to reaching an agreement on organizational modalities of the Conference: its drafts of agenda, rules of procedure, and the final document which would outline a way towards establishing a WMDFZ.

In our view, the preparation for the Conference should be conducted in the form of preparatory meetings, which preferably would be attended by all States of the region without exception. These meetings should be held on a regular basis as frequently as required.

A venue of such meetings could be Geneva and/or Glion as it was the case during the previous NPT Review cycle when the Swiss Government offered to host consultations. As an alternative, we suggest to consider holding preparatory meetings in Cairo back to back with the sessions of the League of Arab States Committee of Senior Officials in order to ensure high representation of the Middle East countries, both in terms of its level and membership. We are ready to host one or two preparatory meetings in Moscow if States of the region express such an interest.

We are convinced that all substantive decisions taken within the preparatory process and at the Conference should be consensus-based. It was already agreed back in Glion. In our view, the consensus principle is key to ensure the participation in the working process of all States of the region as well as to achieve balanced and mutually acceptable solutions.

Taking into account the sensitive nature of the discussions on a WMDFZ, the preparatory process should be well structured. Any possible progress in discussion or alignment of positions should be properly recorded. It is also preferable to streamline the preparatory work with a program of work approved in advance.

Particular attention should be given to the agenda of the Conference. We believe that the Conference should provide an opportunity for a focused and comprehensive discussion on the establishment of a Middle East WMDFZ. At the same time in the interest of consensus and in order to take into account the views of all stakeholders, we find it appropriate to dedicate one session of the Conference to a discussion of several specific aspects of regional security. These aspects should be within the context of a Middle East WMDFZ and be agreed in advance by States of the region.

It is evident that a single organizational and coordination framework is required for preparing and convening of the Conference. Unfortunately, the appointment of a facilitator seems to be not an easy task. But we are not sure that the “troika” of the co-sponsors is capable of playing the role of a “collective facilitator”. We believe the UN Secretariat could perform those functions. In our view, the UN Secretariat would primarily be in charge of organizational work. Besides, it is a prerogative of potential participants of a WMDFZ to be responsible for reaching agreements. Russia would be ready to work closely with the UN Secretariat.

Our working paper also addresses financial aspects that need to be taken into consideration. Experience of the previous NPT Review cycle showed that financial issues could be very acute. Apparently, the assistance of donors both from States of the region and beyond will be required.

Given the complexity of the issue, it is critical to allocate enough time for preparatory work. However, this process cannot evidently last forever. We should seek that the Conference on a WMDFZ take place prior to the 2020 NPT Review Conference, preferably no later than in a couple of years. In this regard, the preparatory work should begin as soon as possible. We believe that the first meeting could be held in the near future. We are ready to work for that purpose with the other co-sponsors of the 1995 Resolution, the UN Secretariat and, of course, the countries of the region.

We expect that our proposals will be found relevant and encourage a serious talk on further steps regarding a WMDFZ.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2751056
 
Old May 11th, 2017 #78
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting



10 May 2017 - 11:17



On May 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, the United States. Apart from the foreign ministers of Arctic Council member-countries, the meeting will involve delegations from Arctic indigenous ethnic groups’ organisations.

The Arctic Council is the most influential intergovernmental forum aiming to expand cooperation in the Arctic. It is the Arctic Council that formulates the regional agenda. Participants in the Fairbanks Ministerial Meeting are to decide on increasing the number of Arctic Council observers, whose current number is 32, including 12 observer states.

Plans for the upcoming Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting include signing an intergovernmental agreement on strengthening international Arctic scientific cooperation. The document will boost the efficiency of academic research about the Arctic. Russia and the United States co-chaired the negotiating process on drafting this document.

After the Ministerial Meeting, its participants will adopt a declaration in which all Arctic states will be expected to reaffirm their commitment to peace, stability and cooperation in the Arctic. They will also support specific initiatives aiming to further nature conservation cooperation, making the region more resilient and adaptable to the consequences of global climate change, as well as other initiatives.

The Arctic Council actively promotes the launching of new popular formats of international cooperation in the region. For example, the Arctic Coast Guard Forum was established in 2015 to help maintain regional security.

On September 19, 2016, the foreign ministers of Arctic states issued a joint statement in connection with the Arctic Council’s 20th anniversary and reaffirmed their commitment to broadening regional cooperation. This positive experience of establishing international cooperation can be applied successfully to other regions.

Russia has special interests in the Arctic region, where virtually all aspects of its national security are concentrated.

Major international players are now focusing on the Arctic more actively. This leads to rivalry and clashes of interests and ambitions of various countries, including those from beyond the Arctic region.

Russia invariably calls for resolving all contentious issues in a civilised manner, on the basis of international law and through talks, and it is ready to engage in joint work in the Arctic.

Russia views the Arctic as a territory of dialogue and cooperation and is determined to resolutely counter any attempts to bring tensions and a policy of confrontation to the region.

There are no irresolvable regional contradictions and issues calling for military solutions. Cooperation is the only way to guarantee prosperity in the Arctic. It is precisely this approach that drives Russia’s current actions in the Arctic.

We are interested in strengthening bilateral and multilateral international cooperation in the Arctic, primarily within the Arctic Council.

It is highly important that Arctic Council members are not divided into blocs, and that all decisions are adopted by consensus. This makes it possible to maintain sustained Arctic cooperation, which has been successful despite an unfavourable international situation.

The Arctic Council’s efforts largely prevented the degradation of the regional situation and made it possible to continue the policy of cooperation despite aggravated international relations. Not a single Arctic Council project has been terminated.

Russia will continue to help strengthen the authority of the Arctic Council in every way. It will also help expand the areas of its activity that should aim to achieve specific practical results. In this context, the Arctic Council Project Support Instrument (PSI) has a special role to play, with Russia being its main donor. The PSI helps implement environmental projects aiming to cut toxic emissions into the atmosphere, eliminate accumulated pollutants and introduce new industrial production processes. An overwhelming majority of these projects are implemented in Russia.

While continuing to pay close attention to environmental protection, it is important to promote economic cooperation in the Arctic. Without it, it would be impossible to guarantee the region’s sustainable development and to raise the quality of life in the Far North, including among local ethnic groups.

Russia has a vast economic agenda in the Arctic. It is therefore not surprising that Russia initiated the establishment of the Arctic Economic Council in 2014. This organisation is called on to help make the Arctic more attractive for investors and expand regional business contacts.

Russia views its neighbours in the region as its natural and high-priority partners in expanding international cooperation in the Arctic. However, we are also ready for close cooperation with other states, and we will welcome their constructive contribution to the region’s sustainable development.

Russia will continue to promote expanded mutually beneficial regional partnership in every possible way.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2750737
 
Old May 12th, 2017 #79
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Mir Interstate Television and Radio Broadcasting Company, May 10, 2017



10 May 2017 - 13:07





Question:

Will you please comment on the latest talks held by President of Russia Vladimir Putin with Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan?



Sergey Lavrov:

I can say, in addition to what has been said in detail at these leaders’ news conferences, that the talks were held in a constructive spirit. Nevertheless, the results slightly differed, because Germany and Turkey are two different states and our different partners. Our relations with Turkey are developing at a more positive pace than our ties with Germany. However, our trade with Germany is second largest after China, I believe. Also, both Germany and Turkey have shown great interest in the joint work of our business communities. German companies have not left Russia, which is additional proof of our conclusions regarding the abnormal situation when our European and other Western partners, place politically- and ideologically-charged approaches above the fundamental economic interests of their nations. I believe that the departure from this unusual trend is increasing. Not everyone in the European Union is prepared to accept this. The so-called aggressive minority is trying to maintain EU unity at any costs, whereas the principle of solidarity provides for looking for a compromise between two extremes. There are forces that are categorically against normalising relations with Russia and also those who call for breaking out of the sanctions dead-end already now. As I say, we don’t want to interfere in internal debates, but we are monitoring their development in the EU.

The visit by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel was highly indicative in this respect. It was her first visit to Russia over the past few years. The meeting passed off in a business-like atmosphere without any attempts to lecture one another: this is not our principle. We hope that Europe will see that the era of a master-pupil relationship is long over. We discussed energy, research and technological cooperation, where our relations are based on very serious mutual interests. Also, we talked about cultural ties, the Petersburg Dialogue Russian-German Public Forum and the cross-year of youth exchanges, which is coming to a close. In June, we will launch a new joint event, the cross-year of cooperation between our districts and municipalities. The opening ceremony will be held in Krasnodar in late June. I plan to attend it jointly with German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel.

We discussed our foreign policy cooperation and Russia-EU relations. We pointed out to our German partners that a year ago in St Petersburg President Putin presented an unofficial document for President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, which offered practical ideas on taking inventory of Russia-EU ties and resuming normal cooperation in the interests of all of us. We have not received any answer to this, just as there is no answer to the Eurasian Economic Commission’s proposal for developing working contact with the European Commission in Brussels. Germany has indicated that it would welcome such unofficial technical contacts between the two integration organisations. This would be a pragmatic solution, and we are ready to go as far and as fast as our partners are willing.

Discussions of foreign policy issues included Russia’s operation in Syria. President Putin touched upon this issue several times in his speech. A regular meeting between the Syrian government, the armed opposition, the guarantor countries (Russia, Iran and Turkey) and observers from the UN, Jordan and the United States has recently ended in Astana. The participants approved a document on de-escalation zones, which many countries in the West and Middle East have supported. This issue was on the agenda of the talks with Chancellor Merkel (we updated her on the preparation and the nascent implementation of this initiative) and President Erdogan (regarding the international agenda). The parties have coordinated their approaches regarding the Astana meeting.

We are implementing major bilateral projects. The presidents discussed their implementation and additional measures to ensure high quality and compliance with the timeframe. I am referring to Turkish Stream, the Akkuyu nuclear power station and the overwhelming majority of other areas of bilateral trade and economic cooperation, which has been suspended by untoward events. The presidents have issued instructions to unfreeze these projects. We have agreed to continue working on other aspects of bilateral relations, including the need for more effective bilateral efforts to identify militants and terrorists moving between our countries, as well as security issues and prospects for the gradual resumption of visa-free travel.



Question:

The main intrigue during the last few months is about a meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States. It is more than 100 days since the US presidential elections, but there is no information concerning a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. What can you say about this and what does Moscow expect from such talks, if they do take place?



Sergey Lavrov:

There is no doubt that any such meeting between the leaders is very important for the establishment primarily of personal relations.. Later on this always helps to iron out issues that the presidents discuss. However, I wouldn’t say that this is the main intrigue. Contacts – by telephone, if not face-to-face – have been established. There were three telephone conversations between President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation and President Donald Trump of the United States of America. They were highly charged, concrete, devoid of artificiality, and aimed at promoting our relations in the interests of both countries and the world community as a whole. In this connection, the focus was on the Syria crisis. Ahead of the Astana meeting, US President Donald Trump was informed by Russian President Vladimir Putin about how we saw further progress. This echoes the initiatives proposed by the United States earlier this year to create a safer environment for civilians and stop violence in areas plunged into fierce hostilities between the Syrian government and the armed opposition. It is not accidental that the United States welcomed the Astana meeting and the drafting of a document on the de-escalation zones.

The United States and we do not need the meeting to produce an external effect on someone or to talk about a sensation. Russia and the United States are convinced that meetings between leaders are important not only as an occasion to shake hands but also to understand what the parties think about relations with each other and international problems. Our countries have so much influence on international stability and security that this meeting will be expected to produce concrete results. With this in view, we have been actively preparing it.



Question:

After the air attack on Shayrat Airbase, we discontinued all contacts with the US side, including military contacts. Can we say that we have reverted back to where we were before the strike took place?



Sergey Lavrov:

Russian Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu commented on this the other day. It would be highly unethical for me to intervene in this sphere. He said that in effect the contacts between our countries had never been broken off, and if they had, the initiative had not been ours.



Question:

After US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, his talks with President Putin and with you, Mr Tillerson said that no actual progress had been made in Moscow. Following 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency, it was announced that the main goal was to isolate Russia within the UN and that the goal was supposedly achieved. What do you think that means? Is it true? Why are such statements being made?



Sergey Lavrov:

It is very difficult to answer the question why such contradictory statements are being made by different representatives of the Trump administration. Perhaps, they haven’t got accustomed to working together yet? We should primarily consider what President Trump says. He expressed a high opinion of State Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Moscow and his own recent telephone conversation with President Vladimir Putin. Mr Trump expressed willingness to continue our efforts to progress in the issues of mutual interest. This is what we consider first and foremost.



Question:

What is your opinion of the CSTO’s efforts against terrorism? This year, the organisation marks its 25th anniversary. How efficient is it?



Sergey Lavrov:

The fight against terrorism can only be efficient when it is possible to bring together the efforts of all parties that can contribute to this fight. Eighteen months ago, when President Putin spoke at the 70th session of the UN General Assembly, he proposed establishing an overarching and truly global framework for fighting terrorism. This initiative is still valid. A truly united coalition does not exist yet but specific action is being taken across regions, including the Middle East and North Africa, where we are doing what we can to prevent terrorists from taking over power in extended areas. In addition, we are paying great attention to eliminating the terrorist threat near our borders and in the neighbouring states of Central Asia. The CSTO considers the fight against terrorism its priority. It should be particularly noted that ISIS not only established itself in the Middle East and North Africa (and it will not give up yet although we will finish it off eventually) but, at this point, ISIS has intensified its activity in Afghanistan, especially its northern areas, which border on our neighbours and allies.

The CSTO approved respective doctrines and strategies aimed at developing clear and specific mechanisms for its anti-terrorist activity. There are also Collective Rapid Deployment Forces in Central Asia, Collective Rapid Reaction Forces and peacemaking missions. The majority of CSTO tasks (excluding peacemaking) target terrorism. Respective divisions allotted by CSTO members for the said forces are constantly combat-ready as are Russian military bases located in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. This is our priority confirmed by all the documents adopted at the summits over the recent years. Until this evil is destroyed, this priority will remain in force to the fullest extent.



Question:

The CSTO is a military and political alliance often compared to NATO. Do you think the comparison is reasonable?



Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think it is completely reasonable. The CSTO Development Strategy does not say that any country, state or organisation is our enemy. NATO members, on the contrary, see Russia as an opponent and a threat. They try to make light of the status and significance of CSTO’s actions in every way. They are very reluctant and hesitant in their contacts with us. You can see it is difficult for them to understand that the CSTO is also an international organisation recognised by the UN, an observer in the UN General Assembly, an organisation recognised by the OSCE, and a participant of OSCE meetings. I think the arrogance typical of NATO is not helping anyone. We have repeatedly suggested uniting the efforts of our organisation and the North Atlantic Alliance in order to fight terrorism more successfully, including the escalating terrorism in Afghanistan. It is to a considerable degree fuelled by drug trafficking, the scale of which has expanded multiple times over the period of the NATO operation since the well-known events in 2001.

We had joint projects with NATO, including on counterterrorism methods, development of special devices for remote detection of explosives, which is crucial for ensuring public security during mass events and in the metro. There were extensive programmes to suppress drug trafficking from Afghanistan, to train personnel and provide maintenance to the helicopters which Russia supplied and continues to supply to Afghanistan, and much more. NATO rejected all those proposals. They struck an attitude after they supported the coup in Ukraine. We, on the other hand, provided support to the residents of southeastern Ukraine and Crimea who refused to accept the coup outcome. After they refused to accept the coup, the new officials, putschists, unleashed a war against their own people. When we condemned it and took the decisions we were forced to take, NATO members got very upset that their project to consume entire Ukraine and subject it to the Alliance’s influence went up in flames, as did their plan to include Crimea in their tactic of surrounding Russia with military facilities. Due to their distress over this objective historic fact, they suspended all initiatives that we had in common, including counterterrorism efforts. Now, as they are very reluctantly overcoming the resistance of the “aggressive minority” in the EU, there are attempts to resume dialogue with us. But we are only ready to speak with them on terms of equality, mutual respect for each other’s interests and a balance of these interests. We are ready to discuss the mutually acceptable agenda rather than the issues that NATO sees as more urgent than anyone else.



Question:

My next question is about the Minsk format. Do you agree that the process has slowed down?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Putin covered this issue at length during his news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. We are gravely concerned about what is happening with the Minsk Agreements – primarily because of what Kiev has done to sabotage them. There are multiple examples of that. I am talking about complete sabotage of the political dialogue and regular armed provocations at the contact line which gives Kiev an excuse not to fulfil the political part of the Package of Measures approved in Minsk. There is plenty of evidence confirming that, including from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission reports. In the meantime, both President Putin and Chancellor Merkel stressed that, despite these circumstances, there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements at this point. We will not be able to develop anything more constructive. Therefore, our common line of argument is that we continue to work within the Normandy format at the top level, at the level of ministers and experts and within the Contact Group via representation of the Kiev officials, Donetsk and Lugansk, as well as representatives of the Russian Federation and the OSCE. We provide all the necessary support to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission, which is playing a very important role. We will insist on its full security, especially after the tragic incident when its patrol car hit a landmine that killed one and injured several other mission members. This is a difficult situation as the Minsk Agreements should have been fulfilled long ago. But, once again, we will not give in to those who want to disrupt the process and blame it on us or the self-defence forces.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2750818
 
Old May 12th, 2017 #80
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Reply by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to a media question during protocol filming before the start of talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Washington, May 10, 2017



10 May 2017 - 16:14





Question:

Has the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey cast a shadow over your talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

What? He’s been fired? You must be kidding!





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2751095






Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Washington DC, May 10, 2017



10 May 2017 - 19:47





Today I had a bilateral meeting with State Secretary Rex Tillerson at the US State Department, and then we both had a meeting with President Trump.

We focused on our interaction in the international arena. It was confirmed that, despite all the known difficulties, our countries can and should join efforts to address key issues of the international agenda.

We spoke in detail about Syria, including in the context of the recently formulated ideas about creating de-escalation zones. We share an understanding that they should represent a step towards ending the violence throughout Syria which will help us resolve humanitarian issues and create a solid foundation for moving towards a political settlement based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

We agreed to continue to work together within the Astana format, where the United States is an observer. We highly value the constructive input of the United States during the recent meeting. We will also cooperate within the Geneva process, which, according to Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General Staffan de Mistura, should resume as early as next week. We look forward to the Syrian government and all the opposition groups acting in a constructive manner.

We also covered other issues that the international community is facing, where, together with the United States and other actors, we can play a positive role. In this context, we mentioned the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, the situation in Afghanistan, and the implementation of the Minsk Agreements regarding the Ukrainian settlement. We agreed to maintain working contacts on these issues, and to seek ways to narrow the gaps between the positions of all stakeholders.

We discussed the state of our bilateral relations, which is not encouraging. We are well aware why relations are where they are now. Unfortunately, previous US administration did everything to undermine the foundations of our relations. Now, we have to work almost from the ground up. We perfectly understand that Russian and US citizens want to live in peace and be able to interact normally. I think that the politicians should make sure that all artificial obstacles that lie in our way should be removed.

Secretary of State Tillerson and I discussed the outcome of the meeting of our deputies, who reviewed the state of our bilateral relations in New York the day before yesterday. Clearly, they did not resolve all the problems. I would even say that the progress is fairly modest. We agreed that we will continue to use this channel to consider the artificial irritants in our relations. I believe this is a constructive and business-like approach. We will not be able to resolve all the problems in one sitting. This is absolutely clear. But the fact that there is a desire to move in this direction is a positive sign. President Trump clearly confirmed his interest in building mutually beneficial, business-like and pragmatic relations, as well as to resolve the problems at hand. It is important that President Putin and President Trump are focused on achieving concrete results which will be tangible and allow us to overcome problems, including on the international agenda.



Question:

Was the issue of sanctions discussed, in particular, restoring access to the Russian state property in Washington DC and New York? What will the response be if the situation remains unresolved by the US side?



Sergey Lavrov:

Sanctions are a unilateral action against us, and so resolving that is not our problem.

The issue of state property holds a special place in our talks. Property rights are affirmed by legal documents issued in the USA. The Obama Administration in its last days in power resorted to petty actions against both our property and our diplomats who were ordered to leave the United States within twenty-four hours. Everyone, in particular the Trump Administration, is aware that those actions were illegal. When those decisions were announced, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said that we are completely entitled to respond reciprocally. The US side knows what that would look like. Yet we are not going to follow those who are trying to destroy our relations. Our US colleagues know about our stance. I hope we will be able to resolve the situation without our relations deteriorating.



Question:

When discussing Syria, did you speak about a political settlement in that country? Which role do you think Bashar al-Assad will play? How does your point of view differ from the US? What progress have you achieved on that after a month of discussion?

There is a lot of focus in the United States on US President Donald Trump’s possible contacts with Russian representatives during his election campaign, there was some misunderstanding. Are there any changes in bilateral relations?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the talk and clamour around our relations, fictional narratives about us allegedly controlling their domestic politics.

Of course, we notice the absolutely abnormal background against which relations are developing. I think it is demeaning for the American people to hear that the Russian Federation controls domestic politics in the USA. I believe that politicians severely damage the US political system when they try to act like America is being governed externally.

As to Syria, we first of all focused on the ideas that had been discussed during Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow when he shared his thoughts regarding de-escalation and safety. This was the initiative US President Donald Trump mentioned during his telephone conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Secretary of State Tillerson later presented it in more detail in Moscow. The initiative is now being materialised in agreements concluded in Astana, where four de-escalation zones were proposed, including in the south, since the USA is particularly interested in stabilising the situation on Syria’s borders with Jordan and Israel. We are ready to cooperate on the issue.

Today, we discussed particular means and mechanisms that we could manage together. Apparently, the political process is quite important. We are confident that we cannot put things on hold for long. For that reason we welcome the decision by the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria, Mr Staffan de Mistura, to resume the Geneva talks in mid May, in a few days. As I have already mentioned, we expect that the framework in which the process is developing will be acceptable for the Syrian Government and all the opposition groups, and that the talks will engage all four “baskets” outlined by Mr de Mistura: governing the country, preparing a new constitution, preparing new elections and fighting terrorism.



Question:

The recent Pentagon statement about “the devil being in the details” regarding the creation of de-escalation zones is not entirely clear on the part of the US. Who will ensure safety in those areas and how will the project work overall? Do you think the United States is doing enough on this?



Sergey Lavrov:

The fact that “the devil is always in the details” is a truth that everyone recognises. At the current stage there is agreement both conceptually and with respect to the geographical parameters of de-escalation zones. The Memorandum signed in Astana has proscribed further steps as to how the stakeholders will ensure safety belts around the de-escalation zones. It is in our interest for the US to actively engage on these issues. We think that is also in the US interest, at least concerning the southern de-escalation zone. We proceed from the assumption that they will play an initiating role in this process. We hope that the US will be able to make its contribution to security and humanitarian issues, to supporting the ceasefire regime in other territories where problems remain.



Question:

Much has happened in international relations since Donald Trump’s inauguration. Can you say that the way the US and Russia speak to each other has changed, especially after a missile strike on Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

The dialogue between Russia and the US is now free from the ideology that characterised it under the Barack Obama Administration. US President Donald Trump, his Administration, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are the kind of people who want to maintain a dialogue not as a means of demonstrating what they can achieve in the area of ideological preferences, but rather as a means of solving particular issues which have great bearing on the nation’s progress, peoples’ well-being and settling conflicts in different areas.



Question:

Did US President Donald Trump during your meeting raise the issue of US concerns over Russia’s interference in the US election?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already answered this question. We are watching what is going on here in relation to Russia and its allegedly “decisive role” in your domestic politics. I spoke about concrete things with Donald Trump. None of us touched on that bacchanalia.



Question:

US intelligence agencies accuse Russia of interfering in the election. US President Donald Trump says it is not true. Did he give you any assurances that he does not believe Russia somehow interfered in the election campaign?



Sergey Lavrov:

I thought we were all grow-ups here. I never thought I would have to answer such questions, especially in the US, with your deeply rooted democratic political system.

President Trump said publicly a number of times what he thought about the allegations that we supposedly interfered in your domestic affairs. His public statements are sufficient for me. There is no need to tell us about this in private, secretly. We know Donald Trump’s position and that of those who try to prove otherwise. The problem is that nobody has ever uncovered a single fact, a single shred of evidence. And if you cover international affairs and life in your country, try to find out, as journalists, where those facts are.



Question:

You have just learnt that FBI director James Comey was fired. Considering the accusations made by the FBI against your country, were you happy to hear that news?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’m not the one you should be asking. I can give you examples of people being hired and fired in Russia, France, Great Britain. These are internal matters for you.



Question:

Did you discuss a possible meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump? When can it be held, in July or earlier?



Sergey Lavrov:

The presidents reaffirmed during their recent telephone conversation that they would meet on the sidelines of the G20 meeting in Germany in the first 10 days of July. During my meeting with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson today, we discussed what we can do to make progress on the issues I have mentioned, including Syria, so that practical results would be achieved at this meeting. At any rate, the presidents will meet in July.



Question:

Can you tell us more about your meeting with US President Donald Trump and your relationship with him? How can the fact that President Trump is a businessman help Russia have a better relationship with him than it had with the Obama administration? Has he made any promises on this score?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have already answered this question. It is always better for relations when people do business rather than try to promote their ideological preferences or engage in propaganda. This forms the basis for our expectations.



Question:

What is Russia’s exit strategy in Syria?



Sergey Lavrov:

We don’t have an exit strategy. All of us must fulfil our agreements, as UN Security Council resolutions say. Agreements must be honoured and terrorism must be rooted out in Syria, which must not become a seat of extremism and instability as it happened in Iraq and Libya.

Someone asked me about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In Iraq and Libya, the international community did its utmost to overthrow Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. We can see what this has resulted in. As regards the settlement of the Syrian crisis, let us draw conclusions from our past mistakes and opt not for replacing the leader but for rooting out the evil of terrorism. President Donald Trump has reaffirmed today that the main goal for the United States in Syria is to defeat terrorism. We fully agree on this.



Question:

What can you say about the allegation that Russia is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan?



Sergey Lavrov:

We have asked for evidence of this more than once. Those who study Afghanistan have a full view of the developments there. No serious analyst will try to score points by claiming that Russia is supplying weapons to the Taliban.

We do work with the Taliban in order to implement the UN Security Council decision proposed by the Afghan government, according to which the Taliban will be made part of the political process if they recognise the current constitution of Afghanistan, renounce violence and sever all ties with terrorists. This is the only basis for working with the Taliban. The Afghan government is willing to come to an agreement with them on this basis. The Taliban are part of the Afghan people. It is difficult to imagine that the conflict can be settled without them, especially considering the devastation left there by the 10-year-long deployment of the NATO forces, which have not resolved a single problem but have only aggravated the terrorist threat by failing to prevent ISIS from entering Afghanistan, where ISIS did not operate before, and the more than tenfold increase in drug production. There are many problems. All Afghans must be united on the basis of the conditions I have mentioned.



Question:

Is it true that during your meeting President Trump did not mention Russia’s alleged interference in US elections last year? Did you discuss this issue at all?



Sergey Lavrov:

I have just answered this question. US President Donald Trump has said in public that this is not true. Give us at least one fact, and we will be able to react. We are told openly that everyone knows everything. This has been going on for months yet not a single fact has been provided, including in the Senate, which has created special commissions to deal with this issue. That’s not serious.



Question:

You have mentioned Russia’s interest in US involvement in the creation of de-escalation zones in Syria. Can you provide more details on this? Did President Trump or Secretary Tillerson say that the United States would cooperate with Russia, one way or another, to create these zones?



Sergey Lavrov:

To begin with, the idea was initiated by US officials – President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. We used the Astana venue to promote its practical implementation. We will welcome any US contribution. This issue must be entrusted to those who are dealing with the situation on the ground professionally, and who have the information. We can facilitate this process both in Astana and in Geneva. We have reached an agreement that we, as active participants in the common efforts towards a Syrian settlement, should maintain these contacts with the other key players, primarily regional countries.

Thank you. We must leave for Alaska now.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2751328
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:20 AM.
Page generated in 2.89999 seconds.