Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia II - Page 9

Alex Him · August 15th, 2020

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Allan

They returned Maria Vladimirovna to us.

Yes, it makes me happy too

But the main thing that makes me happy is that I have caught up with the present in all themes (websites of the president, ministry of foreign affairs, ministry of defense).

So now the news in the Russian section is fresh, Ray

Alex Him · August 19th, 2020

Statement by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on Russia’s proposal to convene meeting of heads of state of UN Security Council permanent members with participation of heads of Germany and Iran

14 August 2020 - 17:13

Debates around the Iranian issue within the UN Security Council are becoming increasingly strained. Tensions are running high. Iran faces groundless accusations. Resolutions are being drafted with a view to dismantling decisions that had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council.

Russia maintains its unwavering commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Its approval in 2015 was a landmark political and diplomatic achievement that helped fend off the threat of an armed conflict and reinforced nuclear non-proliferation.

In 2019, Russia presented an updated version of its Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region, outlining concrete and effective paths to unravelling the tangle of concerns in this region. We strongly believe that these problems can be overcome if we treat each other’s positions with due attention and responsibility, while acting respectfully and in a collective spirit.

Like anywhere else in the world, there is no place for blackmail or dictate in this region, no matter the source. Unilateral approaches will not help bring about solutions.

It is essential that the positive experience gained earlier through intensive effort is maintained when building an inclusive security architecture in the Persian Gulf.

Accordingly, we propose convening an online meeting of the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the participation of the heads of Germany and Iran, as soon as possible, in order to outline steps that can prevent confrontation or a spike in tensions within the UN Security Council. It is important to secure collective support for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 that sets forth an international legal framework for the execution of the JCPOA.

During this leaders’ meeting, we propose agreeing on parameters for joint efforts to facilitate the emergence of reliable mechanisms in the Persian Gulf region for ensuring security and confidence building. This can be achieved if our countries and the regional states combine their political will and creative energy.

We call on our partners to carefully consider this proposal. Otherwise, we could see the further escalation of tension and an increased risk of conflict. This must be avoided. Russia is open to working constructively with anyone interested in taking the situation back from the dangerous brink.

This is an urgent matter. Should the leaders agree in principle to have this conversation, we propose that the foreign ministries of the seven countries agree on a meeting agenda, make the necessary arrangements and schedule a video summit.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285050

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian

14 August 2020 - 19:31

On August 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke on the telephone with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian.

The ministers discussed the Libyan settlement at length and exchanged views on the political and military developments in that country.

They stressed the importance of establishing a durable ceasefire as soon as possible and resuming the political process in accordance with the decisions of the Berlin international conference on Libya and UN Security Council Resolution 2510.

They also discussed the need to normalise the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme by adhering to UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Sergey Lavrov briefed Jean-Yves Le Drian on President Vladimir Putin’s initiative, put forward on August 14, on holding an online summit to work out ways of ensuring security in the Persian Gulf area.

The ministers agreed on a schedule of bilateral contacts on a wide range of issues concerning Russian-French cooperation in accordance with instructions issued by President Vladimir Putin and President Emmanuel Macron.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285074

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the results of UN Security Council vote on US draft resolution to extend Iran arms embargo

15 August 2020 - 13:00

On August 14, the media reported the results of the UN Security Council vote on a draft US resolution on establishing a permanent and unlimited ban on arms and military equipment deliveries to and from Iran. The UN Security Council unequivocally rejected the draft resolution.

Its initiators knew from the outset that this idea did not gain broad support. There are no reasons for introducing an arms embargo against Iran. The world staunchly rejects Washington’s line to undermine UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and to wreck the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. Nevertheless, the US side decided to move forward.

Apart from the United States, only one non-permanent UN Security Council member supported the document. The voting result once again reminded our US colleagues that international law exists and that everyone must honour UN Security Council resolutions, including the one that approved the JCPOA. This also applies to Washington, which must honour the resolution in its entirety, and not only the part it finds acceptable. In turn, we will continue to do our utmost to prevent the United States from eroding the international legal foundations of the modern world order.

Our vision of cooperation at the UN Security Council is that it is not a clash of ambitions but responsible joint work aimed at maintaining and strengthening international peace and security. The US determination to push the anti-Iran embargo through is far removed from this effort. The failure of the draft resolution shows vividly that it is impossible to resolve disagreements and mutual complaints that have accumulated in the Persian Gulf region through pressure and brute force or by demonising Iran. We need a meticulous search for effective multilateral solutions that must undoubtedly involve all the concerned states, namely, members of the UN Security Council, Iran and its neighbours.

These solutions are called on to lay a solid foundation for collective security in the Persian Gulf, which the region needs urgently. This is not just a matter for the people living in this part of the world and their neighbours. Putting an end to the string of crises and conflicts is a task for the entire international community because the situation in the Persian Gulf has a major impact on shaping the overall geopolitical environment. Therefore, it is vitally important that all parties continue to consistently fulfil the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

On August 14, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin suggested convening a meeting of the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the participation of the leaders of Germany and Iran. This is an invitation to launch a detailed conversation and constructive cooperation in the right direction. We hope that this proposal will receive broad support and will be implemented. We must not hesitate.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285107

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

16 August 2020 - 16:41

On August 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov talked on the phone with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, with the American side initiating the conversation.

The heads of the foreign affairs agencies exchanged views on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to convene a meeting of heads of state of UN Security Council permanent members with the participation of heads of Germany and Iran to coordinate reliable mechanisms in the Persian Gulf region for ensuring security while taking into account all stakeholders’ concerns, given that debates around the Iranian issue have become increasingly strained.

The Russian side reaffirmed its unwavering support for UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which provides the international legal framework for the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian Nuclear Programme (JCPOA). Its approval in 2015 was a major political and diplomatic achievement that helped strengthen nuclear non-proliferation and regional security in the Middle East region, Sergey Lavrov stressed.

The schedule of bilateral contacts for the near future was also discussed.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285317

Comment by the Information and Press Department on terrorist attack in Somalian capital

17 August 2020 - 13:02

On August 16, a terrorist attack was perpetrated in the Elite Hotel in Mogadishu, capital of Somalia. According to preliminary reports, 11 people were killed and 13 more suffered wounds of varying degrees.

We resolutely condemn this bloody crime. We offer our deep condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and a speedy recovery to the wounded. We express our solidarity with the people and government of Somalia. We are confident that those guilty of masterminding and perpetrating the terrorist attack will not escape well-deserved punishment.

According to the Russian Embassy in Djibouti, which represents Russia’s interests in Somalia, no Russian citizens were injured.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285518

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the agreement to increase the US military presence in Poland

17 August 2020 - 18:51

On August 15, the United States and Poland signed an agreement on enhanced defence cooperation between the two countries. The agreement lays the foundation for the further buildup of the already substantial US presence on Polish territory. The total number of US troops in Poland is expected to increase by another 1,000 troops in addition to the 4,500 troops that are already stationed there. The document envisages the development of US Armed Forces command and staff and combat training centres, plus the creation of conditions for deploying army and transport aviation units, drones, task forces and elements of logistics and other support.

Needless to say, this agreement did not come as a surprise to anyone – it formalised the 2019 agreements between presidents Donald Trump and Andrzej Duda. The anti-Russia message in this document is beyond doubt, and is in fact emphasised by US and Polish officials in every possible way. The agreed-upon measures fully meet the guidelines of the recent NATO summits that have reaffirmed a course of “containing” Russia, creating division lines and escalating tensions in Europe, while refusing to cooperate on the common goals proclaimed in OSCE documents after the end of the Cold War, the goals to create a common space of cooperation and trust.

Once again, we must point out that the buildup of a US military presence in Poland will not resolve any security problem. On the contrary, it complicates an already difficult situation at Russia’s western borders and contributes to the escalation of tensions while increasing the risk of unexpected incidents.

In our opinion, NATO’s assurances that the agreement only provides for an insignificant and rotational contingent of reinforcements are simply attempts to distort reality because the implementation of the agreement will allow the sides to fundamentally increase the offensive potential of US forces in Poland.

These plans change the terms of European security and run counter to the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act that determines the common goal of enhancing stability in the Euro-Atlantic Region. It is now necessary to analyse how the provisions in the agreement comply with the commitment to not resort to “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in the Founding Act.

The US is again demonstrating its willingness, if this is what is required by its interests, to forego not only their commitments under multilateral agreements but also the opinion of the majority of the European states. This completely discredits statements by NATO functionaries that the alliance is interested in enhancing security and reducing tensions in Europe. Russia’s specific proposals on de-escalation along Russia-NATO contact lines remain unanswered.

We urge the NATO states to give up their stake on confrontation with us and return to restraint in the spirit of the Russia-NATO Founding Act. It is also clear it that it is high time to conduct a practical and sincere dialogue on European security and restore our military contacts.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4286070

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Federal Minster of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas

18 August 2020 - 15:32

On August 18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Federal Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas at the German side’s initiative.

The ministers focused on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the UN Security Council permanent members, Germany and Iran to search for ways to ensure reliable security in the Persian Gulf region with due account of the concerns of all interested parties.

The sides reaffirmed their commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which created an international legal foundation for implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme. It was mentioned that the signing of this agreement in 2015 became a major political and diplomatic achievement aimed at enhancing the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime and regional security in the Middle East.

Following President Putin’s telephone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the same day, the foreign ministers discussed the latest events in Belarus in the context of its presidential election. They expressed hope that the situation would return to normal as soon as possible. Sergey Lavrov emphasised that any foreign interference in domestic processes is unacceptable, and drew the attention of Germany, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, to the external attempts to destabilse the situation in that country with which Russia has brotherly relations.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4290660

Excerpt from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Rossiya TV channel, Moscow, August 19, 2020

19 August 2020 - 13:08

Question:

In addition to Ukraine, there is now one more point of disagreement – namely, Belarus. In your opinion, how actively will the United States and the EU try to influence, interfere in and put pressure on the political situation in Minsk? Perhaps today you even discussed this issue in your conversation with Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas?

Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we spoke about this today as well because we are rather concerned about the events going on in Belarus. We are concerned about the attempts to take advantage of the internal difficulties that Belarus, the Belarusian people and leadership are facing right now in order to interfere in these events and processes from the outside. Not only interfere but impose certain procedures on the Belarusians that external actors find beneficial for themselves. No one is making a secret that it is all about geopolitics, about the struggle for the post-Soviet space. We witnessed the same struggle at the previous stages of the development of the situation after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Obviously, Ukraine is the most recent example.

What we are now hearing from European capitals – mainly from the Baltic states (Lithuania and Estonia), as well as Poland and the European Parliament – has little to do with Lukashenko, human rights or democracy. It is about geopolitics and the rules that our Western partners want to inculcate into everyday life on our continent and in other parts of the world.

There are international legal frameworks that must serve as guidance when it comes to determining one’s attitude towards events in a specific country. In this case, if the neighbours of Belarus see flaws in the elections and how they were organised, firstly, Belarus is a sovereign state, with its own constitution, laws and procedures. To dispute or question the election results at a specific polling station or in general must be done so based on said laws. Secondly, if we follow our own obligations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has an Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). One of its responsibilities is to monitor national elections in the OSCE member states. This responsibility is part of the obligations signed by all members of this highly respected organisation, without exception. We are being told that the violations during the election campaign were obvious and documented by voluntary observers, on social media, on camera, etc. The ODIHR itself, which was supposed to monitor the elections, claims that its representatives did not go to Belarus because the invitation was sent too late. This is not true, to put it mildly, because, like any other OSCE member state, Belarus’s only commitment is “to invite international observers to national elections.”

The ODIHR applies different approaches to observing elections to the east of Vienna, in the post-Soviet space, on the one hand, and to the west of Vienna, especially in the United States, on the other hand. It may send 800 observers to one place, 12 to another and none to some other places. For example, the ODIHR did not send any observers to several elections in the Baltic states, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in Estonia and Latvia are deprived of voting rights because they are non-citizens, a status that is shameful for the European Union. For many years, Russia and its CIS partners have been proposing to introduce, once and for all, an election monitoring regulation that would be clear to everybody and include such rules as when an invitation must be sent, what number of observers must be sent as an advance team and how many observers per capita must be sent to observe a vote directly. Our proposals have been rejected. The countries that are now loudly claiming that the ODIHR could not come to the elections because it was not invited were among those who rejected our proposals with particular fervency. Opposing the development of such criteria, they told us that the ambiguity and flexibility given to the ODIHR is a gold standard that must be cherished by all means. There is no need to explain that this ambiguity of the ODIHR’s functions has only one purpose, which is manipulation by its core staff. Its core staff consists of members of NATO and the European Union. Therefore, if the ODIHR actually followed the regulation approved by the member states, it would not have struck an attitude and claimed that it was invited too late. They were supposed to go there and observe the elections. That would have given them more grounds to report on the violations that they are inflating right now in every way.

I am not trying to say that the elections were perfect. Of course, not. There are quite a few indications to the contrary. The same was admitted by the Belarusian leadership, which is trying to start a dialogue with the citizens who are protesting against what they consider an abuse of their rights. I would simply advise everybody to not try and take advantage of the current situation in Belarus (which is complicated) in order to undermine a proper and mutually respectful dialogue between the authorities and the public or to make it provocative. We have seen clearly provocative calls in video footage and on social media. We have seen security officers being provoked, including by brutal force used against them. I really hope that the Belarusians and the many friends of Belarus abroad will be able to sort out their issues themselves and will not pander to those who need this country only to claim the geopolitical space and promote the familiar destructive logic of “you are either with Russia or with Europe.”

As you remember, during the Maidan events in Ukraine in 2004 and in 2014, it was the “either/or” logic that many officials of the EU member states promoted. Now that they are talking about mediation (we have heard proposals from Lithuania and Poland; somebody said that the OSCE must act as a mediator), I urge everybody who is promoting such ideas, to do it not though microphones but to address directly the Belarusians and primarily the Belarusian leadership. Everybody who says that this mediation is the only solution to the current situation should not forget how our Western colleagues “mediated” in 2014 during the Maidan events in Kiev. The distinguished representatives of the European Union acted as “mediators,” reached agreements – and we all remember what came out of that. I believe the Belarusian people can rely on their own wisdom to resolve this situation. I do not see any lack of readiness for a dialogue on behalf of the country’s leadership. I hope that those who, for whatever reason, are not satisfied with the election results will show the same readiness.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4290963

Alex Him · August 22nd, 2020

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, August 20, 2020

20 August 2020 - 17:45

Maria Zakharova (E) - 01:09:10

Coronavirus update

The epidemiological situation around the world continues to be difficult. According to Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, “we have witnessed near exponential growth in the number of new cases, reaching almost every country.” As of August 20, the total number of cases has exceeded 22 million since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a weekly increment at 1-2 million infections. Due to the progressing statistics, many states are keeping their restrictive measures in effect, and are even tightening them.

We agree with the experts who believe the coronavirus has had an extremely negative economic impact on a global scale, and it has affected people’s daily lives. According to IMF estimates, the pandemic is costing the global economy $375 billion a month, and the cumulative global economic damage is projected at several trillion dollars this year. The G20 countries have already allocated over $10 trillion in fiscal stimulus. We emphasise once again that the only way to fight new global challenges and threats effectively is through the combined efforts of the entire international community.

Russia’s coronavirus response assistance to Uzbekistan

In order to help Uzbekistan in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, from March to July 2020, Russia donated over 1000 kits of Russian-made test systems for diagnosing COVID-19 to that country. Experts from the Ministry of Health and Rospotrebnadzor are holding videoconferences with Uzbek sanitary and epidemiological specialists on issues concerning the spread of the coronavirus infection.

At the request of our partners, a team of 38 Russian doctors was sent to Tashkent on August 16. It included ICU doctors, pulmonologists, infectious disease specialists, cardiologists, and general practitioners from Moscow, the Moscow Region, St Petersburg and Tatarstan. They will spend a month there providing practical and advisory assistance to their Uzbek colleagues in the treatment of patients with COVID-19 at clinics in Tashkent, as well as in the Tashkent, Samarkand, Bukhara, Surkhandarya, Khorezm and Jizzakh Regions.

There is a plan to dispatch a group of Rospotrebnadzor specialists to advise our Uzbek partners on organising anti-epidemic measures. We assume that this visit will take place in the near future.

We hope that our joint efforts with our friends will significantly improve the epidemiological situation in Uzbekistan.

Russia’s urgent humanitarian aid to the Kyrgyz Republic to fight the coronavirus infection

Russia could not stand idle when the Kyrgyz Republic, our strategic partner and ally, asked for assistance in the fight against the spread of the coronavirus infection.

Due to a sharp aggravation in the epidemiological situation in Kyrgyzstan, the Government of the Russian Federation decided on July 22 to provide the people of this fraternal republic with urgent humanitarian aid.

On July 22, a special Russian Ministry of Defence aircraft took six medical teams to Kyrgyzstan. The teams included 19 doctors and paramedics, special equipment, as well as personal protective equipment, disinfectants and medicines.

On July 23, 49 doctors from Moscow and Ufa arrived in Bishkek on a special flight of the Russian Emergencies Ministry to work at hospitals in Kyrgyzstan. On July 26, a consignment of medical supplies, personal protective gear and medical equipment, including 31 ventilators and five X-ray machines, was also sent to Bishkek.

The work of Russian civilian and military medical workers made it possible to significantly stabilise the epidemiological situation in Kyrgyzstan. As a result, the incidence curve in the republic dropped from 1,020 new cases per day on July 23 to 272 cases by August 15. Thanks to the Russian specialists, treatment protocols were adjusted, Kyrgyz health workers were taught the rules of biological safety and epidemiological procedures, and large-scale medical assistance was provided directly to the people and to Kyrgyz military personnel.

Russian doctors visited 31 medical institutions throughout Kyrgyzstan, examined more than 4,000 patients and treated them; they discharged more than 1,200 people from hospitals. Military medical teams at the military hospitals in Bishkek and Osh, mainly treated patients with severe and moderate forms of the disease.

On August 15, the Russian medical “landing” in Kyrgyzstan was completed. On the same day, President of the Kyrgyz Republic Sooronbay Jeenbekov received the leaders of the teams of civilian and military doctors – Deputy Minister of Healthcare of the Republic of Bashkortostan Yevgeny Kustov and head of the sanitary and epidemiological unit of the Ministry of Defence, Stetsenko. The president of Kyrgyzstan, on behalf of the entire people of the republic, expressed gratitude to the Russian doctors and personally to President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin for providing this effective support at such a difficult time.

Assisting Russian citizens in coming home

................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend the Terra Scientia National Educational Youth Forum

................................................................................

Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramov’s official visit to the Russian Federation

................................................................................

International Day of Remembrance of and Tribute to the Victims of Terrorism on August 21

Today, terrorism continues to pose a serious threat to international peace and security. Not a single country is immune to it. It is important to remember that this crime, which is qualified in various countries as “terrorism,” has no justification. It does not matter when it is committed, by whom, where or for what purpose. Day in and day out, terrorists and their accomplices continue cynically violating one of the most fundamental human right – the right to live. Any person can fall victim to terrorism (and we are all well aware of this), regardless of citizenship, ethnic origin or religion.

We are convinced – this is our position of principle – that the appeal to establish a broad anti-terrorism international front with the participation of all countries for neutralising the global terrorist threat remains current. We stand for conscientious international cooperation on helping the victims of terrorism based on the standards of international law, primarily, the UN Charter, without politicisation, double standards or hidden agendas.

We welcome the plans of the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism to hold, as part of the UN second counter-terrorism week, the First Global Congress of Victims of Terrorism, which was suspended until next year due to the complicated epidemiological situation in the world. We hope for an interested and detailed discussion during this important forum that is called on to provide an additional impetus to the development of multilateral cooperation in this area.

Military coup in the Republic of Mali

On August 18, a military group seized power by force in Bamako, the capital of Mali. They arrested President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, Prime Minister Boubou Cisse and other Government members, President of the National Assembly Moussa Timbine, and top army officers, including the Defence Minister. At present, they are being detained in the military garrison at Kati near the capital. The insurgents have established control over the presidential residence, key government offices and the state television building.

On the night of August 19, President Keita made a televised address, announcing his resignation and dissolution of the government and the parliament.

The rebels were led by Colonel Sadio Camara who said his goal was to form a transitional government followed by new presidential elections due to the inability of the current authorities to cope with the challenges faced by Malian society.

The UN and the African Union have denounced this unconstitutional change of power in Mali and appealed for the immediate release of the captured Malian leaders. The members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have announced their decision to close common borders with Mali and discontinue financial transactions with it.

Moscow is seriously concerned about the developments in Bamako. We urge all Malian public and political forces to settle the situation peacefully at the negotiating table.

The situation in Bamako remains tense: some government and residential buildings are being robbed and the crime rate has spiked. According to incoming reports from the Russian Embassy in Bamako, there are no victims among Russian citizens in Mali. The Foreign Ministry advises Russian citizens to refrain from travel to Mali until the situation comes back to normal and reliable security guarantees are provided.

Prospects for the start of intra-Afghan talks

The main obstacle that hinders the first round of intra-Afghan talks is the exchange of prisoners between Kabul and the armed opposition that is incomplete. We welcome the release of all 1,000 prisoners, which are Afghan army and police, by the Taliban in accordance with the agreement reached between the United States and the Taliban on February 29, 2020. We also look forward to the early implementation of President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani’s decision to release the remaining imprisoned militants, which was adopted following the Consultative Loya Jirga.

Unfortunately, in recent days, we have seen reports of new difficulties with launching a peaceful dialogue. I am referring to the release of the six persons who are on the list of militants involved in terrorist attacks against foreign citizens, as well as the recent demand by official Kabul to release two dozen Afghan special forces members held by the Taliban.

We hope that these issues will not become new obstacles to the launch of a peaceful dialogue and will be resolved in the near future. We are confident that the early start of intra-Afghan talks should benefit the interests of both the people of Afghanistan and that country’s international partners.

Statements by US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control on potential deployment of US missile systems in the Asia-Pacific region

An interview with Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea, published in Japan’s The Nikkei, has come to our attention, where he touched on the possibility of deploying future US medium-range missiles, previously prohibited by the Intermediate‑Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), in the Asia-Pacific region (APR). The anti-China element of this intention was emphasised, while the missile systems being developed were described as ‘the kind of defensive capability’ that US allies will need for the future.

As we have explained many times, we would consider such a move an extremely risky and destabilising measure for international and regional security. Undoubtedly, the deployment of new American missile systems in the region would provoke a dangerous new round of the arms race. We are also compelled to take into account the additional missile risks for our territory that such weapons would create, including to our facilities of strategic importance; and naturally, the situation would call for compensatory response measures.

We primarily view these steps by the US administration as an effort to find a new pretext for turning regional allies against China. Once again, I would like to say that this much is obvious from the article published by The Nikkei.

We would also like to remind you that the Russian Federation has taken a number of steps to maintain predictability and retain opportunities for dialogue after the INF Treaty was destroyed by the United States. In particular, we have announced that we will not deploy intermediate or shorter-range ground-based missiles in any region unless the United States does so in the same region. This also applies to the APR. So, a responsible good-faith reaction from the United States would have been to reciprocate with a similar ban; but, unfortunately, there is no sign of such reciprocity on their part.

United States’ Space Force Doctrine

We have taken note of the first doctrine published by the US Space Force under the title “Spacepower.” It sets forth the priorities and outlines the focus areas for this new branch of the US Armed Forces, as well as ways of their implementation.

The document confirms the aggressive nature of Washington’s space policy and its determination to achieve superiority or even total supremacy in outer space, which is viewed by the US exclusively as an arena for military action.

The provisions of the doctrine on the need for the Space Force to have not only deterrent but also coercive capacities when preparing to carry out military operations in space deserve special attention. Restricting access and the freedom to operate in space for “adversaries,” and if needed reducing the effectiveness of their military capability both on Earth and in the cyber domain are regarded as the core objectives of military spacepower.

Furthermore, military spacepower integrates defensive (including active actions) and offensive (including preventive actions) operations. Under the doctrine, the Space Force is expected to use force, including for “physically destroying adversary military capability,” or the threat of force in space, from space, and to space. The document also provides for using military spacepower to enable strikes against terrestrial targets in any part of the globe, which means against any state.

The doctrine provides for fulfilling these provisions by improving the Space Force and developing core competencies among its personnel (in orbital warfare, space electromagnetic warfare and cyber operations, space battle management, etc.). It is emphasised that the Space Force is “prepared to fight and win our Nation’s wars, in space, from space, and to space.”

Yet again, Washington used its usual tactic of shifting the blame in order to justify the creation of the Space Force as a separate branch of the US Armed Forces, as well as this destructive policy that clearly incites an arms race in outer space and destabilises international security in general. Once again, we hear about the “potential adversaries” the United States faces in space, and the “emergence, advanced development, and proliferation of a wide range of demonstrated counterspace weapons” by these adversaries, which threatens orbital objects.

Washington’s cynical position is further illustrated by the fact that the US presents these space warfare objectives, including offensive actions, as consistent with the international law and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which prescribes the peaceful use of outer space. To further legitimise this destructive space policy, the Space Force is expected to focus on developing standards and norms of behaviour in space, exclusively tailored to suit Washington’s interests. This may refer to developing “responsible norms of behaviour” in outer space as part of the aspiration by the West to build a “rules-based order,” since international law has clearly nothing to do with it.

Russia continues to prioritise the peaceful use and exploration of space, as well as preventing an arms race in outer space. Unlike the United States, we do not aspire to superiority or supremacy. On the contrary, Russia is interested in maintaining a strategic balance for the sake of enhancing international security. The Russian-Chinese draft Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects (PPWT) remains a key initiative in this sphere. States should address all their existing and eventual concerns regarding space weapons as part of the PPWT negotiating process within the Conference on Disarmament. We will keep up our proactive and results-driven efforts in this sphere.

We closely monitor Washington’s aggressive moves, analyse their possible consequences, and see opportunities for removing mutual concerns within the Russia-US working group on space security, which held its first meeting on July 27, 2020 in Vienna. We reaffirm our readiness to engage in further bilateral discussions on all space-related matters.

Events in Latvia on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of Riga Peace Treaty of 1920

A few days ago, Latvia celebrated, on a grand scale, the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Russia-Latvia Peace Treaty.

It is regrettable that the Latvian authorities again used this opportunity to continue imposing a one-sided interpretation of historical events of the last century to whip up the anti-Russia hysteria.

We believe that building a bilateral relationship based on the principles of neighbourliness and mutual respect serves the interests of our nations, which are bound geographically and by centuries of shared history.

We urge the Latvian side to abandon its historical grievances, and to concentrate instead on removing old irritants and looking for common ground.

Estonia unveils monument to Forest Brothers

A few days ago, a monument was unveiled on the island of Saaremaa, Estonia, to commemorate the Forest Brothers, a gang that operated on the island until 1950.

It would be a good idea to recall who those Forest Brothers really were before the Baltic states started hailing them as some national freedom fighters. The core of their groups comprised former policemen, punitive officers and Wehrmacht collaborators who had gone underground, who had been involved in massive executions of the Jewish population and the elimination of prisoners at concentration camps during World War II, or criminals, such as the gang’s leader, Elmar Ilp. In fact, they continued to do the same after the war – their victims were mainly civilians, including Estonians.

It is shameful that in the year of the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory over Nazism, Tallinn chose frankly dubious characters to worship as idols, instead of honouring the true Estonian heroes who liberated the country from Nazi enslavement with the Red Army or partisan units. And all this is being done for the sake of keeping the anti-Russia rhetoric alive. We are aware who is behind this. Notably, the Speaker of the Estonian Parliament has pronounced warm opening remarks at this event, clearly unimpeded by any restrictions connected with the coronavirus pandemic.

We do expect that such outrageous facts will be properly assessed by the relevant bodies of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, as well as by Estonia's partners in the European Union.

Ukraine shuts down Russian channels in a catering establishment

Ukraine’s National Council of Television and Radio Broadcasting has reported on the termination of broadcasting of four Russian TV channels – RTR-Planeta, NTV-Mir, Rossiya 1, and TNT in a catering establishment in the resort village of Khorly in the Kherson Region after a complaint was made about it.

That was certainly a high-profile and report-worthy operation. The Council published a full-scale news release where it stressed that the head of the business was given an explanatory lecture.

I wonder what they’re going to do next: raid the homes of people who have been reported to covertly watch Rossiya 1? Calling them in for more explanatory lectures? What else can they invent in the 21st century? With the impressive list of international documents signed by Ukraine – those protecting the rights of national minorities and languages of people living in Ukraine – what else will they do?

That was apparently an attempt to billboard their heroic results and successes in this field. But Kiev’s zeal in fighting dissent along with all the international legal documents they have signed, trumpeting each “achievement” in suppressing the freedom of speech, increasingly resembles the well-known totalitarian practices of the past years. At the same time, the Kiev authorities are completely ignoring the interests of Ukrainian citizens, such as their need for these media products, and grossly violating the right of the Russian-speaking population to unimpeded access to information in their native language.

All this is happening amid continuing repression against undesirable media outlets and journalists, whose work de facto entails a risk to life in that country. Allow me to remind you that the murders of Andrei Stenin, Anton Voloshin, Igor Kornelyuk, and Anatoly Klyan have never been properly investigated. Unfortunately, Kiev is not showing the same kind of spirit when it comes to investigating these and similar crimes, as in its effort to mop up the information landscape. Moreover, this is just a small share of the crimes that have been committed. In fact, there have been many more of them.

We would like to see more effort from relevant international organisations and human rights NGOs aimed at bringing the Ukrainian government’s policies in line with their obligations to ensure freedom of expression and equal access to information.

The Oriental Republic of Uruguay celebrates 195th anniversary of independence

................................................................................

Answers to media questions:

Question:

What can you tell us about the US’s intention to initiate a resumption of the previously cancelled sanctions against Iran at the UN Security Council?

Maria Zakharova:

Russia has repeatedly stated its position on this issue, publicly as well. We have spoken about this many times. The US initiatives on restoring UN Security Council sanction resolutions regarding Iran were cancelled in 2015, after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settling Iran’s nuclear programme. The US’s initiatives on this are groundless and doomed to fail.

Let me recall that the US has no right to use the prestige and authority of the UN Security Council in its egoistic, Iran-hating interests.

The US is crudely violating UN Security Council Resolution 2231 from May 2018 when Washington unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, restored sanctions against Iran and began to exert pressure on other countries to ban them from implementing their commitments stemming from UN Security Council resolutions. Such actions are absolutely illegal.

Russia condemns US efforts to continue destroying the JCPOA and undermining UN Security Council Resolution 2231. We are seriously concerned that Washington’s reckless actions might trigger a deep crisis in the UN Security Council, but regrettably, it seems that our American colleagues could not care less about this today.

We are confident that US attempts to reimpose the UN Security Council’s cancelled sanctions against Iran will fail. This happened recently with the US draft resolution on introducing an indefinite weapons embargo against Tehran. Instead of learning from this failure, the US is planning a new aggravation. We urge all countries to resolutely rebuff these attempts. Let me emphasise again that the US’s plans in this area are unlawful.

Question:

On August 18, the commander of the Libyan National Army’s forces that are guarding oil companies under its control said oil-producing facilities, including export terminals, had resumed operations. Can you comment on this report?

Maria Zakharova:

Hydrocarbon resources are the main source of Libya and its people’s well-being. Since January 18, 2020, the Libyan economy has incurred losses of over $8 billion due to the blockade of oilfields and the cessation of oil exports. Understandably, this has an extremely negative impact on the country’s socio-economic situation and the real incomes of its population.

In this connection, we welcome the decision to resume the operation of Libya’s oil industry, made in Benghazi on August 16 by Khalifa Haftar, the Commander of the Libyan National Army, at a joint meeting with members of the Management Board of the Libyan National Oil Corporation and top managers of the Arabian Gulf oil company. At the same time, we believe that hydrocarbon export revenues should be distributed transparently and equitably among the country’s regions in the interests of the entire Libyan nation.

Question:

How many Russian citizens are staying in Libya?

Maria Zakharova:

I would like to recall that at present, the Russian diplomatic mission is not functioning in Libya. I can cite statistics from the Russian Embassy in Tunisia, which currently represents the Russian Federation’s interests in Libya. According to their confirmed data, about 40 Russian citizens live in Libya. However, no information is available about any others. Who are these 40 people? They are mostly women who have married Libyan citizens.

Question:

France and Australia object to the release of Taliban prisoners who committed crimes against their citizens. Representatives of the Taliban movement demand that all prisoners be released as a pre-condition for launching intra-Afghan talks. The United States demands that intra-Afghan talks get underway as soon as possible. What is Russia’s position in this situation?

Maria Zakharova:

We have been informed of France and Australia’s objections in connection with the murders of their citizens by the Taliban. At the same time, we are surprised by the reluctance of our French and Australian colleagues to take into account the fact that the unresolved matter of exchanging prisoners between Kabul and the armed opposition will delay the beginning of a peace dialogue, which means a continuation of the violence and further casualties and fatalities among Afghan civilians.

Question:

What are the prospects for opening the border between Russia and Pakistan? What is the overall situation with opening borders in the near future?

Maria Zakharova:

As you may know, Pakistan is open to air services with all other countries in the world.

The resumption of flights to and from Russia with Pakistan is under the purview of the Operational Headquarters to Prevent the Entry and Spread of the Coronavirus Infection in the Russian Federation. Pakistan remains under virus related restrictions like most other countries. Air service has resumed only with Turkey, the United Kingdom, Tanzania and Switzerland. The only exceptions are possible for officials, employees of diplomatic missions, and trips for humanitarian purposes.

***

We receive a lot of questions about the situation in Belarus. I would like to draw your attention to the full-format and extended answer to this question by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which is posted on the Foreign Ministry’s official website.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293620

Alex Him · August 25th, 2020

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu

20 August 2020 - 18:20

On August 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu upon the initiative of the Turkish side.

The parties discussed prospects of stepping up the peace process in Syria, and reaffirmed Russia and Turkey’s readiness to support the work of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, whose third meeting is scheduled for August 24. They noted the importance of increasing comprehensive counterterrorism efforts and preventing new terrorist attacks.

The ministers had an in-depth discussion on the developments in Libya. They stressed that there was no alternative to a political settlement of the crisis in the interests of this nation based on the existing international legal framework, above all, UN Security Council Resolution 2510 and the decisions of the Berlin Conference held on January 19, 2020. They agreed to continue consultations to help the parties establish a cessation of hostilities as soon as possible and launch an intra-Libyan dialogue on ways to settle the conflict through political means.

The ministers also discussed the schedule of upcoming bilateral contacts at the high and highest levels on a wide range of issues of mutual interest.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293652

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Prime Minister and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Edi Rama

20 August 2020 - 18:58

On August 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Edi Rama upon the initiative of the Albanian side.

Developments in Belarus were discussed in the context of the Albanian OSCE chairmanship’s proposals to facilitate a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition. The minister noted that it was necessary to give the Belarusians a chance to resolve their issues themselves without interference in a dialogue between the authorities and society or imposing anything from the outside as well as to avoid the tragic experience of “European mediation” in Ukraine in February 2014.

The parties reaffirmed the important role that the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission is playing in the efforts to settle the intra-Ukrainian conflict, including the need to prepare objective reports on the developments on both sides of the contact line in Donbass.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293674

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell

20 August 2020 - 19:20

On August 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell upon the initiative of the EU side.

The situation in Belarus was the focus of the conversation. Both sides stressed that Belarusians themselves need to resolve the situation without outside interference. Sergey Lavrov drew Josep Borrells’s attention to the actions of certain EU member states that run counter to that principle, and urged taking steps to stop provoking confrontation between Belarusian authorities and the opposition.

The high officials also discussed prospects for keeping in force the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. They reaffirmed the lack of any legal grounds for the recent US initiatives at the UN Security Council on issues regarding the implementation of the JCPOA, which is an integral whole with UNSC Resolution 2231 endorsing it, and in which Washington officially terminated its participation in 2018.

The parties exchanged opinions on certain current aspects of Russia-EU relations.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293684

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the verdict on the assassination of former PM of Lebanon Rafik Hariri made by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague on August 18

20 August 2020 - 19:59

The Russian Federation has invariably supported the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in the interests of honest and unbiased investigation and accountability for the guilty in this crime, being guided by the priority of unconditional respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Lebanese Republic and the need to ensure its sustainable and peaceful development.

We hope the verdict issued in The Hague on August 18 will be properly perceived by all Lebanese people and will encourage them to enhance unity for the sake of national interests.

After all, Rafik Hariri himself consistently and uncompromisingly supported Lebanon’s unity and indivisibility and urged representatives of the country’s many ethnic and religious communities to show solidarity in the face of any attempt to sow intra-Lebanese strife. We are convinced that today all influential Lebanese politicians must come together to extricate their homeland from this protracted crisis. With this in view, it is necessary to take consolidated steps to de-escalate tensions, renounce violence and prevent the country from sliding into chaos.

For our part, we will render any assistance to the Lebanese people that we can. We favour a legal settlement of all urgent domestic issues by the Lebanese themselves via a constructive dialogue with a view to reaching broad national consensus and without any outside interference. We hope that all interested external parties will pursue a policy to facilitate the normalisation of the political and socioeconomic situation in Lebanon.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293708

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Trud newspaper, published on August 21, 2020

21 August 2020 - 00:00

Question:

The UN marks its 75th anniversary this year, and will hold its 75th General Assembly. Will any new matters that have not been on the agenda before be raised? What questions does Russia intend to work on?

Sergey Lavrov:

True, the United Nations is marking its 75th anniversary this year. This anniversary has special significance for Russia as a founding member and a permanent member of the Security Council. We believe that it should help further strengthen the UN’s central coordinating role in world affairs, unite international efforts in countering challenges and threats the world is facing today, and build relations among nations in the spirit of genuine justice and equality.

Unfortunately, the coronavirus pandemic has spread around the world, significantly curtailing the initial plans for this anniversary session. Most of the events of the high-level week, which is de facto the prime event of the year in international politics, as well as the meetings scheduled for the next few months will take place online. The choice of this format was dictated by necessity, but it should not affect the status or significance of the discussions.

As for the agenda of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, its draft is already available and covers a wide range of matters in almost all spheres of international relations, from strategic stability to sandstorms. As expected, questions relating to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and overcoming its consequences will be high on the agenda.

During the upcoming session of the General Assembly, Russia will uphold its principled approaches. This includes promoting a positive, unifying agenda, consolidating support for building a polycentric international order, ensuring strict compliance with the UN Charter, countering attempts to promote the concept of a “rules-based order” as an alternative to international law, and solving regional crises and conflicts by political and diplomatic means.

We will continue our efforts to step up international cooperation in fighting terrorism, adopt truly universal, inclusive rules of responsible state behaviour in the information space, strengthening the existing treaty frameworks on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and developing new ones, as well as opposing any attempts to distort the history and outcome of World War II as unacceptable.

Of course, we will promptly respond to any new issues that may arise.

Question:

Our relations with the European Union leave much to be desired. The mutual sanctions are still in place, and many cooperation programmes have been frozen. What are the chances for warming on this track?

Sergey Lavrov:

I think it would be more appropriate to address this question to our EU colleagues. It was their initiative to suspend many inter-industry formats and political dialogue; some promising projects were paused, including those aimed at building a common trade, economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. At the same time, they told us that any significant improvement in relations will depend on the implementation of the Minsk agreements on the settlement of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine, to which Russia is not even a party. Unfortunately, this artificial and short-sighted correlation remains to this day – which suits Kiev perfectly. They ignore their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures, not even trying to hide their interest in using the unsettled conflict to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia.

We can see that the pandemic has clearly accelerated mental processes in the European Union. They are increasingly using the ‘greater strategic autonomy’ in international affairs rhetoric. President of the European Council Charles Michel initiated an intra-EU discussion on the pros and cons of the current approach to relations with Russia. We are looking at this process with a certain interest, although we don’t have any big expectations regarding it – the ideologically blinkered and inert thinking in relation to our country is too persistent in some EU states, even to the detriment of their own national interests. However, this is their choice, and they are responsible for it.

I would like to add that we are by no means opposed to the EU's greater independence in international affairs. Some time ago, we even offered Brussels to cooperate on crisis management and the development of military technical capabilities. Even today, we consider the EU as a potential participant in the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept proposed by President Vladimir Putin. We believe this would benefit the European Union as well, combine regional integration potentials and facilitate European economic operators’ access to Eurasian markets.

We hope that a sober analysis of the multipolar world will eventually prompt the EU to rethink its obviously outdated approaches on the Russian track. For our part, we, as before, are always open to honest and mutually beneficial cooperation.

Question:

NATO remains active on our borders, and our relations remain strained. What are the Russian Foreign Ministry’s conceptual approaches to easing tensions on the western track?

Sergey Lavrov:

Let me remind you that cooperation between Russia and NATO was curtailed in 2014, and it was not our initiative. All the improvements in our relations, including the dialogue and cooperation mechanism – the Russia-NATO Council (RNC) – were lost overnight. Today the RNC, an ‘all-weather’ dialogue format we jointly created in 2002, has become a platform where NATO countries are trying to lecture us on the Ukrainian settlement, although NATO has no role to play in it. It is obvious that the Ukrainian crisis is being used as a pretext, and is not the real reason for the alliance to return to its old ways of ‘containing’ Russia.

Now, just like during the Cold War, they are fighting Russia ‘on all fronts,’ including information and propaganda campaigns, and that is their new raison d'être. NATO is increasingly active on the eastern flank, close to our borders, where exercises are carried out and military infrastructure upgraded. The alliance continues to expand its zone of military and political influence, inviting more and more countries under its umbrella allegedly to protect them from Russia. Since there are no real threats to security, these steps do little except create and deepen new dividing lines in Europe.

We have repeatedly proposed that NATO take the path of de-escalating military tensions and reducing the risks of military incidents on the continent. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, we proposed an initiative to show military restraint, to move military exercises away from the Russia-NATO contact line, and other transparency measures. Russia has cancelled major exercises close to the borders of NATO countries, and has moved large military training events farther inland.

However, the alliance is not showing any willingness to reciprocate. It has adopted the policy of ‘containment and dialogue’ with regard to Russia, but in reality, there is practically no place for real and open dialogue on pressing problems there.

Question:

Ukraine has been consistently undermining the Minsk agreements. It did not carry out the main provisions of the agreements adopted in December 2019 at the Normandy format summit in Paris. Does the new status for Donbass depend entirely on Ukraine under the Minsk agreements, or are there other solutions? What is the position of the United States, considering that Washington allocated $250 million for arms deliveries to Kiev?

Sergey Lavrov:

You are right to mention the Minsk agreements. This document was approved by the UN Security Council and Ukraine was among its signatories. It contains a provision (Paragraph 11 in the Package of Measures) that provides for, quote, “carrying out a constitutional reform in Ukraine … providing for decentralisation as a key element (including a reference to the specificities of certain areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions agreed with the representatives of these areas), as well as adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.” All this had to find its way into Ukraine’s new constitution, which should have entered into force by the end of 2015, as stated in the same paragraph.

Enshrining the special status for Donbass in the constitution is key to achieving a settlement in Ukraine and resolving security matters, as well as socioeconomic and humanitarian issues.

At the Normandy summit in Paris on December 9, 2019, the participants, including President Vladimir Zelensky, unanimously supported the agreement on the need to have Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk agree on all the legal aspects of the special status for Donbass in strictly keeping with the Minsk Package of Measures.

It is time that our Ukrainian partners stop fooling everyone by coming up with excuses for not doing anything to carry out their existing commitments.

To settle the conflict, the United States should stop adding fuel to the fire by supplying arms to Kiev. This begs the question: does Washington actually want peace in Ukraine, as its representatives continue to claim at various international venues?

Question:

What are the prospects for Russia to improve its relations with Georgia, a neighbouring country?

Sergey Lavrov:

Over the past 12 years, Russia and Georgia have been interacting outside of the diplomatic context. Let me remind you that it was Tbilisi who severed diplomatic ties following the South Ossetia gamble by Mikheil Saakashvili’s government.

Russia has maintained its unwavering commitment to mutually beneficial and friendly relations with Georgia. We strongly believe that this meets the national interests of both countries and peoples with their common past and shared culture, and millions of intertwined human destinies. We fully support the policy initiated in 2012 by the government of the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia alliance to normalise our bilateral relations. We proceed from the premise that the further we go down the road of normalising our relations, the better. Nothing prevents this from happening as far as Russia is concerned. As for our Georgian partners, they have clearly lacked consistency on this front, and have been prone to seeking momentary gain by playing the anti-Russia card from time to time.

However, life always sets things straight. Today, Russia has firmly established itself as Georgia’s second largest foreign trade partner, second only to Turkey, with $1.33 billion in trade (2019). It is to Russia that Georgia has been selling two thirds of its wine over the past several years. Russia retains its leadership in remittances to Georgia, which totalled about $430 million last year. Russian tourists (1.5 million in 2019) also want our two countries to build closer ties.

In late 2013, Russia and Georgia resumed regular coach service between the two countries, and air service was restored in October 2014. Verkhny Lars, the only checkpoint on the land border between Russia and Georgia, started working around the clock. Our countries stepped up contacts in culture, sports, research, religion, as well as business ties. Against this backdrop, we even started working on offering visa-free travel to Georgian nationals.

Unfortunately, the June-July 2019 events in Tbilisi derailed this positive momentum, when the President of Russia suspended air service with Georgia in response to a provocation by Georgian nationalists and radicals. We hope that air service will resume in the near future. We closely monitor the developments in Georgia itself, while waiting for the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the region and around the world to get back to normal, and regular air service to other destinations to resume.

Political discussions between Grigory Karasin and Zurab Abashidze had to be halted due to the pandemic, and we expect them to resume in the near future. The same applies to the Geneva International Discussions on security and stability in the South Caucasus. I think that we could make better use of the potential offered by the Interests Sections at the Swiss embassies in Tbilisi and Moscow.

Russia has always treasured its friendly ties with the kindred people of Georgia, with whom we lived in a single country for many centuries, even if the name of the country changed several times. We strongly believe that overcoming the existing differences and restoring and developing full bilateral relations meets the long-term interests of our countries and people.

Question:

In your view, what is behind the recent aggravation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, and how likely is it that it will escalate into a large-scale military conflict?

Sergey Lavrov:

The border conflict of July 12-16, 2020, became the second largest violation since April 2016 of the 1994 Ceasefire Agreement, drafted with Russia’s mediation. At the same time, this is the first time in 26 years that we are seeing highly intensive clashes involving field artillery, mortars and strike drones directly on the state border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, rather than along the line of contact in Karabakh.

A number of causes led to this conflict. It goes without saying that the unresolved Karabakh problem is the root cause. Add to this the extremely overheated public space on both sides of the border. The geographic factor served as a trigger of sorts, namely, the Armenian side’s decision to reactivate an old border checkpoint located 15 km from Azerbaijan’s oil-exporting pipelines caused great concern among some and an unjustified response among others. Eventually, this led to a confrontation with the most unpredictable consequences.

To stabilise the situation, the Russian Foreign Ministry urged the conflicting parties to immediately cease fire on July 13. I had telephone conversations with my colleagues from Armenia and Azerbaijan and met with representatives of organisations uniting Russian citizens with Azerbaijani and Armenian backgrounds. Both diasporas should be fully aware of their responsibility for complying with the Russian Federation’s laws and for fostering an atmosphere conducive to the normalisation of relations between Baku and Yerevan.

All this time, Igor Popov, the Russian Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh, communicated directly with senior officials of both countries’ foreign ministries. As a result, the parties reached a ceasefire agreement starting from July 16 with active Russian mediation, although not from the first attempt.

The situation became more or less stabilised in August and remains relatively calm on the border and the line of contact. Mutual public accusations are subsiding. We expect the negotiating process on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement to resume as soon as possible. We are working on this with our partners from the OSCE Minsk Group.

Question:

Will Russia be able to achieve the abolition of the non-citizen status in Latvia and Estonia, a practice that is humiliating for our compatriots there? Being non-citizens limits their political, economic and social rights.

Sergey Lavrov:

We consider the situation with the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia and Estonia to be discriminatory. Statelessness is a shameful social phenomenon practiced in these countries and mainly applied to Russian-speaking residents, depriving them of basic democratic and socioeconomic rights. It is outrageous. The number of stateless persons there is declining extremely slowly, mainly as a result of deaths or emigration of the Russian-speaking population. Latvia currently has 216,900 non-citizens (about 11 percent of the population); Estonia, 75,600 (about 6 percent).

The authorities of these Baltic states do not recognise ‘non-citizens’ as belonging to national minorities, thereby excluding them from the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The non-citizens have no voting rights, they cannot establish political parties, participate in transactions with land and real estate without the consent of the municipal authorities, are not allowed into the civil service, the military service, the police, the service as judges or prosecutors, etc.

International organisations such as the UN Human Rights Council, monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and others have published multiple recommendations and have repeatedly appealed to the Latvian and Estonian authorities to take steps to ensure that their language policy and legislation do not lead to direct or indirect discrimination.

For example, in August 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination published a conclusion on Latvia’s report, expressing concern about the educational reform, as well as the non-citizen problem. In March 2019, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights criticised Estonia for having a large number of persons with undetermined citizenship. In April 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee issued recommendations on the situation in Estonia, expressing concern about the limited scope of amendments to its citizenship law that excluded certain categories of children of non-citizens; about the strict state language fluency requirements for the naturalisation procedure; and the adverse impact of undetermined citizenship on political engagement.

The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe on National Minorities, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and a number of other international agencies also condemned the discriminatory policies of Riga and Tallinn.

The Latvian and Estonian authorities’ reaction to international criticism remains inadequate given the gravity of the situation. In this regard, we are confident that EU membership should not be viewed by the Baltic states as a political cover-up for their illegal actions.

For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry consistently defends the interests of non-citizens. We use the capabilities of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe control mechanisms to protect the rights of national minorities. We insist on addressing the statelessness problem in the course of bilateral contacts with the Baltic states, including political consultations, noting that the observance, by Latvia and Estonia, of the generally recognised international standards guaranteeing equal rights to obtain citizenship is an important condition for progress in building neighbourly bilateral relations.

Question:

What role will Russia be ready to play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (in addition to the Middle East Quartet) to revive talks, in view of the critical situation resulting from the statements by the United States on Jerusalem?

Sergey Lavrov:

It is true that the situation with the Middle East Peace Process is nearing a critical point. There is no doubt that this resulted from Washington’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the only and indivisible capital of the State of Israel and to transfer its embassy there. We proceed from the premise that the Jerusalem problem, like all other so-called final status issues, should be resolved through direct talks between the two conflicting sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Anticipating the outcome of these talks only complicates efforts to find a solution. The universally recognised international legal framework of the Middle East Peace Process, which includes UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative, proceeds from this understanding.

We strongly believe that against this backdrop the efforts by the international community are very much relevant for facilitating the resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks and achieving a comprehensive peace agreement between the parties under the auspices of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, which includes Russia, the United States, the EU and the UN. This was the point made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his remarks at the June 24 videoconference of the UN Security Council on the Middle East Peace Process. Russia supports this call.

This multilateral mechanism is designed to accompany the Middle East Peace Process. However, it is currently paralysed due to the uncooperative position of the United States. Washington said it would continue working within the Quartet only to promote its peace plan, known as the “deal of the century.” In this context, we said that we were ready to continue working on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a troika with the UN and the EU, with the option for other regional powers and organisations to join our efforts.

In addition to this, it has to be noted that restoring Palestinian unity on the political platform of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation is a major prerequisite for resuming direct Israeli-Palestinian talks. In this context, we welcomed the timely steps by Fatah and Hamas to overcome the long-standing division, as announced on July 2, 2020 during an online joint news conference by the authorised representatives of Fatah and Hamas.

As for Russia, we will continue working with the Palestinians in order to consolidate and carry forward the positive momentum. We intend to hold a meeting of the main Palestinian parties and movements in Moscow, as soon as this becomes possible considering the sanitary and epidemiological situation. In early July 2020, President of Russia Vladimir Putin talked on the telephone with President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas who responded to our proposal positively. Hamas leaders also informed us that they were ready, in principle, to take part in an event of this kind.

Question:

Kosovo Serbs are still essentially deprived of their rights. Russia stands for a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo problem, but nothing has changed. What efforts could promote the diplomatic solution to the conflict between Belgrade and Pristina?

Sergey Lavrov:

As for the Kosovo issue, I would prefer to focus not on the conflict between Belgrade and Pristina, but on the consequences of the shameless annexation of part of Serbian territory. It was executed by armed militants consisting of Kosovo Albanians with the connivance and direct support of the West, including the NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. Following this outrage, a self-proclaimed quasi-state was created on the territory of a Serbian autonomous region. This was done unilaterally, in circumvention of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is the basis of the settlement. The political leadership of that quasi-state blatantly ignores the international law, the legitimate demands and interests of the Republic of Serbia and Serbian people, and strives to legalise the current state of affairs, including themselves, by any means at their disposal.

At one point, through great efforts and painful compromises, the negotiation process was launched. In 2010, the UN General Assembly empowered the European Union to become an intermediary in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. Later, very important decisions were agreed upon, including on the creation of the Association of Serbian Municipalities in Kosovo. Plans called for a gradual transition to the mutually acceptable agreements, first of all, on ensuring the safety of Serbs in the region. However, Kosovo stonewalled all of these decisions.

The dialogue is currently stagnating. That said, there is no alternative to it, regardless of anyone’s desire to cut the Gordian knot. Brussels and Washington are boosting efforts to relaunch the negotiation process. It is important to keep in mind that a serious and honest conversation is needed about the future relations between Belgrade and Pristina. It would only bring results if the legal interests of Kosovo Serbs, their concerns and international law are respected. External assistance must rule out blackmail and arm twisting of one side while encouraging questionable political appetites of the other side. The alternative to the dialogue would be very dangerous to everyone.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293771

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei

21 August 2020 - 13:53

On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke on the telephone with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus Vladimir Makei.

Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Makei considered the political developments in Belarus and discussed various initiatives advanced by Western countries with regard to the Belarusian government’s further steps. In this context, the two ministers noted that ways to address Belarus’s existing problems are its internal affair and do not warrant any external interference, let alone any “instructions” about with whom and how they should conduct a dialogue. They emphasised that all external actors need to respect the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Belarus, and stop trying to provoke confrontation in Belarusian society and undermine the process of normalising the situation.

They also exchanged views on the progress in implementing a number of agreements reached between the presidents and prime ministers of the two countries, as well as in implementing the cooperation plans between the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294262

Foreign Ministry’s statement on the US’s illegal attempts to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran

21 August 2020 - 19:08

The United States continues its dangerous manoeuvres at the UN Security Council in the hope of carrying out its anti-Iran schemes. Having failed to push through a draft resolution on extending indefinitely an international arms embargo on Iran, which was resolutely rebuffed by the Security Council, the US began to badger UN leaders, including the UN Security Council president. The US wants everyone to recognise its alleged right to exert pressure on Iran with mechanisms envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme.

All this after the US officially withdrew from the JCPOA and has been crudely and shamelessly violating its own commitments stemming from related Security Council resolutions for over two years.

The US has regularly denounced “the nuclear deal” and been doing all it could to undermine the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Now, having apparently forgotten its commitments, it has started talking about its own “rights.”

The US claims that it has invoked a “snapback” of the UN Security Council sanction resolutions on Iran that were withdrawn after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. However, the US’s statements will fail to produce the desired effect. These tricks by the United States have no basis in reality. The US itself walked away from the plan, thereby depriving itself of the rights and opportunities envisaged in it and in UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The US’s notice shows that Washington is misinterpreting this resolution and is not meeting its requirements. Neither is it meeting the requirements of the JCPOA that is part of the Security Council resolution. The US is trying to prove that it has the right to fulfil only those provisions of the resolution that are “convenient” to it and can be used for its anti-Iran policy. But this won’t do. Moreover, the US cannot include in its notice the description of “conscientious and exhaustive” efforts taken in settling disputes under JCPOA procedures because it did not make them. Meanwhile, these efforts were mandatory. Thus, the Security Council has no grounds on which to accept the US’s notice for consideration, not to mention take any action based on it. This would contradict Resolution 2231. Apparently, this is what Washington is trying to achieve by dragging other Security Council members into the wilds where international law does not exist.

We are convinced that the US’s notice is legally negligible and cannot initiate the mechanism to restore the former resolutions against Iran. Insisting on its erroneous position, the US cannot hope for support in the Security Council. It is impossible to give up one’s commitments on a resolution and claim the rights that it provides.

Russia has distributed a detailed legal argument to this effect.

We are confident that the efforts to escalate tensions around Iran are erroneous and self-defeating. We urge the US to opt for reasonable solutions and not deprive itself of an opportunity to come to terms with Iran.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294549

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden Ann Linde

21 August 2020 - 19:17

On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden Ann Linde at her initiative.

The ministers exchanged views on the situation in Belarus, in part in the context of the initiative of the current Albanian and future Swedish Presidency of the OSCE on establishing a dialogue between the Belarusian authorities and representatives of the opposition.

The Russian Foreign Minister emphasised that imposing any mediation or ready-made solution on Minsk is unacceptable. The attempts to dictate to Belarusian society what forces should represent the Belarusian opposition during the contemplated inclusive dialogue with the authorities were described as counterproductive. It is very important to let the Belarusians figure out themselves the complicated domestic political processes, in part with consideration for the Constitutional reform proposed by President Alexander Lukashenko.

The ministers also discussed the prospects for cooperation with Sweden during its OSCE Presidency in 2021. They agreed on the urgent need to adjust the current personnel lineup in the OSCE, which is distinguished by an obvious geographical imbalance in the top positions in favour of representatives of the states “to the west of Vienna.”

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294587

Alex Him · August 28th, 2020

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the latest US Senate’s allegations regarding the Russian Federation

22 August 2020 - 12:51

We have taken note of the last volume of the report issued a few days ago by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential election. It is now perfectly clear that the document, which US legislators have been preparing during the past three years and have described as “the most comprehensive and meticulous examination to date explaining how Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election,” has not added any new details to the long-standing US insinuations regarding Russia.

Just as the previous volumes of the report, this one does not contain any real facts. Essentially, it repeats the well-known and unsubstantiated allegations from the so-called Mueller report and other US documents, such as the hacking, allegedly on orders from the Russian leadership, of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computer servers, Trump campaign members’ contacts with Russian nationals, as well as Russia’s alleged striving to undermine democracy in the United States.

We have commented on these allegations more than once and have pointed out that they are completely unsubstantiated. It is obvious that the narrative of the Russian interference was initially invented as part of political infighting in the United States. For our part, we regret that these forces’ ambitions and desire to fuel anti-Russia sentiments have seriously damaged our bilateral dialogue. We do not believe that any further efforts to promote anti-Russia myths in society will benefit anyone. The American people are currently concerned about other, real rather than imaginary, problems and expect their politicians to find an effective solution to them. We hope that US Senators will eventually wake up to this reality.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294749

Excerpts from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Vesti news show on Rossiya -1 television channel, Moscow, August 22, 2020

22 August 2020 - 20:30

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

The United States was the only country in the world to impose extraterritorial sanctions against Nord Stream 2 participants. At the same time US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking in the Czech Senate, said that there were opportunities for improving relations between Russia and the United States, and that these opportunities had to be used. We know from official reports that you discussed the possibility of convening a UN Security Council meeting on Iran in a telephone conversation with State Secretary Pompeo on August 16. Is the United States ready to meet Russia halfway at least on this matter and support the initiative put forward by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin?

Sergey Lavrov:

You have named a number of the latest steps by the US administration. All these moves reveal its determination not to be bound by any international multilateral obligations. Extraterritorial sanctions are being imposed along these lines. When the United States decides that China is a threat because it sells too much to the US and buys too little, the Americans slap sanctions on imports from China. When the United States decides that Iran, while complying with all its commitments under the JCPOA, does not behave well (even though nobody else shares this view), the US sanctions Iran. When the United States believes that President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro deserves punishment, it imposes sanctions on him. After that the US tells all other countries not to dare trade with these countries because the US wants to isolate them.

Of course, these extraterritorial sanctions cannot fail to affect business. At first, businesses viewed them as minor financial losses. However, when the US went after all actors trading with countries the US views as unwanted regimes, businesses started raising their heads, growling and protesting, including in Europe and Asia. The statement by 24 EU countries is an example of this response. Not all countries had the dignity to join this statement, but most of the EU members spoke out in a clear and blunt manner calling out the United States for these unacceptable actions.

In fact, the Americans do not have any qualms when it comes to pushing their economic interests. Diplomatic subtleties, hints and allusions have long been cast aside. You have mentioned US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. I have regular conversations with him, and the latest telephone conversation we had was on August 16. He was on his way back from Europe where, among other things, he led a proactive campaign among European countries, including those that he visited, against expanding trade and economic ties and engaging in mutually beneficial cooperation with Russia. For example, in the Czech Republic he openly said that the country should align all of its plans to develop nuclear energy with the United States rather than Russia.

This logic is very hard to deal with. We have always proceeded from the premise and still believe that proactive approaches and creative solutions are key to success in any international undertaking, but only if focused on mobilising collective efforts to resolve international issues. In today’s world, almost all challenges are global by definition and transcend borders: terrorism, organised crime, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, illegal migration, food security and many other issues. There is no way these problems can be resolved by simply having one capital issue orders and demand that everyone follow them. That’s like shooting yourself in the foot, especially when it comes to abusing the status of the dollar in international finances. Almost the entire world is now seriously and thoroughly reconsidering the role of the US dollar, and the uncertainty it creates under the current administration. New settlement systems are being actively developed, offering new opportunities to sidestep the dollar settlements.

In any case, the same problems apply to the conversation on Iran with our US colleagues. The United States decided that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to settle the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme was a “bad deal,” as President Donald Trump called it, and that the Obama administration made a tremendous mistake when it signed this “bad deal.” The US withdrew from the JCPOA a couple of years ago, but at the same time proclaimed that no one would be able to stop the US when it will seek to punish Iran for allegedly violating the agreement, despite the fact that the US withdrew from it.

This may sound like a rather clumsy paradox, but this is how things stand. The US said that it will not honour its commitments consisting of refraining from imposing sanctions against Iran, lifting the existing ones and enabling the Islamic Republic of Iran to fully participate in international trade and economic relations. The US said that it would not do so, and would even prevent others from doing so in their dealings with Iran. Those who trade with Iran will be punished by losing access to the US market, facing sanctions and court proceedings. On the other hand, since the JCPOA is a “bad deal,” the US wants to improve it, including by extending the arms embargo that is set to expire in October 2020. Neither Russia, nor other parties to the JCPOA see any legal, political or even more so moral grounds for abusing UN Security Council resolutions in such a crude fashion, and showing disrespect for the UN Security Council. We honestly explained this to our American partners. Nevertheless, they decided to put forward a resolution to this effect. Only one country apart from the US, the Dominican Republic, supported it. Russia and China voted against, and the other 11 members of the UN Security Council, including all European countries, abstained. This means that there was no need to use veto power, since it would have to be used if the resolution had nine votes in favour, but there were only two votes to support it.

That said, we do not gloat over this outcome, as I told Mike Pompeo during our conversation. We do not derive any satisfaction from the failure experienced by the United States in the UN Security Council. By all accounts, I believe that the US was aware of the outcome but wanted to send a message, as we say today, to show its determination not to stop halfway. It will try to bring forward a new resolution on reviving UN Security Council sanctions, since Iran has been under sanctions imposed by the US, Europe and a number of other countries. But UN Security Council sanctions are collective sanctions that are mandatory for all, including Russia, China and the entire international community. They were cancelled after Iran fulfilled all of its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The US will seek to use quasi-legal methods in order to reinstate sanctions that all countries in the world would have to follow. This will not work just because a country that violated the integral and comprehensive package of agreements approved by the Security Council and officially withdrew from this package lacks the legal leverage to carry out an operation of this kind.

I tried to explain this to Mike Pompeo in a frank and friendly manner. We are working with our US partners and other Security Council members in New York and the respective capitals. We believe that most of the countries understand that this attempt is illegitimate and counterproductive. It will come to nothing in any case, while causing a serious scandal and division within the UN Security Council, ultimately undermining its authority. In a nutshell, one of the countries that had initiated a consensus resolution on the Iranian nuclear programme said that it will not honour its obligations, and will demand that others follow its wishes.

We recalled another aspect of this situation, in a broader context. Much has been said on the determination by our Western partners to move away from the term “international law” and replace it with new terminology such as the “rules-based order.” This is a telling example. There is a UN Security Council resolution, an international legal document approving the JCPOA to settle the Iranian nuclear programme in keeping with all the requirements set forth in the UN Charter. All of a sudden, one of the parties decides that it cannot agree with some of the provisions stipulated by international law, and instead of following the international law as set forth in this resolution, this country (in this case the United States) invents new rules by saying that “this is the way I want it to be, and not otherwise.” There are many examples of this kind, and they occur with increased frequency. This is a very dangerous trend.

The United States will never succeed in violating a UN Security Council resolution or flagrantly distorting its meaning as enshrined in international law, but it can damage the UN Security Council. We will do everything we can to prevent our US colleagues from taking ill-advised steps of this kind.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294764

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Territory of Meanings on the Klyazma National Education Youth Forum, Moscow Region, Solnechnogorsk, August 23, 2020

23 August 2020 - 19:37

Sergey Lavrov (R)

I would like to say thank you for inviting me. I always try to attend the events organised by the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs (Rosmolodezh). Each time, I realise that this, hopefully, is useful both for you and simultaneously for me, because the questions, assessments and just comments that are offered here are a good tip regarding how to further shape our foreign policy activities. You are the generation that will in the not too distant future continue to make our Russia a better, safer and more advanced place. For us, it is important to understand what heritage we will leave behind to you. In this context, it is of much use to hear your questions. They show what you are thinking about.

That said, I would like to stress that we generally set a high value on our cooperation with NGO’s, including those representing the youth movement. Let me note our productive collaboration with the All-Russia People’s Front (ONF), with young people from the ONF. We have cooperated with them rather intensively, when we had to evacuate Russian citizens from abroad on account of COVID-19, who, for various reasons, found themselves over there and in a quandary. The collaboration was very beneficial. Of course, it was not without problems, but generally we managed to cope with this job. Currently, there remain a number of people, who have decided to return to Russia quite recently. We are also working on dealing with this matter.

I am aware that there is the International Cooperation Leaders initiative put forward by Rosmolodezh. If the projects to be promoted by the contest’s winners and prizewinners have components, for which the Foreign Ministry of Russia might be of use, we will try to have our Information and Press Department support them in every way. So, don’t be shy. We will coordinate the organisational matters with Rosmolodezh.

This meeting is dedicated to “Service to the Homeland.” I saw a report on yesterday’s meeting. I think that this is a very important and all-embracing topic because foreign policy, like our domestic affairs, is aimed at the topmost goal of creating some maximally favourable conditions for this country’s development, for its economy, the social sphere, and higher prosperity for our citizens, as well as that of Russians and Russian businesses abroad. These are the key tenets of the new version of the Foreign Policy Concept that was approved by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2016. And this is the invariable main component of what we are doing.

In order to create maximally favourable conditions for domestic development, it is, of course, necessary to develop relations with all countries based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, non-interference in the internal affairs, and peaceful settlement of all disputes. I have enumerated the key principles of the UN Charter, which Russia has always been guided by in its approaches to relations with foreign partners. A great number of countries in Eurasia, Latin America and Africa share this frame of mind with us. And, of course, our allies and partners at the CSTO, the CIS, the EAEU, the SCO, and BRICS are of the same view that any problems should be addressed through a mutually respectful and equal dialogue.

Regrettably, today not everyone is ready to comply with the principles of the UN Charter, even though absolutely all countries have signed it. These principles constitute the basis of international law. Our Western partners, primarily the United States and its closest allies, have been acting increasingly unscrupulously and refuse to be bound by international law when their goals clash with its noble, equal and universally approved principles. They tend not to mention international law and universal conventions in their public statements. Instead, they are introducing new terms, which are focused on “rules-based order.” These rules are invented depending on our Western colleagues’ goals in different spheres of international affairs. This is being done behind tightly closed doors. A formula they need at any particular time (we can talk about this in more detail during the Q&A session) is invented by a narrow circle of like-mined people, planted in the media space and declared to be a universally binding principle, which everyone must comply with. Those who refuse to do so are punished, condemned and sanctioned. The EU followed in the footsteps of the United States, which was the first country to adopt unilateral restrictive measures against “undesirable” governments. During the past few years, the European Union has introduced its own series of generic sanctions, which are being applied for “misconduct” in cyberspace or alleged human rights violations. The list of the culprits is determined in their own narrow circle. In other words, they pose as the lawmakers approving sanctions, the judges determining the violators and the executors implementing these sanctions against the designated countries. This is regrettable.

We are talking in great detail with our partners in the EU and with the United States about the importance of reviving the principles, which were formulated by the victor powers after World War II, when they established the United Nations, a unique organisation with universal legitimacy. Unfortunately, we have not succeeded so far in convincing all countries to honour their obligations. The countries we describe as “the historical West” share an overriding desire to prevent the rise of the new, multipolar and polycentric world order, as well as the reforms in the international system that will recognise the tectonic shifts which have taken place after WWII, primarily the appearance of new influential centres of power in terms of economic growth and financial might. Of course, economic and financial might also include political influence. The West has called the tune in international affairs for some 500 years, including during the colonial era and the period of industrial revolutions, which began in the West. But things have changed. The centre of global development has moved to the Asia Pacific Region (APR). China and India are rising powerfully. Other emerging economies have claimed a befitting place in the international division of labour and the international system of cooperation. At the same time, they want to preserve their traditions, culture and civilisational code.

The main line of our Western partners is to obstruct the objective course of history and to cut short the objective onset of the multipolar world. They are using a variety of unscrupulous measures and instruments, including open military interventions to unseat governments and economic sanctions, which have become commonplace. The United States, for example, no longer holds talks in the classical meaning of the word. Instead, it presents its requirements. Those who refuse to comply with them face ultimatums. If they disregard them, sanctions are adopted against them. The worst part is that the US sanctions against those who dare to contradict it are being applied extraterritorially. In other words, Washington demands that other countries do not trade with a certain state because it does not like it and has introduced sanctions against it. Those who refuse to comply with these demands face restrictions against their companies, which will deprive them of their part of the American market and will have other problems in the system of settlements that is dominated by the US dollar.

Of course, part of this policy is a desire to prevent the countries that have become new global powers from growing stronger and gaining more influence. As you know, this policy is being applied against China. It has been declared the number one enemy of the United States. This also concerns the Russian Federation, which was presented as the United States’ greatest enemy until recently. We have been officially declared an adversary under US law. One of US methods of dealing with this issue is to sow discord between Russia and its neighbours. We are aware of this. We have been well-nigh accused of wanting to recreate the Soviet Union, although we are only trying to take advantage of the remaining historical benefits in our common space such as the common economic system, the tremendous interconnected economic ties, the geographical and geopolitical positions of the post-Soviet countries, and the huge number of cultural, family, civilisational and historical connections.

The programmes offered to the post-Soviet European and South Caucasus countries under the EU’s Eastern Partnership, the EU plans for Central Asia and certain US projects underway in the post-Soviet space are designed to tear these countries away from the Russian Federation. Artificial obstacles are being created to prevent the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) from obtaining an international legal capacity and competence. In particular, attempts have been made to hinder cooperation between the EAEU and the UN, and much else.

This policy culminated in the developments in Ukraine, starting in 2004 when the country was forced to hold a third, unconstitutional round of voting so as to ensure the victory of the candidate the West wanted to see in power. You know what happened in 2014 – these events are still fresh in our memory. An agreement was reached to overcome the crisis. The West actively mediated and signed it. But next morning the opposition trampled that agreement underfoot, and the West did nothing to prevent this, believing, in our opinion, that this would be of more benefit to itself. In other words, the inability of our Western partners to honour agreements is a serious fact, which we, and not only we, have to take into account. They are now trying to apply this method in Belarus, and they are offering their mediation. Of course, we will accept any formula adopted by the Belarusian leadership in its dialogue with the people. When the West says that the only effective solution is mediation involving Western countries, this makes all of us think back to what happened in Ukraine, where Western mediation translated into the complete inability of our partners to honour agreements. The Belarusian people must find a solution to this problem independently. I believe that the signs of normalisation apparent in Belarus are very important. I also know that this is not to everyone’s liking. Some forces would like to make the peaceful course of events in Belarus more violent, to provoke bloodshed and shift the events towards a Ukrainian scenario.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has always answered calls from his EU colleagues, who are concerned about the developments in Belarus. My colleagues and the EU foreign policy chief called me. We believe that no recipes should be forced on Belarus. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko has recently spoken up in favour of dialogue during his meetings with workers, including – this is extremely important – a dialogue on reforming the constitution. We believe that this is a highly promising path.

Despite our differences with our Western colleagues, we have never held a grudge against them and never refuse to talk with them because of what they have done or said. Reality is much harsher than any scheme. We in Russia say that a grudge is a heavy burden to carry, which is absolutely unacceptable in foreign policy. Diplomats must show and exercise restraint. Our role model is the President. We are acting in this way even in relations with the United States, which has tried to pin everything on us, including interference in its elections, and of violating all disarmament treaties, from which the United States itself has withdrawn under this pretext. Despite all this, we never shuffle off when we see that our collaboration with the United States, the EU or other countries that may take an unfriendly stance towards Russia can help settle a problem or a conflict. We always agree to talk. This is demonstrated by the regular visits by Western representatives and our trips to other countries. There are very many conflicts in the world which can only be settled through concerted efforts, because all problems have acquired global and cross-border characteristics. These include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, drug trafficking and all other forms of organised crime, global warming, climate change, food security and water scarcity. Nearly every subject that is of concern to people is becoming a global problem in this interdependent world. This is why when we extend a hand we do not ask for anything but sincerely offer cooperation to all those who are ready to collaborate with us exclusively on the basis of equality, respect for each other’s interests and desire to look for solutions based on a balance of these interests. This is always possible if you respect the noble goals that constitute the essence of the UN Charter.

I strongly hope that our meeting today will promote the development of new ideas in this spirit.

Thank you. I am ready for your questions now.

Question:

What does serving your Fatherland mean to you?

Sergey Lavrov:

Having worked for so long, this is not the question that comes to mind. All you do is just try to honestly do the work that you have been assigned, especially when it comes to the work I have been assigned over the past years by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. This is how I would answer this question. One of the great minds said “Love art in yourself, and not yourself in art.” This is probably where the key to this question lies. Do not love yourself in the sphere of activity you choose, but the goals you face in this activity. You have to love them in yourself. In other words, do not love yourself in your Fatherland, but your Fatherland within you. Neoliberal philosophers will probably categorically disagree with the way this question was framed. As you know, in neoliberal thinking the human person is centre stage in everything, which is understandable. However, when this becomes the sole priority detached from everything else, including the way a human person treats others, there are intelligent ideas to counter this narrative. One person’s freedom ends where another’s begins. For this reason, nothing good can come out of crass individualism preached by neoliberals. By the way, countries guided by neoliberal thinking rather than collective approaches to problem solving during the coronavirus pandemic tended to suffer more than others. For this reason, my advice would be to view the profession you choose as an opportunity for doing your best to achieve the goals pursued by researchers, diplomats, business leaders and government officials. Overall, love your Fatherland in yourself, and not yourself in your Fatherland.

Question:

Could you share the best piece of advice you ever got in your life and your life creed?

Sergey Lavrov:

In essence, I am a religious person, but I have never been to confession, and your question invites me to do just that. You know, I cannot recall any specific advice, like somebody telling me: “Sergey, remember my advice for the rest of your life.” But I had worthy teachers. Of course, I can name Yevgeny Primakov, and before him Yevgeny Makeyev who headed the department where I worked after returning from Sri Lanka. Before him there was Alexey Nesterenko, another great diplomat. In Sri Lanka, I reported to Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Soviet Union Rafik Nishanov. He is still alive and well, and I wish him a healthy, long life. I do not remember anyone telling me: “Here is my piece of advice for you.” By the way, I never give advice to other people either. Everything that helps me in this life (apart from what I got from my parents) I got from my own experience, what I observed during talks and during conversations with those great people and legions of our top-notch diplomats.

As for my life creed, what matters the most for me in people is their decency. I hope that I, my family and friends will never be betrayed. Sorry if the answer to your question was not as spectacular as you may have expected.

Question:

The United States, China and many other countries have already launched and are successfully operating 5G networks that offer huge opportunities. How can you explain the lack of decisions to build 5G in Russia after the launch of a test network?

Sergey Lavrov:

This is not exactly my sort of question, but of course we are following these developments. The international community has been actively discussing 5G networks from a geopolitical rather than technological perspective. As far as I am aware, it is not true that there was no decision. The Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media is actively working on these matters. There is a question on allocating specific frequencies for 5G networks, since the military have been using these frequencies for a long time. We need a solution so that the military retain the possibility to use these frequencies alongside 5G networks, or find another way of doing it. That said, 5G is a major topic for us, just as for the entire world. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said on numerous occasions that we cannot allow our country to fall behind when it comes to new technology, be it 5G or artificial intelligence. Let me reiterate that I am not directly involved, but I know that my colleagues in the Government are proactive in carrying out the President’s instructions. I strongly believe that we will soon hear about a solution to this matter. There is no doubt that we will not follow the example set by the Americans who demand that no one works with China on 5G, in particular with Huawei. This is not something we would do. On the contrary, we are interested in working with other countries on developing and introducing state-of-the-art technology.

Question:

You mentioned that many issues today concern the entire world and that Russia is making a great effort to help other countries, not only the ones with major problems but also locally, by writing off debts and assisting with the renovation of certain facilities. At the same time, when somebody helps or wants to help us, we often reject their offer. Don’t you think (perhaps it is the state’s position) that in this case, pride should become secondary? We have plenty of problems in Russia that need to be addressed.

Sergey Lavrov:

Could you give me an example? When did somebody offer us help that we rejected?

Question:

For example, Norilsk. As far as I recall, the United States offered its technology for dealing with the light fractions of oil that sink into water in order to remove them. I read that they have the technology for this. They offered help but Russia politely declined.

Sergey Lavrov:

Once again, I am not an expert in this matter. I am not familiar with this technology. It is the same as choosing where to treat a sick person, in Omsk or abroad. The accident was, of course, very serious. You know that President Vladimir Putin and the Prime Minister were directly involved in the cleanup efforts. The President recently requested reports from those who were in charge of eliminating the damage. If the decision was made to decline the offer it means that our technology was found good enough for the job. I do not want to suspect anybody of impure intentions but, when in this kind of circumstances somebody offers us something, it may be better to rely on one’s own resources unless the situation is critical. Speaking about the Americans’ proposal concerning the accident in Norilsk, we have also offered our help to the Americans in the past, including with the forest fires in California. We offered our very efficient Beriev Be-200 utility aircraft. The United States also politely declined. I do not want to cast doubt on the professionalism of either our or American specialists and say that they were wrong to reject our help and we were wrong to decline their offer. The situation requires a solely professional approach. And I have no reasons to suspect either our experts or the American ones.

Question:

The developments in Belarus have had a negative effect on relations between our countries. What is the outlook for the military-political situation and what measures can the Russian leadership take to stabilise it?

Sergey Lavrov:

Our leaders have spoken up on this subject more than once. President Putin has discussed it with the German Chancellor, the French President and President of the European Council Charles Michel. The Kremlin has issued detailed comments on these conversations, and the Foreign Ministry has posted comments on my conversations with the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, the Foreign Minister of Sweden and High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell. Our approach is very simple: this is the internal affair of the Republic of Belarus. Belarusians are wise people and can deal with this situation independently. The main thing is not to use external methods to provoke unrest there. The situation is normalising there now, but we know for sure that this is not to everyone’s liking. The representatives of the opposition, who have established a Coordination Council, and some Western countries, above all the United States, who have attempted to present the council as a legitimate negotiating partner of the Belarusian Government, are dissatisfied with the fact that protests are declining in number or at least that the rallies are not becoming more massive and violent. And they are also dissatisfied with the fact that these protests are peaceful. After the initial outbreaks of violence reported in the first days of the protests, there is no evidence of violence during these rallies now. But some members of the Belarusian opposition who are living in the West and have tried to influence the developments in their home country would like the protests to be different – they need bloodshed so as to provoke a desired response from the Belarusian law enforcement services, which are not hurting anyone and are not interfering with peaceful rallies. As I said in my opening remarks, they would like to enact a Ukrainian scenario. We consider this to be criminal and, speaking objectively about the Coordination Council, we have some questions about the manner in which it was established. Moreover, some council members learned about being included in it from the press and social media. Some of them have said that they do not want to be members of the Coordination Council. We have looked at the council’s composition. Many of its members have a negative attitude to the development of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya is in Lithuania, where she moved after announcing that she wanted to take care of family affairs and her children. It appears that she has not been allowed to calm down, and she is now making harsh political statements, demanding the continuation of strikes and protest rallies. It is notable that she is making such statements increasingly often in English rather than in Russian or Belarusian. In other words, her target audience, and probably the main audience, is in the West and although I cannot say this with certainty, the objective of this method is perhaps to prevent the Western countries from calming down and to convince them to continue to fiddle with this situation. I also know that far from everyone in the West accept this approach. We are aware of the public statements made by officials in Lithuania and Poland, who have openly demanded a change of government in Belarus and are helping collect money for those workers who have yielded to pressure and gone on strike. This is regrettable. Of course, we have given attention to this matter because Belarus is a fraternal country and we would like very much to be useful to it in this situation. When Tikhanovskaya took part in the presidential race, she said that her only programme was to win the election and to call for a new election so that the people would be able to make their choice. She has a programme now. It was posted on Tikhanovskaya’s website, but it was deleted soon afterwards. However, it is still available in the web archive. It has many interesting details, such as withdrawal from the EAEU, the CSTO and the Union State. Her long-term objective is to join not only the EU but also NATO and to promote the Belarusisation of all aspects of life in the country through the enforced use of the Belarusian language in all spheres, ousting the Russian language from them. Her programme also includes a number of other unconstructive slogans, which are not designed to promote national accord in Belarusian society, which has never been strongly anti-Russian or shown any desire to remove the Russian language from cultural, public and official life in Belarus. As I said, this document was removed from her website very quickly, and the section of the document that called for renouncing interaction with Russia and withdrawing from the organisations where Russia is a member was in Belarusian only. It was not included in the Russian-language version of the document, which shows that its authors knew that this would be unacceptable to those in Belarus who think and speak in Russian.

The entire document disappeared from the website very quickly, which also shows that they understand how provocative these approaches are. Some started speculating that the authorities opened an investigation into the Constitutional Council in connection with an attempt to seize power. They are openly proclaiming that they want to seize power and then to hold elections, and are ready to talk with the current authorities only to discuss the terms of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko’s withdrawal from power, and to agree on how to further promote their agenda. This has much in common with Venezuela where a legitimate president was declared an outcast, while a different person who failed to garner any meaningful recognition was proclaimed president. This has been going on for more than a year now, inflicting immense damage on the people of Venezuela who are suffering from sanctions; a sea blockade is about to be imposed.

There was also a report that the Coordination Council of the Belarusian opposition called on the law enforcement officers to “take the people’s side,” as they put it, and promised them extra pay, apartments and additional financing. In terms of the legitimacy of what the Coordination Council is doing, as far as I can tell (even though I am not a lawyer, but there are many law professionals here, as far as I know) this was a call to betray the oath, or I do not understand anything.

Let me reiterate that the people who are pulling the strings have probably understood that these are very serious things, so it all quickly moved into the shadow. But a spoken word takes its flight, as the saying goes. Having said all this, I would like to emphasise once again that the OSCE has offered to act as a mediator. This organisation follows the consensus rule. We created it back in the Soviet era, and still believe that this was a step forward in our shared history with the European countries, the US and Canada (who are also OSCE members) that made a major contribution to the policy of détente, normalising the situation and laying the groundwork for cooperation. This year will be the 30th anniversary of the document called the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. Last year was the 20th anniversary of the resolutions adopted at the OSCE’s summit in Istanbul in 1999, which included proclaiming the indivisibility of security and the idea that OSCE members will not seek to ensure their security to the detriment of others, that everyone is equal and consensus provides the only way forward within the OSCE.

When we drew the attention of our Western partners to the fact that NATO’s activities and its failure to keep its promise not to expand eastward closer to the Russian borders were inconsistent with the principle of indivisible security, they ignored us. By the same token, they ignored the principles set forth in the Paris Charter for a New Europe, and the resolutions of other summits. There are many sub-regional organisations across this space, including NATO and the European Union (EU). However, there are also the CIS, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), and now the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). There were resolutions stipulating that the multitude of these structures within the OSCE space should foster initiatives to promote cooperation among them. They forgot about this as well. These catchy slogans mostly date back to 1990 or immediately after it when our Western partners thought that everything was “locked and loaded.” They proclaimed the end of history. All other systems apart from liberal capitalism seemed to have perished. Today, when we try to appeal to the conscience of our colleagues and call on them to respect the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in domestic affairs and refraining from strengthening one’s security to the detriment of others (the same principles actively promoted by the West in the last years of the Soviet Union and approved by consensus), they adopt an evasive stance and refuse to set out these principles in legally binding documents.

Let’s now turn to OSCE mediation. There is much talk on this subject among many Western leaders in Europe and the United States who are calling on us to influence President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko so that he agrees to OSCE mediation. First, we know what came out of the Western mediation efforts in Ukraine in 2014 when an agreement was reached and signed by the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France. The next morning, the opposition said that it decided otherwise and seized a government building. When we said: “You signed this, so you could at least call your opposition protégés to order”– there was no response. They washed their hands of it, as if everything was happening as planned. The memory of these events remains fresh among us and the Belarusians. We saw this with our own eyes.

Second, the OSCE has an Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, a structure that monitors elections. Belarusians invited the organisation to send its observers to the presidential election. When this invitation arrived, the organisation said that it would not send its observers because the invitation “came too late.” I have already told the media that OSCE members, including Belarus, are under no obligation to respect any specific deadlines when inviting observers. There is only one obligation: each of the OSCE members must invite international observers to monitor domestic elections, and this was done. As for the deadlines and the criteria applying to the time of arrival, and how many people must arrive first, and how many later for the vote itself, there are no specific regulations to this effect. Together with our colleagues within the CIS, we have been calling for the reform of this office since 2007. We made concrete proposals to launch discussions so as to avoid any ambiguity about how to receive observers, and to have the same rules for everyone. Our Western partners adamantly oppose this. We tell them that this organisation lacks cohesion, but they tell us that this is its advantage, a golden standard. The less cohesion it has, the easier it can be manipulated, especially when led by countries represented by the West. Not a single representative from the CIS ever had an even remotely important office within the OSCE. I felt that I had to provide a detailed answer to this question because it is very important and causes universal concern. Belarusians are our true brothers. I love this country where I have many colleagues and personal friends.

I think that it would be a huge mistake to ignore the proposal by the President of Belarus to launch a constitutional reform process and to ignore his invitation to all the healthy forces interested in the country developing normally to participate in this constitutional reform.

Question:

What is the reason for the current developments in Belarus?

Sergey Lavrov:

He who makes no mistakes makes nothing. This is true for any society and state. A wise leader corrects mistakes and draws lessons from them, trying to make fewer mistakes in the future.

In a democratic society it is impossible to control everything and everyone, no matter what people may say about a strong vertical of power. You have to learn to live with the fact and try to draw lessons from your experiences, which can be positive or negative. It is a fact as well that radical opposition closely monitored the election in Belarus, including those who are directly connected with our Western partners. This was obvious. The OSCE has taken a stand, claiming superciliously that it had not been invited [to monitor the election] at the right time, although the timeframe had never been discussed. They had been invited, and they were supposed to come. There were no limitations regarding the number of observers. They could send one or two observers to every polling station. But they refused to do so. They are trying now to dictate conditions. Had they respected the principle according to which the host country must invite observers, which Belarus did, and had their observers reported violations as independent observers, they would have had more right to put forth their assessments. But they superciliously rejected the invitation of a sovereign state and an OSCE member. Our assessments have been made by CIS observers from the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly and individual CIS countries. They have not reported any major violations that could influence the outcome of the election. But the opposition claims that the score was not 80-10 [in favour of Lukashenko] but 80-10 in favour of Tikhanovskaya.

Since the observers whom the West considers to be independent were not monitoring the presidential election, it is very difficult to convince anyone that the outcome was diametrically opposite to the announced result. I am not referring to the figures now but to the specific candidates. The figures could be different, but it is impossible to prove that President Lukashenko has not won the election without accepting his invitation to monitor the process. They did not take advantage of his invitation. I believe that they were wrong. It was a big mistake. At this point the main thing is not to focus our thoughts and efforts on trying to understand the reason for what has happened. Let us allow the situation to calm down and launch a normal national dialogue. The idea of a constitutional reform is an excellent way of doing this.

Question:

What new trends have recently developed in Russia’s foreign policy?

Sergey Lavrov:

As for trends, directions, philosophy and long-term prospects, our approaches developed back in 2000, when Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept was adopted under President Putin. It has been updated twice, the last time being in 2016. The key components of this concept say that the main goal of our foreign policy is to create favourable external conditions for internal development and to ensure the external security of the country and favourable conditions for economic cooperation in the interests of Russia’s development. This implies equal non-discriminatory conditions for our citizens who travel or work abroad, as well as for our business people. To attain this goal, we have adopted a policy of cooperation with all countries on all continents without exception that are ready to deal with us on the basis of equality, mutual respect for each other and for each other’s interests, as well as for achieving a balance of interests. Those who are ready for this, and they constitute the majority, have proved in reality that this concept is quite effective. We are aware of this trend and believe that it is forward-looking.

The current attempts to undermine international law, erode the structure of international organisations, withdraw from or close down anything, or even privatise the secretariats of international organisations, which we have seen happening, it’s all only temporary. In a manner of speaking, it is the agony of those who called the tune in international affairs for over 500 years and who see now that the world has changed dramatically, and that they have to respect the interests of the new centres of power. This does not mean that the UN Charter should be overhauled. But the interests of developing countries, which are underrepresented in the UN Security Council, especially considering their current influence, must be taken into account. The UN Security Council was established during the colonial period, when India, for example, was not an independent state.

Today we stand firmly for adding an Asian, a Latin American and, most importantly, an African state to the UN Security Council. The proposal made by some of our colleagues to add more Western states to the Security Council are not courteous, since six of the 15 UNSC members represent Western countries. It is a clear disproportion in terms of GDP, the number of population and geography. The increased role of developing countries can be taken into account, in particular, through a reform of the UNSC, which does not cancel the key provisions of the UN Charter – equality, non-interference, non-use of force or the threat of force, as well as a peaceful settlement of any disputes. In other words, the underlying principles of our foreign policy are more durable than the attempts made by some Western countries to wreck the organisation that was created after WWII.

Question:

Last February, I suggested to Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev the initiative to carry out youth projects on preserving historical memory directly in the CSTO zone of responsibility. In other words, I proposed working with young people in the CSTO format. Such work is not being conducted right now. I prepared the required initiatives and proposals, and have already got them approved by the CSTO Secretariat. They emphasised that this is a sound idea, and I received approval for it with the Federal Agency for Youth Affairs, notably, with its international department. Now I have to take the last step in this chain. I need to coordinate it with the CIS First Department. I would like to ask you to support this project. Eventually, it will create the CSTO Youth Union.

Sergey Lavrov:

You are guaranteed such support. Your papers probably are still in the department. But if you send this package to me personally, things will move faster.

Question:

What was the most interesting moment in your professional career? Could you describe it?

Sergey Lavrov:

I am often asked this question, but I really don’t know the answer. It is in my character to remember only the outcome of talks once they are over. I don’t keep any records for future memoirs. I get rid of all the papers straight away.

One of the memorable moments was probably the agreement on eliminating chemical weapons in Syria. This was done in record time – two weeks. President Vladimir Putin met with US President Barack Obama. The then Secretary of State John Kerry and I were charged with this task. We had, first, to receive the approval of the Syrian Government, and second, to ensure Syria’s accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It was also necessary to ensure the adoption of the UN Security Council resolution that would set out the commitments of Syria and the international community on eliminating, removing and disposing of chemical weapons. This entire process took two weeks, and this was a source of real professional satisfaction.

Second. When we worked on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settling Iran’s nuclear programme (this certainly took a lot more time), we also worked with US Secretary of State John Kerry and foreign ministers of European countries and China. Regrettably, the Americans simply walked out of this agreement, slamming the door. Now this has created a crisis in the UN Security Council. We will overcome this crisis. The attempts to make illegal use of the resolution that the Americans themselves violated will fall through.

Question:

Volunteers of the National Student Rescue Corps undergo special training on dealing with emergencies. Over the past years they have taken part in a number of relief operations all over Russia. Do you think it makes sense to involve rescue volunteers in emergency response efforts in other countries that are supported by Russia? Would you support this?

Sergey Lavrov:

The answer is very simple. Political support is guaranteed. In practical terms, you should make an agreement with their parent organisation – the Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM). Since it was established from scratch by my good friend Sergey Shoigu and his associates, it has quickly won a wonderful reputation in the world. It is known in all countries. Help in Lebanon after the terrible accident is the most recent example. They saved and provided medical aid to people and cleared the rubble. If in planning their foreign operations, the EMERCOM professionals consider it possible to involve you (as I see it, these operations are not safe and qualifications are a must), on our part we will politically provide active support for the younger generation, for the rescue corps. It will only improve our international image because we will involve civil society in addressing very important cross-border tasks.

Question:

How will this COVID-19 period and closed borders affect the relations between Asian countries and especially China? Last year Russia’s trade with China exceeded $100 billion. What further development prospects do you see for these relations?

Sergey Lavrov:

It is true, there are still mutually agreed restrictions on passenger traffic and crossing the border with China, for obvious reasons. Thank God, the border and the traffic were shut down before it was too late. I think it was the first decision on a global scale to close a border between two countries. To a great extent, that helped China to stop the epidemic and prevent a broader spread of the coronavirus here in Russia. However, cargo traffic has never been suspended. You mentioned trade, which amounted to over $107 billion last year. According to the data I have, the trade is going quite well.

Question:

As a resident of a border city (Blagoveshchensk), I am concerned about the further strengthening of the Russian borders. There has been a significant reduction of staff across various agencies lately.

Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think there are any plans to cut down the number of border patrol personnel and border crossing checkpoint staff. We are moving towards relaxing the visa requirements and travel restrictions with our neighbours. But it all comes down to taking necessary measures to maintain a proper level of security. I have not heard about cutbacks in this area.

Question:

You said there was no reduction in the activity of border troops. I can give you a telling example. The 2013 flood in the Far East resulted in the closure of the border crossing checkpoints in the region. There used to be three villages and a district centre; now there is only one main village. The checkpoints within 15 km to 20 km of this village were simply closed. There is some security in place; however, the checkpoints are simply closed, with no border patrol.

Sergey Lavrov:

At the time there was no discussion about the fact that the border agency’s decision, which is usually agreed upon with its colleagues across the border, had any foreign political dimension. I don’t know about this fact but I assume that the professionals who are assigned there to ensure border security maintain constant contact with their Chinese colleagues at their checkpoints. A bridge will be opened in the region, which should also have a certain effect on border security. I am certain that those who simply want to do cross-border trade and exchanges with China will not be affected.

Question:

What is the outlook for Russian-US relations in light of the upcoming elections and the expiry of the New START?

Sergey Lavrov:

The answer to this question can either be short or endlessly long. We are talking about special relations between the world’s largest nuclear powers. Speaking in terms of the period when detente was launched – we started talking with each other back in the Soviet era, Russia and the United States are the only countries that can exterminate each other. This logic is absolutely horrible, but it served as the basis for launching arms control. The very term, mutual assured destruction, was used as the logical explanation that something must be done to move back from the edge of that precipice.

We signed several treaties on strategic offensive weapons. The only surviving one is the New START, which will expire on February 5, 2021. We signed a vital Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), which greatly eased tensions in Europe and was hailed by European countries. We also had the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty). According to it, if either Russia or the United States created a ballistic missile defence system protecting the entire national territory, that country’s analysts and military planners could think that it would safely protect the country from adversary’s missiles, and this idea could encourage a desire to deliver a strike at the adversary, believing that the ABM system would intercept the missiles sent in response to the strike. At that time, Soviet and American negotiators concluded that this logic was extremely dangerous and that this solution must be ruled out in their military plans.

It was decided that each country would have only one limited ABM system. We decided that ours would protect Moscow, while the Americans decided to build its system around its land-based ICBM base. In 2002, President George W. Bush announced America’s withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. He informed President Putin that the move would not threaten Russia but was designed to protect the country from Iran and North Korea. President Putin replied that if the move would not threaten Russia, we would take reciprocal measures that would not threaten the United States. When President Putin presented our hypersonic and other new weapons several years ago, he said clearly that our scientists started working on them when the United States announced its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, because it was clear that the US missile defence shield would protect it against any existing weapons systems. Therefore, Russia needed other weapons against which missile defence systems would be useless, at least in the foreseeable future.

It all began with the United States’ withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and then it pulled out of the INF Treaty. It is now holding difficult negotiations with us on the preservation of the New START. We proposed extending it for five years, as stipulated in the treaty, without any preconditions. During the talks held between Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and US Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea held in Vienna on August 17-18, 2020, the Americans put forth conditions that are, frankly speaking, absolutely unrealistic, including the demand that China join the New START or some other similar treaty that will be signed in the future. Beijing has said more than once that it would not do this because its nuclear arsenal is incomparable to that of Russia and the United States.

The Americans are obsessed with criticising the New START and the Iranian nuclear programme for being imperfect. Everything that was signed during the Barack Obama presidency is described as “imperfect.” So, I don’t know that the final result will be but we honestly told the Americans that we need the New START, which expires in February 2021. We would support its extension without any preconditions. However, we need it no more than the Americans. If they come up with some unrealistic demands, for instance, that we must “persuade” China, we won’t do it because we respect China’s position. So, let the treaty expire and we will lose the last instrument that regulated the nuclear arms situation at least in some way.

This doesn’t mean that everything will collapse. We are fully confident of our ability to defend ourselves. So, there is no reason for concern. We will be ready to resume the conversation from scratch. However, this will be a huge mistake on behalf of our American colleagues to destroy the last agreement. This comes on top of the Open Skies Treaty, from which the US is also withdrawing, blaming Russia for violating it once again. This is not true. Participants in the treaty have grievances against the Western countries as well. The treaty has a mechanism for discussing grievances. But now that the sides have approached mutually acceptable solutions on settling issues of flights over Kaliningrad, the US has declared its withdrawal from the treaty. This showed again that the US decision to withdraw from the treaty is not linked with Russia’s actions. The Americans simply wanted to get rid of any instruments that limit their freedom of “manoeuvre.”

The same happened with the INF Treaty. When we suggested at least introducing a bilateral moratorium, our proposal was rejected. Only President of France Emmanuel Macron heard that we proposed discussing the possibilities of verifying the moratorium, which means not just taking everything on trust but monitoring its observance. Now we are launching global consultations with France on many issues concerning various aspects of European security, including those linked with medium and shorter-range missiles.

In conclusion of this subject I would like to say that the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty made it clear that the Americans tried to mislead the public by making numerous statements in the past that they needed missile defence exclusively for curbing threats from Iran and North Korea. The US said it must deploy anti-missile weapons in European countries (Romania and Poland) to parry threats from North Korea and Iran. But these weapons are perfectly suitable for launching attack missiles. Now they are being deployed outside Europe as well. Pressure on Japan and South Korea is bound to increase. If such missiles appear, their range will allow them to reach the Urals (up to 5,500 km), which is more than half of Russian territory. Of course, we will have to take counter measures. All these actions escalate tensions and create a military-technical potential on our borders.

Let me assure you that the new arms that have already been announced and on which our design bureaus are working will guarantee the invulnerability of our territory against any threats. Regrettably, there are many plans to create such threats. We will reliably ensure our security. That said, we are ready to sit at the negotiating table and discuss a new strategic stability situation, and new arms that we presented. We are ready to discuss the arms that the Americans are developing on the basis of reciprocity. However, right now there is little optimism about reaching any agreements.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4295201

Alex Him · August 29th, 2020

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Jordanian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates Ayman Safadi

24 August 2020 - 16:59

On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Ayman Safadi, upon the latter’s initiative.

The foreign ministers had an extensive discussion of the recent events in the Middle East, focusing on the developments on the Palestinian territories, in Iran, Syria and Libya.

They paid particular attention to the Middle East peace process and stated the importance of creating conditions for resuming the direct dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis as soon as possible. The ministers confirmed their commitment to the two-state solution of the Palestinian problem based on the generally recognised international legal framework that includes the respective resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly as well as the Arab Peace Initiative. In view of the joint statement, made on August 13, 2020, on full normalisation of the relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, mediated by the United States, it was noted that by no means can the agreement serve as a substitute for a complete and comprehensive solution to the Middle East peace process.

Sergey Lavrov expressed serious concern over Washington’s consistent provocative policy aimed at inflaming tensions around Iran. The ministers expressed support of President Vladimir Putin’s initiative, proposed on August 14, on convening a meeting of the heads of state of the UNSC permanent members, with the participation of Germany and Iran, to discuss the major tasks for ensuring security in the Persian Gulf region.

The ministers confirmed Russia’s and Jordan’s similar approaches to the Syrian issue. They stressed the principled position of respecting the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Syria, and the fact that there can be no alternative to a political solution in this country based on UNSC Resolution 2254 and the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, with mandatory compliance with international law and the UN Charter. The parties praised the interaction between the two countries, both on a bilateral basis and within the Astana format, as well as within the framework of the Amman Centre involving Russia, Jordan and the United States.

With respect to Libya, the ministers noted the importance of establishing a stable ceasefire and launching intra-Libyan talks without delay under the mechanisms created by the decisions of the Berlin Conference on Libya and approved by UNSC Resolution 2510. The parties stated that it is essential that the new UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Libya start working as soon as possible since the appointment process has clearly been drawn out.

The foreign ministers expressed the shared intention of Moscow and Amman to maintain a high level of political contacts and further intensify multi-dimensional bilateral cooperation between Russia and Jordan.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4296512

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov replies to questions from Channel One Russia following the meeting with US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, Moscow, August 25, 2020

25 August 2020 - 18:14

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

What issues were raised at your meeting? Did you discuss the situation in Belarus and the recent meeting with Svetlana Tikhanovskaya?

Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, of course, we talked about Belarus. We heard the US confirm its position that it is not interested in creating an artificial crisis around the situation in Belarus. The US emphasised its interest in the efforts of all external players to facilitate a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition. We replied that we support this approach. We do not consider it appropriate to try to impose outside mediators on Belarus, whether it’s the OSCE, the EU or any other neighbouring country. The Belarusians are a wise nation and they can choose the forms of national dialogue themselves and decide how this can help them overcome the current difficulties.

We drew the attention of our partners to the initiative of President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, which he made even before the presidential election and then repeated after it. I am referring to the initiative of implementing Constitutional reform as a foundation for consolidating society and the holding of subsequent elections for president, parliament and local government authority. I believe a hand has been extended to all those who are interested in a stable and united Belarus. Of course, this should be considered by the opposition, and our Western partners, that are leading the opposition now.

Question:

Did Mr Biegun share with you details of his meeting with Ms Tikhanovskaya? What do you think about their meeting?

Sergey Lavrov:

He said the meeting was useful and the US considers it possible for the Tikhanovskaya-led Coordination Council to enter into a dialogue with the leaders of the Republic of Belarus. We replied that we consider it important to let the Belarusians decide themselves who will take part in a national dialogue. We pointed out to Mr Biegun the fact that inside Belarus, including the opposition, there are many questions about the legitimacy of this Coordination Council. Many of its members learned post factum that they were included in it. Nobody consulted them. Some who were included in it have already dropped out. We are eager to understand the political criteria by which this council wants to be guided. There are many conflicting facts on the council’s programme. Ms Tikhanovskaya published very different goals for the council on her website, which were later deleted. The choice of the members of the council raises questions regarding their attitudes towards relations with the Russian Federation.

Question:

Are there any signs of fanning anti-Russia hatred by this “tour”?

Sergey Lavrov:

There are no objective reasons at all to fan anti-Russia attitudes in the Republic of Belarus. But we are seeing some who want to provoke another round of violence in Belarus. Today we urged Mr Biegun to urge support from the leading Western countries for the positive trends that have been seen in Minsk and other cities in the past week where demonstrations were peaceful and did not provoke law enforcement bodies to respond to some actions by force. We appealed to these countries, primarily the US and the EU, to pay attention to those circles, such as in Poland and Lithuania, that are emphatically expressing their discontent with normalisation in Belarus and are trying to provoke violent actions in order to cause a respective response from law enforcement. We consider such actions dangerous, and I think Mr Biegun heard our serious warnings.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4299276

Joint Statement by Iran, Russia and Turkey on the consultations held on the margins of the third meeting of the Constitutional Committee, Geneva, August 25, 2020

25 August 2020 - 20:23

The Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey as guarantors of the Astana format held on the margins of the regular session of the Constitutional Committee`s Drafting Commission started on 24 August in Geneva the trilateral meeting, consultations with the Syrian delegates and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Mr.Geir O. Pedersen as a result of which they:

1. Reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic and emphasized that these principles should be respected by all sides.

2. Reiterated their determination to combat terrorism in all forms and manifestations and stand against separatist agendas aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria as well as threatening the national security of neighboring countries. They agreed to continue cooperation in order to ultimately eliminate DAESH/ISIL, Al-Nusra Front and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaeda or DAESH/ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, while ensuring the protection of the civilians and civilian infrasructure in accordance with the international humanitarian law.

3. Expressed their opposition to the illegal seizure and transfer of oil revenues that should belong to the Syrian Arab Republic. In this context they condemned the illegal oil deal between a US-licensed company and the illegitimate entity as part of its separatist agenda.

4. Condemned the continuing Israel’s military attacks in Syria in violation of the international law and international humanitarian law and undermining the sovereignty of Syria and neighboring countries as well as endangering the stability and security in the region.

5. Expressed grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Syria and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, recognizing that it presents a profound challenge to Syria`s health system, socio-economic and humanitarian situations. Rejected all unilateral sanctions which are in contravention of international law, international humanitarian law and the UN Charter, particularly in the face of the pandemic.

6. Emphasized the important role of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, created as a result of the decisive contribution of the Astana guarantors and in furtherance of the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi, in advancing the Syrian-led and Syrianowned, UNfacilitated political process in line with the UN Security Council resolution 2254.

7. Welcomed the convening of the third meeting of the Constitutional Committee`s Drafting Commission on 24 August 2020 in Geneva and reaffirmed the readiness to support the committee`s work through continuous interaction with the Syrian delegates and the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Geir O. Pedersen, as facilitator, in order to ensure its sustainable and effective functioning.

8. Expressed their view that the work of the Constitutional Committee should be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement without foreign interference and externally imposed timelines aimed at reaching general agreement of its members that would enable the outcome to receive the widest possible support by the Syrian people.

9. Stressed the importance of the broader settlement process moving forward to increase humanitarian assistance to all Syrians throughout the country without preconditions, politization and discrimination, to facilitate safe and voluntary return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) to their original places of residence in Syria as well as to build confidence and trust between the Syrian parties.

10. Reaffirmed the determination to hold the next International Meeting on Syria in the Astana format as soon as possible.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4299320

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on statements by Foreign Minister of Lithuania Linas Linkevicius on the situation in Belarus

25 August 2020 - 20:30

Statements by Foreign Minister of Lithuania Linas Linkevicius on the situation in Belarus are truly perplexing. He said he is watching with concern how the authorities are fighting against their people who are ostensibly threatened. We believe it is at the least inappropriate for the Lithuanian Foreign Minister to accuse the authorities in a neighbouring country of “disrespect for their people.”

It is hard to qualify certain statements as anything other than interference in another country’s internal affairs: statements on the “illegitimacy” of the elections in Belarus, references to Alexander Lukashenko as “the former President,” and sanctions against him. Moreover, Vilnius granted asylum to one of the nominees and arranged meetings for her not only with Lithuanian leaders but also high-ranking US and EU officials, calling for “resolute international actions.”

These steps by Vilnius, which the Lithuanian masters of political intrigue try to disguise as a desire “to help” Belarusians, are in reality only trying to sway the situation. Instead of letting the Belarusians settle a difficult situation themselves, the Lithuanian Foreign Minister is openly imposing what seems to him to be “the correct direction” on his Belarusian neighbours.

We have to note that undisguised interference in the affairs of this neighbouring state has become routine for Vilnius, which is actively working with representatives of the so-called Russian non-systemic opposition. But it is important to remember that striving to extinguish a fire by pouring kerosene on it can be very dangerous, including for those who root for such technological experiments.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4299334

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on Turkish officials’ decision to convert the Kariye Museum in Istanbul to Muslim worship

25 August 2020 - 20:38

As reported, on August 21, 2020, the Official Gazette of the Republic of Turkey published a decree by the Turkish President on transferring the Kariye Museum in Istanbul to the supervision of the Presidency of Religious Affairs and resuming Muslim prayer services there.

The museum is a masterpiece of late Byzantine architecture, formerly the Church of the Holy Saviour, built in the 11th century on the site of an older church in the Chora Monastery. Open to visitors as a museum since 1948, this landmark has become one of the most important UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The mosaics, frescos and other interior fragments have been preserved almost completely in every part of the building, which makes it an outstanding example of world culture and Christian civilisation.

We hope that the Kariye Mosque will be operated in full accordance with its UNESCO World Heritage Site status and that no activity involving this unique landmark will prevent free access by the public.

It is specifically important that Turkish officials take due measures to ensure that the landmark itself and the numerous precious mosaics and frescos be preserved intact.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4299344

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ceyhun Bayramov, Moscow, August 26, 2020

26 August 2020 - 15:20

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 01:21:20

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held talks with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ceyhun Bayramov. He has visited Moscow many times before, but this is the first time that he has come in the capacity of the head of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan, which is a strategic partner of Russia.

Today we discussed all aspects of our bilateral ties from the viewpoint of strategic partnership and exchanged opinions on regional and international topics, as well as our collaboration in multilateral organisations.

We pointed out the truly all-embracing nature of our interaction, where the tune is set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev. They have invaluable importance for our regular and trust-based dialogue. This year our communications have been on a regular basis as well.

We expressed our countries’ satisfaction with the implementation of the agreements reached at the top level. They have to do with economic and humanitarian cooperation, contacts between our national Security Councils, other ministries and agencies, as well as parliaments.

Russia is a leading foreign economic partner of Azerbaijan. Last year, our trade exceeded $3 billion. The implementation of the decisions of the previous meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation, which was held recently via videoconference, was discussed by its co-chairs, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk and Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev. We noted that our mutual trade has not decreased but grew steadily in the first months of 2020, even despite the coronavirus infection.

Interregional and cross-border exchanges are making a great contribution to the further development of bilateral relations. A score of Russian regions are collaborating with Azerbaijan, where they have partners and solid ties. In this context, we spoke about the Astrakhan Region, with the Governor of which I met quite recently. We will formulate practical proposals in the deepening of ties between the Astrakhan Region and its partners in the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Interregional forums have become a good tradition; the next such event will be held this year in Azerbaijan.

Cultural and humanitarian ties are another vital factor when it comes to strengthening trust and mutual understanding between our people. Last year, the Days of Russian Culture were held successfully in Azerbaijan. This year we will determine the timeframe for the days of Azerbaijani culture in Russia, but this depends on our success in the fight against the coronavirus infection. Of course, we highly appreciate the careful attitude of the Azerbaijan leadership and people to the Russian language and culture.

The education sphere has a very good potential. A subsidiary of the Lomonosov Moscow State University has been functioning successfully in Baku for the past 11 years. A subsidiary of the Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University has been operating there since 2015. Other higher education institutions, including the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) and the Diplomatic Academy of Azerbaijan, continue expanding mutual ties. For example, MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy of Azerbaijan graduate students with double diplomas.

Today, as I have mentioned, we also discussed the international and regional agenda. We voice coinciding or similar positions on most key matters regarding international cooperation and international activities. We discussed specific ways of further strengthening our coordination and our cooperation at multilateral venues, including the UN, the CIS, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, BSEC and the SCO where Azerbaijan has dialogue partner status, and it is interested in elevating this to observer status. We will support this commitment.

We were satisfied to note the dynamic development of cooperation in the Caspian region. We praise the constructive involvement of our Azerbaijani partners in all events, now being implemented in the execution of the 5th Caspian Summit’s decisions. We discussed preparations for the 2nd Economic Forum of Caspian States, scheduled to be held next year in the Russian Federation.

We also discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in great detail. As I understand, we aim to continue the peace process. In this sense, it is important to provide the required atmosphere for launching a stable and sustainable negotiating process. Of course, this is not for the sake of the talks themselves, but this aims to resolve the Karabakh question by peaceful means. In turn, Russia as a nation and as one of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, will facilitate the creation of such conditions in every way possible.

On the whole, I am greatly satisfied with our initial talks. I thanked my Azerbaijani counterpart for accepting our invitation and paying one of his first visits, in his new position, to the Russian Federation. I hope that we will continue to communicate regularly in this manner.

Question (to both ministers):

What are the prospects for a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement (NKS) after the escalation on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia? What is the reason the settlement is nowhere near the final stretch?

During the escalation, Azerbaijan said the talks and mediation should be more effective and that it was necessary to replace the mechanisms for implementing UN Security Council resolutions. Given this, can we talk about the need to adjust the approaches to an NKS? Will the existing framework remain the same? Do Moscow and Baku agree on this? What steps, including humanitarian steps, are implied as part of a settlement?

Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Jeyhun Bayramov):

I agree that we should be guided by the decisions adopted by the international community, including UN Security Council resolutions, which pursued, at that time, the immediate aim of stopping the war. The same goes for the parameters of the negotiating process that were devised at later stages to achieve a peaceful settlement. These frameworks were developed by the OSCE, where the Minsk Group was established. Its co-chairs today are Russia, the US and France. The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, and both sides [to the conflict] – Armenia and Azerbaijan, have produced a batch of documents that differ in how much detail they present in their approaches but are single-minded in pursuing the main goal, which is to resolve the problem based on the principles stipulated by the UN Charter and the OSCE Helsinki Final Act.

A number of documents have been signed by the presidents and foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, along with the co-chairs – Russia, France and the United States – which consolidate, if in general outline, a comprehensive approach to a settlement, an approach that eventually should lead us to the final resolution of this problem.

As to whether there remains a framework for further efforts and how to make them more effective, let me reiterate that the existing framework is quite extensive. It would be unfortunate to lose it. Regrettably, we have seen attempts at this, including efforts to replace the negotiators, which is unacceptable for the co-chairs. We have said as much in public. But more intensive talks would not be amiss, of course.

The co-chairs were planning to visit the region, Baku and Yerevan, next month. At some point, it was planned to arrange the next round of meetings between the foreign ministers – with the co-chairs’ help. For all these plans to reach fruition (we discussed this today), the situation needs to be normalised, including putting an end to any incidents directly on the Azerbaijan-Armenia border rather than in the Karabakh area and the adjacent territories, as my colleague said today. We are quite hopeful that what happened in July will never be repeated. Along with the other stakeholders, friends of Azerbaijan and Armenia, we will be assisting with this in any way we can.

Question:

How do Azerbaijan and Russia cooperate in trilateral and quadrilateral formats? How is the North-South trade and transit corridor developing?

Sergey Lavrov (replies after Jeyhun Bayramov):

I can only confirm what was said before and enthusiastically support the economic and transport plans of our respective ministries. They are being actively carried out, including the construction of the North-South transport corridor, in which the Islamic Republic of Iran is also our partner, and the East-West corridor where Turkey is our partner in a trilateral format. A very important facility – the new bridge across the Samur River and its inauguration – was mentioned. This was a decision by the presidents that was effectively carried out.

Now, I mentioned the need to complete the construction of the Iranian section of the Astara-Rasht railway; this is one of the specific projects that will help us move forward with this international transport corridor. Today we also talked about our interest in building the Astara-Baku-Astrakhan route. This is also part of the North-South corridor. The Russia-Azerbaijan-Iran energy bridge is also a current issue and very much needed.

Of course, everything would be simpler, more effective and practical for multilateral cooperation if there were no illegal unilateral sanctions against Iran. But I am confident that even under the circumstances we will carry out all of our plans, which will benefit the vast region of that part of Eurasia.

Question:

How are Moscow and Baku cooperating in countering the coronavirus? Have you held talks on sending the Russian Sputnik V vaccine to Azerbaijan?

Sergey Lavrov:

Our presidents discussed this question. Cooperation is ongoing. At the request of our Azerbaijani friends we supplied them with 12,000 Russian test systems. Our doctors visited Azerbaijan to exchange experience with their colleagues.

Information on the vaccine was exchanged at the presidential level in a recent telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and Ilham Aliyev. We talked with Baku about the development of our vaccine in which about 20 countries have already expressed interest. As soon as we launch industrial production, we will be willing to respond primarily to the requests of our close friends and neighbours.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4301564

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the UN Security Council’s negative reaction to illegal attempts by the United States to re-impose UN sanctions against Iran

26 August 2020 - 21:32

On August 25, the UN Security Council held an in-depth discussion on the recent US demand to re-impose the UN resolutions on sanctions against Iran, which were cancelled after the adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. The unequivocal conclusion is that the Security Council cannot take any action on the basis of the US request.

Our American colleagues have had the opportunity to see that the international community firmly rejects their demand to restore the sanctions under the so-called snapback mechanism stipulated in the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. This provision can only be enacted by a JCPOA participant state. The United States is not such a state, as it has itself stated more than once, reinforcing its statements with decisions and executive acts. These steps by Washington, which constitute a gross violation of the JCPOA and UNSC Resolution 2231, have met with general disappointment and condemnation.

Washington’s desire to force its mistaken interpretation of Resolution 2231 on the international community and to evade responsibility for gross violations of its own obligations has not met with understanding or support in the UN Security Council. Several days earlier, the president of the Security Council received clear official signals from many UNSC member states indicating that they do not recognise the US right to initiate the re-institution of sanctions against Iran. The US side has been clearly shown that it has no legal or procedural standing in the matter and that its actions have no relation to the goal of maintaining international peace and security and, therefore, cannot result in the restoration of the sanctions that were cancelled long ago. In other words, the US initiative has no future and will have no legal consequences.

It is alarming, however, that US representatives, instead of drawing conclusions from this, have thrown accusations at the Security Council and its members and have done this outside the accepted framework of diplomatic discourse. Having ended up alone, the United States continues to harp on about its “leadership” while its chosen policy of ignoring reality is only further complicating the situation.

We urge Washington to take this into account and to get back on track.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4301904

Alex Him · August 29th, 2020

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, August 27, 2020

27 August 2020 - 18:30

Maria Zakharova (E) - 59:00

Coronavirus update

The global coronavirus situation remains tense. As of August 27, over 24 million people have been infected with the coronavirus since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Again, I am referring to the world situation as a whole. The dynamics of the disease varies, and is preventing many countries from relaxing their current restrictions.

During briefings last week and this week, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus again emphasised that efforts to counter the pandemic must be collective and the only way to overcome it is to work together.

The governments of most countries are focusing on consolidating positive results in countering the pandemic. They put a lot of effort into additional training for medical personnel to treat and diagnose COVID-19, and they are implementing effective anti-epidemic measures.

Now the main goal for all countries is to make safe and effective vaccines. A number of countries, including Russia, are developing them and conducting their pre-clinical and clinical trials to overcome the negative consequences of the pandemic for the economies. Our country is willing to take part in international cooperation in this area. The Russian Foreign Ministry or our missions abroad have notified their host countries of this.

Assisting Russian citizens in coming home and prospects for opening borders to foreigners

..............................................................................

Russian humanitarian aid provided to Peru to counter the coronavirus

In accordance with the Government of Peru’s request for humanitarian aid to counter the coronavirus, on August 19 Russia send a Nordwind Airlines plane to Lima to deliver 500 test kits and the necessary reagents. The Russian Ministry of Industry and Trade is actively working on additional shipments of necessary medical supplies to Peru considering Russian enterprises’ industrial capacities.

This testifies to the genuine partnership based on mutual respect and assistance as well as friendship and solidarity that Russia and Peru share as two countries that have significant experience in relieving emergencies together. It is symbolic that this year, on July 18, both countries marked the Day of Russian-Peruvian Solidarity, the 50th anniversary of Moscow providing aid to the victims of a major earthquake in Peru.

We believe bilateral relations will continue to develop for the prosperity of the two nations.

Moreover, in response to the request of Andean Parliament President Rolando Sousa, asking Russia to provide humanitarian aid for the region to fight COVID-19, this plane delivered 200 test kits and reagents from the Federation Council of the Russian Federal Assembly for the Andean Parliament.

Amid the global difficulties caused by the coronavirus pandemic, Russia is ready to join forces and exchange expertise with its interested partners in order to provide relief.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with students and faculty of MGIMO University

..............................................................................

BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Council meeting via videoconference

..............................................................................

Update on Belarus

The situation in Belarus has received broad coverage. Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’s interview with international journalist Sergey Brilyov has just been published. The situation in Belarus was discussed in detail during this interview. There is nothing to add to this at the moment. We will make additional comments when receiving questions.

Statement by US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo on the intention to build medium- and short-range missiles “to deter Russian aggression”

Speaking at the Republican National Convention, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo declared the US’s intention to develop medium- and short-range missiles “to deter Russian aggression.” This statement probably set the tune for his speech. He mentioned, as a US achievement, Washington’s withdrawal from the “harmful” INF Treaty, which allows the US to develop missiles “to deter Russian aggression.”

We still believe the US made a big mistake (rather than an achievement) when it unilaterally withdrew from the treaty. Although the INF Treaty was not ideal in modern circumstances, there is no doubt that it continued to promote predictability and restraint in the nuclear missile area.

As we have explained more than once, the deployment of US ground-based medium- and short-range missiles in different parts of the world will be an extremely risky and destabilising step for international and regional security. We believe this will provoke a new round in the arms race with unpredictable consequences. Needless to say, Russia will immediately respond to the risks of additional missiles near Russian territory.

We are convinced that in this context the only sensible and justifiable measure would be a joint search for a mutually acceptable settlement of the current situation through political and diplomatic means. Russia is open to equitable and constructive work on restoring trust and enhancing international security and strategic stability. We hope the Americans will also display reciprocal interest and responsibility.

As for yet another propaganda thesis on “Russian aggression,” this is just one more attempt to distort the facts and mislead the US and international public in order to sidetrack attention from the US’s own destructive actions in the world arena.

European Commission’s statement on Europe-Wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes

We have noted the traditional statement on behalf of the European Commission with respect to the so-called Europe-Wide Day of Remembrance for the victims of all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes.

We have to state that Brussels continues its strange and short-sighted policy of falsifying and rewriting European history. The European Commission has once again replicated the revisionist idea that it was the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact signed on August 23, 1939, that “plunged Europe into darkness.” In doing so it has not said a word, which is customary for such absurd statements, about the expansionist and hate-filled intentions of the Nazi regime and the decisive role of the Soviet Union in the victory over Nazism.

In this context, we want to remind those who support historical speculations that Europe started the “plunge into darkness” not on August 23, 1939, but much earlier, when Western countries opted for a policy of appeasement of the aggressor-country that reached a peak with the Munich Betrayal of 1938.

An exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of those historical events has been made by President Vladimir Putin in an article entitled “75 Years of Great Victory: Common Responsibility for History and the Future.” We have quoted this article on many occasions. We invite anyone interested in speculating on this subject to read it attentively.

Another attempt by the European Commission to draw a parallel between the USSR and Nazi Germany runs counter to everything: history, facts, logic and morals. Above all, it runs counter to the conclusions of the Nuremberg Trials. By promoting such pseudo-historical concepts in pursuit of fleeting political interests, Brussels is “playing with fire” and they know it. Such liberal use, interpretation or willful distortion of historical facts can lead to a tolerance for the overt propaganda of Nazi ideology in some EU countries. This is a harsh fact today. It threatens the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights, and offends the memory of the millions of victims of WWII and those who sacrificed their lives for the liberation of Europe from German Nazism.

Entry into force of the Memorandum between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on reciprocal easing of visa procedures

..............................................................................

Blocking of Cuban government media accounts by Google

On August 20, the US’s Google blocked the accounts of the Cuban publisher Granma and the leading news channels Mesa Redonda and Cubavision Internacional. It accused them of violating US export laws. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. An article in US law was found as an excuse to block these sites.

As usual, Google did not deem it necessary to provide a full or even partial explanation for its actions. This unceremonious blocking is restrictive and violates universal democratic principles by limiting freedom of access to information and its dissemination. This was a deliberate action by the IT giant.

The only argument that was offered was a reference to some norms that require a corporation to block the transfer of applications to the countries on which the US government has imposed an embargo.

Comrades in the US who make these decisions, please, listen to me! When serious documents aimed at preventing the spread of xenophobia, racism and new forms of Nazism are being developed, you typically refer to freedom of speech. You express how important this is to you and that it has to be taken into account even when drafting anti- or counter-terrorism resolutions, holding conferences, etc. You attach primary importance to freedom of speech. What is the link between US exports and blocking Cuban publishers and news channels? What are you talking about? Do you really think we don’t understand why this is being done? Don’t we understand that this is the very censorship against which you fight so hard in other countries? You are doing this with your own hands.

Obviously, it doesn’t stand up to criticism and it runs counter to common sense. This is the pure exterritorial application of US law. In this case, it represents the arbitrary censorship of the global internet, which runs contrary to the relevant UN conventions and is totally unacceptable.

But is this really the only example of anti-democratic media regulation in the United States? Unfortunately, no. In September 2019, Cuban accounts were blocked by the social media giant Twitter. In June 2020, the internet platform deleted numerous Russian, Chinese and Turkish accounts under the far-fetched pretext that they were promoting political propaganda. In July, Google blocked, without notice, the official account of the Tsargrad TV channel on YouTube and the related Tsargrad News and Double-Headed Eagle channels. In addition, it banned their access to email, cloud and other services.

These examples make it obvious how the IT corporations Google, Facebook and Twitter are building up their participation in Washington’s campaign against objectionable media, under the political pressure of the US establishment. If an alternative opinion is brought to public attention, we see how Washington operates to stamp it out. Apparently, US officials see a threat to the information monopoly of mainstream news in world broadcasting.

We see the actions of these US IT corporations, including the recent Google move, as the crude suppression of freedom of speech and expression and of the principles of free dissemination of information and unrestricted access to it.

We urge the heads of these companies not to abandon democratic values for the sake of fleeting political considerations and revise their policy in favour of observing fundamental international legal standards. Either explain why you can’t or tell us how these decisions are made. Maybe you can describe the pressure that is exerted on your companies? How do you make decisions on blocking news channels?

We hope the relevant international agencies and human rights organisations will react appropriately to these actions and give an unbiased assessment of this situation.

Unveiling a monument to Sergey Yesenin in Croatia

On August 20, a monument to Russian poet Sergey Yesenin was unveiled in Opatija, Croatia. The ceremony was attended by the Ambassador of Russia to Croatia, city officials, representatives of civil society, educational institutions, businesses and creative communities, and compatriots.

Our Embassy gave the bust of the great Russian poet as a gift to the residents of the seaside town, which is very popular among tourists, including those from Russia.

It is gratifying that the initiative to perpetuate the memory of outstanding figures of national culture and history on Croatian soil is supported by the local community and serves to strengthen people-to-people contacts.

We are grateful to our Croatian partners for valuing Sergey Yesenin’s rich spiritual and literary legacy, which has no national borders.

75th anniversary of the independence of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

On September 2, Vietnam will mark the 75th anniversary of the country’s independence.

From the middle of the 19th century, Vietnam was a colonial possession of France, and during the Second World War, it was occupied by Japan. Only the victory of the August Revolution of 1945, which was won by the Vietnamese people led by the legendary Ho Chi Minh, put an end to foreign rule and marked the creation of a new state on the map of Indochina – the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. However, Vietnam had to defend its freedom and independence with arms in hand for many years – first in the Resistance War of 1946-1954, and then when repelling foreign aggression led by the United States. In 1975, this heroic fight culminated in the reunification of the country and the creation of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Support from the USSR played an important role in the early days of Vietnam’s statehood. The USSR for many years provided Vietnam with large-scale political and economic assistance. The traditions of friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation established at that time still underpin our special bilateral relationship. This year, Russia and Vietnam are celebrating the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations. Russian-Vietnamese cooperation is rapidly developing in the spirit of a comprehensive strategic partnership based on the rich experience accumulated over previous years.

Today Vietnam is a modern state with a fast-growing economy, an active participant in a number of regional and international associations, and currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council and the ASEAN Chair.

Ahead of the holiday, we would like to wish our Vietnamese friends peace, prosperity and wellbeing.

Annual Forum of Young Diplomats from Organisation of Islamic Cooperation countries on 100% Tatarstan digital platform

..............................................................................

Answers to media questions:

Question:

Can you please comment on the recent meeting between the Russian Ambassador in Bamako and Malian military authorities?

Maria Zakharova:

On August 21, at the invitation of the leaders of the military group that took power in Mali, Russian Ambassador in Bamako Igor Gromyko met with the leader of the National Committee for the Salvation of the People Colonel Assimi Goita at the military base in the town of Katiа located not far from the capital.

The main focus of this first contact with the new self-proclaimed Malian authorities was on ensuring the security of the Russian diplomatic mission and its staff. The Chairman of the National Committee for the Salvation of the People was informed about our concerns regarding problems with the embassy’s security that had not been up to standard since the events of August 18.

The ambassador was assured that the Malian Gendarmerie and the military police would immediately receive instructions to take exhaustive measures to protect the Russian foreign mission.

At his own initiative, Assimi Goita informed the Russian Ambassador about the reasons that prompted the military to remove President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and the Malian Government from power, as well as about the committee’s priority steps to restore order in the country and set up the operation of government bodies.

The leaders of the National Committee for the Salvation of the People held similar meetings with the ambassadors of several other countries, including China and France.

Question:

On August 21, Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord of Libya Fayez al-Sarraj and President of the Libyan House of Representatives Aguila Saleh Issa gave statements on introducing a ceasefire in all of Libya and launching a process of political settlement. What do you think of this step?

Maria Zakharova:

Being convinced that there is no alternative to a political settlement of the Libyan crisis, we have consistently advocated a stable ceasefire in Libya and cessation of the bloody intra-Libyan conflict that has been tearing the country apart since the 2011 NATO intervention. In this context, the recent statements by Prime Minister of the Government of National Accord of Libya Fayez al-Sarraj and President of the Libyan House of Representatives Aguila Saleh Issa have given us grounds for optimism. We urge the sides to launch intra-Libyan talks without delay based on the mechanisms created at the Berlin International Conference on Libya on January 19 of this year and approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2510.

Question:

Could you comment on the possibility of exchanging detained citizens that are serving terms in Russia and the US?

Maria Zakharova:

The media has regularly published articles lately about preparations for exchanging US citizens, including the recently convicted Paul Whelan for Russian citizens that are being kept in US prisons. As the Foreign Ministry noted earlier, any reports on alleged talks on this issue are not based in reality.

As for the Russian citizens serving terms in US prisons, on March 24 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sent a verbal message to US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. He urged Washington to release them for humanitarian reasons due to the spread of COVID-19 in the US. Since then we have repeatedly raised this issue at different levels but have not heard an unequivocal answer.

We urge our US colleagues to address this matter – the sooner the better.

Question:

What is Russia’s attitude towards the repeatedly announced plans of Turkey, which occupies part of the Republic of Cyprus, to start unilateral reconstruction and use of the Famagusta resort? What is your attitude to the proposals of the President of Cyprus to study, in cooperation with the UN and the two communities, the issue of reconstruction and the return of the lawful residents of the closed city?

Maria Zakharova:

The parameters of resolving the Varosha problem are determined by a series of UN Security Council resolutions – 414 (1977), 482 (1980), 550 (1984), 789 (1992) and 2483 (2019). As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation is committed to the modalities of the decision fixed in these resolutions and is ready to render assistance to the negotiating parties. This also determines our attitude towards the proposal by President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades.

We believe early resumption of the talks on a final solution of the Cyprus problem would create a constructive atmosphere that will facilitate a compromise on the Varosha issue as well.

Question:

The Estonian Government is planning to demolish the Maarjamae Memorial Complex commemorating Russian Baltic Fleet seamen. Estonia’s Interior Minister has described this memorial as a symbol of the occupation period. Is the Russian Foreign Ministry aware of this? Can we say that the Estonian authorities’ plan is yet another step in the campaign against monuments to Soviet soldiers in the Baltic and several other East European countries?

Maria Zakharova:

We have recently learned about the new plans of Estonian politicians in their war against the remaining elements of the “Soviet legacy.” These plans concern the memorial complex on a hill in the suburbs of Tallinn built in 1960 to commemorate the heroic Baltic Fleet seamen who perished there during the First World War. According to Interior Minister Mart Helme, this disintegrating complex is “a symbol of the occupation period” and must therefore be demolished.

However, the city authorities have adopted a more sound approach. Tallinn Mayor Mihhail Kolvart has said that Tallinn is not waging a war on memorials and is ready to buy the complex out so as to start renovating it.

Let’s hope that common sense prevails in Estonia and the country’s political forces refrain from staging yet another provocation, which would inevitably deepen the further erosion of the thousands-strong Russian language community and the stagnation of bilateral relations.

For our part, we will continue to work actively, including at international venues, to prevent the rewriting of our common history and the desecration of Soviet memorials in the Baltics.

Question:

The Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan has recently held meetings with some of the country’s key political figures to discuss the possibility of peace talks. In particular, he met with President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani, First Vice-President Amrullah Saleh and former President Hamid Karzai, as well as with the NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan. What are the results of these meetings? Have any practical agreements been reached?

Maria Zakharova:

Indeed, over the past few days the Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan has held a number of meetings, which were focused, in part, on encouraging the Afghan leadership to start direct intra-Afghan peace talks as soon as possible.

Regrettably, contrary to the positive decision taken at the Loya Jirga general assembly on August 7-9 of this year, the Afghan authorities have not released the remaining Taliban prisoners and have put forth new conditions for their release.

In this context, we urge Kabul to complete the exchange of prisoners and start a direct dialogue with the armed opposition without delay. We have pointed out that any delays in launching the intra-Afghan talks undermine the international efforts towards a settlement in Afghanistan and throw into question the Afghan authorities’ desire for an early restoration of peace in the country.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302496

Alex Him · September 3rd, 2020

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about sanctions against three Russian research institutes

28 August 2020 - 12:55

Question:

Can you comment on the US sanctions recently imposed on three Russian research institutes?

Maria Zakharova:

We find it appalling that three Russian research institutes were included in the US lists of restricted parties. The most outrageous fact is that the sanctions were imposed on the very scientists and experts who have been working tirelessly for the past several months to develop a Russian COVID-19 vaccine.

We do not understand how the US officials will explain to their citizens this attempt to punish the people who are working – and working successfully – on a treatment against the disease that has already killed more than 180,000 Americans. We are not sure that this is the right step towards cooperation against the pandemic although even Washington does not dispute the importance of this cooperation. It appears that, once again, the United States is using the sanctions leverage to promote its own companies – this time pharmaceutical – the same way as it continues to push its gas into the European market.

As for our colleagues claiming that these research institutes are allegedly involved in chemical and biological weapon programmes, no evidence has been presented, as usual.

In this context, I would like to note once again that, under the 1992 Presidential Executive Order, Russia discontinued Soviet chemical weapon developments. Under Article 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), Moscow declared all of the country’s stocks of toxic agents. In 2017, the Russian chemical arsenal was completely destroyed under strict supervision. The destruction was confirmed by the competent international body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which includes 193 countries, among them the United States. Russia continues to comply diligently with all of its commitments under the CWC. Specifically, the OPCW inspections in the Russian Federation never stopped and, in fact, continue to take place in accordance with the Convention provisions.

The decision of the Bureau of Industry and Security only casts doubt on the OPCW’s efficiency and professionalism. It should also be noted that the CWC clearly describes the mechanisms to be applied in dispute resolution. Unfortunately, Washington has long preferred to act “at its own discretion” rather than within the framework of international agreements.

It would be appropriate to note that currently, the United States remains the only CWC state-party that still has chemical weapons. Moreover, various inventions related to the use of full-fledged chemical warfare, including nerve gases, are still being patented in the United States.

Russia’s activity in medical and biological sciences pursues only peaceful goals and fully complies with the obligations under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which is confirmed by the information annually submitted about the Russian facilities and biological activity in order to strengthen the credibility of the BTWC. Being the convention’s depositary and understanding the importance of its reinforcement, Russia proactively supports the adoption of a legally binding protocol to the convention that would describe an efficient inspection mechanism to alleviate any concerns regarding compliance with the BTWC by a specific state-party. In view of this fact, the decision by the Bureau of Industry and Security seems particularly cynical because it is in fact the United States that has, almost single-handedly, been blocking the work on such a protocol since 2001.

We also have questions regarding Washington’s medical and biological activity both on the US territory and outside its borders. There are no grounds to assert that the activity of the American biological laboratories fully complies with the BTWC provisions. Major international scandals around US laboratories are quite illustrative in this context. For example, the investigation of the terrorist attacks linked to the dissemination of anthrax spores by post in the United States in 2001 found that the scientist who posted the envelopes with the toxin actually worked at the biology lab in Fort Detrick, an advanced biodefence facility of the US military.

In addition to this, Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns with regard to the military biological activity of the United States in the post-Soviet space. In particular, the activity conducted at the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research, built by the US Department of Defence in Georgia, where the US Army Medical Research Directorate-Georgia operates, is begging numerous questions.

In order to eliminate the concerns with regard to fulfilling the BTWC, we believe it is necessary to enforce the mechanism under Article 5 of the Convention, according to which the states-parties must consult with each other to resolve any issues under the BTWC. Instead of the pressure of sanctions, we propose that our American colleagues sit down at a negotiating table with us to discuss all the persisting issues in the bilateral format.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302595

Press release on the consultations of deputy foreign ministers/special representatives of the BRICS countries on the issues of the Middle East and North Africa

28 August 2020 - 15:58

On August 26, as part of the Russian BRICS Chairmanship, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov held consultations, via videoconference, of deputy foreign ministers/special representatives of the BRICS countries for the Middle East and North Africa. The conference was attended by Additional Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs of India P. Harish, Assistant Foreign Minister of China Chen Xiaodong, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa Kwati Mashego-Dlamini and Director of the Brazilian Foreign Ministry Department for the Middle East, Europe and Africa Sidney Romeiro.

The participants discussed in detail the situations in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf countries as well as the Middle East peace process.

They stated that BRICS has a substantial potential for promoting collective efforts in the search for political solutions to the problems of the Middle East, and expressed a shared commitment to continuing their cooperation and deepening political dialogue among the five member countries.

The participants agreed that regular comparison of positions and cooperation within BRICS on a broad range of issues of the Middle East, as well as other urgent international problems meet the demands of the time and that such practice should be continued at different venues, including the UN. After the discussion, they adopted the following joint statement:

1. On 26 August 2020, a teleconference of the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) was held under the Russian Chairmanship to exchange views on the current situation in the MENA region.

2. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys closely followed the spread of COVID-19 in the Middle East and North Africa and supported the efforts made by these countries to actively fight against the pandemics. They called upon the international community to strengthen coordination and forge synergy, provide more support to MENA states to fight against COVID-19 at an early date and help them defeat COVID-19 so as to recreate a sound environment conducive to peace, stability and development.

3. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed serious concern over continued conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa that remain a source of threat to regional and international stability and security. At the same time, they stated that regional crises should be resolved exclusively through political and diplomatic means based on unconditional respect for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of all MENA States.

4. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reaffirmed their commitment to the basic principle that peace and security in the Middle East and North Africa should be achieved and sustained in accordance with, and in full respect for international law and the UN Charter. Confirming the primary role of the UN Security Council in this process, they urged the North Africa countries to respect the AU Charter and the leading role of the AU Peace and Security Council. They advocated for the strengthening of the multilateral framework of international relations, while opposing unilateralism and promoting peace, stability and development in the Middle East and North Africa region.

5. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys shared the view that peoples of each of the countries in the MENA region need solidarity and support in fulfilling their legitimate aspirations to enjoy full civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and fundamental freedoms.

6. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed serious concern over the humanitarian situation of all religious minorities in the areas of conflict, especially those who were displaced or forced to flee their places of origin or stay in conflict zones or in the territories controlled by terrorist groups and live under the constant threat of violation or infringement of their human rights. They therefore called upon all Middle East states to reaffirm their commitment to respect the rights of every citizen in the areas of conflict.

7. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their solidarity with the people of Lebanon in connection with the massive explosion in the port of Beirut on August 4, 2020 which resulted in considerable casualties and large-scale destruction. They called upon all the members of the international community to provide assistance to Lebanon with the purpose of overcoming the consequences of the catastrophe and the speedy normalization of the political and socio-economic situation in the country. They advocated that, taking into consideration the legitimate aspirations of the Lebanese people for political solutions to the current challenges faced by the nation, Lebanese political forces should be able to work together in the current complicated conditions and take decisive steps for the sake of de-escalation of tensions, renunciation of violence and prevention of the situation sliding out of control.

8. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys noted that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed. They reiterated that the fight against terrorism must be conducted under the coordinating leadership of the UN in accordance with the norms and principles of international law, including the principles of respect for sovereignty, independence and equality of all States, and opposing double standards. They reiterated that countries must urgently consider expediting finalization of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) under the UN umbrella.

The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys welcomed the activities of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group, in particular the progress achieved on the Draft Counter-Terrorism Strategy. They noted the timeliness of this document and expressed their confidence that it would greatly contribute to the consolidation of the efforts of the BRICS States in the fight against terrorism.

9. Regarding the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the country. They expressed their conviction that there can be no military solution to the Syrian conflict. They also reaffirmed their commitment to advancing a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process in line with UNSC Resolution 2254, culminating in constitutional reform and free and fair elections. They noted in this context the importance of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva launched with the decisive participation of the countries-guarantors of the Astana Process and all states engaged in efforts to address the conflict through political means and welcomed the efforts of Mr Geir Pedersen, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria, to ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of the Committee. They expressed their conviction that, in order to reach general agreement, members of the Constitutional Committee should be guided by the commitment to compromise and cooperate constructively without foreign interference.

They also welcomed the signing of the Additional Protocol to the Memorandum on Stabilization of the Situation in the Idlib De-Escalation Area. They reaffirmed the international obligations to fight terrorism in all its forms and highlighted the importance of unity in the fight against terrorist organizations in Syria as designated by the UN Security Council.

The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys emphasized the fundamental importance of allowing unhindered humanitarian aid in accordance with the UN humanitarian principles and the post-conflict reconstruction of Syria that would create conditions for the safe, voluntary and dignified return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their places of permanent residence thus contributing to achieving long-term stability and security in Syria and the region in general. They also expressed concern with all those in vulnerable situations and condemned persecution on ethnic or religious grounds.

10. Reaffirming their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Libya, the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys called on the Libyan parties to the conflict to show mutual restraint and stressed the importance of establishing a long-term lasting ceasefire in Libya, in order to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable solution through a Libyan-led and Libyan-owned political process under the auspices of the United Nations. They stated the need to fully implement the decisions of the International Conference on Libya held in Berlin on 19 January 2020 and UNSC Resolution 2510, noting the importance of parallel progress on all three tracks of the intra-Libyan negotiation process (military, political and economic), with substantial assistance from the United Nations Support Mission in Libya. Encouraging the UN Secretary General to promptly designate a Special Representative for Libya, the Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys noted a significant role played by the African Union and the League of Arab States in promoting a peaceful intra-Libyan dialogue and political process.

11. The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reaffirmed their continued support for efforts made by the Iraqi Government towards national reconstruction, development and a mutually respectful and inclusive national dialogue with a view to overcoming common challenges and enhancing stability. Stressing the need to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and the inadmissibility of any interference in its internal affairs, the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys noted the importance of supporting the Iraqi people in their fight against manifestations of extremism and terrorism and promoting economic recovery of the country. They further acknowledged the importance of stability in Iraq for regional and international security. They further condemned in the strongest possible terms the heinous and inhuman violence perpetrated by terrorist and extremist groups, such as the self-styled ISIS, in the territory of Iraq.

12. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their grave concern over the ongoing conflict in the Yemen Republic that affects security and stability not only in that country, but throughout the entire region.

They noted in this regard the need for a full cessation of hostilities and establishment of an inclusive negotiation process in Yemen mediated by the UN. They reaffirmed the general consensus that progress towards resolving the numerous challenges confronting Yemen, cannot be achieved without a constructive dialogue with due account of the legitimate interests of different political forces of the country.

The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys stressed the importance of providing urgent humanitarian assistance to Yemenis and facilitating the rapid, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian supplies to all people and across all regions of the country. They warned that without sustainable peace in Yemen, the humanitarian crisis will only continue and worsen.

13. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys are convinced that failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues to hamper peace and stability in the Middle East. They remain committed to a just and lasting peace in the region, stating that a two-state solution must be sought, guided by the international legal framework previously in place, such as the relevant UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative, resulting in the creation of an independent and viable State of Palestine, existing peacefully side by side with its neighbours. They expressed the need for new and creative diplomatic efforts to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement and emphasized the importance of an early launch of direct negotiations between the Palestinian and the Israeli sides.

14. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their serious concern over the ongoing tensions, including one-sided actions in the Gulf region. They reaffirmed the support of the BRICS countries for the efforts to resolve the existing disagreements through negotiations and diplomatic engagement, stressed the need for promoting a positive and constructive agenda in the region, in which all countries jointly respond to common threats and challenges.

15. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys supported the steps taken by the Sudanese leadership to strengthen national accord and overcome social and economic crisis in the country. Welcoming the commitment of the Sudanese government to the nationwide effort to bring an end to internal armed conflicts, primarily in Darfur, they looked forward to the successful outcome of the negotiations between the Sudanese government and the opposition movements.

The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed support for the responsible drawdown of the United Nations – African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) and its transition into the future United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), taking into full consideration, in the process, the opinion of the Sudanese people.

16. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys committed themselves to meet again in India during its Chairmanship in BRICS in 2021. They also reaffirmed the advisability of holding regular consultations on the Middle East and North Africa at various venues, including the UN, and expressed their readiness for holding relevant working-level consultations when required.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302838

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the suspense of restrictions on the use of force against journalists in the United States

28 August 2020 - 16:12

We are concerned about the decision of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily lift a lower court’s preliminary injunction on federal law enforcement officers’ use of force, threats and dispersal orders against journalists documenting Portland protests.

We do not regard as convincing the US judges’ argument that the injunction, which was adopted in late July in a lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), allegedly prevents law enforcement personnel from reliably maintaining law and order because it is too difficult for them to distinguish peaceful citizens, including members of the press, from violent demonstrators.

The decision has created a dangerous precedent by legalising police violence towards journalists, which contradicts not only the US legislation, in particular the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but also the universally recognised democratic principles when it comes to freedom of the media and unrestricted activities of journalists.

As of August 2020, human rights organisations have reported over 700 cases of unjustified arrests and assaults by law enforcement personnel against members of the press who are covering protests in the United States. This police violence is unacceptable.

We urge the US authorities, acting in accordance with Washington’s international obligations in the sphere of human rights and freedom of the press, to conduct a thorough investigation into all such violent actions against journalists and to create conditions for members of the press to exercise their professional duty.

We hope that the concerned international authorities and human rights organisations will react accordingly and will provide an objective assessment of US law enforcement officers’ actions.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302885

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the escalation of Russophobia in the run-up to parliamentary elections in Montenegro

28 August 2020 - 19:26

We are seriously concerned about the developments in Montenegro in the run-up to the national parliament elections to be held on August 30 this year.

For the sake of their own political and campaign interests, the highest Montenegrin officials are using the entire arsenal of confrontation, deliberately escalating tension. They do not confine themselves to attacks on their domestic competitors but are again vigorously playing the anti-Russia card.

Moscow is being accused in advance of trying to influence the conflict between the Montenegrin authorities and the Serbian Orthodox Church, interfering in the electoral process on the side of anti-government forces, and implementing its “imperial ambitions in the Balkans,” all without any evidence. Hints of a possible repetition of the 2016 scenario have become more frequent, when hysteria over an “attempted coup” was unleashed in the country, allegedly initiated by some “Russian agents.”

Unfortunately, the current Montenegrin authorities fell into the habit of whipping up Russophobic sentiment prior to every important social or political event, categorically representing Russia as an enemy who is to blame for every problem – in the spirit of Western corporate trends.

This consumerist approach to our bilateral relations, which are somewhat challenging at the moment, contrasts sharply with the signals periodically sent from Podgorica about its interest in Russian-Montenegrin normalisation. In the meantime, we see how negative feelings continue to accumulate and how an unfriendly atmosphere is being created towards Russians visiting Montenegro, whom the authorities in that country have recently begun to actively invite to local resorts.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4303452

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the statements by Deputy of Estonian Parliament Marko Mihkelson

28 August 2020 - 19:28

We attentively read the speech of the Deputy Chairman of the Estonian Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee Marko Mihkelson on Belarus on August 25 of this year. We cannot but agree with him on one very important point – concern for the future of the Belarusian people, fraternal for Russia, in this difficult period.

As distinct from this Estonian deputy, who advocates a colour revolution scenario and a change of power in Belarus, we really want to wish our neighbours a good and peaceful life and to maintain the sovereign right to make their own choices. To achieve this it is necessary to avoid fueling tensions and stirring up strife from outside but rather to keep a cool head and abide by the international legal principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.

In urging the EU and NATO to interfere with the situation in Belarus, Mihkelson ignores the fact that Belarus is not a member of these organisations; Belarus continues to develop relations with the Russian Federation in the Union State format and as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Legally, this means that the said countries have certain commitments, including those in the military and political areas.

Accusing Russian leaders of “dictatorship” and “aggressive plans” as regards Belarus, the Estonian MP does not stop at direct interference in the affairs of not only Belarus but also Russia in an effort to suggest “other options” for its citizens. We would like to advise him to look at his own country where the Russian-speaking Diaspora, which accounts for nearly a third of the population, is deprived of basic political and civil rights.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4303462

Warning for Russian citizens travelling abroad in connection with US threat

28 August 2020 - 21:07

In connection with the arrest of Russian citizen, 27 year-old Yegor Kryuchkov, in the United States on August 22, 2020 and following the warnings published by the Russian Foreign Ministry on September 2, 2013, April 10, 2014, May 22, 2015, April 11, 2016, February 16, 2017, February 1, 2018 and January 25, 2019, we would like to again draw the attention of our compatriots travelling abroad that they could face a threat of persecution by the US law-enforcement agencies and special services. This threat exists both in the United States and can be created through inquiries by its authorities in third countries.

We have to state that despite our numerous appeals for normalising cooperation based on the 1999 Treaty between the US and Russian Governments on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, US law-enforcement bodies continue to arrest Russian citizens all over the world. Since 2008, 56 such cases have been recorded, including six in 2019.

We have repeatedly faced situations where US special services organised open provocations against our citizens and even abducted them. This happened with Konstantin Yaroshenko in Liberia in 2010 and Roman Seleznyov in the Maldives in 2014. Both were taken by force to the US without investigation.

Having ended up in the hands of US justice, Russian citizens often face a biased attitude and real legal iniquity. To force them to confess to framed charges, they are subjected to powerful psychological pressure and kept in unbearable conditions. This is what happened with Marina Butina who was convicted in the US just for having a Russian passport. If our citizens refuse to plead guilty, they are demonstratively sentenced to long prison terms, something that happened to Yaroshenko and Viktor Bout.

The example of Bogdana Osipova is also indicative. She was charged in the US with the abduction of her own daughters, and her demands that her former American husband, who was physically abusive, pay alimony were qualified as extortion. In the process she was subjected to open blackmail, with promises to reduce her seven-year term if she gave up her children who lived in Russia and were Russian citizens.

The situation is complicated by the fact that after the Russian consulates general in San Francisco and Seattle we closed by the US authorities in 2017-2018, Russia has lost any consular presence on the US West Coast. This was a serious blow to our ability to provide timely support to imprisoned Russians in the US.

Naturally, Russian diplomats are doing all they can to help their compatriots in trouble, ensure their lawful rights and help them get home as soon as possible. However, we would like to advise our compatriots to thoroughly weigh the risk of persecution by the US when planning foreign travel. This primarily applies to trips to the United States and the countries that have extradition treaties with it. You can see the list of these countries on the website: https://2009-2017.state.gov/document...tion/71600.pdf

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4303492

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to organisers, participants and guests of the 4th international charity festival of Christian culture, Russia- Greece: Together Through the Centuries

29 August 2020 - 20:00

I would like to extend my heartfelt greetings to organisers, participants and guests of the 4th international charity festival of Christian culture, Russia-Greece: Together Through the Centuries.

Holding this event has become a strong tradition, evidencing the fact that ties of friendship and mutual assistance uniting our nations are deeply rooted in history. The Greek public has widely acknowledged Russia’s substantive contribution to Greece’s obtaining its independence in the early 19th century. Russian representatives will participate in next year’s events in Greece marking the bicentenary of the start of the national liberation struggle. Symbolically, our countries have agreed to hold a joint Russia-Greece History Year in 2021.

It is gratifying that regardless of the uneasy epidemiological situation, the festival resumed its work after last year’s break. This year it is to be held on Russian territory. Russians revere the patron of the island of Corfu, Saint Spyridon of Trimythous as much as the Greeks honour the saintly and righteous warrior Fyodor Ushakov. It is indicative that the Russian Foreign Ministry’s reception mansion is located on Spiridonovka Street, which was named after the church built in honour of this Orthodox saint.

Revisiting the joint glorious pages of our history helps us maintain our mutual trust and promote a creative agenda that benefits both the Russian and Greek peoples.

I wish you new experiences, strong health, high spirits and all the very best.

Moscow, August 29, 2020

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4305731

Alex Him · September 4th, 2020

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions from MGIMO students and academic staff on the occasion of the beginning of a new academic year, Moscow, September 1, 2020

1 September 2020 - 13:42

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr Torkunov,

Mr Yakovenko,

Traditionally, we meet here on September 1 to give a joint start to a new academic year. Of course, we send special congratulations to the first-year students who were admitted in the wake of a serious competition, of which Rector Anatoly Torkunov just provided a detailed account. MGIMO renews its reputation year in and year out. The competition here is the highest among Russian universities, and the quality of new students is always a source of great respect and admiration.

Despite the coronavirus, admissions went well this year. We followed them online and otherwise to make sure the requirements were complied with. Mr Torkunov has just mentioned the results which are impressive.

Mr Torkunov celebrated his anniversary the other day. It was especially gratifying to hear people talk on this day about MGIMO traditions, our history and the people who work and study here. So, I don’t need to say more about my alma mater. I would like to once again extend my best wishes to Mr Torkunov on his anniversary. As you may be aware, the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, signed an executive order to present the rector of MGIMO, Alexander Torkunov, with the Order of Merit to the Fatherland, 2nd Class. I think this symbolically goes to show not only the recognition of his personal achievements, but also his achievements at the university.

Mr Torkunov said that the Foreign Ministry as an employer is the ultimate measure of the university’s success. Although, based on the numbers, an insignificant portion of the graduates join the Foreign Ministry every year, maybe dozens, or at times, a hundred or so graduates. Many more graduates find employment in government departments, private businesses or journalism. The training is fundamental in nature and provides an excellent opportunity to choose a profession to one’s liking. Once again, the quality of the education guarantees that, if there’s a will, great success can be achieved in any area of interest.

As you are aware, we chose diplomacy as our major at a time when it was easier to make this choice. Probably, there were fewer temptations compared to the number of faculties that are available at MGIMO now. We had four faculties. We chose diplomacy, so every year I talk about diplomacy here. Considering that you joined the Institute of International Relations, I am not going to spend much time talking about the international situation. If you are here, then you must be following developments and taking an interest in them.

I will say briefly that for several years now the international situation has been characterised by a transition to a new, more democratic and just multilateral system, which should do a better job accounting for the changes that have taken place in the world over the past decades. Primarily, the changes consist of the fact that all issues have become transboundary and affect all countries equally. No country can deal on its own with the kind of challenges we are facing now. The coronavirus is one such challenge, not to mention international terrorism, drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime, climate problems and much more.

Another problem we are facing today is the reluctance of many countries, primarily the individual US-led Western countries, to recognise objective reality, notably, the forming of a new system of relations and the emergence of new centres of power. It will suffice to mention China and India as the drivers of economic growth. As for the Asia-Pacific Region as a whole, this region is growing the fastest of all. The financial might followed by political influence comes with the appearance of economic power. I consider short-sighted and dangerous attempts to ignore this reality and prevent the creation of relations that would take into account the new achievements of many countries fully and with due respect. So what is happening? For almost 500 years our Western colleagues set the tone in world affairs, controlled the economy via colonial conquest and ensured a glamorous life for their elite by exporting natural resources from their colonies. Much has happened in these 500 years.

Even after the colonial system collapsed the teacher-pupil or boss-assistant relations still largely influenced the mentality of Western politicians. Even today they refuse to recognise the need to deal with others on an equal basis, and to take for granted a multi-polar and multi-centric reality. Now they are trying to preserve their dominant position not by using the natural mechanisms of economic dominance they created but through completely illegal approaches. These are sanctions, direct intervention and many other actions that we see practically daily as regards many states.

When they fail to dominate a country in a single effort, they create what is called “a space of chaos” that they hope to turn into controlled chaos. But experience shows it is impossible to manage chaos. It all started in Yugoslavia back in 1999 and was followed by the events in Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries in the Middle East. The sad example of what happened in Ukraine is common knowledge. Today, our Belorussian neighbours are going through a difficult time. We have stated our position in very clear terms. President of Russia Vladimir Putin openly spoke about it. We will be guided by international law and the commitments that exist between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. Of course, we want Belarusians to have the opportunity to resolve their problems without any outside interference.

We can see that many Western states, both our neighbours and the countries overseas - I’m talking about the United States and Canada – are tempted to impose certain approaches to overcoming the current situation in the Republic of Belarus. President of Belarus Lukashenko is responding to these approaches. We believe no obtrusive intermediary services are needed. The President of Belarus has proposed constitutional reform. According to our shared assessment, this move can be used to start a dialogue with civil society and should allow for discussing all the issues of concern that are of interest to particular groups of Belarusian citizens. Later, during the interactive part of our meeting, I can provide more comments on this matter should you have any questions.

Now, I would like to conclude my opening remarks by saying that we stand for a more democratic and just world order, strict compliance with the UN Charter and against attempts to replace international law with obscure rules the world order should be based on. This is a new idea advanced by the Western countries. They coined the term “rule-based order.” The rules change all the time depending on what our Western colleagues want to achieve in a particular case. Coalitions of like-minded nations are being created, usually from among Western countries; they also hand-pick partners from other regions who do as our Western colleagues say. In their circle, they agree to create some kind of a “partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons,” then “cybersecurity partnership” and “partnerships to punish those who interfere in cyberspace with unseemly goals” or a “partnership to protect human rights.” All of this is done in a format that is far from universal, but is used only within a narrow circle of those who will not go against the Western initiators of these machinations. Then, the rule that governs a particular issue is declared universal, and everyone is required to observe it. Those who do not comply with the rules developed in such a narrow circle are subjected to sanctions.

Unfortunately, the European Union, on cue from the United States, is increasingly going down the road of the sanctions pressure. The EU decided to create mechanisms for imposing sanctions for intrusion into the cyber-sphere with criminal intent (according to their judgment), human rights and some other matters. These sanctions are illegitimate from the point of view of international law, just like any other unilateral sanctions for that matter. This trend is clearly taking shape. “We - the West, the EU and NATO - know better how to live on this planet.” Everyone else should listen up.

Look at what NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, certain EU representatives and Western leaders who head the OSCE are saying about the situation in Belarus. It’s nothing short of moral preaching delivered in a tone that allows no doubt that it should be followed by everyone as a guideline. This stems from the lack of elementary diplomatic skills and, by and large, is unethical not only from the diplomatic, but also the plain good manners point of view. We can see that and we take note of it.

For example, our French and German colleagues announced last year that they would create a partnership for multilateralism. Multilateralism is probably a good thing. We have always been in favour of resolving problems through collective – multilateral - approaches rather than unilaterally. Why do those who want to promote multilateralism put forward an initiative like this outside the framework of the most multilateral and universal organisation, the UN? This remains unclear. They haven’t even tried to do so. By the way, at the UN, Russia and a large group of countries, including our neighbours and countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, are promoting a partnership in defence of the principles of the UN Charter. This is probably the very motion that is required to indicate commitment to the principles of multilateralism.

We criticise the actions of our Western partners and a number of other countries on the problems that we would like to resolve in accordance with international law and the search for a balance of interests rather than unilateral pressure. Nevertheless, we do not limit ourselves to criticism. We suggest a positive agenda. As I have said, this consists of a return to the foundations of the UN: to respect the principles of the UN Charter; remember that it was born 75 years ago in the aftermath of World War II owing to Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the Victory that was achieved by the efforts of the countries with different socio-political and ideological systems. The allies in the war pooled their efforts for the sake of victory over a common enemy. They rose above the differences that divided them in the years before WWII. This has been expressed many times.

I think that today the world situation is not as bloody as it was in WWII but there are many more risks and they are no less serious. I mentioned terrorism, and drug crime that kills an enormous number of people every year. Let’s not forget about the risks of WMD proliferation. Now the United States has practically destroyed the entire system of deterrence in arms control. It is adopting doctrines that actually lower the nuclear threshold. On top of all that, terrorist and other groups crave access to nuclear technology and methods of creating and using other WMDs (chemical and biological weapons). I believe it would be a crime for all of us to isolate ourselves in our “national apartments,” slam ours doors and refuse to deal with a country until it complies with our ultimatums. But we are seeing all of that.

Look what problems now exist in relations not only between Russia and the US but also between the US and China.

Our position is one of searching for compromise and a balance of interest. The organisations in which Russia takes part – the CIS, the CSTO, the EAEU, BRICS and the SCO – are designed to find compromise. Recognition of new realities was expressed in the creation of the G20 that includes the BRICS countries, the G7 and a number of leading developing nations. The G20 continues its very important work. Now, in effect, this is the only venue beyond the UN where all countries with the leading economies are represented and in which they have set a common goal – to come to terms. Many other formats that our Western partners are involved in miss this logic.

We promote an agenda that should help overcome persisting international problems through cooperation. It must necessarily be equitable, based on consideration for each other’s concerns and be aimed, let me emphasise this again, at searching for a balance of interests.

We have created our vision of moving towards harmony in world affairs. As for economic problems, we are convinced of the need to move towards the creation of the Great Eurasian Partnership (which is reflected in the initiative of the President of Russia) that would be open to economic and humanitarian cooperation of all Eurasian countries, including the members of the EAEU, the SCO, the EU and ASEAN. We have a huge continent with tremendous wealth, and it would be, of course, very unwise not to use this God-given advantage. Our long-term goal is to use it. I am confident that historically this process will be accepted by all countries on our continent.

In the near term, we consider it very important for the UN Security Council permanent members to display responsibility in line with the UN Charter and hold a summit. At this summit, it should be possible to review ways to drastically enhance global security by implementing the power of these five countries, which are fixed in the UN Charter. All five countries have given a positive response to this proposal by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. I hope the summit will take place as soon as the coronavirus pandemic permits. Needless to say, this must be a face-to-face summit.

Let’s go to the interactive format.

Question:

You have touched on a variety of subjects today. You explained how important it is to resolve problems together, through a collective effort, considering many challenges are transboundary in nature. Sometimes, these problems concern not some overseas affairs but our CIS partners. It has been noted many times, in part by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, that it is the CIS that is our foreign policy priority. How can Russia help resolve the Karabakh crisis between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

Sergey Lavrov:

Russia takes part in the international efforts to create conditions for settling different crises and conflicts including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. At one time, the OSCE Minsk Group was set up to discuss this. Today, it is co-chaired by Russia, the US and France. Several other countries, including Belarus, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Finland and Turkey are also members. By decision of this group, the co-chairs – Russia, France and the US – are authorised to do the day-to-day work to create an atmosphere in which the sides will be able to find mutually acceptable solutions themselves.

I would like to emphasise that we are not creating scenarios for resolving the problem, but we create conditions that will allow them to come to terms themselves. The two sides have been drafting the first documents over the past 18 years. Much has been done. They create a foundation that reflects the principles of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and also the specific parameters that must be agreed upon for the settlement to take place. I won’t go into details now.

Several incidents have occurred recently including some in the Karabakh area and on the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia last July. Needless to say, these incidents seriously escalated tensions and do not help the co-chairs create the right atmosphere for talks.

During this crisis I spoke by telephone with my Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts. The new Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan visited us last week. I had another telephone conversation with the Foreign Minister of Armenia. We have the impression that both sides are interested in reducing tensions and resuming meetings, which representatives of the co-chairs (Russia, France and the US) organise in the region when visiting Baku and Yerevan. After that, they exchange views and prepare meetings of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan with their participation. At certain stages, when there is hope for specific and positive changes, summits of the presidents of the two countries are held.

Russia is one of the most active participants in this process because in addition to being one of the co-chairs, we are also mediating to create favourable conditions for a dialogue between the sides as a country. We have repeatedly invited the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan to Russia. There have also been meetings between the presidents of the three countries – Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

This type of work is our contribution to the common efforts of the co-chairs. We never match our bilateral steps against the activities of the three co-chairs – Russia, the US and France. Whenever we hold trilateral meetings between Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, we always invite the other co-chairs so they can receive all the required information at these meetings.

Our policy is based on the package of documents that has been drafted over almost 18 years. There are the so-called Madrid principles and the updated versions of the documents that the sides approved as a foundation for further talks. These documents are held in the OSCE Secretariat.

At this point, in conditions of some stagnation, there are proposals to give up these documents and start from scratch or even launch a Plan B. We think this would be a big mistake. We are convinced that the documents drafted during these years must remain the foundation for further efforts.

I will not describe in detail what has been tentatively agreed upon because this is a fairly confidential part of the work, However, I can assure you that there exist solutions that will make it possible to ensure fairness both to the Armenian and Azerbaijani representatives.

Question:

Recently the US Congress approved a number of additional sanctions against vessels and companies involved in the construction of Nord Stream 2. How do you assess the legality of these sanctions? Do they indicate that the US has lost interest in the development of a transatlantic partnership, or are they an act of friendship towards European Union countries?

Sergey Lavrov:

In my opening remarks, I spoke about the problem of unilateral sanctions. Any unilateral sanctions are illegitimate. Only sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council are legitimate. The rest are just attempts to undermine international law and the principles of the UN Charter that call for collective work in addressing any problems.

The case of Nord Stream 2 clearly involves methods of unfair competition. The Americans say openly that it is necessary to stop Nord Stream 2 because it jeopardises energy security in Europe and that in order to ensure it, Europe must buy liquefied natural gas from the US, while the cost of American LNG is much higher than the cost of gas that will be supplied via the new pipeline to the European continent.

Such statements are arrogant because they demonstrate the US’s complete disrespect for its allies. Germany and several other European Union countries have already responded to this. Several days ago, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel reaffirmed in her speech after a regular meeting of the European Council that Nord Stream 2 was strictly a commercial project and could not serve as political currency. We share this position. As for the relations in the Euro-Atlantic community and the assessment of the US’s intentions regarding it, it concerns those located on both sides of the Atlantic. I won’t comment on Euro-Atlantic affairs, or else I will be accused of meddling. I would not want that.

Question:

I would like to ask you about the developments in Belarus. In your opinion, what possible solutions are there? What position should Russia take on the issue? What should it do to stabilise Belarus, a neighbouring country that is very important for Russia?

Sergey Lavrov:

I have spoken about this in my opening remarks. President Vladimir Putin has addressed this issue more than once, including during his recent interview with Rossiya 1 TV Channel. Our position is very simple and clear. We firmly believe that the Belarusian people have every opportunity to settle this problem independently. But it is obvious that there are issues that need to be discussed.

We consider it unacceptable in the present-day world to act as a judge, adopting verdicts and implementing them through sanctions and other threats, as our Western colleagues are trying to do. Regrettably, we have seen this happening in the EU, including in Belarus’s neighbours, who would like to drag all EU member states into their hard-line anti-Lukashenko camp. We know that this has created serious discomfort in the countries of the so-called Old Europe, which are aware of the need for balanced actions and which are unhappy with the policy of open and heavy-handed interference in the internal affairs of states. For example, they insist, just as the Americans, Poles, Lithuanians and other Baltic states, that the Belarusian authorities accept OSCE mediation.

I have spoken with Edi Rama, the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and Albania’s Prime Minister, and with the Foreign Minister of Sweden, which will take over the OSCE chairmanship, who had proposed such mediation. They called us asking to convince the Belarusian authorities to accept it. We asked why the OSCE did not send its observers to monitor the presidential election in Belarus, which it had been invited to do. They replied that the invitation had arrived too late. But in fact they received it a month before the election. There are no OSCE requirements according to which the invitation to monitor elections must be sent more than a month in advance. There are no such conditions. The only obligation is to invite international observers. The form of the invitation depends on the given country’s national laws and its vision of the situation, which is exactly how Belarus acted. All this nonsense that the invitation must be sent two months in advance is set out in the guidelines of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), 99 percent of whose members are EU and NATO citizens. Russia and its CIS partners first proposed reforming the OSCE back in 2007, so that it becomes a normal organisation with understandable operating criteria, including the principles for organising election monitoring activities. The Western countries have categorically refused to even discuss these proposals. We also proposed discussing, coordinating and adopting an OSCE charter, because the OSCE, although defined as an organisation, does not have a charter.

The message of our Western partners in support of the OSCE in its present-day form is that its vagueness and ambiguous flexibility must be preserved because they are “the gold standard,” as they say. I can see only one explanation for this stand: it is easier to use and manipulate an organisation without a clear focus. Moreover, the OSCE, which wants to be the main mediator or is being prodded by the collective West into claiming this role, is itself in a deep crisis: it does not have a secretary-general or the heads of its human rights, ethnic minorities and media bodies. They all have resigned, because the attempt to simultaneously extend the powers of these four officials (all four of them, as a package) fell through due to the objection of several countries. The only essential principle at the OSCE is the principle of consensus. All four of these officials, who had been appointed to these posts three years earlier, were citizens of Western countries. We have tried many times to have a CIS citizen elected to one of these four positions, but all in vain.

There are acting heads of the OSCE Secretariat and the human rights, ethnic minorities and media bodies, who stepped in when their bosses resigned. Which countries do you think they represent? They are from the Western countries as well. And this is also true for the entire secretariat. I don’t want to blame all countries indiscriminately. Many OSCE states would like the organisation to be balanced and neutral, but they are not allowed to pursue this path. Regrettably, the OSCE is being used by an aggressive minority as an instrument for political point scoring.

Considering the current problems in the OSCE leadership and its actions towards Belarus, we will use the preparations for the next OSCE Ministerial Council, which is scheduled for early December in Tirana, Albania, to demand the start of a concrete and professional discussion on reforming this somewhat stagnant organisation.

As for Belarus, I have mentioned, just as President Vladimir Putin did, that President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko spoke about the need for a constitutional reform long before the election. He has recently said that this reform should be de-personified and should ensure the stability of the Belarusian political system no matter who stands at the helm. He said that he was ready to start drafting proposals for such a reform. I believe that members of civil society should be involved in this work as well. If they want Belarus to get out of this crisis a stronger country rather than to fuel differences, they must indicate their interest in this. Instead, we only see attempts to further destabilise the situation. And they are not even trying to keep their intentions secret. Our Lithuanian neighbours have overstepped the mark in their demands. We have reason to believe that they and Svetlana Tikhanovskaya are using far from democratic methods that are not based on respect for the sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus.

Question:

What do you think about the future of the Iranian nuclear programme? Is there any chance of keeping the JCPOA in a framework acceptable to all participating countries? Do you think the US and Iran can return to a constructive dialogue to settling their grievances?

Sergey Lavrov:

The situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on settling Iran’s nuclear programme remains tense. This is due to the US’s official withdrawal from the agreement a couple of years ago when US President Donald Trump signed the relevant executive order. The agreement was reached in 2015 following more than ten years of talks and was unanimously approved by the resolution of the UN Security Council. This approval made it an instrument of international law, which calls for strict implementation of the decisions reached by the negotiators on behalf of the West, Russia, China and Iran. This was a commitment not only for the participants in the JCPOA but also for all other UN members.

At one time, this document was described as an unprecedented breakthrough in consolidating nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime and a major military political step towards creating a security system in the Gulf region. All commentators who were familiar with the situation praised it as a great achievement. But when the Trump administration called the deal the worst in history and officially withdrew from it, it was put at risk. Many analysts doubted that it would survive. To preserve the agreement, the remaining participants had to display political will. This primarily applies to Russia, China and Iran and three European countries: Germany, France and Britain. All of them reaffirmed their interest in preserving the deal, but a problem was created when the US, having retracted its commitments, resumed its unilateral sanctions against Iran. It abused its position in the world currency system and started curbing any attempts to use dollar settlements to prevent any country from trading with Iran or conducting investment activities with it. This required a lot of work.

A couple of months after the US made its decision, we met with the Europeans, Iranians and Chinese in Vienna. They promised to create a system that would not depend on the dollar and would provide for settlements for all the countries that want to trade or conduct economic affairs with Iran. This mechanism is called INSTEX. It wasn’t created as fast as we were promised, but it became functional at the end of the last year only. So far, it has been used in only one transaction. Of course, this is not enough for normal trade with Iran.

It transpires that the US has given up this plan of action. It has not only resumed its unilateral sanctions but also banned others from trading with Iran. Sometimes, some US allies even humiliatingly asked the US to waive this ban so that despite exterritorial and illegal US restrictions they can still trade with Iran, receive oil from them, etc. I consider this incredible. It was impossible to imagine this several years ago.

In spite of dropping out of this programme and thus having lost all its rights (because it renounced its commitments) the US just recently tried to push through the UN Security Council a resolution that would impose an embargo on the exports and imports of any weapons to and from Iran despite the fact that the relevant provisions of the valid resolution expire in the middle of October. The US was out to prove to us that if we do not continue imposing restrictions on trade in weapons with Iran, Tehran will destabilise the Middle East and the Gulf area further. This was completely unlawful. The suggested resolution was supported by only two votes out of 15. All others either voted against it or abstained from voting.

Now the US is trying to use a fairly sophisticated legal instrument that was fixed in the JCPOA and approved by the UN Security Council. This document may be used to restore the collective sanctions that were imposed by the UN and cancelled in early 2016 after the adoption of the JCPOA. This is also an underhanded attempt. Despite the existence of the mechanism that was created at one time for resuming UN sanctions, it was supposed to be used only if Iran did not fulfil its commitments (but it fulfills them). Moreover, the US has lost all of its rights having cancelled its commitments. The US wants every country to obey its will. This is true not only for Iran but also for Venezuela where the US intercepts ships and tries to organise a maritime blockade. We know an elephant is a symbol of the US Republican Party, but the world is not a china shop.

Question:

I would like to thank you for your remarks and for this opportunity to directly ask you questions that are of interest to us. In February of this year, the UK withdrew from the European Union. What kind of relations will now take shape between Russia and the UK, given that on August 1, Russia opened its borders to three countries, one of which is the UK?

Sergey Lavrov:

Please, do not read politics or political preferences into the fact that we have opened our borders to the UK and a number of other countries. These decisions have been taken based strictly on the assessments provided by our sanitary and epidemiological authorities and endorsed by the Government Emergency Response Centre.

Ties between Britain and Russia are centuries old. They have never been easy, despite the relations of kinship that were periodically established between our monarchies. The current period has come into being in a far from satisfactory form; the situation is even worse than during the years, when our relations were just middling well. Today, they are sharply negative by reason of the actions taken by our British colleagues.

It all began with the death of Alexander Litvinenko in 2007. Next, there were the Skripals, and then the British were as proactive in taking up other anti-Russian antics (like the Malaysian Boeing in Donbass). They have introduced some strictly British nuances, alleging that we meddled with the Brexit referendum; later they said we hadn’t but that we had certainly meddled with the Scotland independence referendum, and now we supposedly will again interfere in the UK’s internal affairs. It is sad to hear this.

We have never attempted to artificially complicate our relations. There are quite a few problems in them as it is.

I have listed just a few that have been created by the British side without any proof.

They are urging the doctors in Omsk to immediately present their reports so that we can investigate why Mr Navalny went into a coma. Do you remember that he was taken to hospital in Omsk for slightly more than twenty-four hours? All our Western colleagues were making a fuss, wondering why there was no information. Well, he is at last in Germany and has been there for a week and the German doctors are providing no information either. This means some additional time is needed, doesn’t it? But for some reason, no one is urging them or denouncing them for “attempting to withhold the truth.”

They are accusing us of doing nothing to investigate this affair. This is not true. The Interior Ministry launched a pre-investigation probe on the actual day, when it all occurred. An investigation can only begin when it is established what really happened. And this, let me repeat it, is not yet clear. The German doctors are still unable to report to us the relevant information. The Russian Prosecutor General’s Office asked their colleagues in Germany to activate the Agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance.

Why have I recalled this? Because I have listed the “thorns”– Litvinenko, the Skripals – that our British colleagues have consciously sunk in the flesh of our relations. In either case, no one has provided any definitive facts to anyone. When we are urged to conduct a full and objective investigation into what happened to a person, who had been living abroad for a long time, the investigation, if they abide by their own criteria, will not be complete. No one has provided any concrete facts related to Litvinenko or the Skripals. With regard to the Skripals, the British simply forced all the EU members to banish Russian diplomats (the majority went along with the demand, but some managed to hold their ground). Moreover, we know for certain that many Europeans asked the Brits, when they were feverishly applying to the European capitals, whether they could show the facts that this had been done by Russia. The British said the facts would be on the table, but later, whereas right now they should banish the Russians. I am not joking. This is an established fact. So now, almost one and a half year later, when I ask my European colleagues if the Brits have supplied the facts, they say, their eyes to the ground, that they have not yet. And they won’t either, I am almost certain of this.

We have complicated relations with the UK, although I see no reason for their deterioration, particularly artificial deterioration. Our cultural, humanitarian, educational and scientific ties are developing intensively. There are relevant organisations for contacts between our civil societies. Business is developing rapidly. British businesses are quite interested in the Russian market. They work and invest in Russia, including in the construction of sports facilities and plenty more. Incidentally, trade has grown by more than 50 percent to over $10 billion in the first half of 2020 as compared with the same period last year. This is not a record but a steady trend. I think that we will be able to work more effectively to the advantage of both countries, if the British leaders at long last come to grips with a Russia policy that will achieve the results desired by the UK’s business community and civil society.

Question:

The Syrian crisis has been continuing since 2011, and many attempts have been made to resolve the situation in the country. National leaders have held talks. What do you think about the results of joint patrol missions involving Russian and Turkish service personnel in Syria?

Sergey Lavrov:

The results have been quite good. Although complete success has not been achieved yet, we are making progress. I would like to remind you that patrol missions are underway in Idlib Governorate, covered by an entire package of Russian-Turkish agreements. The main memorandum was signed in Sochi in 2019 and later augmented by a couple of protocols.

The essence of agreements between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan was that a security zone was to be established in Idlib, where all terrorist groups must be separated from the patriotic opposition, even armed opposition, whose reputation has not been smeared by terrorist attacks and whose members are ready to take part in deciding their country’s destiny. Turkey assumed the responsibility for separating members of the opposition cooperating with the Turkish side from terrorists. This is being done with great difficulty. However, I repeat that we can see that our Turkish colleagues are exerting efforts. Nevertheless, terrorists are trying to resist, they are shooting at the Syrian army’s positions from the security zone, and they have repeatedly tried to stage armed provocations, including with the use of strike drones against the Russian air force base in Hmeimim.

Moscow is currently hosting another series of consultations between Russian and Turkish experts, including on Syria, as well as on cooperation on the Libyan peace settlement. We are discussing these matters. Joint patrol missions also aim to deprive terrorists of any space and freedom of action in the Idlib zone. It is necessary to reopen the M4 route and to ensure its normal operation for civilian freight traffic, the Syrian army and Russian military police under another protocol signed by the presidents of Russia and Turkey.

They are not patrolling this route quickly enough because of the extremists’ resistance, but patrols gained several extra kilometres each time. A patrol mission covering the entire route recently took place. There is still a lot of work in Idlib, but we are witnessing progress. Most importantly, there are no bloody incidents in the area. Some incidents are taking place, but Syrian and Turkish personnel are coping with them.

Question:

The coronavirus pandemic caused changes in all spheres of society’s life. What changes are in store for the system of international relations?

Sergey Lavrov:

The system of international relations is part of the system of society’s life. Consequently, long-distance and online technologies that are becoming part of humankind’s life will also expand their role in the area of international relations. This process will be directly proportional to the extent of their influence on society’s life.

I should mention a very serious restriction here. Far from all important aspects of international affairs can be discussed online, even using the secure networks that are protected from bugging and illegal access. This technological process would be unsafe; however, this is not the most important thing. The problem is that it is impossible to coordinate the most serious agreements on the most crucial matters online. This calls for personal contacts, a chance to get a feeling of where the other party is at, an understanding of how they can be reasoned with, as well as a readiness to find something in their words that can be acceptable for you. As I see it, this process can never be completely conducted online. Nothing can replace personal contacts. At the same time, there is a number of events, especially those with more pronounced protocol aspects. For example, this includes a meeting of some organisation’s ministers for which expert documents have already been prepared. The ministers have the opportunity to speak and approve the relevant resolutions. In this case, I don’t see any major problems with using the online format. We have held a videoconference of SCO foreign ministers, and we are preparing for a BRICS conference. A videoconference of G20 foreign ministers is scheduled to be held this week. Saudi Arabia currently presides in the G20, and it is organising the event. I repeat, these are mostly protocol and ceremonial occasions. But for numerous personal meetings, including closed, private and confidential meetings between the United States and Iranian representatives, the sides would never have reached agreement without holding numerous in-person talks.

We are now ready to support direct dialogue between the United States and Iran, and we are ready to create favourable conditions for this dialogue, if both sides are interested in this. It is always better to directly state one’s grievances and listen to the answer.

Question:

It is a regrettable fact that the situation on the international stage is not always favourable for Russia, including during court hearings. For example, a Swedish court has recently rejected Gazprom’s appeal against the ruling of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce to pay some $2.5 billion to Ukraine’s Naftogaz. Is this the result of mistakes made by Russian lawyers? What competencies and qualities should international lawyers have?

Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think I am in a position to define the qualities of international lawyers. You will be able to acquire them during your studies at the institute. Just trust your professors and lecturers. There are very many experts on the staff who not only know the theory but have applied it in practice too. As for arbitration rulings, many of them have been adopted in Stockholm and in some national courts of the EU, especially on Nord Stream 2. The first branch was granted exemption from the Third Energy Package, but the second branch was rejected. Nord Stream 2 AG itself has appealed against that decision. Gazprom has also put forth its position publicly. I hope that this dispute concerns corporate relations. It would be a pity if the Stockholm or any other arbitration court played political games. There must be no place for politicking in the sphere of law.

Question:

Is the current line-up of forces on the international stage similar to any other period in the past? If so, when was the geopolitical situation similar to that of the current one?

Sergey Lavrov:

It would be a pity if we rolled back to the primitive era. It sometimes looks like some norms have ceased to exist, or that some powers have chosen to disregard them. I don’t think there are direct parallels between the current period and any other era in the past. We were allies during WWII, and there was a great power concert in the 19th century and many other indications that the then leaders were aware of the advantages of joining forces. However, in most cases they united against something, a coalition or a common enemy. It is, of course, a major achievement. We have many common enemies today as well, against which we should unite. If we take the “humankind and a common enemy” algorithm, WWII was such a period.

Today we have not become fully aware of the gravity of the threats facing us. This explains some of our partners’ slackness and the tendency to yield to temptation. This could be the genetic consequences of colonial times. Even when it is better to join forces, we see attempts to sideline opponents, gain unilateral advantages and moralise instead of working together. I have mentioned double standards, when they present their demands to us while keeping information available to them secret, like in the Skripals and Litvinenko cases. Nobody is telling us anything. But this has not taken the edge off their requests to us in the cases which the West can use to benefit their ruling elites.

I believe that ultimately everyone will see that there is no alternative to working together. The Greater Eurasian Partnership and the settlement of problems in relations among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which have special responsibility for all aspects of international stability – these are the goals of the initiative put forth by President Vladimir Putin.

The current development of a multipolar world is a new historical period. It will take decades. You can see resistance to China’s ascent, as the Chinese say, a tug-of-war over India, and the invention of new concepts such as “the Indo-Pacific” when we have long had Asia Pacific with its inclusive or collective methods of operation. But no, they are advocating the Indo-Pacific concept the main goal of which is to push back China (and Russia) and to create an affinity group for containing China and Russia. They are introducing negative rather than positive criteria for coalitions. I’m sure that this stage will end, because these efforts cannot succeed but will only provoke even more acute conflicts. There are more than enough crises throughout the world that must be settled, including in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan. A possible explanation is that some forces would like the situation to remain chaotic in the hope of turning it into controlled chaos where they would be able to control the developments. We don’t believe this policy has a future. We would like to be able to discuss problems and come to agreements honestly, on the basis of equality.

Question:

I was born in Sterlitamak, Bashkortostan. I know that you visited our republic and rafted the Belaya River. I have a personal question, just to add a light tone to the talk. We often hear about your trips around the world from the media and it must be an enormous workload. How often do you spend time with your family? Do you remember the last time your family gathered to have a meal together at home?

Sergey Lavrov:

When you mentioned that you are aware of my trip to the Belaya River and would like to ask a personal question, it scared me a little.

I do not often get a chance to see my friends and family, which makes every time I get to see them even more precious.

Question:

If you had a chance to choose a different career what would you do?

Sergey Lavrov:

There is no point in doing this now. When I was finishing high school, I wanted to study at the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute. But when I heard that the admission exams at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations were held a month earlier, I decided to give it a try since I had nothing to lose anyway. I never regretted my decision. And I don’t recommend you to regret yours.

Question:

The relations between Russia and Latin America can be described as time-tested mutually beneficial cooperation. As we know, right now Latin America is going through difficult times, including the challenging situation around COVID-19 and the economic problems in Venezuela and Argentina. What is your view of Russia’s further cooperation with Latin American countries? Are there any joint projects planned?

Sergey Lavrov:

We see it as cooperation with a very important region. We respect all Latin American countries and are no less willing to work with each of them, regardless of what government is in power in a particular country. Unfortunately, for our partners – specifically, our American partners – cooperation with a particular country is not as important as its government’s loyalty to the Americans. This is not right. It is another attempt to force sovereign countries to choose whether they support the United States or not. This illustrates the aggressive policies against Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. This also explains the events in Bolivia. By the way, recently Estonia, a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, convened a special unofficial meeting to discuss the protests in Minsk and the actions of law enforcement agencies. That reminded me of Bolivia. When Evo Morales was faced with the fact of multiple protests, the protesters supported him and the police acted completely different from other cases: dozens of people were killed. Nobody in the UN Security Council lifted a finger, simply because those who were coming to power were convenient for Washington. Our approach is different. For example, in Brazil, Dilma Rousseff’s government was succeeded by Jair Bolsonaro’s government. The two are considered antipodes when it comes to political views. We are developing a strategic partnership with Brazil, guided by pragmatism and the need to find common interests which we have many. The same applies to any other country.

Besides the bilateral relations with the Latin American and Caribbean countries, we are developing close contacts with regional and sub-regional associations – primarily, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the trade and economic union of the countries in Central America and the northeast of South America (CARICOM), and others. We are in the process of obtaining an observer status in CARICOM and the Central American Integration System. We are working together in a variety of fields such as high technology, military and technical cooperation, countering organised crime (police training for Latin American countries in the specialised regional centres opened in Peru and Nicaragua). Lately, we have been working together to counter the coronavirus as well. We supplied test kits to many countries in the region. Now we are negotiating the supply of Russian medicines and vaccine as well as joint production of medicines and the vaccine developed in Russia, in these countries. Speaking about a multipolar world that is being shaped, Latin America is one of the support legs of this world that is now objectively forming. This support will make the future polycentric world order much more stable.

Question:

Passions are running high in connection with the presidential race in the United States. How will Russia-US relations change in the event of a repetition of the Ukrainian scenario, even if it is improbable, and if Kanye West is elected president? What is your forecast?

Sergey Lavrov:

You know, when Anatoly Torkunov and I were your age and just entered MGIMO, we composed special reviews during which we made fun of everyone, from presidents to secretaries general. You can do the same and joke about anyone in the United States. I hope you won’t be accused of interfering in the US election.

Question:

Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe has recently announced his resignation. How would you describe Russian-Japanese cooperation in international affairs during his eight-year long premiership? In your opinion, what are the prospects for Russian-Japanese relations?

Sergey Lavrov:

Relations between Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Russian leaders, primarily President Vladimir Putin, were comradely, really friendly and based on mutual respect. It was also clear that they were based on personal sympathy between them. President Putin pointed this out in his recent message to Prime Minister Abe and in the subsequent telephone conversation following the announcement of the Japanese prime minister’s resignation. President Putin has reaffirmed his sincere desire to maintain friendly communication with Shinzo Abe, always and in any capacity.

As for the prospects of Russian-Japanese relations, we would like them to be prosperous and close, and we intend to start with promoting interaction in all spheres without exception – in the economy, high technology, research and technology, culture, humanitarian ties, education, person-to-person contacts, the environment, joint projects, including on the Kuril Islands, as well as close cooperation and transparency in the field of security.

This not only provides for the discussion of concrete situations in our common region, especially in the context of the Japanese-US military alliance, but also for close coordination and collaboration at international organisations. This is what Prime Minister Abe and President Putin agreed to do when they formulated the task of developing bilateral relations in all spheres as actively and deeply as possible, so that our countries reach a level of relations that will allow them to settle even the most complicated problems.

This formula has been coordinated and adopted. Unfortunately, we are still far away from this goal in our relations with Japan. Japan has joined the sanctions that are hindering economic cooperation. Tokyo looks to the other Western countries, primarily the United States, when the issue concerns joint production in the field of nanotechnology and other high-tech areas.

Regrettably, Japan nearly always votes against Russia on difficult resolutions at the UN. Of course, we would like to develop a professional dialogue on security in the region where we border Japanese islands, and we would like to know Japanese views on its military obligations to the United States now that Washington has officially declared Russia to be an enemy. Tokyo, which claims that it would never join the Americans against Russia, has a close alliance with the United States, which sees Russia as an enemy. In short, there is plenty to talk about.

At the same time, I would like to say once again that whatever the outcome of the election of the leader of the ruling party and, consequently, prime minster, we are ready to develop maximally close cooperation with our Japanese neighbours in all of these spheres. We are moving forward, although not as quickly as we would like, when it comes to joint economic activities on the South Kuril Islands. These projects will benefit those who live on the islands, as well as the companies involved. In short, we are ready to move forward one step at a time, but the main task is to advance our relations to a fundamentally new positive level.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4307068

Alex Him · September 4th, 2020

Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about the outcome of discussions on Russia-EU relations at the Informal Meeting of EU Foreign Ministers in Germany

1 September 2020 - 17:13

Question:

Will you comment, please, on the outcome of discussions on Russia-EU relations at the Informal Meeting of EU Foreign Ministers held in Germany on August 27-28?

Maria Zakharova:

Despite the declared EU foreign policy chiefs’ intention to reflect more deeply on the EU’s relations with Russia at their informal meeting, it appears that the ministers did not hold a substantive discussion on this issue. It is notable that the participants have not made any meaningful comments regarding this, either.

In other words, Brussels has yet again missed an opportunity to make Russian-EU relations more healthy and constructive. It is obvious that the atmosphere of these relations in the foreseeable future will continue to be based on the five principles, which have been formulated as the lowest common denominator of the EU countries’ diverging positions and which many EU members regard as obsolete.

As before, it is for the EU to choose a policy towards a dialogue with Russia. And like before, we are ready to talk with the EU on issues of mutual interest, but only on an equal, mutually beneficial and non-discriminatory basis.

The EU foreign ministers also discussed the current developments in Belarus. Regrettably, the EU has again attempted to influence the situation in that fraternal country. Instead of showing restraint and tact, which are crucial for creating conditions for an inclusive national dialogue, they once again opted for illegal unilateral sanctions. More calls have been made to increase financial support for opposition organisations in Belarus, including those which are already receiving support from neighbouring European countries. This is a violation of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states set out in the Helsinki Final Act. We hope that the EU will adjust its foreign policy narrative to this and the other fundamental principles of common European security.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4307449

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus Vladimir Makei, Moscow, September 2, 2020

2 September 2020 - 14:19

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 01:11:40

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held trust-based and very detailed talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus Vladimir Makei.

We have discussed the complicated domestic political developments in Belarus and the situation around them. We cannot help but feel worried in this connection because Minsk is our strategic ally. We are building a common Union State and cooperating fruitfully in the most diverse areas, including participation in multilateral associations in the post-Soviet space, such as the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation and the Commonwealth of Independent States.

We have reaffirmed assessments of the current developments, voiced by the presidents of Russia and Belarus. It appears that the Republic of Belarus faces the threat of serious destabilisation for the first time amid the most energetic outside interference. We condemn pressure on the part of some foreign states which, at the same time, openly support the opposition that is discontent with the results of the presidential elections. Dubious mediation concepts are being imposed on the country, its people and leaders, including via the OSCE which itself is undergoing through a profound crisis and has to be overhauled, and which has proved unable to fulfil its obligations and ensure international monitoring of presidential elections in the Republic of Belarus.

Add to this tensions on the part of the European Union and NATO making quite unconstructive statements. We can see that NATO remains active, including near Belarusian borders, which are also the external borders of the Union State.

From the very outset, Russia assumed a well-thought-out position with regard to Belarusian developments. Today, we have clearly reaffirmed it once again. As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin noted in his recent interview, we believe that the presidential elections have taken place. We hope that the situation will soon return to normal through dialogue and by complying with the norms of the current Constitution of the Republic of Belarus and with due respect for law and order. As I have already said, we consider any interference in domestic affairs, as well as the imposition of importunate mediatory services contrary to the sovereign will of Minsk and the Belarusian leaders, to be unacceptable. It is of a principle importance that the people of Belarus be allowed to independently assess current developments.

In this connection, we consider the initiative of President Alexander Lukashenko on carrying out a constitutional reform to be quite promising. We have repeatedly noted this, and the President of Russia has also mentioned it. We believe that this political process can become a useful platform for nationwide dialogue, can help overcome the current situation and can also help get the situation back to normal and stabilise society. Our contacts with our Belarusian friends confirm this.

During the talks, we also discussed the current issues related to our cooperation in foreign policy. Not all of the scheduled bilateral events and events of the multilateral organisations that our countries are members of could take place because of the COVID-19 pandemic. We are holding many meetings via videoconference. Today we spoke about preparations for a joint meeting of the Russian Foreign Ministry and Belarusian Foreign Ministry collegiums that is supposed to take place this autumn in Minsk. We reviewed the progress on implementing key documents such as the programme of coordinated foreign policy actions and the schedule of consultations between our foreign ministries.

We continue working together on the COVID-19 situation, including such an important aspect as the comfortable repatriation of our citizens from third countries.

During my working visit to Minsk on June 19, Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei and I signed a Russian-Belarusian intergovernmental agreement on mutual recognition of visas and on other issues related to foreign nationals’ stay in the Union State. Today we confirmed, with satisfaction, that the ratification process is moving forward successfully in both countries and should be completed in a couple of months.

We covered the prospects of resuming regular transport connections between our countries. Our competent government bodies discussed this issue at length literally yesterday. There is a general idea of how we can gradually proceed to fully resume traffic, while taking all the necessary precautions.

We agreed to further strengthen our cooperation under various international organisations besides those covering the post-Soviet space. Of course, these include the United Nations and the OSCE. I already spoke about the importance of reforming the latter. Russia, Belarus and the other CIS partners have been promoting a joint initiative on OSCE reform for more than 12 years. Our Western partners are dead set against dealing with this matter. I think that, considering recent events and the crisis that has affected all of the OSCE institutions without exception, now this conversation cannot be avoided.

We agreed to maintain close contacts in the upcoming period. Our colleagues will continue working at the expert level on all the issues on our common agenda.

Question (to both ministers):

Do Belarus and Russia plan to jointly raise at international venues and organisations the issue of interference by third countries in the domestic affairs of Belarus following the presidential election?

Sergey Lavrov:

We consider these events the domestic affair of the Republic of Belarus and do not initiate discussions at multilateral venues for this reason. That said, some members of the OSCE and the UN are going all-out to internationalise what is happening in Belarus in a bid to justify importunate attempts to impose mediation, in part, via the OSCE.

At the initiative of countries, including close neighbours of Belarus from the western side, a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council was recently convened. Estonia, which is currently a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, organised an informal Arria Formula meeting in New York, which is envisaged by the agreements between the delegations in New York, for discussing events in the Republic of Belarus. Both events (in the OSCE and in New York) were used for aggressive and even crude demands that Minsk cancel the results of the election and fully recognise the victory of the opposition. Any unbiased observer understands that this is a provocative approach. The delegations from Russia and Belarus that took part in the work of the OSCE Permanent Council clearly stated their position.

We will continue to respond in this manner in the future whenever attempts are made to destabilise the situation in Belarus. These kinds of attempts are made by those who would like to separate Belarus from Russia and undermine the foundations of the Union State through awkward flirting with Minsk, something that is obvious to everyone. Proceeding from the facts, we will firmly and appropriately demand renunciation of any interference in the domestic affairs of Belarus and proceed from the premise that all problems must be resolved in line with the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus and with due respect for its standards of law and order.

Question for Vladimir Makei:

A great number of foreign journalists who continue working in Belarus, including from Russia, have come under heavy pressure from the Belarusian law enforcement authorities. Can you do anything at your level to help them do their job normally?

Question for Sergey Lavrov:

In some countries, Russia is collaborating both with the authorities and with the opposition. But some members of the Belarusian opposition who are dissatisfied with the current developments in the republic have told the media that the Russian Embassy in Minsk had not replied to their request for a meeting. Do you think such contacts possible?

Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, we are concerned that some Russian journalists that worked and continue working in Belarus were detained and at times not in a graceful manner. On each incident, we have contacted our Belarusian colleagues and they have reacted promptly. All detained journalists have been released, including those without accreditation. Meanwhile, it is necessary to observe the standards of journalistic work in any country.

We have made repeated statements on this issue on behalf of the Foreign Ministry. We will uphold the rights of our journalists that work within the law of a given country, including Belarus or France when there were police attacks and when three of our journalists, I think, from RT and one from RIA Novosti were wounded. We responded the same way when a Sputnik correspondent was injured by rubber bullets near the White House in Washington, D.C. We have emphasised once again, today, (and have received assurances from our Belarusian colleagues) the need to secure the work of Russian journalists who have proper accreditation and act within the law.

I regularly read Kommersant, which you represent, including the very detailed reports by Andrey Kolesnikov that describe the situation realistically and his talks with people who come to the square. There are many interesting observations: young people explain why they are in the square and why they want their voice to be heard. Judging by the articles in Kommersant and other Russian media, these are peaceful people who simply want, as I’ve already said, to be heard.

We also see and know for sure of some information that does not get into the press about people that our journalists and foreign correspondents do not have access to but who would like these peaceful protests to fall into a confrontational spiral. There is confirmed information that such activities are conducted from Ukraine, where they have the Stepan Bandera Tryzub, S14, the National Corps and the Right Sector. These groups are actively provoking radical actions in Minsk and other cities, funding related events, and inciting those whom they consider promising extremist leaders to introduce elements of force into the demonstrations in the Belarusian capital. According to our information, there are camps for training such extremists in the Volyn and Dnepropetrovsk regions in Ukraine. I am sure that our secret services must handle the issue more specifically. They are in contact with each other. We estimate that about 200 extremists, trained in Ukraine, are now in the Republic of Belarus.

I’d like to emphasise our position again, that we believe nobody should be interfering with the Belarusians’ domestic negotiations.

As for the Coordination Council contacting the Russian Embassy in Minsk with a proposal to hold a meeting, we treat Belarus as a sovereign state. We treat any organisation that is established there as one that must observe the law. We don’t know how the Coordination Council was set up. Some people who were supposed to be members realised they had been listed as members without their knowledge. Some of them have requested their names be removed.

I don’t want to evaluate or pass judgment, but we are familiar with the names of some of those who are on the list of the Coordination Council members. We associate many of them with those who advocate a cultural break from Russia and use the slogan of “Belarusisation” for cracking down on the Russian language. They advocate less cooperation with post-Soviet organisations, up to withdrawing from the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and they advocate joining NATO.

We know of one statement by at least one Coordination Council member who said that Russians are a “scoundrel nation” and that “Belarus” was never Russia but was always Poland. These statements by current Coordination Council members were made at previous points in their careers. This describes the attitudes of at least some participants in this process. And let’s not forget that so far there have been no explanations by the leaders of this group on the programme that was posted on Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s website that confirmed its anti-Russia orientation. It quickly disappeared. There are no sensible explanations about what happened and what the council’s real programme is all about.

Under the circumstances we believe there is no point in meeting with these representatives until they establish their organisation under the laws of the Republic of Belarus. We will work with the opposition in different countries, but only if it functions within legal parameters.

Here’s one more characteristic of the Coordination Council. When the first demonstrations and confrontation with law enforcement bodies took place, the officers were openly advised to betray their oath “and side with the people,” as it was put. They were promised money and flats. I think this is a criminal offense.

To begin with, we need to understand what these people are, those who present themselves as the only champions of the future of the Belarusian people.

Question:

You spoke on many occasions, including today, on the non-interference of third parties in the internal affairs of the Republic of Belarus. How should Russia act in this situation? What tasks and objectives does Moscow have when it comes to resolving the situation in Belarus?

Sergey Lavrov:

Everything has already been said, including by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in his recent interview as well as speaking on the results of his telephone conversations with President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko. We are sure that there is only one option – to stop any interference in the internal affairs of the Republic of Belarus.

It is our conviction that in promoting the initiatives put forward by President Alexander Lukashenko on conducting a constitutional reform as part of a nationwide dialogue involving those workers of the industrial enterprises visited by the Belarusian President recently, students and those young people who peacefully took to the streets of Minsk (yet they should not break the law at that), such a process is very promising. A nationwide dialogue, for which the Belarusian leadership is prepared, is needed.

Those who are trying by all means to provoke unrest and breach of laws understand very well that such a national dialogue would leave them on the margins of history. This is why they are attempting to chalk everything up to extremist instigations and provoke law enforcement so that Belarus could not, God forbid, as it seems to them, calmly restore its normal everyday life in all its cities. We will stop all such attempts flatly, let alone attempts to use multilateral bodies involving Russia and Belarus to engage in such provocations.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4308072

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General for Syria Geir Pedersen, Moscow, September 3, 2020

3 September 2020 - 14:09

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Mr Pedersen, colleagues,

We are delighted to welcome you to Russia, especially considering that we are meeting only a few days after the largely successful third session of the Constitutional Committee’s Drafting Commission in Geneva. Not all of the problems have been settled yet, and not all the necessary arrangements regarding our further work have been made, but overall, as you said at a news conference following the session in Geneva, it was a highly useful and fruitful meeting.

Russia as a sovereign state and one of the guarantors of the Astana process will continue to support your efforts to help the Syrians themselves come to an agreement on constitutional reform in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

In addition to monitoring the political process, we are also looking closely at what is happening on the ground, where we are working together with our Astana format partners to help the Syrian Government and all Syrians eliminate international terrorism in the country and safeguard the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic.

It is obvious that the humanitarian issues in Syria need to be given comprehensive attention. The country is facing serious problems, including in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. We wholeheartedly support the appeal made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to abandon unilateral sanctions in the context of the pandemic and we regret that our Western partners have turned a deaf ear to it.

The problem of refugees and displaced persons is still with us today. We believe it necessary to redouble efforts to help the Syrians who want to return to their home country, especially since this will ease the unbearable burden on the host countries, primarily Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey.

All these topics constitute the essence of your mandate, which we enthusiastically support. Today we have an opportunity to listen to what you think about the current situation and how you expect it to change tomorrow.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4309107

Alex Him · September 7th, 2020

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, September 3, 2020

3 September 2020 - 18:33

Maria Zakharova (E)

Update on the coronavirus

The COVID-19 situation remains a challenge with mixed dynamics. The number of cases worldwide as of September 2 is close to 26 million which is an impressive number.

The virus continues to circulate, and we’re witnessing another spike in the number of infected in a number of countries that previously showed a steady decline. New morbidity clusters are limited to isolated locations and form in places of mass gatherings where social distancing rules are violated, as well as at public venues. In order to ensure sustainable control over the epidemiological situation, all countries without exception are using the necessary prevention and control restrictions and means and are relying on their experience in combating the new coronavirus infection.

To reiterate, the crisis caused by the coronavirus infection clearly demonstrates the need for collective action by all states, where, according to a WHO survey in late August, national healthcare systems were not prepared to adequately respond to the outbreak of a new pathogen.

Russia supports the WHO’s focus on working with all countries and sharing experience in order to jointly fight the pandemic. This is what WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus had in mind when he said on August 27 that humanity needs an approach in the spirit of global solidarity and partnership to put an end to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Assisting Russian citizens in returning home and resuming regular flights with individual countries

......................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s working visit to the Republic of Cyprus

......................................................................................

10th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers Meeting

......................................................................................

SCO Foreign Ministers Council meeting

......................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan Shah Mahmood Qureshi

......................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi

......................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Kyrgyzstan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Chingiz Aidarbekov

......................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar

......................................................................................

The end of World War II

This year, a new day in Russia’s military glory will be widely celebrated for the first time. September 3, Day of the End of World War II (1945) was established in accordance with a Federal Law signed by the Russian President on April 24 of this year. This proposal was advanced by State Duma deputies and Federation Council senators who aimed to consolidate patriotic traditions, to preserve historical justice for the victors in World War II, and to perpetuate the dignified memory of those who died defending the Fatherland.

The implementation of this initiative allows veterans and public circles, including Russia’s Far Eastern regions, to organise official festive military memorial events in commemoration of the end of World War II, to the victorious end of which the Soviet Union made a decisive contribution.

As you may recall, fulfilling the allied obligations assumed at the Crimea and Berlin conferences of 1945, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945. On August 9, the strategic Manchurian offensive began, which ended in the complete defeat of the Japanese Kwantung army, the liberation of Manchuria, North Korea, South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.

The Soviet Union’s participation in the war with militarist Japan led to a sharp decline in the ability of the last Nazi Germany’s ally to resist and ultimately to its surrender.

The Japanese Instrument of Surrender signed on September 2, 1945 aboard the battleship USS Missouri declared the unconditional surrender to the allied powers of the Imperial Japanese General Staff, all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control regardless of their whereabouts. The document was signed by Lieutenant General Kuzma Derevyanko for the USSR.

Maintaining military memorials abroad during the year of the 75th anniversary of Victory

Russian law requires the Foreign Ministry to fulfill a wide range of responsibilities regarding the organising and supervising of military memorial work abroad. In particular, Russian diplomatic missions and consular offices abroad exercise control over the current condition of the burial places of Russian and Soviet soldiers who died in action outside Russia. This work is being carried out by Russia’s foreign missions as scheduled in order to properly maintain Russian and Soviet military memorial sites in foreign countries.

Annually, Russia renovates about 300 individual graves, cemeteries and memorial sites where Russian and Soviet soldiers are buried. The total number stands at over 12,000. In this year of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, Russian embassies in Austria, Bulgaria, China, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Latvia, North Korea, Spain, Romania and the United States are renovating many sites, including such iconic sites as the Monument to the Soviet Army in Sofia, Bulgaria, and the Monument to the Soviet Liberator Soldier Alyosha in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, the Tallinn military cemetery, including the Monument to Soviet soldiers who fell in the Great Patriotic War and the Bronze Soldier.

Based on the military memorial work abroad carried out by the Defence Ministry’s specialised missions, thousands of names of fallen soldiers were established, which are now immortalised on memorial plaques. For example, in Romania, a Soviet burial site in the town of Budesti was renovated. Personal information about 5,879 soldiers was engraved. A similar project will be completed by the end of 2020 in Slovakia, where tombstones with over 11,000 names of fallen soldiers will be built in the Soviet cemetery in the town of Zvolen. With the assistance of the local authorities, a Soviet burial site in the town of Tapolca, Hungary was restored, and the Fire of Memory was lit.

Warsaw’s attempts to help representatives of the Belarusian opposition

Yesterday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the situation in Belarus in detail following talks with his Belarusian counterpart Vladimir Makei. He gave a comprehensive assessment of the situation in Belarus.

I would only like to add information about Warsaw’s attempts to help members of the Belarusian opposition, considering there were questions about this.

The Polish authorities continue to openly interfere in the domestic affairs of the Republic of Belarus. They are not alone but what they are doing is outrageous.

Warsaw is exerting pressure on Minsk, actually dictating to it a “line of conduct,” and openly supporting Belarussian opposition forces, in particular, with funds, via NGOs under its control. It is using information and propaganda broadcasts to influence Belarusian public opinion and providing shelter in Poland to the leaders of street protests.

The Polish leaders are at the forefront of the EU’s unfriendly policy towards Belarus and they promote the toughening of EU sanctions against Minsk. In this context, statements by Poland’s head of state on the readiness “to protect” certain regions in neighbouring Belarus are a source of concern.

Belarus unequivocally sees Poland’s actions as obvious attempts to interfere in its internal affairs. On August 27, the Foreign Ministry of Belarus expressed a strong protest in this connection to the Polish charge d’affaires in Minsk. To be honest, I don’t even know how else this could be qualified.

We urge Warsaw to return to the universally accepted norms of international law and renounce its policy of undermining the sovereignty of its neighbour. We call on Warsaw to give up approaches that are unacceptable in international relations, notably, support for anti-government actions and the creation of a financial and organisational base in Poland for an opposition that is engaged in illegal activities.

Update on Venezuela

There are a number of important new developments in the political situation in Venezuela. Preparations for the parliamentary elections are intensifying. According to the Constitution, they will be held on December 6. They are to be a major step on the way to a peaceful political settlement of internal differences in Venezuela. We note with satisfaction that quite a few representatives of the opposition political forces have expressed the desire to take part in the election process. We welcome the willingness of the Venezuelan government to grant them the necessary election guarantees, including to invite international observers from the UN and the EU to election sites.

With a view to reaching national reconciliation, President Nicolas Maduro made an unprecedented decision to pardon 110 opposition members that were taken to court on charges of embezzling government funds, and involvement in attempts to stage a coup and assassinate the head of state. Their political rights were reinstated, including the right to vote and be elected. This decision was coordinated with different opposition groups – both at the national dialogue roundtable discussions and elsewhere.

We noted that this step was duly appreciated by High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet.

Against this backdrop there are “no changes on the Western front.” I am referring to Washington. The United States, which was in the forefront of those who demanded the release of the so-called political prisoners, is again threatening to toughen sanctions against Caracas and to continue stifling the Venezuelan economy, primarily its oil sector. The rhetoric on the drug and terrorist threats that are ostensibly emanating from Venezuela is being intensified.

We have emphasised more than once that unilateral bans on Caracas must be cancelled. They not only deprive Venezuela of badly needed funds but also restrict its opportunities to effectively counter the spread of the coronavirus infection and purchase individual protection gear, medical equipment and drugs. During the pandemic, the preservation and even the toughening of illegal sanctions amount to a politically motivated crime.

At the same time, having proclaimed a priori its intention not to recognise the parliamentary elections, Washington is openly encouraging the radicals to boycott the vote. This is an absolutely destructive position that shows a lack of respect for the Venezuelans, their maturity and political wisdom. Lyrics aside, the aim of this policy is to keep afloat the Juan Guaido project that primarily failed in the eyes of the Venezuelans and was imposed on them from the outside. The US has invented and pursued many projects like this throughout the world. This plan is yet another failure.

We are convinced that international efforts to help normalise the situation in Venezuela cannot be imposed from the outside like some kind of “action plan.” Help means support for those who are directly involved in the dialogue and the process of settlement. It does not at all amount to demands to overthrow the legitimate authorities at any cost.

We urge all responsible members of the international community to prevent attempts to destroy the constitutional electoral process in Venezuela and to support as much as possible the creation of favourable conditions for letting the Venezuelans develop their own constructive solutions and compromises for existing problems within the bounds of law, without outside pressure and interference, not to mention the threat of force.

OPCW’s policy on procrastinating investigation of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed opposition

Once again we note that the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) continues to drag out the investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian armed opposition, under far-fetched pretexts. Meanwhile, Damascus regularly informs both the OPCW and the UN Security Council about these incidents.

Here’s a specific example. Almost two years have passed since the incident in the Syrian city of Aleppo (November 24, 2018) but the Technical Secretariat is still, unable to complete the investigation. It continues to add requirements for Syria which has already given the OPCW inspection groups access to the incident site and all the available information and continuously expresses its openness and willingness to cooperate.

Regrettably, the OPCW Technical Secretariat was not so scrupulous as regards the information received from unknown sources on the territory of a third country concerning investigations of incidents in the cities of Al-Lataminah, Saraqib and Khan Shaykhun. Eventually, the Syrian authorities were blamed for these incidents without any grounds.

We believe that the procrastination in investigating the use of chemical weapons by the militants contradicts the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention and once again shows that the Technical Secretariat is politically biased in Syrian affairs. This also proves its willingness to fulfil the political orders of a number of states that have repeatedly used armed force against Syria in violation of the UN Charter to pursue their geopolitical interests in the Middle East.

Washington’s statement on the potential reduction of US troops in Iraq

President Donald Trump made yet another statement on the US’s intention to reduce the strength of the US military contingent in Iraq almost by half. The figures that have been quoted over the past few years are so different that I don’t think there is any point in mentioning them again because every year we hear something new (reduction by percent or by total number; a reduction in troops but instead they increase them). I think it is worth commenting on this trend as such.

We believe that a real reduction of the military presence in Iraq and the Middle East in general by the US authorities would be a step in the right direction. Time has shown that US troops in Iraq have not brought stability or peace to that country. On the contrary, the security situation remains fairly tense there, as we have regularly pointed out.

At the same time, we must state that the publicly declared US intention to withdraw military units from foreign countries often remains an empty declaration that is never carried out. Syria offers a specific example. US troops have firmly entrenched themselves in Syria in violation of all international standards although President Trump has repeatedly said he would withdraw them. This is not the only example. There are many spots like this in the world.

Extension of the mandate for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon

On August 28, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2539 on extending the mandate for the UN Interim Force in Lebanon for one year, until August 31, 2021. This is a major peacemaking operation by the UN, which plays an important stabilising role on the Lebanese-Israeli border.

The Russian delegation took a most active part in harmonising this document, being guided by a principled approach on the need to consider the position of Beirut as the host party in terms of the mandate’s substance and the parameters of the operation. In this context, the Russian delegation closely cooperated not only with the UNSC members but also with its Lebanese partners, invariably supporting the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of that country.

Mali update

We continue to closely monitor the developments in Mali, where the military seized power on August 18. We share the concerns expressed over this by the UN Secretary-General, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).

We welcome the release on August 27 of ex-president Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and National Assembly Speaker Moussa Timbine, who had been detained by the military.

The removal of nearly all the top Malian leaders has complicated the already difficult situation in the country. In addition to socioeconomic problems, Mali is now facing the task of protecting its territorial integrity and combating the terrorist threat. Internal unrest there has greatly undermined Malians’ ability to effectively contribute to the collective efforts of the Sahara-Sahel countries, including the G5 Sahel group of Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger, which is focused on combating terrorism.

We believe that every possible measure should be taken to prevent any further deterioration in Mali and to return it to the constitutional framework. In our opinion, the only possible way to settle the current crisis is to restore law and order without delay, launch an inclusive national dialogue and take other steps that will bring about the desired effect.

It is good that the developments in Mali have so far been peaceful and that no lives have been lost. We welcome the August 19 statement issued by the National Committee for the Salvation of the People (CNSP), which currently holds power in Mali, about its plans to relaunch civil rule and hold presidential elections within a “reasonable timeframe.” As far as we can see, the CNSP intends to ensure a sustainable operation of executive authorities. We hope that one way to do this is the ongoing CNSP-led talks with the opposition June 5 Movement, which organised mass rallies against Keita’s policy during the past few months.

We support ECOWAS mediation efforts towards settling the crisis in Mali. The organisation’s extraordinary session, held via videoconference on August 20, decided to send a high-level fact-finding mission to Mali led by Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, former president of Nigeria. It is notable that this first direct contact with the mutineers was organised within a short period of time.

During their August 28 meeting, the ECOWAS leaders urged the CNSP “to immediately begin the process for a civilian transition” and to organise presidential and parliamentary elections within 12 months. The transitional president and prime minister must not represent the CNSP and will not stand as candidates in the next elections. The ECOWAS sanctions imposed on Mali have been extended until September 7, when the organisation will hold another meeting.

The talks, including on the parameters and the timeframe of the civilian transition, are ongoing. We are hopeful that the measures taken by ECOWAS regarding Mali will be effective and that the African Union will contribute to them energetically.

The Foreign Ministry recommends that Russian citizens refrain from visiting Mali until the situation in the country becomes normal and reliable security guarantees are provided.

Peace agreement signed between Sudan’s transitional government and the Sudan Revolutionary Front

On August 31, Sudan’s transitional government and the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), a coalition of armed groups from the regions of Darfur, Southern Kordofan and the Blue Nile, initialled a peace agreement in Juba, the capital of the Republic of South Sudan. The document stipulates the division of powers in the centre and the regions, including SRF representation in the federal bodies of the transitional government – the Supreme (Sovereign) Council, the government and the legislative assembly. The SRF armed units will be incorporated in the republic’s law enforcement authorities in order to maintain law and security throughout the country.

We welcome the initialling of the peace agreement in Juba and look forward to it being signed officially soon. In our opinion, it is a major step towards restoring national accord in Sudan, achieving the transition objectives and dealing with the acute socioeconomic problems in the country. We also hope that those armed groups that are not taking part in the peace process will join the agreement.

Poliovirus eradication in Africa

Last week the WHO Regional Office for Africa announced the eradication of the poliovirus in Africa. Not a single case of this dangerous infectious disease has been registered on the African continent over the past four years. This achievement was made possible thanks to a system-wide mass vaccination and a large-scale campaign against polio organised by African countries with the support of international organisations, first of all the WHO.

We congratulate everyone who was involved in this truly landmark achievement. We think that it can be rightly regarded as convincing proof of the efficiency of international cooperation in combatting dangerous epidemics.

We also believe it is important to note the contribution made by Soviet and Russian scientists to developing vaccines against polio and its eradication around the world, including in Africa.

The Trevor Reed case

I cannot but comment on the stories in the US media on the allegedly politicised case of US citizen Trevor Reed, who was sentenced to nine years in prison on July 30.

I want to point out the following: Trevor Reed was found guilty of committing a criminal offence under Part 2 of Article 318 of the Russian Criminal Code. As you may know, during his arrest “for inadequate behaviour” on August 16, 2019, Trevor Reed, who was under the influence of alcohol at the time, resisted arrest and assaulted two police officers. Under the above Criminal Code article, the use of violence that may pose a danger to the life and health of a government official during the performance of his/her duties is punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years.

As for the speculations about an allegedly unjust and too severe punishment, I want to note that in the United States, as well as in some other Western countries, such offences are punishable by much longer imprisonment terms. For example, assault on a police officer engaged in discharging his duties in the State of New York carries a sentence of up to 15 years. It would be good if the US newspaper articles about Trevor Reed mentioned this fact too.

Deleting accounts by Facebook and Twitter

We noted that once again, the Facebook and Twitter social networks blocked and then deleted 18 accounts and two pages, allegedly of Russian origin, under the pretext that these accounts had violated these services’ rule prohibiting foreign interference.

The social networks’ administrators justified their decisions and the restrictive measures by citing the findings of an inquiry conducted into the deleted accounts that is allegedly based on data from the FBI. The relationship between American intelligence agencies and social networks prompts certain questions. I believe that it could be a subject of a special investigation in the future. But back to the point.

In particular, the account holders are being accused of attempting to impose radically leftwing views on users and criticising both US presidential candidates in their posts. It is speculated that they may be cooperating with the Internet Research Agency, a Russian media outlet. Supposedly, the inquiry found evidence of “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” – that is, the pages were distributing content of Russian information agencies without notifying readers about it.

These are “solid” arguments, of course. We understand that the reality is not what it is portrayed as and it is unlikely that such a complicated string of logic could be the actual reason for censoring another source of Russian media content. It is more likely that the IT corporations acted out of political motivations, similar to the approach followed by that part of the American establishment that is constantly inflating a myth about the threat of Russia’s interference in the US elections – a myth that has been repeatedly debunked by the Americans themselves. Let me remind you that after almost four years, not a single piece of evidence corroborating such accusations against Russia has been provided. Last week, this was confirmed by US Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, who announced that there was no evidence of the fact that any foreign actors could have significantly affected the integrity or security of the election infrastructure or the infrastructure of election campaigns.

It appears that the Americans are simply trying to keep their favourite topic afloat. In our opinion, these speculations have run their course and they are doing this on purpose in the context of the upcoming US elections in November.

We urge the internet platforms to review their policy in favour of observing the fundamental norms of international law and the democratic principles of freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

We expect that competent international bodies and human rights organisations will duly respond and make an objective evaluation of the IT corporations’ actions.

Independence Day in the Kingdom of Eswatini

On September 6, the Kingdom of Eswatini marks a national holiday, Independence Day. On this day in 1968, the British protectorate over the country was lifted and Eswatini gained national sovereignty.

We highly value the traditionally friendly relations with this African state. Our countries maintain a regular political dialogue and work on expanding mutually beneficial cooperation in political, military-technical, trade, economic and humanitarian areas. We hope that the business contacts established by this friendly state’s delegation, led by King Mswati III, on the sidelines of the Russia‒Africa summit in Sochi in October 2019 will give an extra impetus to our cooperation.

We would like to congratulate our friends on their national holiday and sincerely wish the people of Eswatini success and prosperity.

Answers to media questions:

Question:

On August 25, the hearing of appeals in the case of Serb General Ratko Mladic began at the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals despite his ill health. How would you comment on this?

Maria Zakharova:

As far as we are aware, the lawyers for Mladic have filed motions with the Mechanism’s Appeals Chamber and the Registrar to order the “immediate hospitalisation” of the general, but both motions have been dismissed without any substantiation of the decision.

This attitude to the rights and health of Ratko Mladic is unacceptable. Following a recent review of the Mechanism’s functioning, the UN Security Council issued a resolution noting “the importance of ensuring the rights of persons detained on the authority of the Mechanism in accordance with applicable international standards, including those related to health care.” There are serious questions about the Mechanism’s compliance with these standards. It appears that Ratko Mladic is unable to participate in the hearings in full measure, which can result in gross violation of his right to a fair trial.

What is happening at the Mechanism is remindful of the worst traditions of its predecessor, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It appears that the Mechanism is doing its best to uphold the wrongful sentence adopted by the ICTY in 2017 despite the deteriorating health of Ratko Mladic. We once again urge the Mechanism to abandon this line and to strictly comply with the standards of international law, including respect for the rights of persons detained, including Ratko Mladic.

Question:

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has noted that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were both responsible for starting WWII. At the same time, the Polish Foreign Ministry has invited the Russian Embassy to do a test on WWII, which includes questions about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Yalta Conference. What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s position on such Polish statements in the year of the 75th anniversary of victory in WWII?

Maria Zakharova:

It is not the first time that the Polish authorities have tried to play on WWII, which is an extremely sensitive topic for the people of the former Soviet Union. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has been particularly active in the media space in order to satisfy his political views or ambitions, or the part of Polish society who would like to know for sure who was to blame in Poland’s military defeat. He is trying to shift the focus of public attention away from the strategic mistakes made by the Polish authorities before the war and to place the blame on the external forces, claiming cynically that the war was unleashed by the Soviet Union together with Nazi Germany.

The death of millions of peaceful civilians, which the Polish Prime Minister mentioned during the ceremonies marking the anniversary of the outbreak of the war, is extremely lamentable, and this feeling is especially strong in Russia and the other former Soviet republics where the Nazi invaders and their accomplices destroyed a great number of cities and over 70,000 villages, leaving 25 million people homeless and killing over 26.6 million Soviet citizens.

This is an especially delicate subject, as Poland only too well knows. We cannot understand why they continue to distort the history of WWII when this is harmful to bilateral relations and Poland’s own historical path. This is having a destructive effect on Poland. It is outrageous that the cynical distortion of history is complemented with attempts to play on the innermost feelings of individual people and humankind as a whole. It was a similarly irresponsible attitude of European leaders in the 1930s that pushed the world towards the largest disaster in history.

We regret that real memory and sorrow are being ever more often replaced in Poland with a farce. The Polish Foreign Ministry indeed invited, via Twitter, our Embassy in Warsaw to do a test on WWII. It would be interesting to know what Poles would say in a similar “game” about their pre-war leaders’ regular meetings with Hitler and his closest henchmen, or how they would explain Poland’s annexation of several Czechoslovak lands immediately after the Munich Pact, which essentially gave the green light to the implementation of Nazi Germany’s aggressive plans?

We can assure our Polish colleagues that Russia is well acquainted with history, but our answers to that test will hardly be to the liking of the Polish Foreign Ministry. Moreover, the Polish establishment itself has failed this test by forgetting who made the decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazism and who saved European nations from physical extermination.

Question:

Would you please comment on the information recently reported by the press service of Belarusian presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya – specifically, that she plans to speak at UN Security Council meetings on September 4, 2020. Which of the UN members initiated her appearance? Is Moscow aware of such initiatives?

Maria Zakharova:

It was Estonia that initiated the event you mentioned. Information about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s participation in the meetings has indeed been circulating. However, we do not have an official confirmation yet.

In the meantime, it should be stressed that in any case, it will not be an official UN Security Council meeting. The only possible format for the meeting on September 4, 2020, is an Arria formula meeting. Any member of the UN Security Council has the right to convene an informal meeting of this kind. The consent of the majority is not required.

This format was initially created as an additional tool to obtain more information on the issues on the UN Security Council’s agenda. However, eventually, many UNSC members started to misuse it. Our Western partners are more likely to do so as they try to pull representatives of civil society into communication with the Council, including individuals who are not always constructively disposed.

Moreover, our Western colleagues often use Arria formula meetings to promote their political goals and draw attention to the matters on which Council members are seriously divided. The meeting on Belarus initiated by Estonia is an example of this counterproductive practice.

It is obvious that the situation in Belarus after the election is not posing any threat to international peace and security – the issues supervised by the UN Security Council. As we see it, indirectly placing this situation on the Council’s agenda via an alternative route such as the Arria formula meeting is flagrant interference in domestic affairs of a sovereign state. We strongly believe that any assistance to Minsk by the UN can be provided exclusively upon the request from the official authorities.

The experience of the past years shows that using the Arria formula is necessary to grant a certain status to the matters that do not fit in the UNSC agenda. This is part of the ongoing information campaign against Belarus.

Question:

The Greek media regularly claim that Russia is totally against Greece extending its territorial waters to 12 nautical miles, something that is allowed under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, provided, to be sure, that the freedom of navigation is preserved, as stipulated by the Convention. I wonder, if Moscow has discussed this matter with Athens? What is Moscow’s position? Do you think there is a need for an additional agreement with Russia in cases, where this decision is taken in relation of regions, such as the Aegean Sea, where Russian and other international interests may be affected?

Maria Zakharova:

Russia has signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and its position is based on international legal norms contained in this document. Specifically, Article 3 of the Convention stipulates that every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention. But in a number of cases, countries, for some reason or another, establish a narrower territorial sea. We proceed from the assumption that in this matter states are guided by common sense and take into consideration the geographical peculiarities of a region. In cases, where a territorial sea has to be delimitated between neighbouring states, this issue should be addressed in keeping with international law.

The leadership of the Hellenic Republic is well aware of Russia’s opinion regarding this matter.

When it comes to situations where Russian interests are directly affected, we will deal with each specific case on its merit. So far though, we see no need for this.

Question:

Has Russia changed its position in connection with Turkey’s threats against other Mediterranean states and its unilateral geological exploration in the exclusive economic zones of Cyprus, Greece, and Egypt? What countries, apart from Russia, may benefit, in your opinion, from an armed conflict between two NATO members? What do you think about media reports claiming that Mr Erdogan is pursuing his expansionist policy in the region with so much uncontrolled aggression because he feels Moscow’s support?

Maria Zakharova:

We cannot call these speculations anything other than provocative. We have repeatedly declared that we do not seek to benefit from interstate strife. This fully refers to such a sensitive and explosive region as the Eastern Mediterranean. It does not matter whether countries involved in a conflict are allies and members of the same military and political block or not.

Russia would like all disputed issues to be solved exclusively via a political dialogue involving the development of confidence-building measures and a search for mutually acceptable solutions based on international legal norms. We are prodding no one towards any aggressive actions. Our bilateral cooperation, with Turkey among others, as we repeatedly said, is not directed against third countries.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4309873

Alex Him · September 9th, 2020

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister for Foreign Affairs, Cooperation, African Integration and Nigeriens Abroad of the Republic of the Niger Kalla Ankourao

3 September 2020 - 19:06

On September 3, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister for Foreign Affairs, Cooperation, African Integration and Nigeriens Abroad of the Republic of the Niger Kalla Ankourao.

The ministers discussed topical issues related to the further development of traditionally friendly Russian-Niger relations, including strengthening interaction in key areas on the international and African agendas. They also touched on the problems of securing peace in the countries of the Sahara-Sahel region and returning the situation in Mali to normal.

Both sides reaffirmed the high level of political understanding between Russia and Niger, and their readiness to expand cooperation within the UN, including in the context of Niamey’s membership in the Security Council during 2020-2021 as well as its presidency in that body this September.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4309891

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement at the G20 Foreign Ministers' Extraordinary Meeting, September 3, 2020

3 September 2020 - 19:11

Mr. President,

Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues,

The coronavirus pandemic, together with other major contemporary challenges, requires a more coordinated global effort and national response from States and international organizations. There is a need to strike the right balance between maintaining epidemiological security and preventing unnecessary damage to the world economy, international trade and cross-border people-to-people contacts. We believe that the G20 could contribute to improving the coherence of national actions and launching mechanisms for prompt interaction in case of emergencies in the field of international health.

Today, such efforts are particularly relevant, since recently there have been numerous initiatives that often duplicate and substitute the work already done by UN organizations. This could eventually undermine the well-established UN-centered architecture, with WHO at its core, which is a universal platform for organizing and coordinating multilateral efforts to combat the pandemic.

Given the cross-border nature of COVID-19, the global community needs to push aside instant driven disagreements and unite to counter the coronavirus. This is what the appeals of the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, which have not yet been implemented, to suspend unilateral restrictions on the supply of medicines and medical equipment and related payments during the pandemic are aimed at. We support them in every possible way.

The initiative put forward by President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Leaders' Summit on March 26 to introduce "green corridors" free from trade wars and sanctions in international trade is also focused on addressing this challenge. Today, it is essential to take a visionary approach and find the strength to abandon unfair competition, undue restrictions on trade and access to the funds of international financial institutions.

We attach great importance to humanitarian cooperation. Russia has already provided assistance in the fight against coronavirus to 35 countries in the form of procurement of medical equipment, supplies, individual protective means and pharmaceuticals, as well as deploying Russian medical staff. Our partners have been supplied with test kits allowing them to perform 900 thousand COVID-19 diagnostic tests.

Russian researchers have succeeded in creating an effective and safe vaccine against coronavirus in the shortest possible time, which will be soon introduced on to the markets. Our foreign partners, including those from the G20 countries, show wide interest in the Russian R&D product. In this regard, I would like to confirm our openness to mutually beneficial cooperation in this area.

Russia's experience shows that timely decisions on border crossing restrictions contributed to success in the fight against the epidemic. This required the adoption of a set of affirmative actions to preserve the status of foreign nationals and stateless persons in Russia who were unable to leave the country because of the restrictions imposed. The terms of stay and work in Russia of foreign migrant workers have been extended. Exceptions have been made to facilitate business and sports contacts, enable business operations and humanitarian work, as well as for employees of diplomatic missions. Taking into account the suspension of regular international flights, the issues of departure of foreign citizens from Russia to their homeland are being solved in close cooperation with the States of their citizenship.

As we overcome the critical phase of the pandemic in the world, we begin to gradually resume transport communications with other States on a reciprocal basis and with a thorough assessment of epidemiological risks. At the same time, all persons entering Russia must follow the established procedure of sanitary and epidemiological control at the checkpoints.

Major efforts are being made to bring back Russian citizens who found themselves abroad cut off from transport links with their homeland. To date, about 300 thousand of our fellow citizens have returned to Russia from 136 countries. In addition, social support measures have been provided for those unable to return. More than 350 exit flights have been arranged for the repatriation of our compatriots, in some cases, the flights of foreign carriers were involved. Besides the Russian nationals, foreign citizens were also taken on board when possible for transit to their countries. In organizing the evacuation campaign, we made use of the experience of the G20 countries. I would like to take this occasion to express my sincere gratitude to our partners for their assistance in obtaining flight permits and solving migration and logistics issues.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Saudi Presidency for the opportunity to exchange views with colleagues on a wide range of issues arising from the implementation of sanitary and epidemiological restrictions on borders. I believe it is worth thinking about summarizing and analyzing the experience of States in dealing with them in the broader context of responding to acute emergencies in the future.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4309915

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during BRICS Foreign Ministers Council online meeting, Moscow, September 4, 2020

4 September 2020 - 15:32

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Good afternoon, colleagues, friends,

Welcome to the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council meeting which, for obvious reasons, is being held as a videoconference, but is no less important because of that. I’m convinced we will be able to resume face-to-face meetings soon.

BRICS has established itself as an influential factor in international politics and economy. Our strategic partnership is based on commitment to dialogue, multilateralism, sovereign equality of states and the UN Charter principles.

This year, as we celebrate the creation of the UN and the 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II, which we celebrated earlier, our common collective voice in support of the democratic multipolar international order is needed more than ever. This order is based on mutual respect for the legitimate interests of all states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, and respect for the norms and principles of international law.

The role of the states, that are part of our association, in global trade and global economic growth is steadily increasing. In 2020, the total GDP of the five countries amounted to 25 percent of the global GDP ($21 trillion), and the share in international trade stood at almost 20 percent ($6.7 trillion). Particularly important is the fact that mutual exports of our five countries has grown by 45 percent over the past five years.

This trend will continue into the future regardless of the global coronavirus crisis, which is corroborated by the ongoing development of the strategic BRICS partnership during Russia’s current chairmanship. The organisation has reaffirmed its ability to respond flexibly to the changing international situation. Through joint efforts, we have preserved the continuity and stability of all areas of our cooperation. Over 150 joint events will take place throughout the year, albeit many of them online.

The New Development Bank (NDB) is working at its fullest. Approximately 60 projects in our countries totaling about US $20 billion have been approved. The NDB has responded to the pandemic in a timely and effective manner and announced the creation of a special lending mechanism to deal with the aftereffects of the coronavirus infection. In total, $4 billion have already been allocated for projects to assist in the recovery of the BRICS economies, with the entire aid package potentially reaching $10 billion.

Notably, the first Russian COVID-19 vaccine “Sputnik V” was recently registered. Russian researchers have developed medicines against the coronavirus infection. We are ready to share our experience with other countries, including our BRICS friends.

Relying on our partners’ support, we plan to approach the end of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship with a strong set of new agreements, including the already agreed upon BRICS Anti-Terrorism Strategy and the updated Strategy for Economic Partnership to 2025. A number of initiatives advanced by our chairmanship to strengthen sector-specific cooperation between BRICS members are at the final stages of development. The people-to-people and cultural ties, as well as contacts between experts and civil society representatives are expanding.

Importantly, BRICS and all of our countries are invariably open to interaction with constructively-minded partners. Our association has become a centre of attraction for many participants in international relations, primarily from among the developing economies and emerging markets.

I’m convinced that BRICS can and should take an active part in shaping the global architecture in the post-coronavirus world.

Today, we will discuss the interaction of the BRICS countries on important issues on the international agenda, as well as the expected results of Russia’s BRICS chairmanship in 2020.

Now let’s get to the agenda of our meeting.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4317844

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Croatian Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Gordan Grlic Radman

4 September 2020 - 16:35

On September 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of the Republic of Croatia Gordan Grlic Radman, upon the initiative of the Croatian side.

The ministers exchanged views on a wide range of current issues of bilateral cooperation, as well as on the international agenda.

In response to the Croatian minister’s request, the Russian side confirmed the fact-based, principled assessments of outside attempts to destabilise the situation in the Republic of Belarus, as well as the situation with the prolonged absence of a response from the German authorities to the official request of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation regarding the state of Alexei Navalny.

The parties expressed mutual commitment to the progressive development of the Russian-Croatian dialogue.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4317939

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following an online meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers Council, Moscow, September 4, 2020

4 September 2020 - 17:03

Sergey Lavrov (R)

A full-format online meeting of the BRICS foreign ministers has ended. This is the second such meeting this year under Russia’s chairmanship.

The first was dedicated exclusively to mobilising efforts to effectively prevent the spread of the coronavirus infection.

Today, we discussed a wide range of international issues and key items on the agenda of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly as well as our practical cooperation among the five member states.

We have adopted a detailed and appropriate final communiqué. You can read it (pdf-file), so I will not dwell on the key international matters that the communiqué covers in detail.

I would like to note that the communiqué reaffirms the BRICS’ commitment to the principles of multilateralism, reliance on international law and resolving conflicts exclusively through political and diplomatic means and according to the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. Once again, we resolutely supported the central role of the UN in the search for collective answers to the challenges and threats facing humanity.

In this year of the 75th anniversary of Victory in World War II, we noted the importance of preserving the historical memory of this tragedy’s lessons in order to avoid repeating it in the future. We unanimously condemned any and all manifestations of Nazism, racism and xenophobia. The corresponding resolution that is adopted annually by the UN General Assembly is traditionally supported by all BRICS countries.

We agreed to strengthen and promote our strategic partnership in all key areas of BRICS activities, such as politics and security, the economy and finance, and cultural ties.

We are grateful to our friends for supporting Russia’s chairmanship of the Five under rather difficult circumstances, when direct international communication, face-to-face communication, has, in fact, been put on hold. Nevertheless, using modern technology, we have managed to carry out most of the planned activities. We have had over 50 activities and as many will take place before the end of the year. We have every reason to believe (our partners also mentioned this today) that all of the Russian chairmanship’s plans with regard to the BRICS activities will be fulfilled.

We have reached a number of practical agreements, including the one to promote investment and to support the effective participation of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises in international trade. Our respective ministries have adopted a joint statement in support of the multilateral trade system and WTO reform. Another important document, the Memorandum of Cooperation in the Competition Policy, was renewed for another term. Our development banks have agreed on an action plan for innovation and blockchain working groups. Other ministries and departments continue to work energetically.

Most of these initiatives are being drafted with an eye to approving them during the next summit, which is scheduled to be held in Russia in the autumn. We will determine the dates later based on the epidemiological situation.

These are the main results. Once again, the communiqué that we have circulated will provide a great deal of interesting information.

Question:

The year in which Russia was the BRICS chair has been fairly difficult. The pandemic has taken its toll on every area. What did you manage to accomplish this year in BRICS? What kind of meetings and statements can we expect before 2020 runs out?

Sergey Lavrov:

I partially talked about these issues when I presented the main results of our meeting today. To reiterate, we consider it critically important to have reached an agreement on a number of issues.

This includes a package of documents devoted to trade and investment, encouraging small-, medium- and micro-businesses to participate in international trade, strengthening cooperation between banks (central banks and development banks in our respective countries), and the active work of the New Development Bank, which was created by the leaders of the BRICS countries and is operating successfully.) By the way, the Eurasian Regional Centre of the New Development Bank will open in Russia in October.

The agreements concerning the prevention of new challenges and threats are notable as well. A very powerful document on counter-terrorism has been agreed upon and will be submitted for approval by the heads of state. The activities to combat drug trafficking and drug crime have been resumed. Our joint cybersecurity efforts are on the rise. This is a critical area to which we pay special attention.

Notably, special attention was paid to Russia’s initiatives, which were presented a year ago, and that supplemen BRICS’ activities with two new formats. I’m referring to the Women’s Business Alliance (it has been effectively created and is about to go live) and the Energy Research Platform, which is designed to encourage the research community’s involvement in the practical activities on drawing up energy resource plans. Two major events have taken place as part of the Energy Research Platform. Their results will also be submitted for consideration by the heads of state.

Question:

You have repeatedly mentioned the importance of international cooperation in combating the coronavirus. China and Russia are now working to develop their own COVID-19 vaccine. China has officially announced its plans to strengthen cooperation in vaccine research and development.

What is your take on the prospects for possible cooperation between China and Russia in vaccine development and production? To what extent will cooperation between the two countries help ensure access to vaccines for other countries in need of support, including the BRICS members?

Sergey Lavrov:

Today, we confirmed that this area remains a BRICS priority. Russia and China’s partners (India, Brazil and South Africa) actively supported Moscow and Beijing’s efforts in this regard. All of them appreciated the statements made by our Chinese colleague and myself to the effect that we are interested in the broadest possible cooperation, including with the participation of our BRICS friends. Notably, the coronavirus has by no means initiated the motivation for BRICS cooperation in this area. Interaction began much earlier. The first document on this subject was adopted at the BRICS Summit in Ufa, Russia, in 2015, when the heads of the BRICS states put forward an initiative to establish cooperation in combating infectious diseases. Then, at the 2018 South Africa Summit, our South African partners advanced an initiative to establish a vaccine development and research centre. So, this work has been ongoing for the past five years, even before the coronavirus infection posed very difficult problems for us.

Thanks to the visionary decisions adopted at the earlier summits, the BRICS countries were well prepared and are now able to mobilise their full potential in the face of the coronavirus infection.

Russia’s additional initiatives introduced this year have been reviewed and approved. One of them concerns the creation of an early warning system for epidemiological threats. The other proposes developing specific steps for the legal regulation of medical products which will certainly improve our ability to cope with the coronavirus now and prepare for the fact that we will most likely have to deal with similar challenges more than once in the future. So, BRICS is among the leaders in developing measures to prevent such epidemics and to deal with the aftereffects.

Question:

How will statements that we’ve heard in the past two days from Berlin on the issue of Alexei Navalny influence the strategic dialogue between Russia and Europe? Today, NATO urged Russia to fully open its file on Novichok to the OPCW. Who is now interested in a crime scenario on Navalny’s poisoning?

Sergey Lavrov:

Representatives of the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry have already made statements on this issue. We have nothing to hide. Let me recall again that as soon as Navalny felt unwell on the plane it landed immediately. An ambulance was waiting for him in the airport and he was instantly taken to hospital, switched to an artificial lung ventilator and given other necessary measures. As I understand it, Navalny spent a bit more than a day and a half there. During this time, we were urged every hour to explain what happened and report any information immediately.

For over a week after he was taken to Germany, no one who raised a concern during his stay in Omsk has expressed interest in his case or loudly demanded information from the German doctors. We don’t have new information on this up to this day. It’s the same old story: we are publicly accused of something and our official requests for answers to specific questions from the Russian Prosecutor-General’s Office, under legal assistance treaties, remain unanswered. German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel has been accusing us for two days of this action (ostensibly, the poisoning) but cannot present anything specific. Today, we once again asked our colleagues in the EU and Germany whether Ms Merkel plans to instruct her staff to send the German Justice Ministry’s response to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office inquiry.

I already have to say out loud that we have information that this reply is being delayed due to the position of the German Foreign Ministry. We have instructed the Russian Ambassador to Germany to ask for a reason for the delay. Today we were at least promised that the reply would come soon. We will react when we receive it with specific facts. As I see it, the Germans believe their reply will contain these facts. Let me repeat that, regrettably, all this brings to mind what happened with the Skripals and other incidents where Russia was groundlessly accused and the results of the investigation (that took place in Britain in the latter case) remain classified. Nobody sees the Skripals themselves.

I would like to remind you that when, on the wave of this Russophobic hysteria over the Skripals, our British colleagues compelled most EU countries to expel our diplomats (to which Moscow certainly responded), we confidentially asked the EU members whether the Brits presented any facts in addition to what they publicly reported in the media. We received a negative answer. Facts were not presented but they asked to expel our diplomats and promised that specific information would be provided later. I am not being lazy and whenever I meet with my colleagues, I ask them about the Skripals case when they expelled Russian diplomats based on London’s parole of honour and followed its appeal. I ask them whether they were given the promised specific information in addition to what was publicly mentioned and they again said “no.” Nobody has given any information to anyone.

This is why we now approach such high-flown, dramatic statements by our Western colleagues with a large dose of scepticism. We’ll see what facts they present. I think this public conduct and such haughty, arrogant demands made in a tone that our Western partners allow themselves shows that there is little to present except artificially fueled pathetics.

Question:

The Ukrainian foreign minister said that the foreign ministers of Germany and France seek to hold a Normandy format foreign minister meeting in September. According to him, you have no objections to this. Is that right?

Sergey Lavrov:

The Foreign Ministry has already responded to this question. If someone wants to meet, let them meet. We have not discussed any such matter. We are now talking about preparing a meeting of foreign policy advisers to the Normandy format leaders. Nobody said anything specific about a meeting of foreign ministers, because, I think, they are well aware of our position. First, we need to act upon what the leaders of our countries agreed on in Paris in December 2019. There has been little progress so far. We only see more problems in connection with the constant worsening of the Ukrainian authorities’ position with regard to their commitment to implementing the Minsk agreements.

Question:

Yesterday, it became known that the Democrats in the United States demanded immediate imposition of sanctions on Russia in connection with the upcoming US presidential election in November. They are referring to intelligence that says that Russia can allegedly intervene. What can you tell us about this?

Sergey Lavrov:

We have been hearing accusations that Russia is interfering in US presidential elections for many years now. It has now become a kind of a game of who is interfering more: Russia, China or Iran? A US national intelligence official recently said that China is interfering more than Russia or Iran. So, grown-up people have been playing these games for a long time now, and this does not surprise us. Sometimes, though, we can’t help but be surprised. I’m referring to recent accusations against Russia to the effect that we are trying to abuse or use in the interest of a particular candidate the planned voting by mail in the United States. I was surprised by this accusation, because until then I thought that voting by mail was part of the differences between President Trump, who outright refuses to allow this type of vote to be held, and the Democrats, who want to use voting by mail as much as possible.

Truth be told, we are used to these attacks. In this case, as in the case of poisonings and other situations in different countries, we will respond to specific facts, if they are presented to us. We keep telling our partners – Americans and Europeans alike – if you have any concern about anything, especially cybersecurity, which has become a particularly common subject for accusations and reproaches against us, let’s sit down and review your facts. We are ready to do so. Unfortunately, our partners in the United States and the EU shun direct conversations based on professional analysis of available facts. We are ready for this, and we encourage our colleagues to do so. They should stop living in the past reminiscing about the colonial era and considering themselves smarter and mightier than others and start working on the basis of what they signed in 1945, namely, the UN Charter principles, including equality, balance of interests and joint and honest work. We are ready for this.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4318038

Comment by the Information and Press Department on a joint teleconference between the leading Palestinian political forces

4 September 2020 - 18:08

On September 3, the President of Palestine, the leader of FATAH and the heads of 14 other leading Palestinian organisations held a joint teleconference to discuss ways of overcoming the intra-Palestinian split and the situation taking shape in the Middle East peace process.

The absence of any alternative to the two-state solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel has been a key aspect of the Palestinian agreements reflected in the final communique. The participants emphasised that any unilateral steps to create irreversible realities on the ground and erode the universally recognised international foundation for a settlement in the Middle East are unacceptable.

We agree with the communique’s statement that a peace process carried out by the sides themselves is the key to a successful and final solution to the conflict between Palestine and Israel. In this context, we share the idea of the importance of restoring Palestinian national unity as soon as possible on the political platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as the main condition for launching direct Palestine-Israel talks.

We confirm our essential willingness to host another pan-Palestinian meeting in Moscow as part of our efforts to facilitate the overcoming of the intra-Palestinian split and promoting the nascent positive trend.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4318162

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani

4 September 2020 - 19:11

On September 4, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani.

The officials discussed several key aspects of the Middle East agenda. They expressed their shared opinion in favour of continuing a regular dialogue on the foreign minister level on promoting a political settlement of conflicts persisting in the region and ensuring security, stability and sustainable development there.

The ministers paid considerable attention to further advancing Russian-Qatari relations, including the schedule of planned contacts.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4318309

Alex Him · September 11th, 2020

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Greek Cypriot newspaper Phileleftheros, published on September 7, 2020

7 September 2020 - 06:00

Question:

Your visit to Cyprus will take place in the year of the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our states. How would you describe our cooperation in this period? Which spheres will the agreements to be signed during your visit cover?

Sergey Lavrov:

It is a special year for Russian-Cypriot relations. Sixty years ago, on August 16, 1960, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet Leonid Brezhnev sent a message of congratulations to President of Cyprus Archbishop Makarios on the declaration of the republic’s independence. In that message, he stated the Soviet Union’s readiness to establish diplomatic relations and exchange missions with the aim of developing all-round friendly ties “in the interests of our states and stronger global peace.” In a reply message sent on August 18, 1960, the President of Cyprus accepted Moscow’s proposal. In December of that year, Soviet Ambassador Pavel Yermoshin arrived in Nicosia as part of the exchange of diplomatic missions.

Over this relatively short period, our countries have developed a truly fruitful partnership. The current Russian-Cypriot political dialogue is friendly and based on mutual trust, which is largely due to the spiritual, civilisational and cultural affinity of our nations. We have created, through joint efforts, a solid foundation for our ties in the political, trade, economic, legal and humanitarian spheres.

As this stage, Russian-Cypriot relations are regulated by dozens of agreements. The two countries’ agencies are working to modernise and expand the legal framework of our relations. We will sign two documents during my visit to the Republic of Cyprus: a protocol amending the bilateral Agreement on Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and Capital of December 5, 1998, and the Plan of Consultations between the Foreign Ministry of Russia and the Foreign Ministry of Cyprus for 2021 ̶ 2022.

Question:

Cyprus is experiencing pressure and threats from Turkey, which continues to occupy part of our country and has violated the Exclusive Economic Zone of Cyprus many times over the past years. Russia’s reaction to these activities has not been harsh. Is this because you currently have good relations with Ankara? Can you explain the largely lax attitude of the international community to these Turkish actions?

Sergey Lavrov:

The Russian side has more than once commented on our vision of the developments in Eastern Mediterranean. Of course, we are concerned about the regular crises in that part of the world. We regard as unacceptable any actions that can further increase the conflict potential. We have called on the regional authorities more than once to show political foresight and to settle their disputes exclusively peacefully on the basis of law. It is better to settle disputes at the negotiating table rather than aggravate them through crisis rhetoric.

In our opinion, both Nicosia and Ankara have the political will for preventing further destabilisation in the region. In addition, there is a universal platform for settling disputes – the United Nations. We are ready to contribute to the development of neighbourly relations between the Republic of Cyprus and the Republic of Turkey, but only if both display an interest in this and request our assistance.

As for our relations with Turkey, I would like to assure our Cypriot friends once again that the current development of Russian-Turkish cooperation and the need for interaction with Ankara on regional matters are not having and will not have any effect on our dialogue with Nicosia.

Question:

You have supported the efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue for many years. What is Russia’s stance on Turkey’s plans to open Varosha, the closed part of Famagusta, in violation of the valid UN resolutions? In your opinion, what are the prospects of resuming the dialogue between the two communities?

Sergey Lavrov:

Moscow’s principled stance on the opening of Varosha is well known. This matter must be resolved in line with the valid UN Security Council resolutions – primarily, Resolution 550 (1984) and 789 (1992). Any unilateral steps contrary to the generally recognised international legal framework may create additional obstacles for resuming the talks on the Cyprus issue.

In my opinion, the escalating disputes around the closed quarter of Famagusta and the Cypriot exclusive economic zone reveal the fact that the talks between the communities on the entire scope of intra-Cyprus problems must be resumed as soon as possible.

If we speak about the dispute settlement prospects, it would be good to hear the opinion of the parties directly involved in the talks during my contacts in Cyprus. The success of the talks utterly and completely depends on the parties’ political will. There must be no external pressure, interference or attempts to impose ready-made solutions and schedules.

Needless to say, the restrictions due to the spread of COVID-19 constitute a negative factor that has been stalling the negotiation process. I hope that, as the epidemiological situation improves and the internal election process in the Turkish Cypriot community comes to its close, the contacts between the communities will resume. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we are ready to offer assistance to the parties.

Question:

How has the pandemic affected international relations, apart from the objective difficulties in policy implementation? Has it accelerated the ongoing process of redistribution of influence?

Sergey Lavrov:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Cypriot leaders for their assistance in the evacuation of my fellow citizens to their homeland, and thank the Cypriots and Russian compatriots permanently residing on the island for their solidarity and comprehensive assistance to the Russians who found themselves in a predicament. The events associated with the pandemic have once again clearly demonstrated the value of sincere friendship and mutual assistance between Russia and Cyprus.

In the global dimension, the novel coronavirus outbreak is a major challenge for entire humanity that has changed the daily lives of billions of people literally overnight. International relations, including the global governance mechanisms, primarily the UN, are also being broadly tested for strength. The situation is compounded by the fact that the pandemic has exacerbated a number of long-standing problems such as terrorism, drug trafficking, cybercrime, as well as, of course, the numerous unresolved crises and conflicts.

Unfortunately, we have to state that the need to combat COVID-19 has not yet led to a consolidation of the international community, or extinguished the hotbeds of major interstate disputes. Moreover, some Western states are seeking to use this unfavourable epidemiological situation to promote self-serving, momentary interests, to settle scores with unwanted governments or with their political and economic competitors. In particular, they continue to use the practice of unilateral illegitimate sanctions, which is a gross violation of the UN Charter. As a result, conflict potential is growing around the world, as well as distrust, narrowing the space for interaction to effectively address common issues.

At the same time, the pandemic has accelerated the process of reformatting the global geopolitical landscape and the formation of a more inclusive and democratic polycentric world order. It has also confirmed the need to strengthen countries’ national sovereignty. It appears that self-sufficient countries with well-functioning mobilisation systems, clearly formulated national interests and priorities have demonstrated far greater stress resistance.

It is obvious that a productive and constructive multipolarity can only be ensured by an unconditional reliance on the generally recognised principles and norms of international law. There is a strong need today for the coordination of efforts between the main world centres with the central coordinating role of the UN. All disagreements should be put aside and countries should unite for the sake of working out viable solutions to the key problems of our time, of strengthening global and regional security and stability. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to convene a summit of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is aimed at addressing these problems. I am glad that our partners’ reaction was positive and interested. We hope that this attitude will help organise an in-person meeting when the epidemiological situation gets better.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4318291

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference with Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Yury Borisov and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem following talks, Damascus, September 7, 2020

7 September 2020 - 16:57

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 32:30

Ladies and gentlemen,

The current visit of our delegation is primarily devoted to discussing the prospects for the further development of cooperation between Russia and the Syrian Arab Republic in the new conditions that have developed within the country, in the region and in the world as a whole.

The key aspect of the current stage is based on the fact that Syria, including with the support of the Russian Federation, has withstood the fight against international terrorism and the forces that hatched the plan to destroy Syrian statehood.

The remaining terrorist hotbeds in Syria are being eliminated and will be completely destroyed.

These conditions give rise to new tasks, which primarily concern Syria’s socioeconomic recovery and the mobilisation of international assistance for these purposes.

Our jointly defined economic tasks were discussed in detail by the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Walid Muallem and Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Yury Borisov, which they just talked about.

Today, during a long conversation with President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad we discussed the situation on the ground in detail. We stated that relative calm has been established in Syria and that we need to work on strengthening this trend. This does not suit everyone, hence the attempts of a number of external players to fire up separatist sentiments in Syria and use unilateral and illegitimate measures to smother the country's economy.

In this connection, today we clearly and unambiguously reaffirmed our commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of the Syrian Arab Republic. We reaffirmed the principle under which the Syrian people must decide their own destiny independently and without foreign interference, as UN Security Council Resolution 2254 reads. Russia will consistently advocate respecting and implementing this important principle. We will do this as a nation and as part of the Astana format, the Russia-Iran-Turkey guarantors, and certainly in the context of the Syrian Constitutional Committee which is underway in Geneva.

Question (retranslated from Arabic):

Could you please comment on the agreements reached in Moscow, especially in view of the principled respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity that you acknowledged?

Sergey Lavrov:

For many years – in fact, throughout the entire ongoing conflict in Syria – we have consistently provided the Moscow platform to various Syrian political forces. This time, the leaders of the Syrian Democratic Council and the Moscow Platform met in Moscow, at their own initiative. These two groups signed a memorandum of understanding, without anybody’s help. We did not participate in these contacts and consultations. We have this document; you are welcome to review it. We will not comment on the agreements contained in this memorandum; however, we clearly noted that both groups confirmed their commitment to Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This corresponds to our own stance. We always proceed from the unfailing principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries. The same applies to Syria. We confirmed our stance at a meeting with representatives of these two Syrian groups in Moscow.

As a matter of fact, the role of Moscow as a regular and comfortable platform for respective events is already established and enjoys support and understanding not only from Syrian representatives, who have met in Moscow several times, but also from various Palestinian groups that are wishing to hold a meeting of this kind in the Russian capital once again. There is a Moscow format for resolving Afghanistan’s issues. Intra-Afghan talks have been held in Moscow multiple times. So, if our partners from different countries affected by conflicts are interested in our further hospitality, we are ready to host them. Libya is another example. The parties to the Libyan conflict have met in Moscow several times. It helps them to tap into common approaches to solving rather complicated problems that developed after NATO, in violation of all the principles of international law and the UN Security Council resolution, destroyed the Libyan statehood in 2011. We do not want this unfortunate experience to be repeated in any other country.

Question:

Is it true, as the Western media, Turkey and the National Transitional Council of Libya claim, that Russia is using Syria, in particular the Khmeimim air base, as a bridgehead for airlifting armaments and mercenaries to Khalifa Haftar? It is also alleged that these mercenaries are being recruited from among Syrians.

Sergey Lavrov:

When it comes to Libya, I would like to repeat what I have already said more than once. All kinds of allegations are routinely made about Russia’s activities in Libya, other countries from Africa to Europe, as well as the United States. You are well aware of this because you have heard and seen this. Not a single fact to prove these allegations has ever been presented to us. That such allegations are immediately leaked to the media, bypassing the existing bilateral and multilateral mechanisms for settling any disputes, suggests the goals of the authors of these statements.

Just as all the other members of the UN Security Council, we supported a special resolution on an arms embargo against Libya. I remember that several months later several European countries blatantly stated through their chiefs of general staff and military representatives that they supported and armed the extremists who were fighting Muammar Gaddafi. These are documented facts. By the way, the arms embargo, its importance and the need to comply with it, were reaffirmed during the Berlin Conference on Libya in January 2020, which Russia attended and the results of which have been set forth in one more UNSC resolution, which all sides must comply with.

I would like to say once again that we must remember about the genesis of the Libyan conflict, which is rooted in the criminal and aggressive NATO campaign.

Question (retranslated from Arabic, for Walid Muallem):

Has the Russian side set any timeframe for the Constitutional Committee to ensure a result by a certain deadline?

Sergey Lavrov:

There are no, nor can there be any deadlines for the work of the Constitutional Committee.

Question:

Would you comment on the Turkish media allegations about Russia’s destructive role in Libya? What can you say about Turkey’s role in Syria, considering that Russia and Turkey are working together in Syria and hold joint operations and manoeuvres in Idlib? What price will Ankara demand for terminating its presence in Syria, which Damascus regards as illegal and infringing on Syria’s sovereignty?

Sergey Lavrov:

As for media reports on Libya, Syria and many other subjects, I suggest that you invite their authors to a journalists’ discussion. There is a variety of opinions to be discussed.

From the very beginning of the Libyan crisis Russia has been the only state to work with all Libyan sides without exception. Other external players and, most importantly, the Libyan sides gradually came to the conclusion that the conflict does not have a military solution and that it is necessary to launch a dialogue.

Several initiatives have been put forth during the past few months to end the hostilities and start peace talks immediately and to launch the implementation of the decisions adopted at the Berlin conference. The latest examples are the Cairo Declaration and the recent joint initiative of President of the Libyan House of Representatives in Tobruk Aguila Saleh and head of the Presidential Council in Tripoli Fayez al-Sarraj. We wholeheartedly support these initiatives. We believe that they must be implemented without any delay, starting with the unconditional and indefinite ceasefire.

As for Syria and our interaction with Turkey and Iran within the Astana format, our interaction is based on the agreements reached by the presidents and supported by the Syrian leadership. There are no commercial elements in these agreements, as you suggested when asking about the price to be paid.

The most important area of the current Russian and Turkish efforts is the Idlib de-escalation zone, where we have coordinated very concrete and clear arrangements and the distribution of responsibilities. They stipulate the separation of the normal and reasonable opposition from the terrorists, the liberation of the М4 highway and the creation of a safety corridor along it. The movement towards these goals is sustainable, though slow. There are grounds to believe that we will complete this job.

As for Syria’s sovereignty, absolutely all documents of the Astana format and the Russian-Turkish agreements say unambiguously that Russia and Turkey will respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and will not encourage any separatist trends. This goal will undoubtedly be achieved with the completion of the settlement process.

I would like to note that the government-controlled part of the Idlib de-escalation zone has increased considerably since the signing of the Russian-Turkish agreements.

Question:

It is reported that the Russian and Iranian positions do not tally on all points of the Syrian agenda. Moreover, some people claim that Russia is working to withdraw Iran from Syria. Is this a true fact? You said the work was fruitful in the Astana format. Have all the three guarantor countries (Russia, Turkey, and Iran) reached consensus on all matters or are there any differences?

Sergey Lavrov:

The Astana format took shape, when the UN, regrettably, was fully inactive. So, Russia, Turkey and Iran implemented the relevant initiative, with the consent of the Syrian government and all the Syrian sides. This format involves three guarantor countries (Russia, Turkey, and Iran), a delegation from Damascus and a delegation from the opposition, including representatives of armed groups. This is a universally recognised format, which, as is generally acknowledged, is the most productive one, where the development of the approaches to a Syrian settlement is concerned.

As for the differences, there is no one-hundred-percent unanimity anywhere. This refers not only to the positions of individual countries. The US administration lacks a single approach to either Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Syria. Now they leave these countries, now they stay, or change the reason why they need to linger. There is no such thing as total unanimity anywhere.

There are substantial differences in the Russian, Turkish and Iranian approaches to the Syrian conflict, differences that you can glean from official statements and the situation on the ground. But what Moscow, Ankara and Tehran have in common is the desire in no case to allow in Syria a replay of what happened in Iraq and Libya.

The Astana format is based on unconditional respect for the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as on the principle of non-interference in that country’s internal affairs and inadmissibility of any attempts to fan separatist sentiments, especially from the outside.

As for the Iranian presence in the SAR, it is determined neither by the Russian or any other side, nor by anyone’s desire aside from the position of the Syrian leadership. Therefore, this question should be addressed to Damascus.

Question (speaking after Walid Muallem):

If the Constitutional Committee fails to compromise on the Constitution before the presidential election scheduled for next year, could they be postponed? Are they considering a possibility to establish a transitional body of power in Syria in this case?

Sergey Lavrov:

The elections in Syria are a matter that concerns the Syrian government. As long as a new constitution is not in place or the effective constitution has not been modified, the current constitution remains in force in the form in which it now exists.

You have mentioned a transitional body. Our UN colleagues led by Mr Staffan de Mistura once attempted to discuss this topic. At some point, there being no COVID-19 epidemic whatsoever, they announced a negotiating lockdown and were doing nothing at all for ten months.

As I mentioned, the Astana format was created to take this situation out of the absolute impasse, where it had been led. Under this initiative, the Syrian National Dialogue Congress was convened one year later, in 2018, which was supported by all Syrians and prioritised the establishment of the Constitutional Committee that we now have. What is needed is to let it work tranquilly.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4322879

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with President of the Republic of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades, September 8, 2020, Nicosia

8 September 2020 - 11:11

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr President,

Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you.

I am pleased to pass best wishes from President Vladimir Putin. Not so long ago, you and Mr Putin had a telephone conversation and confirmed your determination to promote our relations in all areas. We will actively pursue this.

Two dates were celebrated recently, the 60th anniversary of the Cypriot state and the 60th anniversary of our diplomatic relations, which you mentioned. It was a very important anniversary and we celebrated it properly.

I would like to confirm the appraisal you gave of our relations and the principles on which they are based. I confirm that Russia will continue to develop cooperation with the Republic of Cyprus while relying on the principles of the UN Charter.

You know our position on the Cypriot settlement. We support fulfilling the decisions taken by the United Nations as well as an earlier resumption and completion of the talks between the two communities.

We are also concerned about the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. As for your relations with the Republic of Turkey, we are ready to assist with establishing a pragmatic dialogue built on respect for mutual interests in order to find a fair solution, based on international law.

Unfortunately, it is not the only problem in the Eastern Mediterranean. We are deeply concerned about the fact that a power located far away, the United States, is trying to play the countries in the region against each other and to pursue the course of “who is not with us is against us,” forcing everybody else to follow this course. This is deplorable because the Eastern Mediterranean and any other region need completely different approaches in order to solve their problems and promote their own interests. Searching for a compromise and a balance of interests is the only path towards resolving problems in different parts of the world.

We are ready for a dialogue with our Cypriot friends on all the issues on the bilateral, regional and international agendas. We highly value your commitment to the principles of the UN Charter.

Once again, thank you for your hospitality.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4326961

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's speech at the ceremony to award the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III, Nicosia, September 8, 2020

8 September 2020 - 11:42

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Dear Mr President,

Let me express my sincere gratitude for presenting me with the medal of the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III. I see in this decision of the Cypriot leadership the recognition of the role Russian diplomacy played in the development of friendly, warm and partnership relations with the Republic of Cyprus.

We fully share your assessments of the current state of bilateral relations between our countries. Last month marked the 60th anniversary of this relationship, established two days after the decision was taken to establish the Cypriot state. Since then, relations have been developing progressively, meeting the mutual desire of our peoples to interact, relying on our common historical and spiritual roots.

The invariability of our approach to strengthening friendship with Cyprus and the Cypriot people was reaffirmed in your recent telephone conversation with President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. I can assure you that all the agreements reached between the presidents of our countries will be implemented. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation will continue to actively develop cooperation in all areas.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4327035

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with President of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus Demetris Syllouris, Nicosia, September 8, 2020

8 September 2020 - 12:53

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr President,

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you during our visit to Cyprus.

You have absolutely justly emphasised the nature of our relations that have lasted for a much longer historical period than the past 60 years, which is the time since our two countries established diplomatic relations. You have also stressed that our relations are based on the mutual appeal existing between the citizens of Russia and Cyprus and on our common historical and spiritual roots.

I agree with you that double standards are playing an increasingly salient role in modern politics and in our Western partners’ actions. Among other things, we are witnessing an attack on the Orthodox faith. We are quite pleased that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Cypriot Orthodox Church are jointly defending the Orthodox believers’ right to determine their faith on their own.

Double standards are also displayed in the policy of sanctions, a fact you have also mentioned. We view these decisions, including the EU’s decisions on sanctions against the Russian Federation, as a very clear and unequivocal signal to the effect that from now on we cannot count on our European neighbours’ reliability. Nevertheless, we are always ready for equitable cooperation based on a balance of interests and a regard for each other’s concerns in areas that can be mutually beneficial.

Against this background, we appreciate the Cypriot Parliament’s principled approach: Several years ago, the legislature you lead approved a special resolution calling for an end to the policy of sanctions.

This year marks not only a significant anniversary for our diplomatic relations as well as for the Republic of Cyprus. This is also the year of the 75th anniversary of Victory over Nazism. Your Parliament has passed a relevant resolution as well. We appreciate your striving to keep and cherish the historical memory, especially for the younger generations.

On the whole, the parliamentary ties between Russia and Cyprus play a very important role in promoting our friendship and partnership in all areas. We very actively support this.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4327089

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides, Nicosia, September 8, 2020

8 September 2020 - 15:26

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr Minister,

My dear friend,

I would like to thank you for the warm welcome that my delegation and I personally always receive when we come to Cyprus. Thank you also for organising such a full agenda during our visit. We have already had lengthy talks with President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades and Speaker of the House of Representatives Demetris Syllouris.

Our discussions are very business-like and specific. They are aimed at developing our ties in practical terms in all fields. Probably, this is the best way to celebrate the 60th anniversary of our diplomatic relations, although contacts between our nations go back a very long way.

As you have already mentioned, our agenda is packed when it comes to bilateral ties and, of course, regional and international issues, including those of the Eastern Mediterranean. We are interested that all Eastern Mediterranean countries resolve their problems in line with international law and through political talks, based on their agreements with each other and without interference of any of the out-of-the region states. We promote this approach based on the UN Charter and international law as regards any conflicts in any area.

Thank you once again for inviting us.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4327699

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Nikos Christodoulides, Nicosia, September 8, 2020

8 September 2020 - 16:19

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank once again Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus Mr Christodoulides for the hospitality accorded to our delegation.

Today we have an intensive day of negotiations. We had long conversations with President of the Republic of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades and Speaker of the House of Representatives Demetris Syllouris. All these meetings, as well as our talks in the Foreign Ministry of Cyprus took place in a very warm, friendly atmosphere and covered the full range of our bilateral, regional and international cooperation.

This year our diplomatic relations are 60 years old. Our country recognised the Republic of Cyprus immediately after its declaration of independence. The friendship of our nations, enhanced by our spiritual, civilisational and cultural affinity, is several hundred years old. As for the past 60 years, our Cypriot friends have prepared an interesting photo exhibition, which shows the most important episodes of our diplomatic practice.

Today we were gratified to say that during these years we have made substantial progress in key areas of cooperation. These include various fields of interstate relations from the economy to culture. At present, we can describe our relations with Cyprus as excellent.

We discussed in detail ways of overcoming the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic in the hardest hit areas of our cooperation, including practical cooperation in the economy.

We agreed to draft specific measures on restoring our affected trade. This work will be done by the Russian-Cypriot Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. According to the order of priority, the next session is scheduled to take place in Cyprus. The dates will be fixed as soon as we understand that the epidemiological situation allows it.

We agreed to continue upgrading our contractual legal foundation. Today, we signed an important document – the protocol on introducing amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Regard to Taxes on Income and Capital as of December 5, 1998. It is time to update this to meet today’s needs. The Finance Minister of Russia is pursuing this with all our partners with whom we have such agreements. These efforts are aimed at orienting the investments made by our companies and citizens towards the implementation of specific projects that produce practical benefits.

We will continue supporting other agencies of Russia and Cyprus, which are working on additional documents in various areas, including preparations for programmes of cultural, scientific, educational, sports and youth exchanges for the next three years, including the social insurance agreement and a number of others.

We noted the high level of understanding on regional and international affairs. Today, we signed a schedule for consultations between our ministries for 2021-2022, which provides for reciprocal consultations and an exchange of views on most of the current international issues. I am sure this document will further promote our foreign policy dialogue and interaction.

We agreed to build up our close, trust-based contacts that we maintain at different multilateral venues, primarily in the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

We discussed in detail the settlement process on Cyprus. We listened with interest to the assessment of the current situation by our friends. For our part, we confirmed our commitment to a comprehensive, durable, fair and viable solution to this problem in line with existing UN Security Council resolutions.

In our opinion, the current system of outside guarantees of the island’s security hardly corresponds to the current realities and international legal status of the Republic of Cyprus. We believe UN Security Council guarantees could be the most effective way of ensuring the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

At present, we do not see the need to adjust the mandate of the UN peacekeepers on the island. As the government of the host country, the Cypriot government must by all means express its opinion on the future of the peacekeeping operation. Russia will be guided by its opinion in the UN Security Council.

We believe that early resumption of the talks on a final settlement of the Cyprus issue would make it possible to create a constructive atmosphere that is essential for finding a compromise, including for the problem of opening the district of Varosha in Famagusta.

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation is fully committed to the approaches of resolving this problem, which are fixed in UN resolutions. We are ready to render the necessary assistance to the negotiating parties.

We exchanged opinions on the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Russia considers any steps that are fraught with the further escalation of tensions unacceptable. We have repeatedly urged the governments of the region’s states to overcome any arising disputes only through dialogue based on international law.

We would be willing to facilitate the development of neighbourly relations between these countries, if, of course, we are asked to do so by the countries concerned.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we are very pleased with the results of the talks. I invited my colleague to make another visit to the Russian Federation.

I hope that today will further promote our partnership.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4327926

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at a meeting with the leaders of the main Cypriot political parties, Nicosia, September 8, 2020

8 September 2020 - 17:02

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Dear friends,

Thank you for accepting our invitation. It was very important for us to use this visit, which is taking place during the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and diplomatic relations between our countries, for meeting with the representatives of all the main political parties in Cyprus, which is a close partner to Russia.

Regardless of the outcome of the elections, we have always found common ground during the past 60 years. In addition, we have developed mutually beneficial ties in many spheres, including the economy and culture. The spiritual affinity of our nations is an important component as well.

We have held productive meetings with President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiades, President of the House of Representatives Demetris Syllouris and Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides. We have also visited a photo exhibition dedicated to the 60th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. However, the roots of relations between our nations go back hundreds of years.

It is very important for us to know what you think about the current developments in the region, especially when it comes to solutions to the Cyprus issue.

We firmly believe that this conflict can only be settled through UN Security Council resolutions.

We believe that nobody should force their views on either side or, worse still, lay down artificial conditions.

I would like to once again congratulate all of you on this memorable date and invite you to exchange views with our delegation.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4327969

Alex Him · September 12th, 2020

Foreign Ministry statement on the situation around Alexei Navalny

9 September 2020 - 09:44

In connection with the demarche undertaken by the Group of Seven on the ‘Alexei Navalny case’, the Foreign Ministry has issued the following statement. Russia insists that Germany provide data on Alexei Navalny’s medical examination, including the results of the biochemical tests, as per the official request for legal assistance submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation on August 27, 2020. Berlin has not been willing to respond to our repeated requests in a prompt and constructive manner.

Without the above-mentioned information, the Russian law enforcement agencies are unable to engage all the necessary procedural mechanisms in order to establish the circumstances of the incident. Meanwhile, the frenzy that is being stirred up around this case is only growing.

We note that Russian doctors proposed establishing close dialogue with their German colleagues in order to discuss the available data on Alexei Navalny’s health that is held in Russia and in Germany. Unfortunately, the German side has been thwarting this process.

The unconstructive approach by the German authorities is accompanied by groundless accusations against Russia. The massive misinformation campaign that has been unleashed clearly demonstrates that the primary objective pursued by its masterminds is to mobilise support for sanctions, rather than to care for Alexei Navalny’s health or establish the true reasons for his admission to hospital.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4329088

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Mukhtar Tleuberdi, Moscow, September 9, 2020

9 September 2020 - 15:15

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have had very constructive talks as part of the regular communications between our countries’ foreign ministers. Back in June, we held several in-depth meetings via videoconference, but today we had an in-person meeting in order to prepare for the large-scale bilateral events scheduled for this year. These are to be held during the Russia-Kazakhstan Interregional Cooperation Forum and the 65th anniversary celebrations of the Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is our shared pride, as well as during the preparations of the upcoming meeting of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation and subsequently during the plenary meeting of this important structure.

We expressed appreciation of our collaboration in the fight against the novel coronavirus infection, to which the Russian and Kazakh federal and governmental agencies, regions, members of the public and, of course, medics contributed. We supplied our Kazakh friends with the necessary testing kits, reagents, PPEs and medicine. We share the opinion that such mutual assistance will give an additional impetus to the further development of our ties in medicine and biological security in the post-coronavirus period.

When it comes to humanitarian collaboration, we are preparing a series of events, including the Days of Russia in Kazakhstan. We also discussed the strengthening of our ties in education. Last year, 74,000 Kazakh students graduated from Russian universities, and about 30,000 of them received federal scholarships. We spoke about the future humanitarian and academic exchanges and the strengthening of cooperation between our universities.

Today, we signed a protocol to the intergovernmental agreement enhancing the status of Kazakhstan’s consulate in Astrakhan and formalising the status of the Russian consulate in Uralsk. We agree with our Kazakh friends that this will enhance our bilateral relations and the provision of quality services to our citizens.

We will continue to closely coordinate our activities regarding foreign policy, including at the main international platforms, first of all the UN, where Russia and Kazakhstan traditionally co-sponsor a great number of resolutions on combating the glorification of Nazism, preventing an arms race in outer space, on confidence-building measures in outer space, as well as on international information security and on combating cybercrime. These joint efforts have been positively received at the UN as a whole.

We also discussed the OSCE. Russia and Kazakhstan are interested in strengthening this organisation. We have submitted to the OSCE reform proposals aimed at strengthening its legitimacy, which we drafted together with Kazakhstan and with the participation of other CIS countries. The organisation does not have a charter, which it needs so as to be able to have clear rules for its activities in all spheres – military-political, economic, environmental and humanitarian. These rules must be transparent and apply to all member states. In the context of the current leadership crisis at the OSCE (the Secretary General and the heads of its three basic offices have not been selected yet), we agreed that the selection of candidates for these posts, which became vacant in the summer, should take into account the interests of the countries located east of Vienna, or more precisely, CIS states. Not a single CIS member state has so far held any of the above-mentioned four key posts at the OSCE Secretariat.

We also spoke about our close collaboration within the CSTO, the EAEU, the CIS and the SCO. Fundamentally, we hold similar views. Today we discussed a number of concrete methods for strengthening our interaction in these organisations. We noted the effectiveness of the recently created CA5 + Russia format of cooperation between the five Central Asian states and Russia. We are preparing a new meeting in this format.

We exchanged views on the key international topics, including the fight against terrorism and other common threats such as drug trafficking and organised crime, plus the developments in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa.

We held an in-depth discussion on our cooperation in the Caspian region. Next year Moscow will host the second Caspian Economic Forum. At the same time, we are preparing the sixth Caspian Summit. A large package of documents is being prepared for both events. We agree with our Kazakh friends on the importance of further strengthening interaction within the group of the five Caspian states, which are ultimately responsible for security, transport connectivity, environmental protection, tourism and academic ties in the Caspian region.

Overall, we are satisfied with the outcome of our talks, which were held within the framework of the goals set by our presidents in the context of the Russia-Kazakhstan Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness and Alliance in the 21st Century.

I would like to thank my colleague for the really productive talks we have had.

Question:

More than 70,000 students from Kazakhstan study in Russia. The Kazakh side has asked Russia to amend the list of foreign countries whose citizens can enter Russia to include Kazakhstan. As far as we know, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent a proposal to the Russian Government to make the changes, because the decision is to be made by the coronavirus emergency response centre led by Deputy Prime Minister Tatyana Golikova. Why hasn't this amendment been adopted yet? If you are working on it, when will students be able to enter Russia to study?

Sergey Lavrov:

You just correctly described the procedure: all the relevant decisions are made by the emergency response centre. This is not even a foreign policy issue, nor is it the Education Ministry’s responsibility, but above all, it is up to the two countries’ sanitary and epidemiological authorities.

The problem with foreign students, those who have previously studied in Russia and would like to continue with their programmes, as well as those who have just been admitted to universities, has been specifically considered and a decision has been made on the basis of joint proposals from the Foreign and Education ministries. The specific timeframe will be determined in the very near future to allow students from all countries, including Kazakhstan (we want our neighbours to be among the first) to come to Russia to study. Our intention, our idea is to evenly spread out their arrivals, for example, a certain number of students a week. I hope this issue will be resolved within a month’s time.

Question:

When are regular flights planned to resume between Kazakhstan and Russia? Is there an exact date and clear criteria for opening the borders?

Sergey Lavrov:

This depends exclusively on the epidemiological authorities, and they are keeping in touch. At the end of August, talks were held in Moscow. There is a general understanding that we want to get life back to normal as soon as possible. I hope that the fight against the coronavirus and the general situation with the pandemic will allow us to do so in the foreseeable future.

Question:

The Russian vaccine has been put into civilian circulation, and the first people have been vaccinated in Moscow. Are there any plans to supply vaccines to Kazakhstan? If so, are there any agreements yet?

Sergey Lavrov:

Some agreements have been reached. At the end of August, Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Roman Sklyar visited Moscow. All of these issues were discussed, common approaches identified, and practical agreements reached on specific steps, including the supply of vaccines for clinical trials along with vaccination.

Question:

I have a question on the agreement signed by Belgrade and Pristina in Washington. How does Moscow assess it? Brussels harshly criticised the transfer of the Serbian embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. What does Russia think about this? I would also like to know what Russia thinks about the signing by Israel and Kosovo of a provision on mutual recognition, executed in Washington, in the presence of the Serbian authorities. Against this backdrop, is Russia ready to continue advocating Serbia’s territorial integrity on international platforms at the request of the Serbian authorities?

Sergey Lavrov:

Concerning the Washington agreements involving President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic and Pristina’s representative, we view them as agreements between these two sides. We proceed from the premise that these agreements were signed for the sake of achieving a settlement, and have no reason to question Serbia’s commitment to carrying out UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in full. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions that we will continue to firmly support Serbia in the steps it deems necessary within the framework of this resolution. We will support any agreement Belgrade and Pristina reach by their free will, among other things by highlighting the need to deliver on earlier commitments.

In 2013, Belgrade and Pristina reached an agreement, with EU mediation, as Brussels should recall, establishing the Community of Serb Municipalities in Kosovo to provide for the legitimate rights of the territory’s Serbian population. Seven years have gone by. At the time, the EU was extremely proud of this achievement. In fact, this was a major milestone. But nothing has been done to this effect. We would like to bring this to the EU’s attention. President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic visited Brussels a few days ago for further meetings on the Kosovo issue. We hope that our EU colleagues will not forget that they had mediated an arrangement that has been totally ignored by the authorities in Pristina.

As for the supplements to the documents signed in Washington, including those on the Middle East settlement, our position is extremely straightforward. Just like with UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that everyone has the obligation to comply with and implement, we stand for respecting and implementing UN Security Council resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue. Witnessing attempts to raise matters that have nothing to do with the issues in relations between Belgrade and Pristina, definitely leads us to question the sincerity and good will of the mediators. I have no doubt that the parties understand all too well the intentions behind these ideas.

Question:

Moscow talked about the importance of a national dialogue in Belarus some time ago. In the meantime, practically all members of the so-called Coordination Council have been detained or left the country. What is Russia’s perspective on this situation?

Sergey Lavrov:

We have consistently advocated dialogue between the Belarusian government and society, the civil activists, trade unions, students and various movements. We still believe in the prospect of creating a common platform for this dialogue. In this context, we have been highlighting the proposal by President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko to launch constitutional reform. It is essential that all sections of society contribute to this effort. I strongly believe that this will serve the interests of the Belarusian people and state. If it serves the Belarusians, it will also serve the interests of the Russian Federation.

Question:

It was reported earlier that the German Ambassador to Russia is scheduled to visit the Foreign Ministry today. The central topic will clearly be the situation with Alexei Navalny. What do you expect from this meeting? Is there a chance that Germany will finally share some information during this meeting, which would pave the way for cooperation that Moscow has been proposing to Berlin over the past weeks?

Sergey Lavrov:

It is true that we have summoned the German Ambassador to Russia to the Foreign Ministry. There will be a separate statement on this meeting once it is over.

As for the situation around Alexei Navalny, we have amassed quite a few questions for our German colleagues regarding the absolutely unacceptable way in which they have been treating our official requests, including the request for legal assistance from the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in accordance with the agreement between our countries. For more than a week, they did not respond, and when we prompted them to answer they responded quite arrogantly by saying that “you know everything and will have to answer for all this.” A few days ago, they told us that since the samples were analysed in a Bundeswehr institute, they would not share any information with anyone, since it could enable Russia to learn how much the Bundeswehr knows about chemical substances. There is nothing to talk about here. We are dissatisfied with the way they responded to our legitimate requests to comply with intergovernmental agreements on legal assistance, and with their unacceptable tone when communicating the position of the German side to the international community.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4329619

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the official reception for the SCO Foreign Ministers Council, Moscow, September 9, 2020

9 September 2020 - 19:50

Sergey Lavrov (R)

We have gathered here and will start our work now. Our main task is to prepare for the meeting of the Heads of State Council, as President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin just said. The summit is bound to become the key event of Russia’s chairmanship. In our work, we are primarily guided by the Russian chairmanship’s action plan, which was endorsed by the President of Russia and approved by the other heads of state.

You mentioned the adjustments that the coronavirus infection has forced, but on the whole we have made progress in most of the planned tasks. We are preparing a substantial package of documents and decisions. There are about 20 of them right now. We will do all we can in cooperation with the other departments and our branch colleagues to prepare a quality package of documents for the upcoming summit in November.

We plan to reflect the principled attitudes of the SCO countries towards world and regional affairs in the final political declaration and in the statements, one of which will be devoted to the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War whereas the others will concern a number of urgent international issues.

We are preparing an action plan on implementing the SCO strategy until 2025. It will contain specific steps in politics, security, the economy and humanitarian ties. We are also working on important documents on economic cooperation. I am primarily referring to the concept of cooperation on developing remote and rural territories in the digital era, documents on a data bank of best practices in developing remote areas, and a roadmap on a gradual transition to conducting mutual transactions in national currencies. All of these projects are being actively coordinated. I expect them to be submitted for consideration by the heads of state.

A memorandum of understanding between the SCO Secretariat and the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) is being drafted with a view to promoting SCO foreign ties and the initiative on creating the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

The accumulated experience of our joint efforts to counter the coronavirus is reflected in the draft comprehensive plan on resisting the threats of epidemics in the region’s space. The plan was made by the sanitary and epidemiological services of our countries.

By tradition, at tomorrow’s meeting, we will exchange views on strengthening the current system of international relations with the central coordinating role of the UN and the Security Council. We will compare our positions on key global and regional issues, including the state of affairs in strategic stability, response to challenges and threats to security, and the situations in Afghanistan, Syria and with the JCPOA on Iran’s nuclear programme.

We will certainly discuss ways to upgrade the SCO’s practical work, including expanding membership and the number of observer states, which you just mentioned.

We intend to do constructive work and today’s meeting with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin will impart more enthusiasm to our discussions tomorrow.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4330085

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the SCO Foreign Ministers Council meeting, Moscow, September 10, 2020

10 September 2020 - 11:32

We are glad to welcome you to the official Meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Member States, and would like to extend our sincere gratitude to you for accepting our invitation to gather in the Russian capital.

This meeting opens the final stage in preparing the SCO Heads of State Council Meeting. As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said yesterday, it will take place in November via videoconference due to the sanitary and epidemiological situation.

Today, we will review progress in drafting documents for the summit and will discuss the priority objectives related to further strengthening and expanding our cooperation on foreign policy matters.

The coronavirus infection has triggered complex political and economic processes around the world and has had a heavy impact on the entire system of international relations, testing the resilience of country-to-country ties and multilateral institutions. Building on its rich experience in ensuring equal and fruitful cooperation in politics, economy and humanitarian ties, as well as its effective working mechanisms, the SCO has been able to come up with adequate responses to the emerging risks and threats. The SCO’s considerable potential is especially relevant today, when the pressing need for collective efforts and cooperation is felt as never before in order to overcome the political and socioeconomic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We meet as the UN prepares to mark its anniversary. For 75 years, it has been the cornerstone of today’s system of international relations.

I believe that we need to discuss further steps to promote cooperation between the SCO and the UN, and ensure that our organisation makes an even greater contribution to shaping the multipolar world order with the central coordinating role of the UN and its Security Council.

The agenda for today’s meeting has been approved. I would like to thank all our staff members and experts who prepared this meeting. If there are no objections, I suggest that we get down to work, but before that we will thank our colleagues from the media for their attention to this meeting.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4330371

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the press conference following the SCO Foreign Ministers Council Meeting, Moscow, September 10, 2020

10 September 2020 - 15:19

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 37:30

We have completed the Meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Member States. It was very fruitful.

We approved a press release expressing our views on general political matters, so I will not elaborate too much on these subjects.

The participants in the meeting paid special attention to preparing documents for the SCO Heads of State Council Meeting, scheduled to take place in November via videoconference, as President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin said yesterday in his greetings to the foreign ministers.

As I have already said, the press release sums up the main outcomes of our today’s discussions.

Of course, we noted the fact that most of the events scheduled as part of the Russian Presidency took place despite the pandemic and the adjustments we had to make in our work. There were about 100 events. Together, we have been able to maintain forward momentum in the cooperation among SCO member states.

All our countries held large-scale celebrations to mark the 75th anniversary of the Great Victory and 75 years since the establishment of the United Nations Organisation. We outlined additional steps to be taken in this respect during this anniversary year. We reaffirmed our commitment to the system of international relations rooted in the central and coordinating role of the UN and its Security Council.

We supported further efforts to put into action the high principles set forth in the UN Charter in order to bring about a sustainable, just, democratic and polycentric world order.

We also reviewed a number of cooperation areas where we need to work together, including combating international terrorism, illegal drug trafficking, cross-border organised crime and cybercrime, approving draft statements and other documents on all these matters to be submitted for approval to the heads of state.

The participants had a useful exchange of opinions on Afghanistan, the developments around the Syrian settlement and other persisting problems in the Middle East and North Africa. We are united in our view on the situation created by the withdrawal of the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme. We all reaffirmed our commitment to this important document, which was approved unanimously by the UN Security Council and all participants without exception have to abide by it.

We noted the SCO’s commitment to joining efforts to stabilise the world economy. In this context, we highlighted the importance of carrying out the Programme of Multilateral Trade and Economic Cooperation of the SCO Member States until 2035, as well as finding effective solutions to other issues relating to transport connectivity, switching to national currencies in mutual settlements and creating transparent and more favourable conditions for trade and investment.

We agreed to continue cooperating in the interest of safeguarding the wellbeing of our countries in terms of the sanitary and epidemiological situation, and submitted proposals to this effect for approval by the SCO Heads of State Council Meeting.

Overall, we have fulfilled all the objectives we had for this SCO Foreign Ministers Council Meeting. I thanked my colleagues for their productive work. The summit will take place in November, and the Presidency will go over to Tajikistan.

Question:

Does Russia support Kazakhstan’s initiative to create a Eurasian financial advisory mechanism and to increase the share of national currencies in mutual transactions?

Sergey Lavrov:

The use of national currencies is an SCO initiative which was highlighted today as a major area of focus. This decision was made by the Heads of State Council a while ago. The corresponding ministries, primarily the ministries of finance and trade, are working on this.

With regard to the second proposal to create a Eurasian financial advisory mechanism, it was effectively articulated, but we have not yet received any specific documents describing how it would work. As soon as our Kazakhstani friends make their vision available to us, we will discuss it willingly.

Question:

A meeting of representatives of the Afghan government and the Taliban is expected to take place soon. Did you discuss the upcoming talks today? What does Moscow and other SCO members expect from this process? Perhaps, some specific SCO initiatives or mechanisms are being discussed that could facilitate a reconciliation?

Sergey Lavrov:

We are closely monitoring the situation in Afghanistan. Russia, China and other SCO member states have recently done a lot to create proper conditions for the early start of direct and inclusive intra-Afghan talks. Over the past couple of years we, in Russia, have received all the participants in the Afghan political process. We convened the so-called Moscow format, which involves Afghanistan’s neighbours who are key players in the region, as well as the United States.

The three of us – Russia, the United States and China, with the involvement of Pakistan – have worked to support the efforts of numerous countries, such as Qatar, Uzbekistan and other countries in the region to give an early start to these talks.

The dates for the talks in Doha have been announced on several occasions and repeatedly postponed. We believe the reason is that it is impossible to artificially fit this political process to suit someone’s geopolitical or domestic political interests. Unfortunately, we are witnessing such attempts, which do not help create a stable basis for an intra-Afghan political process.

Inside Afghanistan, the government wants to somehow limit the number of social, political and ethnic groups that can take part in the talks which defeats the idea of inclusive talks. It’s not helpful.

I think all SCO members have a common position. We are in favour of all Afghan parties being adequately represented in the future political process, so that no one is left out on purpose (I repeat, such attempts are being made). We all confirmed the relevance of the roadmap developed as part of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group. It reflects the consensus between the SCO and Afghanistan, which has observer status in the SCO. This roadmap will be acted upon.

Question:

The Germans are sending us to the OPCW, and your colleague, the US Secretary of State, is saying that allegedly some high-ranking Russians are implicated in this case. What can you tell us about this?

Sergey Lavrov:

We are used to unfounded accusations. When an official representative of the German government says that the request of the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office has been transferred to “independent justice” bodies and the German government can thus do nothing about it, but at the same time demands that we conduct an investigation, this reminds us of the precedents that were created by our Western colleagues after the Salisbury poisoning, when everything was classified (we still have no information about that case, including the whereabouts of the Skripals, who are Russian citizens). They are following in the tracks of the tragedy of the Malaysia Airlines crash in Ukraine in 2014, when the Netherlands, in response to multiple efforts by our official bodies to provide information that we had and, despite our repeated proposals to analyse all the facts, without exception, regularly accused us of refusing to cooperate. When we reminded the Dutch authorities that our proposal for cooperation was on the table but they turned down our initiatives, they told us that cooperation with Russia for them means that we must admit our guilt. If now the same logic prevails among our Western colleagues, especially in Germany and the United States, it will only show that they are putting themselves above the law and above everyone else. Everyone is equal, but they are more equal than others, so we must take their word for it.

The odds are much higher if we put our trust in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s movie character who used to say “trust me” than those who are now trying to play his part in the international arena.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4332611

Joint Press Release of Russia-India-China Foreign Ministers, Moscow, September 10, 2020

10 September 2020 - 18:58

Foreign Minister of Russia Mr. Sergey Lavrov, External Affairs Minister of India Dr. S. Jaishankar and State Councillor/Foreign Minister of China Mr. Wang Yi met in Moscow on 10 September 2020.

The Ministers exchanged views on further strengthening of Russia-India-China trilateral cooperation as well as topical issues of international and regional importance, in the spirit of mutual understanding, friendship and trust. The Ministers noted that common development and cooperation of the three countries is conducive to promoting global growth, peace and stability.

Recalling their video-conference of 23 June 2020 on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War and the creation of the United Nations, the Ministers reiterated their support for inclusive multilateralism and respect for universally recognized principles of international law.

The Ministers noted with appreciation the continuation of joint activities held under the RIC framework, including the 2nd RIC DG-level Consultations on Regional Issues hosted by India in August 2019, 17th RIC Academic Exchange Conference hosted by China in September 2019, the 3rd edition of the RIC Young Diplomats Programme hosted by Russia in October 2019 and the first online meeting of national sanitary and epidemiological services held on 8 September 2020. The Ministers agreed that the three countries, with strong scientific and industrial capacities, could make a significant contribution towards mitigating the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The External Affairs Minister of India and the Foreign Minister of China thanked the Foreign Minister of Russia for the chairmanship of RIC and the meetings/conferences organized during the past one year. The Foreign Minister of Russia officially handed over the chairmanship of RIC to the External Affairs Minister of India.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4333015

Alex Him · September 13th, 2020

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, September 11, 2020

11 September 2020 - 13:10

Maria Zakharova (E) - 42:00

Coronavirus update

The overall situation around the spread of the coronavirus infection in the world remains hard to predict and complicated. The number of cases has increased by almost two million over the past week and exceeded 28 million since the beginning of the pandemic. Multiple repeated outbreaks have been recorded in the countries and regions where the epidemiological situation seemed to be stabilising. Young people, who are less likely to observe the restrictions that are still in place, are the main age group contributing to the growing incidence rate.

During his briefings, Director-General of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus particularly focused on the general vaccination, calling it a “global public good” and spoke against the vaccine denial promoted by some countries. He believes that vaccination is necessary. He called investing in public healthcare systems “the foundation of social, economic and political stability” meaning that we need to find an optimal balance between guaranteeing sanitary safety and cushioning the damage caused by the pandemic to the world economy, trade and simply links between people. The measures being taken to counter the pandemic will be in place around the world for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is necessary to work together to find algorithms and formulas that would allow us to gradually resume international travel, as well as trade, cultural, humanitarian, educational, youth, sport and other exchanges between countries.

Assisting with the repatriation of Russian nationals

...................................................................................................

Repatriation Flights section on the Foreign Ministry website

...................................................................................................

Russian humanitarian aid to the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe

On September 5 and 6, as part of Russia’s help for African countries to counter the spread of the coronavirus infection, the Russian Emergencies Ministry carried out an emergency delivery of humanitarian aid to the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe. Personal protective equipment, diagnostic kits, medical devices and disinfectants with a total weight of about 25 tonnes (about 8.3 tonnes for each country) were donated to our partners free of charge.

Taking part in the welcoming ceremonies were President of the Central African Republic Faustin-Archange Touadéra in Bangui; Jean-Claude Gakosso, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Cooperation and Congolese Nationals Abroad of the Republic of the Congo in Brazzaville; and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Zimbabwe David Musabayana in Harare.

The countries’ high representatives expressed their deep gratitude to Russia for its extensive, important and very timely contribution to strengthening the potential of their national healthcare systems suffering increased load due to the pandemic and reaffirmed their intention to further promote cooperation with Russia in various areas.

Donating Russian mobile microbiology laboratories to the Democratic Republic of the Congo

On September 3, a ceremony was held in Kinshasa to hand over the second consignment of Russian material and technical assistance: two mobile microbiology laboratories sent by the Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor) as part of its assistance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to counter Ebola. The mobile laboratories based on the GAZ-33088 automobile can be driven over any terrain and are equipped with cutting-edge equipment for express diagnostics of infectious diseases. Using them, Congolese doctors will be able to help people living in the most remote areas of the country. Moreover, these laboratories are multifunctional and can be used not only to combat Ebola but also COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. Russia plans to organise training for DRC specialists on how to use them soon.

In May, the Congolese Healthcare Ministry received over 28,000 units of expendable laboratory supplies and over 8,000 units of personal protective equipment, including respirators, overalls, masks with filters, gloves and other medical equipment from Rospotrebnadzor.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s talks with member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi

...................................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's consultations with IGAD Executive Secretary Workneh Gebeyehu

...................................................................................................

Single voting day on September 13

...................................................................................................

Upcoming UN General Assembly session

The 75th session of the UN General Assembly - the main event of the year in international political life - will open in New York on September 15.

The coronavirus pandemic has changed the original plans and most of the GA session will be held remotely. First of all, this applies to the high-level week, which will be held on September 22-29. We hope that these changes will not affect the status and importance of the upcoming discussions.

The UN was created based on the outcome of WWII - the worst tragedy in the history of humanity - primarily with the goal of preventing a new global conflict. Over 75 years of its existence, the UN was unable to prevent all crises, but it coped with its main task and made it possible to avoid WWIII by becoming a genuine “safety net” of international relations.

In this regard, we are firmly convinced that the 75th session of the General Assembly should focus on further strengthening the central coordinating role of the UN in international politics and consolidating the efforts seeking to form a multipolar world based on the fundamental international legal norms laid down in the UN Charter.

During the session, the Russian delegation will focus on promoting our country’s top priorities, including the search for political and diplomatic solutions to conflicts, strengthening the architecture of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, preventing militarisation of outer space and forming universal rules of conduct in the information space. In light of the 75th anniversary of Victory, we focus on upholding the principle of unacceptability of distorting history.

As a founding state of the UN and a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia will continue to contribute to enhancing its authority as an uncontested and universal platform for finding collective responses to existing challenges and threats. We are willing to undertake the corresponding efforts in conjunction with everyone who puts the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation and collective good above fleeting and self-serving interests.

US sanctions against Russia

The sanctions conveyor run by the Obama and Trump administrations over the past decade has churned out a new product. Three more Russian citizens have been added to the sanctions list “for attempting to influence the US electoral process.”

The latest decision only shows the intention to continue making unsubstantiated accusations against Russians of committing some adverse actions, the responsibility for which the US authorities lay on the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA). They also repeat the old annoying allegations about some efforts to “undermine confidence in US democratic processes.”

We would like to remind our American colleagues that the Russian Federation has not interfered, is not interfering and does not intend to interfere in the electoral processes in the United States or any other country. We invited the Americans more than once to discuss and settle all these problems in a calm and de-politicised manner through a dialogue based on mutual respect. They have not replied.

Washington’s latest actions show its intention to continue damaging bilateral relations. This is regrettable. On the other hand, this seems to be the deliberate choice of those who are responsible for shaping the US policy towards Russia.

We would like to tell these people that this will not produce the desired effect, whereas the slim hope for stabilisation in bilateral relations is becoming increasingly slimmer.

Extension of the EU’s anti-Russia sanctions

We have taken note of the EU Council decision of September 10 to renew sanctions targeting people and entities in connection with their alleged involvement in the 2014 developments in Ukraine for another six months, until March 15, 2021.

We see this as yet another missed opportunity to get out of the deadlock into which the EU pushed itself in 2014 when it linked the possible development of ties with Russia to the situation in Ukraine. The renewal of the EU sanctions is in keeping with the destructive line of the Brussels officials and EU bodies to continue making accusations against Russia. Instead of looking for common ground as Russia has proposed, which would strengthen the European countries’ positions in the modern highly competitive world, the EU continues to act out of inertia, renewing the old and inventing new restrictions against Russian people and entities.

We urge the EU to abandon its policy of unilateral sanctions, which contradict the norms and spirit of international law.

Czech Foreign Minister Tomas Petricek’s statement on the outlook for Russian-Czech consultations

The recent statement by the head of the Czech Foreign Ministry, Tomas Petricek, that the Czech side intends to treat the organisation of the planned consultations with Russia on current bilateral matters as dependent on “Alexey Navalny's condition” came as a surprise.

I would like to remind you that Prague has been stating its interest in consultations with Moscow for several months (we have commented on this more than once). At the same time, the country is taking steps with regard to Russia that hardly contribute to building a healthy and constructive dialogue. Now the Czech Foreign Ministry is starting to set conditions for a conversation with us – such as the situation in Belarus, or the situation involving a Russian citizen. What does all that have to do with bilateral interaction? The answer is simple: nothing whatsoever.

For our part, we reaffirm our readiness to sit down at the negotiating table as quickly as possible and discuss the entire range of problems in our bilateral affairs, created, I stress, by the Czech side.

It is regrettable that Prague is trying to disguise its own reluctance to start an open and professional conversation as Russia’s alleged unwillingness to “resume communication.” That is a rather primitive move.

NGOs and the Judges of the ECHR 2009-2019 report by the European Centre for Law and Justice

As we already noted, the NGOs and the Judges of the ECHR 2009-2019 report released by the European Centre for Law and Justice, a Strasbourg-based non-governmental organisation, contains evidence of NGOs’ influence on the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), its judges and the decisions it makes.

This report aroused our particular interest: the Russian Federation has repeatedly drawn the attention of its colleagues in the Council of Europe to the practice of large Western human rights organisations and foundations exerting hidden but obvious influence on the ECHR, analysed in this document.

At first glance, the shortcomings cited in the report are minor technicalities: the absence of clear requirements for the recusal of judges who have connections with NGOs interested in the outcome of the case; non-disclosure by the applicants and their representatives of information about their connections with NGOs funding the complaint; some ECHR members having no judicial experience. However, these aspects directly affect the quality, impartiality and fairness of the decisions made by the Court.

Russia has always advocated a strong and non-politicised European Court. We believe that all parties need to consider the existing flaws in its operation as part of the effort to reform it; this should make it possible to correct and, ultimately, to minimise the political bias in its practice.

We believe that our colleagues from the Council of Europe Secretariat and the Organisation’s member states should study this report, which can certainly provide valuable food for thought in the context of the ongoing reform of the ECHR.

We consider it important to use the objective conclusions found in the report in the practical work to improve the entire ECHR system’s performance.

Russian seamen from the Curacao Trader return home

On September 8, seven Russian seamen kidnapped on July 17 in a pirate attack on the ship Curacao Trader in the Gulf of Guinea returned home. This has become possible thanks to the joint efforts of Russian diplomats, the Nigerian authorities and the ship owner’s representative. The seamen are in satisfactory health. We express our gratitude to all those who helped free the seamen from captivity and return them to Russia.

At the same time, we regret to note that pirate attacks continue in the Gulf of Guinea. Two Russians were abducted in an attack on the refrigerator ship Water Phoenix, owned by Seatrade Groningen, a Dutch company. All the necessary measures to free the Russian seamen have been engaged.

It is the Foreign Ministry’s duty to remind everyone that pirate attacks in the Gulf of Guinea are becoming increasingly frequent, thus requiring enhanced security measures when navigating in this part of the Atlantic.

Statement by spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Liz Throssell on fresh water supplies in Crimea

We view Ukraine’s decision to deprive people in Crimea of fresh water as collective punishment for the free and deliberate choice they made in March 2014. It has to be noted that the water stoppage imposed by Kiev is ruinous not only for the peninsula, but also for Ukraine’s southern regions. After its reunification with Russia, the Republic of Crimea has been able to gradually get used to living in these conditions and maintained momentum in its economic and social development, while the neighbouring Kherson region in Ukraine had to face environmental, as well as sanitary and epidemiological threats. This illustrates yet again that the Kiev regime is ready to engage in any undertaking, no matter how risky, for the sake of its Russophobic zeal, even if acting at the expense of its own national interests or the interests of its citizens.

The Russian Federation has gone to great lengths to ensure that the human rights of its people are fully and effectively respected. We should not forget that until recently people in Crimea received 85 percent of their fresh water from a channel linking the peninsula to the Dnieper River. But in 2014, Kiev unilaterally stopped water supplies through this channel.

Water is a finite natural resource that is critical for the quality of life and health of the population. The right to fresh water is essential for respecting the dignity of the human person. It is inseparable from other human rights, including the right to life, sanitation, food and health in general.

Ukraine is a party to a number of international human rights treaties, which means that it assumed voluntary commitments to respect, defend and ensure the human rights set forth in these instruments, including the rights I just mentioned.

Therefore, Kiev’s deliberate move to halt water deliveries to Crimea qualifies as a violation by Ukraine of its human rights obligations set forth in the following provisions:

– Article 6 (right to life) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;

– Article 11 (adequate food, freedom from hunger, equitable distribution of world food supplies in relation to need) and Article 12 (highest attainable standard of physical and mental health) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

– Article 6 (the child’s right to life and health) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

– Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In Article 1, torture is defined as “any act by which … suffering … is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as … punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed … or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind…” Article 2 specifies that “no exceptional circumstances … may be invoked as a justification of torture.”

Moreover, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted in its general comment: “To comply with their international obligations in relation to the right to water, States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right in other countries. International cooperation requires States parties to refrain from actions that interfere, directly or indirectly, with the enjoyment of the right to water in other countries. Any activities undertaken within the State party’s jurisdiction should not deprive another country of the ability to realise the right to water for persons in its jurisdiction.”

Discrimination against the Russian language and Russian-speaking citizens’ rights in Ukraine

We feel compelled to state that the situation in Ukraine with regard to the rights of the Russian-speaking population continues to degrade.

On September 1, secondary schools in Ukraine offering the curriculum in Russian had to switch to the Ukrainian language as part of Kiev’s all-out Ukrainisation policy, while schools teaching in EU member state  languages  benefited from an extension until 2023.

In early September, a court in Odessa finally ruled that Russian no longer enjoys the status of a regional language in the Odessa Region, despite the local authorities’ efforts to defend the language spoken by most residents in that region of Ukraine.

We have repeatedly called the international community’s attention to Kiev’s policy of forcible Ukrainisation and gross discrimination against the Russian language in violation of the country’s Constitution and its international obligations. As a reminder, international human rights bodies, including the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, have recommended that the Ukrainian side make appropriate changes to the legislation to ensure the linguistic rights of the ethnic communities living in Ukraine. However, officials in Kiev have not paid heed.

Just as well, they have ignored the attempts by certain political forces inside the country to rectify the situation. Their appeals to the Constitutional Court, as well as proposed bills aimed at protecting linguistic diversity, have been unsuccessful.

Moreover, the Ukrainian government’s crackdown on the Russian language has by now crossed all reasonable limits and gone as far as punitive action against their own citizens. On August 21 in Kherson, the Ukrainian Security Service arrested Tatyana Kuzmich, a teacher of the Russian language and literature with a PhD, an author of textbooks, and a prominent social activist. The respected Russian teacher was sent to a pre-trial detention centre on an obviously trumped-up charge of treason. But the main “crime” she is actually being incriminated in is working to preserve and promote the Russian language in Ukraine, along with a visit to Crimea. These two actions are sufficient grounds for someone to end up behind bars in present-day Ukraine.

Rossotrudnichestvo (Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Cultural Cooperation) has appealed to the UN HRC and the OSCE to shed light on this highly unacceptable situation.

For our part, we urge our European partners and international human rights agencies to give an appropriate assessment of this fact and to help induce Kiev to respect the rights of the Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine.

Answers to media questions:

Question:

According to media reports, a meeting of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council has been postponed. Is that so?

Maria Zakharova:

Yes, the French side has notified us about its decision to postpone a meeting of the Russian-French Security Cooperation Council, scheduled for September 14 in Paris, until a later date, citing “certain circumstances.” Both countries’ Foreign and Defence Ministers were to have attended the meeting.

The Russian-French Security Cooperation Council, involving Foreign and Defence Ministers, an important format of bilateral cooperation with our French partners, was established in 2002 on the initiative of President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of France Jacques Chirac. Russian and French Foreign and Defence Ministers held the latest round of consultations on September 9, 2019 in Moscow.

Preparations for the Council’s upcoming meeting continued for several weeks and are still underway in the format of bilateral Working Groups, approved by Vladimir Putin and Emmanuel Macron during the June 26 videoconference.

The day before yesterday, Paris hosted a meeting of the Inter-Departmental Strategic Dialogue on Cyber-Security. Today, Russian and French inter-departmental delegations are also discussing new challenges and threats in Paris. Also today, Moscow is hosting a meeting of the Working Group on Libya. Another round of Russian-French consultations on Syria is scheduled for September 17.

We will discuss the dates for the Council’s meeting once again after we make sure that, paraphrasing our French colleagues, “the appropriate circumstances” exist, including the readiness of the French side to discuss all matters directly influencing the state of security in Europe and adjacent regions at the level of ministers.

Question:

The situation on the border between India and China has worsened recently, and the two countries are accusing each other of escalating the situation. To some extent, Russia has a role to play in reconciling the parties. What is Russia doing to resolve the situation?

Maria Zakharova:

We continue to monitor the developments on the Line of Actual Control between China and India. We hope that as responsible members of the international community, these states will be able to find mutually acceptable peaceful options for defusing tensions as soon as possible. We respect the desire of Beijing and New Delhi to act independently on this matter without the interference of other countries, using well-functioning multi-level mechanisms of bilateral dialogue for this purpose.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4335392

Alex Him · November 1st, 2020

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks during talks with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Moscow, September 11, 2020

11 September 2020 - 14:30

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Mr Minister, my dear friend,

We are delighted to have you and your delegation at this bilateral meeting. Yesterday we did a good job at the Meeting of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of SCO Member States and the Russia-India-China ministerial meeting. Following both gatherings, we adopted important documents that have been published and that confirm our common interest in the development of these formats as platforms for an equal and mutually respectful dialogue. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to once again congratulate you on the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII and the 75th anniversary of victory in the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.

Despite the pandemic, our relations are actively developing. Even though we are using new communication formats due to the coronavirus pandemic, most of our contacts have been maintained. We are cooperating closely in combatting the coronavirus and in maintaining the pace of bilateral interaction in all fields.

We highly value our close, friendly and partnership contacts in international organisations where we are boosting our coordination in foreign policy, activity, which is very important against the backdrop of the current events on the global stage. Our intent to further improve our work regarding international affairs is reflected in the joint statement that we will adopt today following the talks.

I am really happy to see you, my dear friend. Welcome!

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4335958

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, Moscow, September 11, 2020

11 September 2020 - 15:00

Sergey Lavrov (E) - 50:30

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today’s talks with my colleague and friend, member of the State Council and Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, were held in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust and were very substantial.

We noted with satisfaction that Russia and China continued cooperating closely and constructively in all spheres amid the COVID-19 pandemic, strengthening our ties of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction.

We discussed the key international problems and reaffirmed the closeness of our views on effective solutions to them. We have been consistently advocating the development of a fairer and more democratic polycentric international order based on respect for the norms of international law. We expressed satisfaction with the level of our foreign policy interaction, including at the UN, which marks its 75th anniversary this year. Russia and China stand for strengthening the UN’s central role in global affairs. We agreed to carry on our close collaboration, including in the interests of implementing President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to convene a summit meeting of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to discuss the entire range of international security and stability issues.

We stated our positive assessment of yesterday’s meeting of the SCO Foreign Ministers Council, including when it comes to preparing the next SCO summit, which is scheduled for November, as President Putin said. We agreed to work together with the other SCO member states to build up the organisation’s potential and its international prestige and influence. The results of our meeting yesterday were put forth in the statement of the SCO Foreign Ministers Council.

Another multilateral event, the meeting of the RIC (Russia-India-China) foreign ministers, took place yesterday. A joint statement on its results was also issued.

We agreed to expand cooperation at other multilateral venues, not only in the UN, but also in the G20, BRICS and the RIC and Russia-Mongolia-China formats.

We noted the destructive character of Washington’s actions that undermine global strategic stability. They are fueling tensions in various parts of the world, including along the Russian and Chinese borders. Of course, we are worried about this and object to these attempts to escalate artificial tensions. In this context, we stated that the so-called “Indo-Pacific strategy” as it was planned by the initiators, only leads to the separation of the region’s states, and is therefore fraught with serious consequences for peace, security and stability in the Asia-Pacific Region. We spoke in favour of the ASEAN-centric regional security architecture with a view to promoting the unifying agenda, and the preservation of the consensus style of work and consensus-based decision-making in these mechanisms, as it has always been done in the framework of ASEAN and the associated entities. We are seeing attempts to split the ranks of ASEAN members with the same aims: to abandon consensus-based methods of work and fuel confrontation in this region that is common for all of us.

Today, we discussed the situation regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Of course, as an overwhelming majority of UN Security Council members, Russia and China do not accept the US attempts to dismantle the international agreement approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which is vital for the entire world. We find unacceptable the US unlawful unilateral actions regarding the situation around Iran’s nuclear programme. The United States withdrew from this agreement in gross violation of the UN Security Council consensus-based resolution, thereby losing any legal, judicial, political or moral rights to try and prevent all other states from implementing this major decision.

We also reviewed key issues on our bilateral agenda. We agreed to continue cooperating in countering the coronavirus pandemic. We have made tangible success toward this goal but this work must be brought to fruition. Following the meeting, together with Mr Wang Yi, we adopted a detailed joint statement, including an appeal to the international community to pool efforts in the face of global and regional challenges and threats.

I am sincerely grateful to my colleague and friend for the close cooperation.

Question (translated from Chinese):

You recently proposed a global information security initiative. What are its main goals? How was it received?

Sergey Lavrov (speaks after Wang Yi):

We discussed this Chinese initiative today as is reflected in the joint statement. In our response to this initiative we stressed that it is in line with the discussions held at the UN in recent years about the need to draft rules for responsible behaviour in international cyberspace in terms of ensuring the member states’ security and sovereignty.

Russia and China co-authored the relevant initiatives that have been adopted at the UN General Assembly for several years now. There’s a corresponding working group on this subject, in which all UN member states are represented. Its work is based on the draft rules for responsible behaviour in cyberspace. This document was put together and distributed at the UN by the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

China’s initiative provides the specifics of the critical aspects of our common work. I think it will stimulate discussion on the identification of effective mechanisms for protecting online data.

Question:

Will Russia push for the transfer of data on the Navalny case to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)?

Sergey Lavrov:

It is imperative that we obtain information from our German colleagues. Something is happening to them. As you may be aware, on August 27, on the basis of a pre-investigation check, which immediately began in our country, Russia’s Prosecutor General’s Office sent a request for legal assistance from the relevant German authorities in the case of the suspected poisoning of Mr Navalny. Later, we found out that this request was not forwarded and got stuck in the German Foreign Ministry. Only a week later, (around September 3) was this request finally sent to the justice authorities. An official representative of Berlin publicly announced this, saying that “now these requests are being reviewed by the justice authorities, which are independent in our country. We cannot tell you anything. They will do so themselves when they are ready.”

Then, it was announced that Germany had sent an official letter to the OPCW and would push this organisation’s Secretariat to take action. We have read this letter. It says that, according to German experts, it was poisoning, and the so-called Novichok agent was used. There were no other exchanges between Berlin and the OPCW.

We are interested in receiving, if not directly, then through the OPCW, information that Germany is for some reason so painstakingly concealing.

Our permanent representative to the OPCW has addressed the heads of the organisation’s secretariat several times. Each time, including last night, he was told that this organisation had not received any other facts to support the allegations of poisoning. This makes us wonder. Just yesterday in New York, a German representative to the UN was asked about the data and why Germany is refusing to provide them to the general public, including Russia, demanding that Russia must conduct an investigation. He said that these data are no longer the subject of bilateral Germany-Russia relations, and that they are already the subject of multilateral proceedings. The Germans cannot specify what kind of proceedings they are talking about.

I hope this ludicrous behaviour will stop, and Germany, if only for the sake of its reputation as a punctual nation, will honour its obligations under the treaty with the Russian Federation.

An investigation is demanded of us, but all those who accompanied Mr Navalny on that trip are also relocating to Germany. This is all very unpleasant and gives rise to serious thoughts. So, it is in the interest of our German colleagues to preserve their reputation and provide all the necessary information that would in any way shed some light on their absolutely unfounded accusations.

Question:

US officials often claim that China and Russia are meddling in their elections. How would you comment on these accusations?

Sergey Lavrov:

Russia, China and some other countries, including Iran and North Korea, are being accused of meddling in US internal affairs, including [presidential] elections. The voting will be held in early November, and voting by mail started a while ago and will continue for another couple of months. But commentators are already asking politicians which country – Russia, China, or Iran – is the biggest meddler. As estimated by the Americans, the PRC is winning the competition. It is only natural that we are hurt by being relegated to second place, because we are used to being number one all the time.

But, joking aside, we have repeatedly offered our US colleagues various options whereby to sort out these absolutely unfounded accusations. We suggested restarting the mechanism of consultations on cyber security, because there were frequent accusations that hackers from Russia were hacking Democratic and Republican networks, were hacking websites, and in some way were influencing voter moods. We also suggested that Russia and the United States make an official bilateral political statement to the effect that we pledge not to interfere in each other’s internal affairs. This has dragged on for several years. The Americans keep shying away from the work on any of these suggestions and continue to demand that we “stop unlawful actions,” by which they mean interference in internal affairs.

But at the same time, the US sees nothing shameful in promoting its interests, both overtly and covertly, by patently illegitimate methods. In 2014, for example, the United States passed a Ukraine Freedom Support Act, under which the US Department of State is bound to spend $200 million per year to bankroll Ukrainian NGOs and its own engagement with Ukrainian civil society.

If this is not interference in internal affairs, then I do not know what is. When the Americans were accusing us of something and withholding the facts, we time and again brought up this information that does not even need to be proved because it is in a US law. They replied in the typical American fashion, saying that they were an “exceptional nation.” They said “Yes, we are providing this support, but it is poles apart from what you are doing, because Russia, China and other authoritarian regimes like yours are undermining the foundations of democracy in countries where you attempt to interfere. The United States, on the contrary, is bringing democracy and prosperity, which is why these are totally different things”.

I am not joking. It is a quote from official statements by members of the US administration. It seems to me, therefore, that journalists have enough material for analysis and can find out who does what and who is who. Ask about laws of this sort in the United States. I am confident that there are numerous open facts related to China and showing how the Americans are attempting to influence its internal affairs.

To reiterate: we are open to an honest discussion. But for it to be honest, they should formulate their grievances in a way that makes it clear what specifically they are talking about.

Question:

President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko will visit Moscow soon. What do you think about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and do you think an attempt to stage a colour revolution was made in Belarus?

Sergey Lavrov:

As for Ms Tikhanovskaya, she openly says everything about herself. She calls for resistance and urges international organisations to impose sanctions on her homeland. In general, everything she declares in public speaks about her, her plans and ideas. She is subject to fairly visible metamorphoses. She is probably influenced by her stay in the capital of Lithuania, which does not conceal its ambitions as regards Belarus and its future, either.

Question:

What do you think about yesterday’s talks between China and India?

Sergey Lavrov:

When greeting our Chinese friends today, we noted the very productive work in the SCO and RIC formats yesterday. We are very pleased that Moscow hosted an intensive and important meeting of the Chinese and Indian foreign ministers, following which they made a statement aimed at normalising relations and deescalating tensions on the border. This decision, the statement and the meeting were very useful. Let me repeat that we are pleased that this meeting took place on Russian territory.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4335760

Joint statement by the foreign ministers of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, Moscow, September 11, 2020

11 September 2020 - 16:39

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, in the spirit of relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation that are entering a new era, and based on a common vision of the current international situation and key problems, urge the international community to promote cooperation, deepen understanding, stand up against new challenges and threats by collective efforts and facilitate global political stability and global economic recovery.

The sides have declared the following:

1. The modern world is undergoing a stage of deep transformation. The turbulence is growing stronger, and a blow has been dealt to economic globalisation and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The coronavirus epidemic has become the most serious global peacetime challenge.

The sides express their deep concern over the spread of false and inaccurate information against the backdrop of the novel coronavirus pandemic. It threatens the health and wellbeing of people, public safety, stability and order, and prevents nations from learning more about each other. In this context, Russia and China urge the governments of states, public organisations, the media and business circles to promote cooperation and jointly resist false information. Disseminated information and assessments must be based on facts and rule out interference in the internal affairs of other countries and unjustified attacks on their political systems and development paths.

The sides again declare their firm support for the World Health Organisation (WHO) and its coordinating role in international efforts to counter epidemics, and support the deepening of international cooperation in this area and the accelerated development of medications and vaccines. They urge all countries to stop politicising the pandemic and pool efforts in order to overcome the coronavirus infection, jointly respond to various challenges and threats, and speed up the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

2. This year marks the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, the greatest tragedy in human history that claimed tens of millions of lives. The Soviet Union and China were hit the hardest by Nazism and militarism and bore the brunt of the burden of resisting the aggressors. At the price of enormous human losses, they stopped, routed and destroyed the occupiers, displaying unparalleled self-sacrifice and patriotism in this struggle. The new generations are deeply indebted to those who gave up their lives for the sake of freedom and independence, and the triumph of good, justice and humanity. Entering a new era, the current Russia-China relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation have a powerful, positive feature of true comradeship developed on the battlefields of World War II. It is a sacred duty of all humanity to preserve the historical truth about that war. Russia and China will jointly counter all attempts to falsify history, glorify the Nazis, militarists and their accomplices, and tarnish the victors. Our countries will not allow anyone to revise the results of World War II, which are fixed in the UN Charter and other international documents.

3. In the year of the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII and the establishment of the United Nations Organisation, Russia and China, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, reiterate their firm commitment to the principles of multilateralism; support the idea to hold a series of high-level meetings timed to coincide with the 75th anniversary of founding the UN and the 75th anniversary of the end of WWII; call on the international community to jointly uphold the system of international relations, in which the UN plays a central role, and the international order based on the principles of international law; and reaffirm the positions outlined in the Declaration of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on increasing the role of international law dated June 25, 2016. China supports Russia’s initiative to convene a meeting of the heads of state of permanent members of the UN Security Council. Russia and China will continue to resolutely uphold the goals and principles of the UN Charter, in particular, the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in other states’ internal affairs and to protect global peace and stability. The parties stand for justice in international affairs and reforming and improving the global governance system. They strongly reject unilateral actions and protectionism, the policy of force and bullying with regard to other states, and unilateral sanctions that are not supported by international legal foundations, as well as the extraterritorial application of national legislation.

4. We are facing major challenges in the field of international security, of which the UN Security Council is in charge. Outdated Cold War-era thinking, pitting major powers against each other, and the desire to ensure one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states seriously undermine the basic principles of international relations, global and regional strategic stability and security. The parties note the importance of maintaining constructive interaction between major powers in order to resolve global strategic problems on an equal basis in the spirit of mutual respect. As permanent members of the UN Security Council and nuclear states, the parties play a special role in ensuring global strategic stability and will continue to deepen strategic mutual trust, to build up strategic interaction, and to jointly maintain global and regional strategic stability, in the spirit of the Joint Statement of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China on strengthening global strategic stability in the modern era, signed on June 5, 2019.

Russia and China call on all the states participating in treaties and agreements on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation to comply with all provisions of these treaties and agreements in full and to strictly follow the dispute resolution procedures outlined in them.

5. The sides will continue developing cooperation on promoting and protecting human rights and advancing the equal treatment of all categories of human rights in the UN human rights agencies. They will enhance their efforts in the areas to which the developing nations pay special attention: exercise of economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development. They are against politicising the international human rights agenda and using human rights issues as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign states.

6. The sides urge the international community to pool efforts in countering all forms and manifestations of terrorism and extremism. They consistently pursue a comprehensive policy on this issue, eliminating both the reasons and consequences of the problem and facilitating the formation of a united global anti-terrorism front, with the UN playing the central role. They prevent linking terrorism and extremism to specific states or religions, nationalities or civilisations, and oppose the use of double standards in anti-terrorism activities.

7. The sides urge the international community to pool efforts in countering the use of ICT for purposes incompatible with maintaining international and regional peace, security and stability. They oppose criminal and other terrorist activities involving the use of ICT. The sides stand for preventing interstate conflicts that may be triggered by the illegal use of ICT and again declare the UN’s key role in countering the threats to international information security. In this context, they express support for the UN activities to elaborate the rules, norms and principles of the responsible conduct of states in the information space. They welcome the timely formation of the UN-sponsored first negotiating mechanism on this issue in line with UN General Assembly Resolution 73/27, in which all states can take part, notably, the open-ended working group on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security. They also urge all states to take a constructive part in the work of the special intergovernmental committee of experts established under UN General Assembly Resolution 74/247 and emphasise the need to draw up, as soon as possible, a UN convention on countering the use of ICT for criminal purposes.

They also underscore common positions on internet governance, including the importance of ensuring equal rights of states to govern the global network, and emphasise the need to enhance the role of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in this context. The sides agreed to continue promoting bilateral cooperation based on the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on cooperation in ensuring international information security of May 8, 2015.

8. The parties are aware of the digital economy’s comprehensive impact

on the socioeconomic development of the countries of the world and the global governance system. They believe that the safekeeping of the digital data affects national security, public interests and individual rights in each state, and call on all the countries to push, on the principles of universal participation, for drafting global rules governing the security of digital data that reflect the aspirations of all states and are based on respect for the interests of all stakeholders. Russia took note of the Global Initiative on Data Security advanced by China and welcomes China’s efforts to improve global digital data security. The parties express their intention to build up cooperation in international information security both in a bilateral format and within the UN, BRICS, the SCO, ARF and other global and regional multilateral platforms.

The parties recognise the significant potential for developing digital economy, especially during the pandemic, and call on the international community to follow development trends, to encourage new methods of economic management, new production sites, new development models, and to jointly form an open, fair, just and non-discriminatory environment for developing and using information technology, to pay attention to data security and cross-border flows, and to support global supply chains for information products and services.

9. The Parties are making every effort to maintain the leading role of the World Trade Organisation in trade liberalisation and coordination when drafting global trade rules and supporting the multilateral trading system, of which the WTO is the cornerstone. They call on the international community to improve coordination in macroeconomic policy, protect security and stability of global value chains, to encourage greater openness, inclusiveness, shared prosperity, balance and common benefit of economic globalisation, and to contribute to early recovery of the global economy.

10. The parties rate highly cooperation on topical regional issues, including those linked with Iran, Afghanistan, Syria and the Korean Peninsula. They emphasise that dialogue is the only effective way of resolving problems and are willing to continue taking part, on the basis of consensus, in multilateral consultations and dialogue platforms and facilitate the settlement of problems by political and diplomatic means.

11. Russia and China will continue their line of aligning plans for the development of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative, contributing to the strengthening of regional connectivity and economic development in Eurasia. The parties reaffirm their commitment to parallel and coordinated promotion of the Greater Eurasian Partnership and the Belt and Road Initiative.

12. China enthusiastically supports the work carried out by Russia during its chairmanship of BRICS and the SCO, and will actively help Russia prepare a meeting of the BRICS heads of state and a meeting of the SCO Heads of State Council this year. The sides will continue strengthening contacts and coordination within the G20, APEC and other multilateral mechanisms with a view to enhancing their constructive role.

Moscow, September 11, 2020

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4335948

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Malaysia Hishammuddin Hussein

11 September 2020 - 16:57

On September 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Malaysia Hishammuddin Hussein.

The foreign ministers discussed current issues of bilateral cooperation, including efforts to counter the novel coronavirus infection and preparations for the Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation and other bilateral intergovernmental mechanisms to resume work. The ministers paid considerable attention to Russia and Malaysia’s cooperation in various integration associations in the Asia-Pacific Region. They also reviewed a schedule of upcoming contacts.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4336008

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Moroccan Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Cooperation and Moroccan Expatriates Nasser Bourita

11 September 2020 - 17:41

On September 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Nasser Bourita, Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Cooperation and Moroccan Expatriates of the Kingdom of Morocco, upon the latter’s initiative.

The foreign ministers discussed practical tasks of developing multifaceted bilateral ties, including the holding of the 8th session of the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation and the preparations for Nasser Bourita’s next visit to Russia.

The diplomats confirmed the reciprocal striving of Moscow and Rabat to deepen political dialogue on key international and regional issues. In this context, they exchanged views on the problems of Libya, Mali, West Sahara and a settlement in the Middle East.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4336094

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias

11 September 2020 - 18:57

On September 11, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias.

The foreign ministers discussed mutual efforts in fighting the coronavirus pandemic and analysed the state of the legal framework for cooperation. They praised the implementation of the Russian-Greek Cross Year of Language and Literature in 2019-2020 and expressed hope for a successful Russian-Greek Cross Year of History planned for 2021.

The ministers exchanged opinions on issues on the international and regional agenda and also on the schedule of forthcoming bilateral contacts.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4336230

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answers to questions from the Moscow, Kremlin, Putin programme Moscow, September 13, 2020

13 September 2020 - 14:00

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

Given the serious tensions in the world today, differences sometimes can also arise between the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Can the SCO format help smooth over these differences?

Sergey Lavrov:

I believe that the SCO is a very promising modern mechanism for promoting foreign policy priorities. Initially, the SCO was established to deal with border issues. But its members gradually became aware of its advantages for addressing more serious matters, including for coordinating their efforts to strengthen Asia Pacific security, promoting economic development and trade, and lifting barriers. Another vital SCO element is humanitarian cooperation, which is acquiring more practical forms, such as youth exchanges and exchanges between women’s organisations and parliaments, sports interaction, and much more.

In addition to ensuring security and creating conditions for economic and social development in the member states, the SCO’s voice is gaining more weight during international discussions at the UN and the G20. And it is a highly constructive voice. In fact, it provides an alternative to those who would like to dominate international affairs, first of all our Western colleagues. In this context, the documents, which the SCO foreign ministers approved a few days day ago, are a major step forward when it comes to the ongoing international discussions on what the world should be like.

The SCO’s firm stand is that it should be a fair and democratic world based on respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states without exception. The SCO has put forth a number of important and constructive initiatives towards this goal, towards creating a new multipolar world where all the guiding principles are based on the UN Charter.

The SCO has great potential, as you can see from the number of countries that would like to join the SCO as full members, observers or dialogue partners.

Question:

Western countries are once again talking about imposing new sanctions on Russia. If they end up doing so, will Russia respond or just ignore them?

Sergey Lavrov:

Last I checked, the reciprocity principle was still valid in international relations. Let's wait and see what the new sanctions look like. Of course, we will respond. We cannot leave this without a response. First, it would be wrong in terms of the laws governing diplomacy. Second, we are seeking to limit the negative influence exercised by various Western structures, including states and the numerous NGOs, on our plans and the plans that our allies have.

The Western sanctions have been an eye-opener for us. They started long before the events in Ukraine or the referendum in Crimea. This process can be traced back to the Obama administration, when Edward Snowden found himself on Russian territory. He may have broken the US law, but he was persecuted for exposing activities by US structures, which were totally illegal, illegitimate and in many ways criminal, consisting of using unacceptable approaches abroad and undermining legitimate governments. Since then, we have grown used to sanctions. Reducing our response to all this to the so-called import substitution would be a narrow way of looking at things.

In principle, the geopolitical response over these years consisted of recognising that our Western partners were unreliable, including, unfortunately, members of the European Union. We had many far-reaching plans, and there are documents setting forth the path to developing relations with the EU in the energy sector and high technology, and stepping up economic cooperation in general. We share a single geopolitical space. Considering our shared geography, logistics, and infrastructure across the Eurasian continent, we benefit from a substantial comparative advantage.

It would certainly be a grave mistake for us and the European Union, as well as other countries in this space, including the SCO, the EAEU, and the ASEAN, which is also nearby, not to use our comparative geopolitical and geoeconomic advantages in an increasingly competitive world. Unfortunately, the European Union sacrificed its geoeconomic and strategic interests for the sake of its momentary desire to match the United States in what they refer to as “punishing Russia.” We have grown used to this. We now understand that we need a safety net in all our future plans related to reviving the full partnership with the European Union. This means that we need to proceed in a way that if the EU sticks to its negative, destructive positions, we would not depend on its whims and could provide for our development on our own while working with those who are ready to cooperate with us in an equal and mutually respectful manner.

Question:

The Americans are seeking to rally everyone against China, and are sending unambiguous signals to Russia. What do you think about the policy of forging friendships against someone?

Sergey Lavrov:

This kind of policy is alien to us. Neither Russia nor China, nor our allies have ever proposed building friendly relations for the sake of opposing someone. The very approach of pitting someone against those you do not like contains an answer to the question of what we think about it. This represents a diplomatic and political culture that is totally different from ours. We want to build good relations with everyone. Whenever we seek stronger ties with anyone, we never require undermining relations with states that have fallen out with Washington or anyone else as a price to pay for cooperation.

I believe that the notion of being “friends against someone” contradicts the very meaning of “friendship.”

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4338337

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Egypt Sameh Shoukry

14 September 2020 - 15:59

On September 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Egypt Sameh Shoukry at the initiative of the Egyptian side.

The officials had an in-depth exchange of views on possible developments in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily in Syria and Libya, as well as prospects for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement.

They shared the opinion that there is no alternative to a peaceful settlement of the Libyan crisis. In this context, they welcomed the recent statement by Prime Minister of the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) Fayez Mustafa al-Sarraj and President of the Libyan House of Representatives Aguila Saleh on introducing a ceasefire throughout the country and launching a process of political settlement. It was pointed out that the procedure of appointing a UN Secretary-General’s special representative for Libya was taking rather a long time.

Sergey Lavrov noted that the settlement of the Palestinian question was the main condition for lasting and stable peace in the Middle East. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, co-sponsor of the peace process and a member of the Middle East Quartet, Russia stands for a comprehensive Palestinian-Israeli settlement based on the universally recognised standards of international law, including UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative.

When discussing Syria, the ministers called for taking energetic steps towards national reconciliation and reunification of the Syrian society based on the strict observance of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339096

Alex Him · November 7th, 2020

Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the latest statement by the German Foreign Minister on the Navalny case

14 September 2020 - 20:41

We have taken note of the latest statement made by Federal Foreign Minister of Germany Heiko Maas during a joint news conference with Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein, held in Berlin on September 14, that Russia should contact the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to request documents and medical information about the case of Alexey Navalny, whose tests, according to German military doctors, show traces of a chemical warfare agent.

We regard this position of Germany as a pretext indicating its reluctance to establish the truth in the case of Alexey Navalny.

We would like to point out in this connection that we have not received a clear response from the German side to our request for complete information, including the results of medical tests, biomaterials and other clinical samples, which was submitted by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia to the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection of Germany on August 27, 2020, within the framework of bilateral cooperation, which has been smoothly running, until recently, in accordance with the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of April 20, 1959.

We regard this as Berlin’s failure to honour its official promises to provide the requested information in response to the abovementioned inquiry. However, our German partners later made an about-face, citing the independence of the judiciary and the need to coordinate the matter with the patient’s relatives.

We need the samples we requested so as to complete the pre-investigation probe the Russian law enforcement agencies are conducting into the illness and hospitalisation of Alexey Navalny, which has been extended until September 20. Under Russian law, a pre-investigation probe is a necessary precondition for initiating criminal proceedings in this case, because no evidence of poisoning was found by doctors during the patient’s examination in Omsk on August 21 and 22.

We would also like to state once again that on September 14, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia sent an additional request to the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection of Germany for legal assistance in acquiring information about Alexey Navalny’s treatment and tests made in Germany.

We insist that our request be granted.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339234

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the start of intra-Afghan peace talks

15 September 2020 - 12:32

On September 12, Doha hosted the opening ceremony of intra-Afghan peace talks aimed at ending the long-term armed conflict and establishing peace in the country. On the Russian side, the event was attended by Presidential Special Representative for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov.

We welcome the launch of the negotiation process, and are looking forward to a fast completion of the technical procedures by the parties and a start of the discussion of key issues on the national reconciliation agenda. We urge the Afghan parties to discuss the introduction of a lasting ceasefire as a priority for the first round of dialogue.

Russia supports Afghanistan developing as a peaceful, independent and neutral state, free from terrorism and drugs and coexisting in peace and harmony with its close neighbours and other countries in the region. Together with our international partners, we intend to continue to promote an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned national reconciliation process.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339466

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's greetings to the participants of the closing ceremony of the Russian-German Cross-Year of Scientific and Educational Partnerships

15 September 2020 - 13:26

I extend my warmest greetings to the participants in the closing ceremony of the Russian-German Cross-Year of Scientific and Educational Partnerships, a project held under our joint patronage with my German colleague Heiko Maas.

I am pleased to announce that this joint project has been a success and has strengthened the good tradition of thematic years and contributed to the expansion of our long-term humanitarian and scientific ties. In particular, a plan for further Russian-German cooperation in science and education has been developed.

Taking this opportunity, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the project operators: the National University of Science and Technology MISIS, the German House for Research and Innovation in Moscow and the German Academic Exchange Service, DAAD. Due to their efforts, numerous events were held at a high level despite the difficult epidemiological conditions. I would specifically like to note their initiative to hold a competition for best scientific and educational cooperation projects, Russia and Germany: Scientific and Educational Bridges.

Each new cross-year project makes a useful contribution to the expansion and deepening of Russian-German cooperation in a specific area. I hope that the next joint initiative, Economy and Sustainable Development, planned for 2020-2022, will also contribute to this.

I wish you productive discussions and new mutually beneficial contacts, and all the best.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339491

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy Luigi Di Maio

15 September 2020 - 18:21

On September 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Italy Luigi Di Maio at the latter’s initiative.

The foreign ministers discussed in detail the agenda for bilateral cooperation and a schedule for upcoming political meetings. They reaffirmed their reciprocal striving to continue consistently developing bilateral dialogue and promoting cooperation in the economy, culture and other areas through a concerted effort.

Regarding a settlement in Libya, the foreign ministers emphasised the importance of further coordinating the efforts of Russia and Italy, and other regional and outside parties on this issue with a view to facilitating a sustainable ceasefire and the start of inter-Libyan talks based on the mechanisms created by the decisions of the Berlin Conference and approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2510. They agreed to use the potentialities of Russia and Italy in coordinating the efforts to help free their citizens detained in Libya under different circumstances.

Luigi Di Maio expressed interest in the assessment of the situation in Belarus. Sergey Lavrov drew his attention to the meeting of presidents Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko in Sochi on September 14. He emphasised that Belarusians must be allowed to regulate their domestic affairs themselves, that any attempts to prevent this must be avoided, and noted the feasibility of the initiative on constitutional reform to promote a nationwide dialogue and accord.

At the request of the Italian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov gave him detailed explanations on the situation around Alexey Navalny’s case. He emphasised that to establish the truth, the German specialists must transfer the bio materials and an official conclusion on the results of Navalny’s tests and develop professional cooperation with Russian doctors.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339820

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas

15 September 2020 - 19:33

On September 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas.

The foreign ministers focused on the state of and prospects for Russian-German relations, and the development of bilateral and international cooperation against the backdrop of the Alexey Navalny case.

The Russian minister reaffirmed Russia’s willingness to cooperate on this issue. He said again that Moscow is waiting for a response from the competent German bodies to the requests sent by the Russian Prosecutor’s Office on August 27 and September 14 of this year in accordance with the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of April 20, 1959 and the additional protocols to it of March 17, 1978 and November 8, 2001. This legal agreement implies the transfer of the bio materials, test results, clinical analyses and medical documents required for a meticulous, comprehensive investigation into the reasons for Navalny’s illness and hospitalisation, which our Western colleagues are actively urging us to conduct in public. President of Russia Vladimir Putin explained the Russian position to President of France Emmanuel Macron during their telephone conversation on September 14 of this year. If our partners continue evading answers to our requests, it will be qualified as a lack of desire to establish the truth following an objective and comprehensive investigation into the incident.

Sergey Lavrov urged his colleague to stop any further politicising of the Navalny case. He said we cannot accept references to “the independence” of judicial bodies and the need to coordinate actions with Navalny himself or his family and friends that are being used as obstacles to block access for Russian investigators and doctors to the materials held by Germany on his disease and treatment. This runs counter to the afore-mentioned convention.

As for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), to which Germany is referring Russia on this case, the use of this organisation by Germany to clear the case should not be an obstacle to developing bilateral cooperation, both in the OPCW and via the established and generally accepted channels of legal assistance as is required by the sides’ commitments under the afore-mentioned 1959 convention and the related protocols.

The foreign ministers agreed to continue their dialogue on this and other bilateral and international issues.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339830

Comment by the Information and Press Department on UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ appeal to revise unilateral sanctions

15 September 2020 - 19:36

We noted the Russian domestic news agency RIA Novosti interview with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on September 15. In this interview he, in part, again urged a revision of the unilateral sanctions against countries hit hard by the coronavirus, because such restrictions are undermining their ability to counter the pandemic.

We support the attitude of the UN Secretary-General who has focused attention on this issue because unilateral restrictions undermine state sovereignty and have a disastrous impact on the economic and humanitarian situation in these countries.

Russia and its associates have long been talking at multilateral venues about the need to stop the practice of crude economic pressure that ends up hurting too many ordinary people, undermines the principles of international law and runs counter to the rules and standards of the World Trade Organisation.

We hope Mr Gutteres’ appeal will be heard by the members of the international community that have been obsessed with unilateral restrictions recently.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4339840

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan

16 September 2020 - 12:47

A telephone conversation initiated by Saudi Arabia took place between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Faisal bin Farhan on September 16.

The foreign ministers discussed the military-political and socioeconomic situation in the Republic of Yemen with an emphasis on the need to support the UN efforts aimed at reaching agreements on a ceasefire between the warring parties, to take urgent humanitarian measures and to launch a comprehensive post-conflict settlement process.

Sergey Lavrov pointed out that progress towards establishing the long-awaited peace and stability in Yemen is possible only if the interests and concerns of all leading political forces, confessional groups and regions of the country are taken into account and if external players combine their efforts. In this context, the Saudi minister’s attention was drawn to Russia’s initiative to develop a security concept in the Gulf.

An agreement was reached to continue to compare notes on Yemen and other important items on the Middle East agenda, including in the context of the UN General Assembly’s relevant multilateral events.

The ministers also discussed important items on the bilateral agenda.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340392

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Peter Maurer

17 September 2020 - 16:45

On September 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Peter Maurer.

Sergey Lavrov and Peter Maurer spoke about current cooperation between Russia and the ICRC in countering COVID-19 as well as in mitigating its impacts. They continued to discuss the humanitarian situation in the Middle East and North Africa, including Syria and Libya. They also paid particular attention to the humanitarian, socioeconomic and epidemiologic situation in southeastern Ukraine, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the context of the ICRC’s aid to civilians.

The conversation also covered prospects for Russia and the ICRC’s further cooperation in these and other areas of mutual interest.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340751

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with RTVI television, Moscow, September 17, 2020

17 September 2020 - 19:00

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

I’ll start with the hottest topic, Belarus. President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko visited Bocharov Ruchei. Both sides have officially recognised that change within the Union State is underway. This begs the question: What is this about? A common currency, common army and common market? What will it be like?

Sergey Lavrov:

It will be the way our countries decide. Work is underway. It relies on the 1999 Union Treaty. We understand that over 20 years have passed since then. That is why, a couple of years ago, upon the decision of the two presidents, the governments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus began to work on identifying the agreed-upon steps that would make our integration fit current circumstances. Recently, at a meeting with Russian journalists, President Lukashenko said that the situation had, of course, changed and we must agree on ways to deepen integration from today’s perspective.

The presidential election has taken place in Belarus. The situation there is tense, because the opposition, backed by some of our Western colleagues, is trying to challenge the election outcome, but I’m convinced that the situation will soon get back to normal, and the work to promote integration processes will resume.

Everything that is written in the Union Treaty is now being analysed. Both sides have to come to a common opinion about whether a particular provision of the Union Treaty is still relevant, or needs to be revised. There are 31 roadmaps, and each one focuses on a specific section of the Union Treaty. So, there’s clearly a commitment to continue the reform, a fact that was confirmed by the presidents during a recent telephone conversation. This is further corroborated by the presidents’ meeting in Sochi.

I would not want that country’s neighbours, and our neighbours for that matter, including Lithuania, for example, to try to impose their will on the Belarusian people and, in fact, to manage the processes in which the opposition is unwittingly doing what’s expected of it. I have talked several times about Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s situation. Clearly, someone is putting words in her mouth. She is now in the capital of Lithuania, which, like our Polish colleagues, is strongly demanding a change of power in Belarus. You are aware that Lithuania declared Ms Tikhanovskaya the leader of the Republic of Belarus, and Alexander Lukashenko was declared an illegitimate president.

Ms Tikhanovskaya has made statements that give rise to many questions. She said she was concerned that Russia and Belarus have close relations. The other day, she called on the security and law-enforcement forces to side with the law. In her mind, this is a direct invitation to breach the oath of office and, by and large, to commit high treason. This is probably a criminal offense. So, those who provide her with a framework for her activities and tell her what to say and what issues to raise should, of course, realise that they may be held accountable for that.

Question:

Commenting on the upcoming meeting of the presidents of Russia and Belarus in Sochi, Tikhanovskaya said: “Whatever they agree on, these agreements will be illegitimate, because the new state and the new leader will revise them.” How can one work under such circumstances?

Sergey Lavrov:

She was also saying something like that when Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin went to Belarus to meet with President Lukashenko and Prime Minister Golovchenko. She was saying it then. Back then, the opposition was concerned about any more or less close ties between our countries. This is despite the fact that early on during the crisis they claimed that they in no way engaged in anti-Russia activities and wanted to be friends with the Russian people. However, everyone could have seen the policy paper posted on Tikhanovskaya’s website during the few hours it was there. The opposition leaders removed it after realising they had made a mistake sharing their goals and objectives with the public. These goals and objectives included withdrawal from the CSTO, the EAEU and other integration associations that include Russia, and drifting towards the EU and NATO, as well as the consistent banning of the Russian language and the Belarusianisation of all aspects of life.

We are not against the Belarusian language, but when they take a cue from Ukraine, and when the state language is used to ban a language spoken by the overwhelming majority of the population, this already constitutes a hostile act and, in the case of Ukraine, an act that violates its constitution. If a similar proposal is introduced into the Belarusian legal field, it will violate the Constitution of Belarus, not to mention numerous conventions on the rights of ethnic and language minorities, and much more.

I would like those who are rabidly turning the Belarusian opposition against Russia to realise their share of responsibility, and the opposition themselves, including Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and others – to find the courage to resist such rude and blatant manipulation.

Question:

If we are talking about manipulation, we certainly understand that it has many faces and reflects on the international attitude towards Russia. Internationally, what are the risks for us of supporting Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko? Don’t you think 26 years is enough? Maybe he has really served for too long?

Sergey Lavrov:

The President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, did say it might have been “too long.” I believe he has proposed a very productive idea – constitutional reform. He talked about this even before the election, and has reiterated the proposal more than once since then. President of Russia Vladimir Putin supports this attitude. As the Belarusian leader said, after constitutional reform, he will be ready to announce early parliamentary and presidential elections. This proposal provides a framework where a national dialogue will be entirely possible. But it is important that representatives of all groups of Belarusian society to be involved in a constitutional reform process. This would ensure that any reform is completely legitimate and understandable for all citizens. Now a few specific proposals are needed concerning when, where and in what form this process can begin. I hope that this will be done, because President Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly reaffirmed carrying out this initiative.

Question:

Since we started talking about the international attitude towards Russia, let’s go over to our other partner – the United States. The elections in the US will take place very soon. We are actively discussing this in Russia. When asked whether Russia was getting ready for the elections in the US at the Paris forum last year, you replied: “Don’t worry, we’ll resolve this problem.” Now that the US elections are around the corner, I would like to ask you whether you’ve resolved it.

Sergey Lavrov:

Speaking seriously, of course we, like any other normal country that is concerned about its interests and international security, are closely following the progress of the election campaign in the US. There are many surprising things in it. Naturally, we see how important the Russian issue is in this electoral process. The Democrats are doing all they can to prove that Russia will exploit its hacker potential and play up to Donald Trump. We are already being accused of promoting the idea that the Democrats will abuse the mail-in voting option thereby prejudicing the unbiased nature of voting. I would like to note at this point that mail-in voting has become a target of consistent attacks on behalf of President Trump himself. Russia has nothing to do with this at all.

A week-long mail-in voting is an interesting subject in comparing election systems in different countries. We have introduced three-day voting for governors and legislative assembly deputies in some regions. You can see the strong criticism it is subjected to, inside Russia as well. When the early voting in the US lasts for weeks, if not months, it is considered a model of democracy. I don’t see any criticism in this respect. In principle, we have long proposed analysing election systems in the OSCE with a view to comparing best practices and reviewing obviously obsolete arrangements. There have been instances in the US when, due to its cumbersome and discriminatory election system, a nominee who received the majority of votes could lose because in a national presidential election the voting is done through the Electoral College process rather than directly by the people. There have been quite a few cases like that. I once told former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in reply to her grievances about our electoral system: “But look at your problem. Maybe you should try to correct this discriminatory voting system?” She replied that it is discriminatory but they are used to it and this is their problem, so I shouldn’t bother.

When the United States accuses us of interference in some area of its public, political or government life, we suggest discussing it to establish who is actually doing what. Since they don’t present any facts, we simply recite their Congressional acts. In 2014, they adopted an act on supporting Ukraine, which directly instructed the Department of State to spend $20 million a year on support for Russian NGOs. We asked whether this didn’t amount to interference. We were told by the US National Security Council that in reality they support democracy because we are wreaking chaos and pursuing authoritative and dictatorial trends abroad when we interfere in domestic affairs whereas they bring democracy and prosperity. This idea is deeply rooted in American mentality. The American elite has always considered its country and nation exceptional and has not been shy to admit it.

I won’t comment on the US election. This is US law and the US election system. Any comments I make will be again interpreted as an attempt to interfere in their domestic affairs. I will only say one thing that President Vladimir Putin has expressed many times, notably, that we will respect any outcome of these elections and the will of the American people.

We realise that there will be no major changes in our relations either with the Democrats or with the Republicans, as representatives of both parties loudly declare. However, there is hope that common sense will prevail and no matter who becomes President, the new US Government and administration will realise the need to cooperate with us in resolving very serious global problems on which the international situation depends.

Question:

You mentioned an example where voters can choose one president and the Electoral College process, another. I even have that cover of Time magazine with Hillary Clinton and congratulations, released during the election. It is a fairly well-known story, when they ran this edition and then had to cancel it.

Sergey Lavrov:

Even the President of France sent a telegramme, but then they immediately recalled it.

And these people are now claiming that Alexander Lukashenko is an illegitimate president.

Question:

You mentioned NGOs. These people believe that NGOs in the Russian Federation support democratic institutions, although it is no secret to anyone who has at least a basic understanding of foreign and domestic policy that those NGOs act exclusively as institutions that destabilise the situation in the country.

Sergey Lavrov:

Not all of them.

Question:

Can you tell us more about this?

Sergey Lavrov:

We have adopted a series of laws – on public associations, on non-profit organisations, on measures to protect people from human rights violations. There is a set of laws that regulate the activities of non-government organisations on our territory, both Russian and foreign ones.

Concepts have been introduced like “foreign agent,” a practice we borrowed from “the world’s most successful democracy” – the United States. They argue that we borrowed a practice from 1938 when the United States introduced the foreign agent concept to prevent Nazi ideology from infiltrating from Germany. But whatever the reason they had to create the concept – “foreign agent” – the Americans are still effectively using it, including in relation to our organisations and citizens, to Chinese citizens, to the media.

In our law, foreign agent status, whatever they say about it, does not prevent an organisation from operating on the territory of the Russian Federation. It just needs to disclose its funding sources and be transparent about the resources it receives. And even that, only if it is engaged in political activities. Initially, we introduced a requirement for these organisations that receive funding from abroad and are involved in political projects to initiate the disclosure process. But most of them didn’t want to comply with the law, so it was modified. Now this is done by the Russian Ministry of Justice.

Question:

Do you think that NGOs are still soft power?

Sergey Lavrov:

Of course. In Russia we have about 220,000 NGOs, out of which 180 have the status of a foreign agent. It’s a drop in the ocean. These are probably the organisations, funded from abroad, that are more active than others in promoting in our public space ideas that far from always correspond to Russian legislation.

There is also the notion of undesirable organisations. They are banned from working in the Russian Federation. But there are only about 30 of them, no more.

Question:

Speaking about our soft power, what is our concept? What do we offer the world? What do you think the world should love us for? What is Russia’s soft power policy all about?

Sergey Lavrov:

We want everything that has been created by nations and civilisations to be respected. We believe nobody should impose any orders on anyone, so that nothing like what has now happened in Hollywood takes place on a global scale. We think nobody should encroach on the right of each nation to have its historical traditions and moral roots. And we see attempts to encroach upon them.

If soft power is supposed to promote one’s own culture, language and traditions, in exchange for knowledge about the life of other nations and civilisations, then this is the approach that the Russian Federation supports in every way.

The Americans define the term “soft power” as an attempt to influence the hearts and minds of others politically. Their goal is not to promote their culture and language, but to change the mood of the political class with a view to subsequent regime change. They are doing this on a daily basis and don’t even conceal it. They say everywhere that their mission is to bring peace and democracy to all other countries.

Question:

Almost any TV series out there shows the US president sitting in the Oval Office saying he’s the leader of the free world.

Sergey Lavrov:

Not just TV series. Barack Obama has repeatedly stated that America is an exceptional nation and should be seen as an example by the rest of the world. My colleague Mike Pompeo recently said in the Czech Republic that they shouldn’t let the Russians into the nuclear power industry and should take the Russians off the list of companies that bid for these projects. It was about the same in Hungary. He then went to Africa and was quite vocal when he told the African countries not to do business with the Russians or the Chinese, because they are trading with the African countries for selfish reasons, whereas the US is establishing economic cooperation with them so they can prosper. This is a quote. It is articulated in a very straightforward manner, much the same way they run their propaganda on television in an unsophisticated broken language that the man in the street can relate to. So, brainwashing is what America’s soft power is known for.

Question:

Not a single former Soviet republic has so far benefited from American soft power.

Sergey Lavrov:

Not only former Soviet republics. Take a look at any other region where the Americans have effected a regime change.

Question:

Libya, Syria. We stood for Syria.

Sergey Lavrov:

Iraq, Libya. They tried in Syria, but failed. I hope things will be different there. There’s not a single country where the Americans changed the regime and declared victory for democracy, like George W. Bush did on the deck of an aircraft carrier in Iraq in May 2003, which is prosperous now. He said democracy had won in Iraq. It would be interesting to know what the former US President thinks about the situation in Iraq today. But no one will, probably, go back to this, because the days when presidents honestly admitted their mistakes are gone.

Question:

Here I am listening to you and wondering how many people care about this? Why is it that no one understands this? Is this politics that is too far away from ordinary people who are nevertheless behind it? Take Georgia or Ukraine. People are worse off now than before, and despite this, this policy continues.

Will the Minsk agreements ever be implemented? Will the situation in southeastern Ukraine ever be settled?

Returning to what we talked about. How independent is Ukraine in its foreign policy?

Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think that under the current Ukrainian government, just like under the previous president, we will see any progress in the implementation of the Minsk agreements, if only because President Zelensky himself is saying so publicly, as does Deputy Prime Minister Reznikov who is in charge of the Ukrainian settlement in the Contact Group. Foreign Minister of Ukraine Kuleba is also saying this. They say there’s a need for the Minsk agreements and they cannot be broken, because these agreements (and accusing Russia of non-compliance) are the foundation of the EU and the US policy in seeking to maintain the sanctions on Russia. Nevertheless, such a distorted interpretation of the essence of the Minsk agreements, or rather an attempt to blame everything on Russia, although Russia is never mentioned there, has stuck in the minds of our European colleagues, including France and Germany, who, being co-sponsors of the Minsk agreements along with us, the Ukrainians and Donbass, cannot but realise that the Ukrainians are simply distorting their responsibilities, trying to distance themselves from them and impose a different interpretation of the Minsk agreements. But even in this scenario, the above individuals and former Ukrainian President Kravchuk, who now heads the Ukrainian delegation to the Contact Group as part of the Minsk process, claim that the Minsk agreements in their present form are impracticable and must be revised, turned upside down. Also, Donbass must submit to the Ukrainian government and army before even thinking about conducting reforms in this part of Ukraine.

This fully contradicts the sequence of events outlined in the Minsk agreements whereby restoring Ukrainian armed forces’ control on the border with Russia is possible only after an amnesty, agreeing on the special status of these territories, making this status part of the Ukrainian Constitution and holding elections there. Now they propose giving back the part of Donbass that “rebelled” against the anti-constitutional coup to those who declared these people terrorists and launched an “anti-terrorist operation” against them, which they later renamed a Joint Forces Operation (but this does not change the idea behind it), and whom they still consider terrorists. Although everyone remembers perfectly well that in 2014 no one from Donbass or other parts of Ukraine that rejected the anti-constitutional coup attacked the putschists and the areas that immediately fell under the control of the politicians behind the coup. On the contrary, Alexander Turchinov, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and others like them attacked these areas. The guilt of the people living there was solely in them saying, “You committed a crime against the state, we do not want to follow your rules, let us figure out our own future and see what you will do next.” There’s not a single example that would corroborate the fact that they engaged in terrorism. It was the Ukrainian state that engaged in terrorism on their territory, in particular, when they killed [Head of the Donetsk People’s Republic] Alexander Zakharchenko and a number of field commanders in Donbass. So, I am not optimistic about this.

Question:

So, we are looking at a dead end?

Sergey Lavrov:

You know, we still have an undeniable argument which is the text of the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council.

Question:

But they tried to revise it?

Sergey Lavrov:

No, they are just making statements to that effect. When they gather for a Contact Group meeting in Minsk, they do their best to look constructive. The most recent meeting ran into the Ukrainian delegation’s attempts to pretend that nothing had happened. They recently passed a law on local elections which will be held in a couple of months. It says that elections in what are now called the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics will be held only after the Ukrainian army takes control of the entire border and those who “committed criminal offenses” are arrested and brought to justice even though the Minsk agreements provide for amnesty without exemptions.

Question:

When I’m asked about Crimea I recall the referendum. I was there at a closed meeting in Davos that was attended by fairly well respected analysts from the US. They claimed with absolute confidence that Crimea was being occupied. I reminded them about the referendum. I was under the impression that these people either didn’t want to see or didn’t know how people lived there, that they have made their choice. Returning to the previous question, I think that nobody is interested in the opinion of the people.

Sergey Lavrov:

No, honest politicians still exist. Many politicians, including European ones, were in Crimea during the referendum. They were there not under the umbrella of some international organisation but on their own because the OSCE and other international agencies were controlled by our Western colleagues. Even if we had addressed them, the procedure for coordinating the monitoring would have never ended.

Question:

Just as in Belarus. As I see it, they were also invited but nobody came.

Sergey Lavrov:

The OSCE refused to send representatives there. Now that the OSCE is offering its services as a mediator, I completely understand Mr Lukashenko who says the OSCE lost its chance. It could have sent observers and gained a first-hand impression of what was happening there, and how the election was held. They arrogantly disregarded the invitation. We know that the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is practically wholly controlled by NATO. We have repeatedly proposed that our nominees work there but they have not been approved. This contradicts the principles of the OSCE. We will continue to seek a fairer approach to the admission of members to the organisation, but I don’t have much hope for this. Former OSCE Secretary General Thomas Greminger made an effort with this for the past three years but not everything depended on him – there is a large bloc of EU and NATO countries that enjoy a mathematical majority and try to dictate their own rules. But this is a separate issue.

Returning to Crimea, I have read a lot about this; let me give you two examples. One concerns my relations with former US Secretary of State John Kerry. In April 2014, we met in Geneva: me, John Kerry, EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and then Acting Foreign Minister of Ukraine Andrey Deshchitsa. We compiled a one page document that was approved unanimously. It read that we, the representatives of Russia, the US and the EU welcomed the commitments of the Ukrainian authorities to carry out decentralisation of the country with the participation of all the regions of Ukraine. This took place after the Crimean referendum. Later, the Americans, the EU and of course Ukraine “forgot” about this document. John Kerry told me at this meeting that everyone understood that Crimea was Russian, that the people wanted to return, but that we held the referendum so quickly that it didn’t fit into the accepted standards of such events. He asked me to talk to President Vladimir Putin, organise one more referendum, announce it in advance and invite international observers. He said he would support their visit there, that the result would be the same but that we would be keeping up appearances. I asked him why put on such shows if they understand that this was the expression of the will of the people.

The second example concerns the recent statements by the EU and the European Parliament to the effect that “the occupation” of Crimea is a crude violation of the world arrangement established after the victory in World War II. But if this criterion is used to determine where Crimea belongs, when the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic joined the UN after WWII in 1945, Crimea did not belong to it. Crimea was part of the USSR. Later, Nikita Khrushchev took an illegal action, which contradicted Soviet law, and this led to them having it. But we all understood that this was a domestic political game as regards a Soviet republic that was the home to Khrushchev and many of his associates.

Question:

You have been Foreign Minister for 16 years now. This century’s major foreign policy challenges fell on your term in office. We faced sanctions, and we adapted to them and coped with them. Germany said it obtained Alexey Navalny’s test results. France and Sweden have confirmed the presence of Novichok in them. Reportedly, we are now in for more sanctions. Do you think the Navalny case can trigger new sanctions against Russia?

Sergey Lavrov:

I agree with our political analysts who are convinced that if it were not for Navalny, they would have come up with something else in order to impose more sanctions.

With regard to this situation, I think our Western partners have simply gone beyond decency and reason. In essence, they are now demanding that we “confess.” They are asking us: Don’t you believe what the German specialists from the Bundeswehr are saying? How is that possible? Their findings have been confirmed by the French and the Swedes. You don't believe them, either?

It’s a puzzling situation given that our Prosecutor General's Office filed an inquiry about legal assistance on August 27 and hasn’t received an answer yet. Nobody knows where the inquiry has been for more than a week now. We were told it was at the German Foreign Ministry. The German Foreign Ministry did not forward the request to the Ministry of Justice, which was our Prosecutor General Office’s ultimate addressee. Then, they said that it had been transferred to the Berlin Prosecutor's Office, but they would not tell us anything without the consent of the family. They are urging us to launch a criminal investigation.

We have our own laws, and we cannot take someone’s word for it to open a criminal case. Certain procedures must be followed. A pre-investigation probe initiated immediately after this incident to consider the circumstances of the case is part of this procedure.

Some of our Western colleagues wrote that, as the German doctors discovered, it was “a sheer miracle” that Mr Navalny survived. Allegedly, it was the notorious Novichok, but he survived thanks to “lucky circumstances.” What kind of lucky circumstances are we talking about? First, the pilot immediately landed the plane; second, an ambulance was already waiting on the airfield; and third, the doctors immediately started to provide help. This absolutely impeccable behaviour of the pilots, doctors and ambulance crew is presented as “lucky circumstances.” That is, they even deny the possibility that we are acting as we should. This sits deep in the minds of those who make up such stories.

Returning to the pre-investigation probe, everyone is fixated on a criminal case. If we had opened a criminal case right away (we do not have legal grounds to do so yet, and that is why the Prosecutor General's Office requested legal assistance from Germany on August 27), what would have been done when it happened? They would have interviewed the pilot, the passengers and the doctors. They would have found out what the doctors discovered when Navalny was taken to the Omsk hospital, and what medications were used. They would have interviewed the people who communicated with him. All of that was done. They interviewed the five individuals who accompanied him and participated in the events preceding Navalny boarding the plane; they interviewed the passengers who were waiting for a flight to Moscow in Tomsk and sat at the same bar; they found out what they ordered and what he drank. The sixth person, a woman who accompanied him, has fled, as you know. They say she was the one who gave the bottle to the German lab. All this has been done. Even if all of that was referred to as a “criminal case,” we couldn’t have done more.

Our Western partners are looking down on us as if we have no right to question what they are saying or their professionalism. If this is the case, it means that they dare to question the professionalism of our doctors and investigators. Unfortunately, this position is reminiscent of other times. Arrogance and a sense of infallibility have already been observed in Europe, and that led to very regrettable consequences.

Question:

How would you describe this policy of confrontation? When did it start (I mean during your term of office)? It’s simply so stable at the moment that there seems no chance that something might change in the future.

Sergey Lavrov:

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken on this topic. I think that the onset of this policy, this era of constant pressure on Russia began with the end of a period that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, a time when the West believed it had Russia there in its pocket – it ended, full stop. Unfortunately, the West does not seem to be able to wrap its head around this, to accept that there is no alternative to Russia's independent actions, both domestically and on the international arena. This is why, unfortunately, this agony continues by inertia.

Having bad ties with any country have never given us any pleasure. We do not like making such statements in which we sharply criticise the position of the West. We always try to find compromises, but there are situations where it is hard not to come face to face with one another directly or to avoid frank assessments of what our Western friends are up to.

I have read what our respected political scientists write who are well known in the West. And I can say this idea is starting to surface ever stronger and more often – it is time we stop measuring our actions with the yardsticks that the West offers us and to stop trying to please the West at all costs. These are very serious people and they are making a serious point. The fact that the West is prodding us to this way of thinking, willingly or unwillingly, is obvious to me. Most likely, this is being done involuntarily. But it is a big mistake to think that Russia will play by Western rules in any case – as big a mistake as like approaching China with the same yardstick.

Question:

Then I really have to ask you. We are going through digitalisation. I think when you started your diplomatic career, you could not even have imagined that some post on Twitter could affect the political situation in a country. Yet – I can see your smile – we are living in a completely different world. Film stars can become presidents; Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook can become drivers of political campaigns – that happened more than once – and those campaigns can be successful. We are going through digitalisation, and because of this, many unexpected people appear in international politics – unexpected for you, at least. How do you think Russia's foreign policy will change in this context? Are we ready for social media to be impacting our internal affairs? Is the Chinese scenario possible in Russia, with most Western social media blocked to avoid their influence on the internal affairs in that country?

Sergey Lavrov:

Social media are already exerting great influence on our affairs. This is the reality in the entire post-Soviet space and developing countries. The West, primarily the United States, is vigorously using social media to promote their preferred agenda in just about any state. This necessitates a new approach to ensuring the national security. We have been doing this for a long time already.

As for regulating social media, everyone does it. You know that the digital giants in the United States have been repeatedly caught introducing censorship, primarily against us, China or other countries they dislike, shutting off information that comes from these places.

The internet is regulated by companies based in the United States, everyone knows that. In fact, this situation has long made the overwhelming majority of countries want to do something about it, considering the global nature of the internet and social media, to make sure that the management processes are approved at a global level, become transparent and understandable. The International Telecommunication Union, a specialised UN agency, has been out there for years. Russia and a group of other co-sponsoring countries are promoting the need to regulate the internet in such a way that everyone understands how it works and what principles govern it, in this International Union. Now we can see how Mark Zuckerberg and other heads of large IT companies are invited to the Congress and lectured there and asked to explain what they are going to do. We can see this. But a situation where it will be understandable for everyone else and, most importantly, where everyone is happy with it, still seems far away.

For many years, we have been promoting at the UN General Assembly an initiative to agree on the rules of responsible behaviour of states in the sphere of international information security. This initiative has already led to set up several working groups, which have completed their mandate with reports. The last such report was reviewed last year and another resolution was adopted. This time, it was not a narrow group of government experts, but a group that includes all UN member states. It was planning to meet, but things slowed down due to the coronavirus. The rules for responsible conduct in cyberspace are pending review by this group. These rules were approved by the SCO, meaning they already reflect a fairly large part of the world's population.

Our other initiative is not about the use of cyberspace for undermining someone's security; it is about fighting crimes (pedophilia, pornography, theft) in cyberspace. This topic is being considered by another UNGA committee. We are preparing a draft convention that will oblige all states to suppress criminal activities in cyberspace.

Question:

Do you think that the Foreign Ministry is active on this front? Would you like to be more proactive in the digital dialogue? After all, we are still bound by ethics, and have yet to understand whether we can cross the line or not. Elon Musk feels free to make any statements no matter how ironic and makes headlines around the world, even though anything he says has a direct bearing on his market cap. This is a shift in the ethics of behaviour. Do you think that this is normal? Is this how it should be? Or maybe people still need to behave professionally?

Sergey Lavrov:

A diplomat can always use irony and a healthy dose of cynicism. In this sense, there is no contradiction here. However, this does not mean that while making ironic remarks on the surrounding developments or comments every once in a while (witty or not so witty), you do not have to work on resolving legal matters related to internet governance. This is what we are doing.

The Foreign Ministry has been at the source of these processes. We have been closely coordinating our efforts on this front with the Security Council Office, and the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and Mass Media and other organisations. Russian delegations taking part in talks include representatives from various agencies. Apart from multilateral platforms such as the International Telecommunication Union, the UN General Assembly and the OSCE, we are working on this subject in bilateral relations with our key partners.

We are most interested in working with our Western partners, since we have an understanding on these issues with countries that share similar views. The Americans and Europeans evade these talks under various pretexts. There seemed to be an opening in 2012 and 2013, but after the government coup in Ukraine, they used it as a pretext to freeze this process. Today, there are some signs that the United States and France are beginning to revive these contacts, but our partners have been insufficiently active. What we want is professional dialogue so that they can raise all their concerns and accusations and back them with specific facts. We stand ready to answer all the concerns our partners may have, and will not fail to voice the concerns we have. We have many of them.

During the recent visit by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas to Russia, I handed him a list containing dozens of incidents we have identified: attacks against our resources, with 70 percent of them targeting state resources of the Russian Federation, and originating on German territory. He promised to provide an answer, but more than a month after our meeting we have not seen it so far.

Question:

Let me ask you about another important initiative by the Foreign Ministry. You decided to amend regulations enabling people to be repatriated from abroad for free, and you proposed subjecting the repatriation guarantee to the reimbursement of its cost to the budget. Could you tell us, please, is this so expensive for the state to foot this bill?

Sergey Lavrov:

Of course, these a substantial expenses. The resolution that provided for offering free assistance was adopted back in 2010, and was intended for citizens who find themselves in situations when their life is at risk. Imagine a Russian ambassador. Most of the people ask for help because they have lost money, their passport and so on. There are very few cases when an ambassador can actually say that a person is in a life-threatening situation and his or her life is in danger. How can an ambassador take a decision of this kind? As long as I remember, these cases can be counted on the fingers of my two hands since 2010, when an ambassador had to take responsibility and there were grounds for offering this assistance. We wanted to ensure that people can get help not only when facing an imminent danger (a dozen cases in ten years do not cost all that much). There were many more cases when our nationals found themselves in a difficult situation after losing money or passports. We decided to follow the practices used abroad. Specifically, this means that we provide fee-based assistance. In most cases, people travelling abroad can afford to reimburse the cost of a return ticket.

This practice is designed to prevent fraud, which remains an issue. We had cases when people bought one-way tickets knowing that they will have to be repatriated.

Question:

And with no return ticket, they go to the embassy?

Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, after that they come to the embassy. For this reason, I believe that the system we developed is much more convenient and comprehensive for dealing with the situations Russians get into when travelling abroad, and when we have to step in to help them through our foreign missions.

Question:

Mr Lavrov, thank you for your time. As a Georgian, I really have to ask this. Isn't it time to simplify the visa regime with Georgia? A second generation of Georgians has now grown up that has never seen Russia. What do you think?

Sergey Lavrov:

Georgians can travel to Russia – they just need to apply for a visa. The list of grounds for obtaining a visa has been expanded. There are practically no restrictions on visiting Russia, after obtaining a visa in the Interests Section for the Russian Federation in Tbilisi or another Russian overseas agency.

As for visa-free travel, as you know, we were ready for this a year ago. We were actually a few steps away from being ready to announce it when that incident happened with the Russian Federal Assembly delegation to the International Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy, where they were invited in the first place, seated in their chairs, and then violence was almost used against them.

I am confident that our relations with Georgia will recover and improve. We can see new Georgian politicians who are interested in this. For now, there are just small parties in the ruling elites. But I believe our traditional historical closeness, and the mutual affinity between our peoples will ultimately triumph. Provocateurs who are trying to prevent Georgia from resuming normal relations with Russia will be put to shame.

They are trying to use Georgia the same way as Ukraine. In Ukraine, the IMF plays a huge role. And the IMF recently decided that each tranche allocated to Ukraine would be short-term.

Question:

Microcredits.

Sergey Lavrov:

Microcredits and a short leash that can always be pulled a little.

They are trying to use Georgia the same way. We have no interest in seeing this situation continue. We did not start it and have never acted against the Georgian people. Everyone remembers the 2008 events, how American instructors arrived there and trained the Georgian army. The Americans were well aware of Mikheil Saakashvili’s lack of restraint. He trampled on all agreements and issued a criminal order.

We are talking about taking their word for it. There were many cases when we took their word for it, but then it all boiled down to zilch. In 2003, Colin Powell, a test tube – that was an academic version. An attack on Iraq followed. Many years later, Tony Blair admitted that there had been no nuclear weapons in Iraq. There were many such stories. In 1999, the aggression against Yugoslavia was triggered by the OSCE representative in the Balkans, US diplomat William Walker, who visited the village of Racak, where they found thirty corpses, and declared it genocide of the Albanian population. A special investigation by the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found they were military dressed in civilian clothes. But Mr Walker loudly declared it was genocide. Washington immediately seized on the idea, and so did London and other capitals. NATO launched an aggression against Yugoslavia.

After the end of the five-day military operation to enforce peace, the European Union ordered a special report from a group of invited experts, including Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini. She was later involved in the Minsk process, and then she was asked to lead a group of experts who investigated the outbreak of the military conflict in August 2008. The conclusion was unambiguous. All this happened on the orders of Mikheil Saakashvili, and as for his excuses that someone had provoked him, or someone had been waiting for him on the other side of the tunnel, this was just raving.

Georgians are a wise nation. They love life, perhaps the same way and the same facets that the peoples in the Russian Federation do. We will overcome the current abnormal situation and restore normal relations between our states and people.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340741

Alex Him · November 8th, 2020

Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Moscow, September 17, 2020

17 September 2020 - 19:41

Maria Zakharova (E)

Coronavirus update

Unfortunately, the coronavirus situation remains in the focus of all governments without exception, as well as healthcare agencies and scientific communities. The spread of the pathogen in certain countries and regions has not slowed down or become more predictable. The incidence curve continues to rise. Recently, the World Health Organisation reported another single-day record: over 308,000 new cases of infection. The total number of those infected since the beginning of the pandemic is about to surpass 30 million. The instances of repeated outbreaks of the disease in areas of relative epidemiological calm are alarming. Regrettably, they are becoming numerous.

This is why the development of a reliable, safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19 remains a priority, with no alternative, of the entire international community’s efforts. To date, scientists all over the world have developed about 180 vaccine candidates, with over 30 of them being at various trial stages. Russia is open for broad foreign cooperation with all interested parties in this sphere and ready to provide the necessary aid, which it proved by allowing access to its own innovations.

We welcome the call reiterated this week by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to revise the policy of unilateral sanctions and restrictions against certain states that have a catastrophic impact on their economic and humanitarian situation and undermine their ability to respond to the coronavirus in a timely and adequate manner.

Russia sends 3,000 tonnes of vitaminised flour to Tajikistan

On September 11 this year, Russia and the UN World Food Programme (WFP) sent 2,000 tonnes of vitaminised Russian-made flour to Tajikistan. Another 1,000 tonnes will arrive in the republic by the end of the month. This humanitarian shipment was delivered to Dushanbe as a Russian contribution to the WFP fund under the Memorandum signed between the Russian Emergencies Ministry and the WFP for 2020-2021. In 2020, Russia is allocating $5 million to Tajikistan for this purpose. The total volume of food aid from the Russian Federation to those in need in Tajikistan since 2005 has amounted to $82.5 million.

In addition, since 2012, the Russian Federation has allocated an additional $28.3 million for the implementation of WFP’s sustainable school meal programme in Tajikistan.

This is not an isolated effort. There are many acts of this nature. We will periodically inform you about them.

Assisting Russian citizens in returning home

....................................................................................................

The Russian Federation’s participation in the high-level week at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly

On 22-29 September, New York will become the venue for the high-level week at the 75th session of the UN General Assembly. This is the main international political event of the year for comprehensively reviewing topical modern problems that traditionally brings together the heads of state and government and foreign ministers.

At the same time, against the backdrop of the unending pandemic, the events will mostly be held online.

Considering the anniversary session, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin will head our country’s delegation, and he will deliver a video address on the first day of the event.

Despite the extraordinary circumstances, member states are in for a rather packed work schedule. Apart from general political discussions, a number of separate discussions on numerous highly important international matters are scheduled on the sidelines of the high-level week.

A high-level event marking the UN’s 75th anniversary will take place on September 21. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will address its participants on behalf of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation’s member states.

An event on the Yemeni humanitarian crisis is scheduled for September 23. As we have repeatedly noted, more frequent informal meetings on separate national matters at the UN General Assembly have little effect on the real situation in the relevant states.

A number of events will be devoted to healthcare. One such event that will deal with progress and multi-sectoral efforts to achieve global tuberculosis elimination goals, is scheduled for September 23.

Members of the UN Thematic Working Group on Noncommunicable Diseases will meet on September 24 and will discuss the Group’s cooperation with member states during the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and following the pandemic. Russian Minister of Healthcare Mikhail Murashko is expected to take part in both discussions.

Many other events are scheduled to be held.

On the whole, I would like to say that the current General Assembly is taking place when the world continues to accumulate an additional potential for conflicts, when specific divisions are becoming more pronounced, and when mutual mistrust continues to increase among states.

Fundamental international law norms, formalised in the UN Charter, are being seriously tested.

Some countries are making more and more active attempts to impose alternative non-consensus methods for resolving matters in circumvention of the UN. This is being done to reinstate their dominant positions that have been lost and to hamper the natural process of converting to genuine multipolarity. We realise that illegal unilateral measures are becoming more widespread, including coercive measures.

In this context, Russia will continue to advocate further efforts to strengthen the UN’s coordinating role in global politics and strict compliance with the UN Charter’s principles. We want to focus our efforts on consolidating the line to establish a multipolar international order, to advance a positive unifying agenda, to search for adequate answers to modern-day challenges and threats, to attain equal and indivisible security, while unconditionally respecting people’s sovereignty and right to independent development.

Certainly, we will inform you about the events of the UN General Assembly’s anniversary session and Russia’s participation. We will publish reports, video addresses made by Russian representatives and inform you about its work.

Mongolian Foreign Minister Nyamtseren Enkhtaivan’s visit to the Russian Federation

....................................................................................................

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in a videoconference of the Foreign Ministers of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia member states

....................................................................................................

Belarus update

We are closely monitoring the developments in Belarus, the opposition statements and the ongoing protests and events to support the current government. We hope for the soonest normalisation of the situation and the restoration of the constitutional order in the country.

Russia’s stance on the events in Belarus that followed the presidential election has not changed. This was confirmed by President Vladimir Putin during the meeting of the two countries’ leaders on September 14 in Sochi. We again reiterate and confirm that Alexander Lukashenko is the legitimately elected President whom President Vladimir Putin again congratulated on winning the election at the meeting in Sochi. We respect the choice of the fraternal Belarusian people. This equally applies to those who voted for the current President and for other candidates.

We advocate a peaceful settlement of the situation through an intra-Belarusian dialogue without any “prompts” or pressure from the outside. It is unacceptable to impose unilateral intermediary services and assistance.

We support the initiative of the Belarusian President to hold a constitutional reform in the country in order to liberalise the political system. We know that practical work is underway on this matter.

Work also has begun to implement the agreements reached at the Sochi summit, in particular, the provision of a $1.5 billion loan to Belarus. Belarus will be the first country to receive the Russian-made coronavirus vaccine. The issues of Russian energy deliveries will be worked out in a constructive manner. The relevant agencies engaged in restoring transport links between our countries have intensified their work, and so have intergovernmental commissions and industrial enterprises.

Preparations for another Forum of Russian and Belarusian Regions are also underway. The forum will take place on September 28-29 in Minsk. Contacts between the heads of Russian and Belarusian regions will be organised.

In this difficult time, Russia will continue to support the government and people of Belarus, a country that is our closest strategic ally.

Syria update

Despite successes in combating international terrorism in the long-suffering Syria, with the key role of Russian service personnel, the national situation remains far from stable.

Terrorist organisations Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham, the successor to Al-Nusra, and Hurras Al-Deen, a Syrian subsidiary of Al-Qaeda, have become entrenched in Idlib Governorate. Their activity is partly curtailed by the presence of Turkish service personnel in the Idlib zone and by joint Russian-Turkish patrols on the M-4 route between Saraqib and Jisr Al-Shughour. However, Ankara is delaying the fulfilment of its obligations under the Russian-Turkish memorandum, signed on March 5, 2020.

The authorities continue to eliminate surviving elements of ISIS gangs that regularly make themselves felt on both banks of the Euphrates River. Terrorists are making full use of enclaves within a 55-km radius around the illegal US base in Al-Tanf, as well as the zone of Washington’s so-called oil interests on the territories of Arab tribes beyond the Euphrates River. The legitimate Syrian authorities are so far unable to access these areas and to establish elementary law and order there.

The US-backed self-proclaimed “administration” of northeastern Syria, dominated by the local Kurds, is vacillating, which is fraught with dangerous consequences for the unity of Syria. On the one hand, its leaders emphatically deny accusations of separatism. On the other hand, they are playing dangerous games with the Americans, signing illegal contracts with them and pandering to the plunder of hydrocarbon resources beyond the Euphrates River. This is done at a time when the people of Syria sorely need these resources in order to resume the normal operation of the state’s energy sector.

At the same time, the situation in most Syrian regions, controlled by the legitimate government, is gradually normalising. The authorities are moving to overcome the dire consequences of the armed conflict. However, their potential has been considerably impaired by the disruption of the country’s territorial integrity and, of course, last but not the least, by the disruption of economic ties.

The tough unilateral anti-Syria sanction regimes, imposed by the United States and its allies, are also exerting their impact. At the same time, US restrictions, especially after the enactment of the so-called Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, far transcend the boundaries of US national jurisdiction and create barriers to international trade. In the political context, these measures hamper the Syrian peace settlement and the pace of the political process, including the work of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva. In the humanitarian context, they entail additional suffering for the people of Syria. Even amid the pandemic, Washington did not agree to any humanitarian exceptions and continued its line of economically “strangling” the entire Syrian state and its people.

On September 7, members of a high-ranking Russian delegation headed by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Damascus. They discussed bilateral coordination matters with the state’s leaders in great detail with the aim of promoting the political settlement in Syria, restoring national unity and overcoming the postwar economic ruin. Detailed material on this subject is posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website.

I would like to once again reaffirm that Russia is ready, based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254, to continue assisting the people of Syria in countering dangerous political and socio-economic challenges during the construction of an upgraded and modern Syria in the interests of all its citizens.

New exposure regarding civilian deaths during Dutch air strikes in Iraq in 2015

The Russian Foreign Ministry has already assessed the actions of Dutch service personnel in Hawija, Iraq, where over 70 civilians were killed in 2015 as a result of air strikes.

It turns out that The Netherlands were involved in another tragic incident. In September 2015, F-16 fighters of the Royal Netherlands Air Force hit two residential buildings in Mosul, mistaking them for an ISIS command post.

Dutch lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, who made this exposure, previously defended the rights of Hawija residents in suing the state of The Netherlands; and she is currently preparing another lawsuit against the Dutch Defence Ministry on behalf of Iraqi citizen Bassim Razzo, a top manager of the Mosul office of China’s Huawei Co., whose family was killed during the above-mentioned air strike.

After long arguments, the Dutch Defence Ministry admitted its responsibility and agreed to pay one million euros to the plaintiff. However, Mr Razzo requested the lawyer’s assistance after failing to receive the promised sum.

The air strikes on Hawija and Mosul highlight the Dutch Government’s strong reluctance to accept responsibility for civilian deaths, despite the indisputable facts and evidence concerning the actions of the Kingdom’s Armed Forces that border on war crimes. At the same time, the Dutch side shamelessly accuses Russia and, as they say, the Assad regime of inhuman behaviour and of deliberately destroying civilian facilities in Syria. This is yet another attempt to manipulate public opinion and a glaring manifestation of double standards.

Statements by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell on EU’s plans to develop a sanctions regime named after Alexey Navalny

The statements on the EU’s plans to create a global regime sanctioning human rights violations around the world and the intention to name it after Alexey Navalny were made during the EU Parliament’s plenary session on September 15.

We believe eroding the basic principles of international law and undermining the prerogatives of the UN Security Council through endless illegitimate unilateral sanctions imposed by Brussels and Washington to be unacceptable. This position is well known.

As for whether it would be advisable to name this sanctions regime after Alexey Navalny, we view this exclusively as an undisguised attempt to give a manifestly anti-Russia tonality to the new EU restrictions. At the same time, Berlin persists in brushing off our proposals to work together in order to get to the bottom of what happened, using clearly far-fetched pretexts.

Statements on this subject coming from Brussels suggest that truth is not what our Western partners are after. It seems that the actual goal of the information campaign promoted in the European Union at the initiative of certain political forces is to guarantee that the EU’s destructive policy towards Russia becomes irreversible.

We hope that common sense will prevail in the European Union and our partners will renounce the arbitrary practice of assigning blame and in the future will draw conclusions based on real and confirmed facts.

Calls by Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen to launch a new debate on Nord Stream 2 construction

The new attempt by the Danish authorities to hinder the construction of Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline is perplexing, to say the least.

I would like to point out that Nord Stream 2 construction is now in its final phase, with 90 percent of the work completed. On July 6, the Danish Energy Agency approved the application filed by Nord Stream 2 AG to use pipe-laying vessels with anchors in the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipelines in the country’s exclusive economic zone. It is noteworthy that the agency did not support the new ideas voiced by the country’s political leadership, saying that this approval cannot be revoked. Therefore, all the approvals needed to complete the construction, including from Denmark, have been obtained.

It is clear that in this case we are dealing with unfair competition. Washington is pushing its expensive liquefied natural gas to the European market to the detriment of European companies and consumers, while Denmark has been consistent in lobbying the US plans using various political pretexts as a disguise. We believe that Copenhagen’s unconstructive policy could have a negative effect on the spirit of our bilateral relations.

The intention of the Polish prosecutor’s office to initiate the arrest of Russian air traffic control officers

The Foreign Ministry, the media and the public have noted the statement by the National Public Prosecutor’s Office of Poland that it filed a lawsuit to arrest Russia air traffic control officers who were working at the Smolensk airport on April 10, 2010 at the time of the crash of the Polish presidential aircraft.

For several years now, Poland has been doggedly spinning a conspiracy theory about the tragedy as it seeks to re-investigate the plane crash in order to blame Russia, even though the Interstate Aviation Committee set out the causes in its report without any ambiguity back in 2011, and the Polish side accepted it: facing poor visibility, and contrary to the warnings from air traffic control officers, the Polish pilots decided to land the aircraft in the Smolensk airport, which was the cause of the crash. Years later, Warsaw ignores facts and has taken the situation to the point of absurdity, trying to score political points on the back of the tragedy and blame Russia.

This yet another absurd act by the Polish authorities is hardly surprising. Considering the rampant Rusophobia pervading the country, government agencies often engage in “political hit-jobs.” We call on our partners to put an end to this spectacle and stop harassing Russian air traffic control officers. All Warsaw’s attempts to secure their extradition will be in vain: under our Constitution, the Russian Federation cannot hand over its citizens to anyone under any circumstances.

Overall, my advice for those with strong nerves would be to read the transcript of the conversation between the pilots and the air traffic controllers available on the Interstate Aviation Committee’s website.

The Republic of Chile independence anniversary

....................................................................................................

Republic Day, the state holiday of South Ossetia

On September 20, the Republic of South Ossetia is celebrating Republic Day, a state holiday. Thirty years ago, members of the Soviet (Council) of People’s Deputies of the South Ossetian Autonomous Region passed the Declaration on National Sovereignty.

According to tradition, the Russian Federation’s leaders will send their greetings to the leaders of South Ossetia.

South Ossetia has gone along a difficult path towards asserting its statehood. On August 26, 2008, the Russian Federation made a landmark decision to recognise its independence. On September 9, 2008, both countries established diplomatic relations. On September 17, 2008, they signed the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. They also signed the Treaty on Allied Relations and Integration on March 18, 2015.

Over the years, the Republic has certainly asserted itself as a sovereign state. It has scored considerable successes in establishing a system of state-power agencies and facilitating economic development and that of the social sector. For example, this is proved by the repeated free expression of South Ossetian citizens’ will at multi-level elections under established democratic procedures, an almost 100-percent increase in their national GDP over the past six years and many other indicators. Many infrastructure facilities, including those destroyed during the Georgian aggression, as well as dozens of important social institutions, have been restored and built with Russian assistance.

Despite the restrictions in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, we are consistently implementing a large-scale investment programme to facilitate South Ossetia’s socio-economic development in 2020-2022.

The Russian Federation is helping South Ossetia to consolidate its foreign political positions and expand its international ties. We are confident that, apart from Russia, Abkhazia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Tuvalu and Syria that have recognised the Republic’s independence, the number of countries objectively assessing new geopolitical realities in the South Caucasus will continue to expand steadily.

The 60th Republic of Mali independence anniversary

....................................................................................................

Answers to media questions:

Question:

The UN Secretary-General urged Russia and the United States to agree, as soon as possible, on the extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires in February 2021, for another five years. Has there been any progress on this, or have contacts with the American side on this topic been interrupted? On what conditions is Russia ready to extend the Treaty, given that the State Department has already listed some of its conditions (no moratorium on the deployment of intermediate and shorter-range missiles in Europe or bringing China in)?

Maria Zakharova:

Russian officials have repeatedly stated our position on this issue. We have been in touch with the US side for a long time and have publicly supported the extension of the START Treaty. At the end of last year, a formal proposal was submitted to the United States to consider it as soon as possible. We are ready to extend the START Treaty in the same form it was signed and for a period provided for by its terms and conditions, which is five years, without any preconditions. So the ball is in the United States’ court right now.

We note with regret that the Americans are making attempts to peg the START extension on matters that have nothing to do with its scope or content. Such actions are unlikely to increase anyone’s optimism about the treaty’s future.

Question:

Armenia, pursuing a policy of illegal settlement in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, has been relocating Armenians from Lebanon to these lands. Last week, information circulated on social media about a Lebanese family moving to Shusha, a place of great historical and spiritual importance for the Azerbaijani people. Pursuing a policy of illegal settlement, Armenia is trying to change the demographic situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. The illegal settlement policy is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions. According to the Fourth Geneva Convention (Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War), the occupying state must not relocate its civilian population to the occupied territories. How can the Russian Foreign Ministry comment on this fact?

Maria Zakharova:

We have heard about the intention of the de facto authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh to relocate the Armenians leaving Lebanon to the territories they control. We have read a report about two Lebanese families interested in moving to Nagorno-Karabakh. We have no verified data on the actual influx of Lebanese refugees into Nagorno-Karabakh or the territory around it.

It is our belief that right now, we need to concentrate on resuming the negotiation process aimed at resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issues, including the problem of refugees and displaced persons in the region. On September 14, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs held consultations by telephone with the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia and conveyed to them the mediators’ proposals on further steps in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, including holding separate meetings with each of the ministers as a starting point. We are hoping for a positive response from the parties.

Question:

Pakistani Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organisation conference last week. What are the chances of advancing bilateral relations and what are the key points of the agreement reached between Pakistan and Russia? Is there effective bilateral cooperation on the situation in Kashmir and Afghanistan?

Maria Zakharova:

We gave a detailed commentary on the current state of Russian-Pakistani relations during the briefing on August 13. The points made in that statement remain relevant. However, a number of important developments have taken place since then.

On September 10, Sergey Lavrov and Pakistani Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi met on the sidelines of the SCO Ministerial Council meeting, a second meeting over the past two years (the last time they met was in December 2018 in Moscow). The parties again substantively discussed the outlook for Russian-Pakistani partnership, especially in the political, antiterrorist and trade and economic spheres. An agreement was reached to continue targeted work to bring our relations up to a qualitatively new level. First of all, we agreed to make every effort to advance our flagship project – the planned North-South Gas Pipeline from Karachi to Lahore – toward implementation as soon as possible.

The ministers also touched upon current issues on the international agenda, primarily the situation in Afghanistan. In this context, I would like to note that it was precisely the coordinated partner interaction between the key players, including Russia and Pakistan, that made it possible to actually start the direct intra-Afghan peace talks in Doha.

Question:

Mike Pompeo has visited Cyprus after Sergey Lavrov and openly demanded that the country stop admitting Russian warships to its local ports. He also linked Russia’s activities in Cyprus with money-laundering operations. How can you comment on these demands?

Maria Zakharova:

It would be better if you asked your question to those voicing such demands and to those to whom such demands are addressed. We believe that, first of all, the United States should not interfere in our bilateral relations with Cyprus and secondly, we have always said and continue to say that our cooperation with any country is never directed against the interests of any third country. We would advise Washington to also adhere to this principle.

Question:

The Greek Government has announced its decision to open the country’s borders for a certain number of visitors from Russia on September 7-21 and to revise this deadline later on. This deadline has virtually expired without any reply from the Russian Federation’s official authorities to the Greek inquiries. Is Russia’s “silence” linked with its overall position on EU countries, as regards the opening of borders, or, does this reflect the low level of cooperation between Athens and Moscow?

Maria Zakharova:

It goes without saying that the level of our relations with Athens cannot be called low. We cannot agree with this interpretation of the question. Specialised agencies are drafting our measures on this score. Of course, we have no choice but to heed the constantly changing global epidemiological situation which is not getting any better.

Question:

How can you comment on the media reports about the illegal crossing of the border with Estonia by Alexander Litreyev, a business manager whose activities are being investigated by the Russian authorities, with the alleged assistance from the Consulate General of the Republic of Estonia in St Petersburg?

Maria Zakharova:

In his interview to Radio Liberty, Alexander Litreyev noted that he had left Russia for Estonia as far back as May, despite the absence of documents confiscated under a criminal case, opened against him. According to Mr Litreyev, officials of the Estonian diplomatic mission helped him safely cross the border.

Margus Laidre, the Estonian Ambassador to the Russian Federation, was invited to the Foreign Ministry the other day. The Russian party demanded explanations on this matter from the Estonian party.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340834

Alex Him · November 10th, 2020

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the situation surrounding Alexey Navalny

17 September 2020 - 20:00

We have taken note of the controversy arising at the instigation of Berlin, Paris, Stockholm and, perhaps, Washington, as the main “keeper” of Euro-Atlantic “solidarity,” the controversy over the requests by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office and the Foreign Ministry regarding the findings about the alleged poisoning of Alexey Navalny with an agent from the Novichok group, which were made by the OPCW-certified laboratories in Germany, France and Sweden.

We get a negative impression from the Federal Republic of Germany’s refusal to assist the Russian law enforcement bodies and its secret transfer of Navalny's biomaterials to its trusted partners. Clearly, this was done for political reasons so that Paris and Stockholm could automatically confirm Berlin's unfounded accusations against Russia.

Today, it is hard not to recall the events of 2018 when Sweden, at the high point of a drawn-out hysteria in the West concerning the Skripal case, assured us that the research lab at the Defence Research Agency in the Swedish town of Umea, which has now allegedly confirmed Mr Navalny’s poisoning, did not have and could not have any Novichok samples. In fact, as it turned out, the Swedish specialists were competent enough to determine “with 100 percent accuracy” the presence of this toxic agent in the Russian blogger’s biomaterials. Asa Scott, a representative of this institute, told Spiegel that they can “unequivocally confirm that Mr Navalny's samples contained a neurotoxin from the Novichok group. Neurotoxins from the Novichok group are highly toxic. One drop can kill.”

Importantly, throughout the past week, the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s official representatives shrugged their shoulders in response to our questions saying the OPCW was in no way involved in this Navalny affair. Meanwhile, the Franco-Anglo-Saxon functionaries who dominate the Technical Secretariat carried out an entire covert “operation” to collect additional biomaterial from Navalny, which was submitted for analysis to two more designated OPCW laboratories. We will not be surprised if these end up being the Swiss Spiez and British Porton Down laboratories which featured prominently in the Skripal case.

Regrettably, we have to state that the Western countries have crossed all the lines and turned the once authoritative OPCW into a dirty tool for pursuing their destructive designs.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340852

Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias

17 September 2020 - 20:28

On September 17, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Greece Nikos Dendias.

The ministers discussed current issues of bilateral cooperation with an emphasis on the events of the Russian-Greek Cross Year of Language and Literature that is about to end and preparations for the Russian-Greek Cross Year of History planned for 2021. Upcoming political contacts were also discussed.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340862

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Sputnik News Agency, September 18, 2020

18 September 2020 - 11:00

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Question:

I would like to begin this conversation with Russia-US relations. If I may, my question will be on the upcoming elections in the United States in less than two months. The American elite, regardless of party affiliation, often talks about the exceptional role of their country as an absolute global leader. To what extent does this domestic agenda affect the US foreign policy, its relations with its allies and partners, including its relations with Russia? In your opinion, how does the principle of American exceptionalism affect international processes?

Sergey Lavrov:

Overall, I think that everyone has already drawn their conclusions. I am referring to those who keep a close eye on the political struggle within the country, or have a professional duty to do so. Positions adopted by the republicans and the democrats have always been rooted in this political struggle. What we are witnessing today is not an exception. What matters the most is to have as many arguments as possible to outperform the competition in the media space, in rhetoric and controversies. The candidates of the Democratic and the Republic parties will soon face off in debates. The “Russian issue,” the question of Russia’s “meddling” in US internal affairs (this has become a cliche) are already at the top of the agenda. Truth be told, over the past couple of weeks or probably months we have been sidelined by the People’s Republic of China, which now proudly tops the list of America’s adversaries intent on doing everything to wreak havoc on the United States.

We have got used to this over the past years. It did not start with the current administration, but during Barack Obama’s presidency. It was he who said, including in public that the Russian leadership was intentionally seeking to damage relations between Moscow and Washington. He also said that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. He also used this as a pretext for imposing sanctions that were totally unprecedented, including seizing Russian property in the United States in what amounted to a hostile takeover, and expelling dozens of Russian diplomats together with their families, and many other actions.

Both democrats and the republicans share the idea of American exceptionalism, as do all other political forces in the United States, as far as I can see. What can I say? We have said on numerous occasions that history has already witnessed attempts to pose as the ruler of destinies for the entire humanity, pretending to be without sin or fault, and to understand everything better than others. They did not yield any positive results.

We reaffirm our approach which by the way applies to all countries and their domestic policy: this is an internal affair of the United States. It is sad that its domestic policy is imbued with so much rhetoric that fails to reflect the actual state of affairs on the international stage. It is also a pity that those who contradict the US representatives on the international stage are faced with illegal sanctions for the sake of wining as many points as possible in electoral races, which is done without hesitation or scruple. Unfortunately, this “instinct” for sanctions in the current administration (although Barack Obama was also active on this front) is spilling over into the European continent with the European Union using the sanctions “stick” more and more.

The conclusion is quite simple: we will work with any government elected in any country. This also applies to the United States. However, we will discuss all the questions in which Washington is interested only based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and commitment to respecting a balance of interests. Presenting ultimatums is pointless. If someone still fails to understand this, they are not fit to be politicians.

Question:

You mentioned the sanctions pressure. In many cases, it’s not the political circles, but the mass media that are behind it. This happens fairly often in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe. The US media accused Russia of colluding with the Taliban and targeting the US military in Afghanistan. The British Foreign Office argued that Russia “highly likely” interfered in the 2019 parliamentary elections. This week, the EU countries are discussing another package of sanctions against Russia in connection with the alleged violations of human rights. Is there any chance that this approach and this policy of demonising Moscow will somehow change or, on the contrary, will intensify?

Sergey Lavrov:

So far, we have not seen any indications that this policy will change. Unfortunately, the “sanctions itch” keeps intensifying. Here are recent examples. They want to punish us for the developments in Belarus and the incident involving Alexey Navalny, but vehemently refuse to fulfill their obligations under the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters or to respond to official inquiries filed by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office. These are completely contrived pretexts. Germany says it can’t tell us anything and suggests that we go to the OPCW. We went there several times. They told us to go to Berlin. We’ve been there and done that already. There is an idiomatic expression: “Ivan passes the buck to Peter, and Peter passes the buck to Ivan.” This is about how our Western, if I may say so, partners are responding to our legal approaches. They vocally declare that the fact of poisoning has been established and no one except Russia could have done it, so we must admit our guilt. We saw that already with the Skripals.

I’m sure that if it were not for the current situation with Navalny, they would have come up with something else. At this point, everything serves the purpose of undermining relations between Russia and the EU as much as possible. There are EU countries that understand this, but they still stick to the consensus and “solidarity” principle. The countries that are part of the aggressive Russophobic minority are grossly abusing this principle.

As I understand from the report by President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, the EU is discussing a possibility of making decisions on certain issues by voting rather than consensus. It will be interesting to see this, because then we will know who is in favour of abusing international law, and who is conducting a thoughtful and balanced policy based on pragmatism and realism.

You mentioned that we were accused of establishing relations with the Taliban in order to encourage them to carry out special operations against US troops for financial reward. The Taliban is fighting for its own interests and beliefs. I think that suspecting us of carrying out this kind of actions (purely bandit-like) is beneath even the US officials. By the way, the Pentagon had to refute this kind of lies as it failed to find anything that would back them up. The Taliban said this is absolutely not true.

In the age of social media, disinformation and fake news, it suffices to let out any made-up piece of information into the media, and no one will ever read refutations later. The wide media coverage produced by this kind of, if I may put it that way, “sensations” is what the people behind them look forward to happening.

We have told the Americans and the British many times: if you have any complaints, let us sit down and have a professional fact-based diplomatic dialogue. Since most of the interference-related complaints are about the cyberspace, we are accused of almost state hacking and breaking into every conceivable and inconceivable life support systems of our Western colleagues. We proposed resuming the all-encompassing international information security dialogue and stated that we would be willing to consider mutual concerns. We have registered quite a few instances that allow us to suspect the interference of Western hackers in our vital resources. What we got in response was a vehement “no”. Do you know what their excuse is? “You invite us to conduct a dialogue on cybersecurity, the very area that you use to interfere in our internal affairs.” It’s about the same approach as with Mr Navalny. And the same arguments: “What, you don’t believe us?”

When Rex Tillerson was US Secretary of State, he publicly stated that they had “irrefutable evidence” of Russia’s interference in the US elections. I took the trouble of asking him to share the irrefutable evidence with me, since we are interested in sorting it out, because it is absolutely not in our interests to have aspersions cast on us. Do you know what he told me? He said: “Sergey, I won’t give you anything. Your special services, which are behind this, know everything perfectly well. Talk to them, they should be able to tell you everything.” That was all he had to tell me on a topic that has become almost the most important one in relations between our countries.

We are convinced that at some point they will have to answer specific questions and present the facts concerning this situation, the situation with Navalny and the poisoning in Salisbury. I have a point to make about Salisbury. When this situation was unfolding two years ago, Russia was tagged as the “sole manufacturer” of Novichok. We backed up our position with the facts from the public domain which indicated that several Western countries were developing Novichok family agents. Some of them were patented in the United States. There are dozens of patents for the combat use of agents from this group. We mentioned Sweden among the countries which carried out this kind of work. Two years ago the Swedes told us not to mention them among these countries, since they had never been involved in the Novichok- related work. Now, as you are aware, Sweden, in addition to France, was one of the two countries which the Germans asked to validate their findings. They said they confirm the Bundeswehr laboratory’s finding that it was Novichok. However, two years ago Sweden didn’t have the competence to figure out whether it was Novichok or not. Two years later, such competence appeared meaning that something had happened. If something had happened that made Sweden competent in these matters, perhaps, this should be looked at as a potential gross violation of the CWC.

We are open to talking with anyone, but we don’t want to be forced to apologise without facts. We remain open to a professional conversation based on specific and clearly articulated concerns.

Question:

In addition to disagreements with our Western partners regarding current developments, there are interpretations of history which we refuse to share with them. The widespread protests and demonstrations in the United States have led to more radical developments. In fact, a sizable portion of the US and world history and culture has come under revision. Monuments are being desecrated. Descriptions of events are changing. Such attempts were made and continue to be made regarding WWII and the role of the Soviet Union in it. What can the attempts to revise history eventually mean for the United States? What might the global implications be?

Sergey Lavrov:

You are absolutely right. We are worried about what is now going on with regard to world history and the history of Europe. Truth be told, we are witnessing an aggression against history aimed at revising the modern foundations of international law that were formed in the wake of World War II in the form of the UN and the principles of its Charter. There are attempts to undermine these very foundations. They are primarily using arguments that represent an attempt to equate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany, aggressors who wanted to enslave Europe and turn the majority of the peoples on our continent into slaves with those who overcame the aggressors. We are being insulted by outright accusations that the Soviet Union is more culpable for unleashing WWII than Nazi Germany. At the same time, the factual side of the matter, such as how it all began in 1938, the policy of appeasing Hitler by the Western powers, primarily France and Great Britain, is thoroughly swept under the rug.

There’s no need to talk a lot about this, as much has already been said. In a generalised form, the well-known article written by President Putin contains our key arguments. Based on documentation, it convincingly reveals the senseless, counterproductive and destructive nature of attempts to undermine the outcome of WWII.

By the way, the overwhelming majority of the international community supports us. Every year, at the UN General Assembly sessions, we introduce a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism. Only two countries vote against it, namely, the United States and Ukraine. Unfortunately, the EU abstains, because, as they tell us, the Baltic states don’t want them to support this resolution. As the saying goes, a guilty mind is never at ease. This resolution does not mention any country or government. It’s just that the entire international community is encouraged not to allow any attempts to glorify Nazism and not to allow the destruction of monuments, etc. That’s all there is to it. But this means that the countries that demand that the EU not support this absolutely obvious and straightforward resolution, with no strings attached, feel that they cannot subscribe to these principles. In fact, this is what’s happening. We see the SS troop marches and the destruction of monuments. Primarily, our neighbours in Poland are involved in this. In the Czech Republic, similar processes are underway. This is unacceptable. In addition to the fact that this undermines the outcome of World War II enshrined in the UN Charter, it also grossly violates bilateral treaties with these and other countries that focus on protecting and maintaining military burial sites and monuments in Europe in memory of WWII victims and the heroes who liberated the respective countries.

Importantly, those who oppose our policy of cutting short the glorification of Nazism tend to bring up the issue of human rights. They claim that freedom of thought and expression that exists in the United States and other Western countries is not subject to any kind of censorship. So, if this freedom of thought and speech is limited by the unacceptability of glorifying Nazism, this will violate those laws. But let’s be straight about this: what we are now seeing in the United States probably has something to do with what we are saying about the unacceptability of revising the outcome of World War II. Rampant racism is clearly part of American life and there are political forces that are trying to stoke the racist sentiment and use it in their political interests. We see this happen almost daily.

You mentioned other history-related matters that fell prey to fleeting political interests. On the spur of the moment, those in the United States who want to destroy their own history and dismantle monuments to the Confederates because they were slave owners, had the monument to the first governor of Alaska, Alexander Baranov, in Sitka which enjoyed the respect of the local residents and guests visiting Alaska, removed from the town square. True, we heard the Governor of Alaska and the Sitka city officials say the monument would not be destroyed. It will be relocated, as we were assured, to a historical museum. If this happens as promised, I think we will appreciate Sitka’s approach to our common history. I hope that the monument to Alexander Baranov in the historical museum will make it possible to hold a special additional exhibit about the history of Russian America.

Question:

President of France Emmanuel Macron has been in power for three years. His first official invitation to the head of a foreign state was addressed to President of Russia Vladimir Putin with a view to improving bilateral relations. Can you tell us what real changes have taken place in diplomatic relations with France since then? Was the September 16 meeting in Paris postponed because of Alexey Navalny?

Sergey Lavrov:

To begin with, France is one of our key partners. We have long described our cooperation as a strategic partnership. Immediately after his election, President Macron sent an invitation to the President of Russia, which was one of his first foreign policy steps. Following this visit in May 2017, the leaders of the two countries confirmed in Versailles their striving to promote a partnership, including in bilateral cooperation, international relations, and regarding the regional and global agendas. Following this summit in Versailles, the two countries established a forum of civil societies under the name of Trianon Dialogue that has seen success up to this day, although personal meetings are not being held now because of coronavirus restrictions.

Since then President Macron has visited Russia and President Putin has been to France. Their latest meeting took place in August 2019 when President Putin visited the Fort de Bregancon for talks with President Macron. They had a very productive, trustworthy and serious discussion on the need for strategic relations that will be aimed at addressing the key issues of our time, primarily, of course, in Europe and the Euro-Atlantic Region, and enhancing security there. During that meeting the presidents agreed to create diverse mechanisms for cooperation between their foreign and defence ministries. The 2+2 format was resumed (it was created long ago but it had been suspended). A regular meeting for strategic dialogue was held in Moscow in September 2019.

Apart from the 2+2 format, the sides decided to discuss strategic stability issues at the level of presidential foreign policy assistants. President Putin and President Macron approved over 10 working groups in different areas linked with cooperation on strategic stability, arms control, and WMD non-proliferation, to name a few. Most of these mechanisms are functioning and are aimed at making joint initiatives on stabilising relations in Europe and normalising the current abnormal situation where dividing lines are deepening and NATO is building up its military infrastructure in its new member states, which violates the Russia-NATO Founding Act that was signed way back in 1997 and was considered a foundation for cooperation.

There are many alarming trends. One of the manifestations of these destabilising factors is the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty and the US officially declared intention to deploy intermediate and shorter range missiles not only in Asia but also, judging by what we see, in Europe. At any rate, the missile defence systems deployed in Romania and which are currently being deployed in Poland, can well be used for launching antimissiles not only for defensive but also for offensive purposes. They can be used to launch attack cruise missiles. This was banned by the INF Treaty but now that the treaty is gone, the Americans have a free hand.

Almost a year ago (soon we’ll mark the anniversary of this message) President Putin addressed all leaders of the European countries, the US, Canada and a number of other countries. Since the Americans destroyed the INF Treaty he suggested announcing a voluntary, reciprocal moratorium on the attack weapons banned by the INF Treaty instead of fueling an arms race. None of these leaders except President Macron replied to this message. We appreciated his attitude. It made it clear that the French leader was sincerely interested is using any opportunity for dialogue with Russia. Without this dialogue it is impossible to ensure security in Europe. This idea is being more openly accepted. So we really planned meetings in the 2+2 format but due to reasons that we could probably only guess at, a regular meeting of our foreign and defence ministers was postponed to a later date. Our French colleagues said they simply had to revise a bit the schedule for our meetings. I won’t speak about the reasons but the current general atmosphere and the general attitude that is being fueled by the EU with respect to Russia, certainly impact the schedule for our meetings. Nevertheless, recently we had consultations on a number of important issues: on countering terrorism and enhancing cyber-security. All this conforms to the plans approved by presidents Putin and Macron.

Question:

Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich noted recently that the situation around Sputnik has not improved in France. Our journalists are still denied access to events at the Elysée Palace. What possible ways to settle this problem are being considered? Have you discuss this with the French side?

Sergey Lavrov:

Yes, we did discuss it. We believe it is unacceptable that Sputnik and RT correspondents are subjected to open discrimination in France. It is a fact that there is anti-Sputnik bigotry in the Baltics as well. It is certainly regrettable that RT and Sputnik have been denied accreditation at the Elysée Palace for the past few years, or more precisely, since 2017.

It is even more surprising that our French colleagues have refused to cancel their decision despite a declared commitment to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (we see that fraternité is now being complemented with sororité). They deny accreditation to RT and Sputnik allegedly because they are not media outlets but propaganda tools. I don’t think it is necessary to comment on the absurd and ridiculous nature of these allegations, because RT and Sputnik are hugely popular in more and more countries. Their audiences are growing; I have seen the statistics. I can assume that this attitude is yet further proof that those who used to dominate the global information market are afraid of competition.

We have raised these questions, and not just with the French, demanding that they stop discriminating against media outlets registered in Russia. They argue that there is such a thing as state funding. But some “beacons of democracy” such as Radio Liberty and BBC are financed by the government as well. However, no restrictions are placed on them, including online where censorship is being openly introduced. Google, YouTube and Facebook clearly take decisions under pressure from the US authorities, which are discriminating against Russian media outlets by hindering the placement of their materials on these resources. We have raised this question not only at the bilateral level, but also at the OSCE and its Media Freedom Representative, Harlem Désir, at UNESCO, one of whose responsibilities is to uphold freedom of the media and of expression, and at the Council of Europe.

In the early 1990s, a period of perestroika and the development of a new political reality in Russia, we opened up to the world, as it was described then, and our Western partners advocated the adoption of OSCE decisions on free access to any information based on both domestic and foreign sources. This was clearly designed to reinforce the opening-up trend in Russia. When we remind our Western partners about these decisions and demand respect for the free of access to information, including information from RT and Sputnik in France, they avoid confirming the decisions that were adopted at their initiative 30 years ago. Double standards and hypocrisy – regrettably, this is how we can describe their stand. The next OSCE Ministerial Council meeting is scheduled for December. These questions will be on the agenda, and our Western colleagues will have to answer them.

Question:

Over 90 cooperation contracts were signed with African countries at the Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi. How fast can Russia resume the implementation of these agreements when the pandemic is over? Which of them have priority importance and in which African countries?

Sergey Lavrov:

We did not take any time off after the Russia-Africa Summit held in Sochi in October 2019, which was an obvious success for our foreign policy, as all our African guests openly noted. The pandemic changed the format of communication, but we continue working remotely. This is quite possible in foreign policy and diplomacy.

Vladimir Putin has had many telephone conversations with African leaders, including the presidents of South Africa, Congo and Ethiopia. There have been videoconferences between the foreign ministers of Russia and the current, former, and future African Union chairpersons (South Africa, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). We have created a special secretariat of the Russia-Africa Forum at the ministry (the decision to establish the forum was adopted in Sochi). The secretariat is fully manned now.

In fact, yesterday I had a meeting with the head of a subregional African organisation, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD). The former foreign minister of Ethiopia, Dr Workneh Gebeyehu, is the Executive Secretary of IGAD. We discussed concrete plans for Russia-IGAD cooperation. We also have similar cooperation plans with the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and other organisations in addition to the pan-African organisation, the African Union. These plans include consultations on issues of priority importance for Africa, namely, conflict settlement, joint events in culture and education, the further development of economic cooperation, support by foreign policy missions to the operation of Russian companies in Africa and their African partners. We have many plans, and our African colleagues really appreciate our efforts.

During the pandemic, we have helped dozens of African countries by supplying them with test kits, PPE and medicines, and this cooperation is ongoing. African countries, just as our partners in Asia and Latin America, have shown interest in the production of the Sputnik V vaccine in their countries. The concerned Russian agencies are choosing the potential candidates for this, because it is clear that the world will need a huge amount of the vaccine.

We can report positive experiences in Guinea and Sierra Leone. When Ebola was raging there, Russian doctors deployed mobile clinics and launched the production of the Ebola vaccine in Guinea. That experience largely helped our doctors create a COVID-19 vaccine so fast, because they used the platform of the vaccine created for the Ebola virus.

We have very good plans. We have agreed to increase the number of scholarships for African students. As for economic collaboration, several weeks ago we established the Association of Economic Cooperation with African States. We will be implementing all these plans even more actively when the coronavirus restrictions are lifted. So far, we are mostly working via videoconference.

Question:

What do you think about the US Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act which affected not only Syria, but Damascus’ closest partners as well? What else can be done to improve the humanitarian plight in that country, which is caused by the dire economic circumstances?

Sergey Lavrov:

As you said, this plan, the Caesar Act, calls for, by and large, the imposition of sanctions, which they would like to use as a chokehold on the Syrian leaders. In fact, these sanctions, like the previous packages (there have been quite a few from both the United States and the EU as well as a number of other Washington’s allies), affect primarily ordinary Syrians. The other day, the UN Security Council in New York discussed the humanitarian situation in Syria. Our Western colleagues defended their innocence with much zeal and ardour, stating that the sanctions were aimed solely at limiting the actions and capabilities of the officials and representatives, as they say, of the “regime,” and that ordinary people are not affected, because the sanctions decisions provide for humanitarian exceptions for medical supplies, food and other essential items. This is not true, because no supplies from the countries that have imposed sanctions with existing sanction exemptions for such products are being delivered to Syria, perhaps with the exception of a few small shipments. Syria mainly trades with Russia, Iran, China and several Arab countries.

The number of the countries that are aware of the need to overcome the current abnormal situation and resume relations with Syria is increasing. More countries, including Gulf countries, are reopening their embassies in Syria. An increasing number of countries are realising that continuing the stifling sanctions has become absolutely unacceptable from a human rights perspective. These sanctions are unilateral and illegal.

The other day, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres reiterated the appeal he first made six months ago to the countries that imposed unilateral sanctions against developing economies to suspend the sanctions at least while the pandemic lasts. The West turned a deaf ear to this appeal, even though the overwhelming majority of UN member states supported it. We will seek further condemnation of this practice. The UN adopts special resolutions that declare unilateral sanctions illegitimate and illegal. It reiterates that only UN Security Council sanctions, which are the only legal instrument based on international law, should be respected.

We are working on the Syrian settlement as part of the Astana format with our Turkish and Iranian partners. Recently, in conjunction with Deputy Prime Minister Yury Borisov, we visited Damascus. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his ministers renewed their commitment to implementing the agreements reached at the initiative of the Astana troika between the Syrian government and the opposition. The Constitutional Committee has resumed its work in Geneva, and its editorial commission had a meeting. The parties are starting to agree on common approaches to Syria’s future, which will be followed by work on constitutional reform.

The space controlled by the terrorists in certain areas is gradually shrinking as well, primarily in the de-escalation zone in Idlib. Russian-Turkish agreements, including on the need to separate normal oppositionists who are open to a dialogue with the government from the terrorists who have been recognised as such by the UN Security Council, are being gradually implemented, although not as quickly as we would like. Our Turkish colleagues are committed to them, and we are working with them.

We are concerned about the situation on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River where the illegally stationed US troops clearly encourage the Kurds’ separatist longings. To our great regret, they are pitting the Kurds against the government thus holding back the Kurds’ natural desire to start a dialogue with Damascus.

Of course, this raises concerns both from the point of view of Syria’s territorial integrity and from the point of view of the explosiveness that US actions are creating around the Kurdish problem. As you may be aware, this is important not only for Syria, but also for Iraq, Turkey and Iran. This is a dangerous game in this region. The Americans habitually take this course of action to create chaos that they hope will be manageable. They live far from there and they do not really care. But the consequences for the region can be disastrous if they continue to promote separatism.

Recently, the decisions of this illegal US group in eastern Syria were announced. In conjunction with the Kurdish leaders, it signed an agreement allowing a US oil company to extract hydrocarbons in the sovereign Syrian state. This is a gross violation of all conceivable principles of international law.

Syria is facing many problems. Nevertheless, the situation has substantially stabilised compared to what it was a few years ago. The Astana format and the initiatives that we implemented played a decisive role in this process. Now, the agenda includes finding solutions to acute humanitarian problems and rebuilding the economy that was devastated by the war. We are maintaining a dialogue with other countries, including China, Iran, India, and the Arab states, in these areas. We believe that the priority steps should involve UN agencies in the activities aimed at humanitarian assistance to Syria. The next step should include mobilisation of international assistance in rebuilding the economy and the infrastructure destroyed by the war. This is a lot of work, but at least it is clear in which directions we should be moving.

Question:

What are the current prospects for Russia’s cooperation with Persian Gulf countries? Does Russia have any high-priority countries in this sub-region? Does Russia consider it possible to resort to mediatory services for resolving the Qatar crisis that has been dragging on for over three years?

Sergey Lavrov:

I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say that of all the countries now maintaining relations with the countries in this region, we were the first to compile a long-term plan for stability and neighbourly development in the Persian Gulf.

Back in the 1990s, Russia suggested a concept for security and cooperation in the Persian Gulf. The concept has been updated several times since then, and a renewed version was completed last year. In September 2019, we held an expert discussion of this concept. The discussion involved scientists and the expert community from Russia and the Persian Gulf countries, including the Arab countries and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The concept suggests using the experience of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe at the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation had a complicated relationship with the Western bloc, NATO. Nevertheless, a comprehension of the need for coexistence induced all countries in the Euro-Atlantic region, including Europe, the United States and Canada, to meet and work out trust-based rules of conduct. This included special confidence-building and transparency measures. The mechanisms set forth under this conference made it possible to consider any issues being raised by any party.

We suggested that the same principles form the basis for cooperation under the concept for security in the Persian Gulf. We presented it to the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), specifically the six Middle East monarchies, and to our Iranian colleagues. A number of GCC members expressed an interest in discussing it. Some of them took some time to study it in greater detail. The dialogue is underway. Discussions at the academic community level helped to advance these initiatives. The trouble is that the current US administration has been demonising Iran for the past few years. Iran has been labeled the main problem of the entire Persian Gulf region and other regions of the world where it is accused, one way or another, of interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries.

The United States is trying to refocus the entire dialogue on the Middle East and North Africa on an anti-Iranian track. There is no future in this because it is only possible to address problems in a stable and reliable manner through agreements between all the participants, and the entire logic of US policy hinges on the assumption that Iran should become the focus of all efforts to contain and punish the country, and that only a regime change will, at long last, allow the entire region to breathe a sigh of relief. This approach can only lead to a dead-end. The sanctions with which they are trying to strangle Iran have never worked; nor will they work today. Iran has repeatedly expressed interest in a dialogue, and this interest is still there. However, a dialogue cannot be based on the ultimatums that regularly come from the US.

We will be ready to facilitate the beginning of this dialogue. Together with European countries and the People’s Republic of China, we support the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme, which was approved by the UN Security Council in 2015. But the United States continues to undermine this plan under its policy of demonising Iran in every way possible.

Discussions are now underway at the UN Security Council. Thirteen of 15 countries have emphatically opposed the attempts to discard the JCPOA and to blame the Islamic Republic of Iran for these developments.

You mentioned disagreements within the GCC where some countries from this organisation and our colleagues from the Arab Republic of Egypt confronted Qatar some time ago. We are ready to offer mediatory services in any conflict matter, if all the parties ask us to. We have not received any such requests so far. We maintain good relations with all countries without exception, including with all the GCC members.

I know that the US administration is trying to reconcile the antagonists and to persuade Saudi Arabia, its closest partners, to establish contacts and to mend relations with Qatar. We wish success to any efforts aiming to consolidate countries, rather than disunite them and create lines of division. I repeat, we will be ready to help if they ask, and if all the countries involved are interested in this.

Question:

The Russian Embassy in Libya resumed its work several weeks ago. Could it become, to a certain extent, a venue for dialogue between the Libyan National Army and the Government of National Accord?

Sergey Lavrov:

Our Embassy is still working from Tunis. I hope it will soon return to Tripoli, as soon as elementary security is ensured there. Some embassies continue working as before, but security is fairly fragile. This is why it was decided that our diplomats would work from Tunis for the time being.

As for the mediation between the main protagonists in Libya – the Libyan National Army and the Government of National Accord, the Embassy is certainly in touch with all Libyan sides, but this issue is much broader. Moscow is actively building bridges between the conflicting parties. Russia’s foreign and defence ministries are trying to facilitate practical steps on coordinating compromise solutions that will make it possible to settle the Libyan crisis. This work is not easy. All the problems that Libya is experiencing now began in 2011, when NATO carried out direct military aggression in Libya to overthrow the Muammar Gaddafi regime, in gross violation of the UN Security Council resolution. He was brutally murdered, which was welcomed with acclaim and cheers from then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This was shown on the air with some kind of pride. It was creepy. Since then we and all the neighbours of Libya that want to restore it as a state, which was destroyed by NATO, have been trying to launch an international process. There were many attempts to do this. There were conferences in Paris, Palermo and Abu Dhabi, as well as the 2015 Skhirat agreement.

For a long time, most external players tried to cooperate with just one political force on which they placed their bets. We renounced this approach from the very start, and, considering our contacts and historical ties, we began working with all political forces of Libya: Tripoli, which hosts the Presidential Council and the Government of National Accord, and Tobruk, where the House of Representatives is located. All the leaders of different groups visited the Russian Federation more than once. We tried to arrange personal meetings between the Commander of the Libyan National Army, Khalifa Haftar, and the Head of the Government of National Accord, Fayez al-Sarraj. We welcomed them in Moscow on the eve of the Berlin conference in the beginning of this year. Largely owing to these efforts that we made in cooperation with our colleagues from Turkey, Egypt and the UAE, we managed to draft proposals that made a substantial contribution to the success of the Berlin conference on Libya, which our German colleagues prepared for several months. An important declaration that was later approved by the UN Security Council was adopted at this conference.

Regrettably, at that stage little attention was paid to the Libyan parties’ endorsement of the ideas suggested by the international community. Some of our partners believed that as soon as the international community represented by the UN Security Council and the Berlin conference on Libya made certain decisions, it would only remain to persuade the Libyan protagonists to agree with them.

Now practice shows that we were right in warning against this approach. The problem is that the agreements reached in Berlin were not fully elaborated by the Libyan sides. The conference provided a good foundation, but the work on details has to be done now. We have seen some fairly positive changes in this respect. Speaker of the Parliament in Tobruk Aguila Saleh and Head of the Government of National Accord Fayez al-Sarraj supported a ceasefire and a sustainable truce, and, against this background, favoured the resumption of efforts to resolve military issues in the 5+5 format and the renewal of talks on economic issues, primarily on the need for a fair solution to the problem of using Libya’s national resources.

Mr Saleh proposed a very important initiative in this context. He emphasised the need to consider the interests of not only Tripolitania and Cyrenaica but also Fezzan in the south of Libya, which was not often mentioned during all the previous discussions. Therefore, the ideas that were reviewed by the sides are already on the table. The meeting that was arranged between the Libyan protagonists in Morocco played a positive role in this respect. Today, we continue making our contribution to these common efforts in cooperation with our colleagues.

Recently we had consultations with our Turkish colleagues in Ankara. We continue this work. We talk to Egypt and Morocco. I spoke by telephone with my colleagues, the foreign ministers of Morocco and the Arab Republic of Egypt. Recently I also spoke with the Foreign Minister of Italy. He is very interested in facilitating a settlement in Libya for obvious reasons.

A promising solution is in the offing. We will actively support this process to contribute to a settlement. We consider it important to break as soon as possible the pause with the appointment of the UN Secretary-General’s special representative for Libya, which has already lasted for over half a year. The former special representative resigned in February. For some reason, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has not appointed his successor up to this day. There are grounds to believe that some Western countries want to push through their own candidates. Our position is very simple: the appointment of the special representative for Libya must be coordinated with the African Union. This is an obvious requirement. Libya is an active member of the African Union that is interested in helping to resolve this problem.

I have described the current situation in enough detail. There are grounds for cautious optimism.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4340937

Alex Him · November 14th, 2020

Reply by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova to a media question on the EU policy towards Belarus

19 September 2020 - 16:48

Question:

In connection with the EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting on September 21, where the situation in Belarus will be discussed, that country’s Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei warned that Minsk was ready to “give an appropriate answer” if the EU imposes sanctions against Belarusian officials. How would you comment on this statement, as well as the recent reports in a number of media outlets that former candidate for President of Belarus Svetlana Tikhanovskaya is going to participate in the above-mentioned meeting in Brussels?

Maria Zakharova:

Our position on the sanctions instruments used by the European Union is well known. It is illegitimate in terms of international law and is unacceptable interference in internal affairs. When applied to Belarus, it also runs contrary to the goal of restoring stability, establishing a dialogue, launching the constitutional process, and easing tensions that EU representatives mention so often. Attempts are being made to rock the boat, so Brussels should probably expect some retaliatory measures to follow.

Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s joining the upcoming EU council event, even for an unofficial discussion, is highly indicative in this context. We consider this contact, if it takes place, as further evidence of the European Union's deviation from its earlier statements denying any geopolitical dimension in the situation with Belarus or any similarities with the February 2014 scenario in Ukraine, when a number of EU countries acted as guarantors of the agreement between the authorities and the opposition, which was trampled on the following day.

Statements by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell at the September 15 plenary session of the European Parliament on the non-recognition of Alexander Lukashenko as the elected President of Belarus confirmed this, and so did the September 17 European Parliament resolution that contains an actual call for an unconstitutional change of power in that country.

Along with the threat of using sanctions, Brussels is also working on mechanisms for delivering the previously allocated 53 million euros to the Belarusian NGOs and media handpicked by EU members bypassing the country's official authorities.

This kind of flirting with the self-appointed representative of the Belarusian opposition and inviting her to Brussels “for a discussion” is an integral part of the European scenario of interference in the internal affairs of Belarus. This is a direct violation of the fundamental norms of the UN Charter and the principles of the CSCE Helsinki Final Act. The international community marks these two documents’ anniversaries this year. Hiding behind an imaginary concern for the citizens of Belarus, the European Union is in fact trying to make decisions for them. Once again, we note that the EU prefers to avoid mentioning the constitutional reform aimed at facilitating a national dialogue in that country.

In general, as we can see, these tendencies are increasingly becoming permanent fixtures in the European Union’s political arsenal – disrespect for objective internal political realities; unrestrained support of opposition forces going as far as recognition of self-appointed leaders by certain EU member states Brussels is unable to keep in line; the use of sanctions, pressure and propaganda as tools to replace existing governments. Unfortunately, Belarus is not the only example of this. We urge the European Union to reconsider this policy line, which leads to the erosion of the international legal foundation of the international order, and in the case of Belarus, prevents the country from returning to normal.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4341538

Foreign Ministry statement on the misleading assertions by the United States on the return of the previously terminated UN Security Council sanctions on Iran

20 September 2020 - 08:53

The United States continues to mislead the international community by speculating that the UN Security Council has completed procedures to restore the UN Security Council sanctions resolutions on Iran that were terminated after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme (JCPOA) in 2015.

The United States certainly understands that its assertions are at odds with reality. It is for this reason that the US threatens all the dissenting voices with sanctions and other penalties, just as it always does. It seems that the US foreign policy has run out of any other arguments.

In fact, the UN Security Council has not taken any action to reinstate the foregone sanctions on Iran. Washington’s moves boil down to dramatic posturing for the sake of subjecting the Security Council to its maximum pressure campaign on Iran and turning this respected institution into a tool at its disposal. This did not work.

The United States is fully aware of the fact that by withdrawing from the “nuclear deal” in May 2018, restoring unilateral sanctions on Tehran and by seeking to undermine efforts by other countries to follow UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the US cast aside the international norms set forth in the corresponding UN Security Council decisions and the UN Charter. Now Washington is trying to force others to put on augmented reality headsets with a “made in USA” label in order to view the developments around Iran and the JCPOA through this prism. However, the world is not an American video game.

By engaging in this unbridled behaviour that runs counter to the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the US is dealing a severe blow to the UN Security Council, and openly ignores its decisions and the international law in general. This is unacceptable not only for Russia, but for other Security Council members as well. It is not surprising that the American side has failed in its gamble to re-impose the previously terminated UN Security Council sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Back in August, an overwhelming majority of UN Security Council members stated their position clearly. They pointed out that the US aspirations were null and void from both the legal and procedural perspectives. In particular, they noted that the letter from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dated August 20, on which Washington relies, cannot be viewed as a “notification” within the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to launch the process leading to the restoration of the previous sanctions. The open debate on August 25 led to the conclusion that the Security Council was not in a position to take further action based on the US application. The council reaffirmed this position in September. Russia fully shares this view.

Claiming that the provisions of the resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran have now been reinstated is wishful thinking. We hope that our US colleagues will have the courage to finally look the truth in the eye and stop speaking on behalf of the UN Security Council. The illegitimate actions by the US cannot have any effect in terms of international law on other countries or bind them to curtail their legal cooperation with Iran.

Efforts to preserve and ensure a steady implementation of the JCPOA will carry on. The UN Security Council Resolution 2231 remains in force, unaltered, and the commitments arising from it have to be fulfilled as originally agreed by all states based on the principle of reciprocity.

Instead of aggravating the situation, the United States should immediately renounce its course to dismantle the JCPOA and undermine UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4341562

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Urgent Debate on Belarus during the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council

21 September 2020 - 10:17

On September 18, at the insistence of a group of Western states, an Urgent Debate of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) on the situation in Belarus took place in Geneva.

Having grossly violated every procedural norm and rule, President of the Human Rights Council Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger (Austria) showed a video message from former presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya. We strongly condemn such actions, which are incompatible with the neutral status of the UN collective bodies’ presidency.

We regret to note that a group of countries led by the European Union has imposed another one-sided and politicised discussion on the HRC, a discussion with goals far removed from any real concern for human rights. It is also gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state incompatible with the principles of international law and the provisions of the UN Charter.

We view the debates themselves as well as the resulting biased draft resolution as an unacceptable attempt to influence the results of the elections in Belarus and their assessment in the international community through crude political pressure. It is our belief that neither the UN Human Rights Council, nor any specific countries or groups have the right or authority to evaluate electoral processes in the UN member states.

We feel compelled to note that Western states have again tried to use the HRC in order to delegitimise the government in a particular country. Such actions undermine the reputation of the UN human rights dimension.

We believe that the HRC resolution pushed through by Western countries, contrary to the principles and norms of international law, is legally null and void.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4341635

Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United States Anatoly Antonov᾽s Interview with Nikkei Asian Review, September 18, 2020

21 September 2020 - 16:15

Question:

Is Russia ready to consider US proposals (to constrain all nuclear warheads, including non-strategic nuclear weapons, as well as stronger verification measures) in exchange for Washington’s readiness to extend the New START Treaty? Is Russia going to tell the US to constrain their missile defense systems?

Answer:

First of all, I would like to note that three meetings held this summer as part of a strategic dialogue between Russia and the United States were certainly useful. The parties aimed at better understanding each other’s approaches and ‘red lines.’ They showed their interest in identifying a list of issues on which further progress is possible.

However, Russian and American priorities at this stage differ significantly.

One of the most serious stumbling blocks is the issue of New START extension. This Treaty is the last existing agreement limiting the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. In fact, it is the only thing that prevents the escalation of the multilateral nuclear and missile arms race. If the Treaty fails to be extended in 2021, we will face a period of uncertainty. The mutual understanding regarding the other side’s strategic nuclear arsenal will diminish. The reduced transparency and fewer communication channels will increase the possibility of unintended use of nuclear weapons as well as of a conflict to escalate to a nuclear level.

Our position is very clear. As early as in December 2019 the Russian Federation announced its readiness for immediate extension of New START Treaty without any preconditions. At the same time, I would like to emphasize that our country needs this agreement as much as the United States does. It is a fundamentally wrong policy to set a ‘price’ for its extension. Our national security will be guaranteed even without the Treaty. At the same time, we are not going to start an arms race.

Washington is not considering the possibility of an unconditional extension of New START. In exchange for its consent the United States puts forward – in the form of an ultimatum – a set of demands on which it expects concessions from Russia. In fact, the US wants to rewrite the verification mechanism of the Treaty.

In addition, Washington insists on the conclusion of a political agreement regarding a future legally binding arms control treaty. It implies freezing the levels of all nuclear warheads (including non-strategic ones) and introduction of an extremely tough verification regime. It is not clear which American weapons will be subject to such restrictions. In the long term, the United States does not give up pressure on China in order to involve it in negotiations in this area.

We are ready for further interaction with the US on arms control, but only on a basis of parity and the principle of mutual respect for each other’s interests and concerns. In this regard, we are in favor of an integrated approach to arms control agreements which takes into account key factors influencing strategic stability. Among them are missile defense, ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, Global Strike weapons, hypersonic delivery systems, future space weapons, etc.

Question:

Is Russia ready to work with the United States to involve China in an arms control agreement?

Answer:

Russia is open to multilateral discussions on possible measures to ensure predictability and restraint in the nuclear missile realm given the common understanding that forcing anyone to participate in such discussions is a counterproductive approach. Therefore, we cannot support the policy of the US who is trying to put pressure on China in order to make it join the arms control process. This kind of consultations and negotiations should be conducted on the basis of consensus and should take into account the legitimate interests of all parties. The PRC is a responsible nuclear power which itself will determine its steps in the field of arms control.

Our priority is for Great Britain and France to join the arms control dialogue. These countries not only possess nuclear arsenals comparable to that of China, but are also US NATO allies closely coordinating their nuclear policies. Without the participation of London and Paris, it is extremely difficult and hardly possible to talk about further restrictive measures for nuclear missiles. By the way, we have been reiterating our call to take into account the capabilities of the European nuclear powers in the arms control discussions since the Soviet Union days.

Question:

Is Russia proposing to limit the deployment of ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in Asia? Do you think that the deployment of US missiles will provoke an arms race in Asia?

Answer:

The withdrawal of the United States from the INF Treaty in August 2019 led to the collapse of this important for global stability and security Treaty. As a result, this erroneous US step has complicated efforts to avert the escalation of the missile arms race.

At the same time, I would like to stress that Russia has taken concrete steps to prevent the situation from sliding into a crisis. In February 2019, our country made unilateral commitments not to field ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles in any region of the world – including Asia – until American systems of this kind are deployed there.

We regret that the Russian initiative to introduce similar moratoriums was categorically rejected by the United States and its NATO allies. Moreover, the Pentagon is rapidly developing and has already tested twice systems previously prohibited under the INF Treaty. US officials periodically declare their intention to deploy such missiles in the Asia-Pacific region as soon as possible.

The American partners, perhaps, should carefully weigh all the destabilizing consequences of such a step fraught with further escalation of tension and an arms race. The possible deployment of US intermediate-range ground-based missiles in Asia will not only upset the military-political balance in the region and global strategic stability, but will also directly affect Russia’s national security interests. The fact is that this region is located near the Russian borders, naval facilities and the bases of the Pacific Fleet where submarine strategic forces are based. The deployment of new US systems there will put our nuclear deterrent at risk.

We are interested neither in escalating tension either in the Asia-Pacific region or anywhere else in the world, nor in the beginning of an economically destructive arms race. I hope the United States and its regional allies share this approach. We are ready to work together – our proposals remain on the table.

Question:

The economic, military and diplomatic relations between the US and China have deteriorated. What is Russia’s position on the US-China competition? Are you going to reconcile them or side with China?

Answer:

The differences between the US and China have been deepening. Though, the hope remains that the two countries will be able to solve their problems by diplomatic means. We expect that common sense will prevail.

Russia has established contacts with both states. We have experience in resolving inter-state disputes in various regions of the world. If somewhere there is a need for our balancing efforts, we provide them. But we do not impose ourselves.

The aggravation of relations between the US and China does not meet the interests of Russia and the entire international community. A possible continuation of the trade war between Washington and Beijing is a threat to the global economy.

We believe that the US attempts to create anti-Chinese alliances around the world are counterproductive. They present a threat to international security and stability. Russia, for its part, will never participate in coalitions against third countries, including China.

Question:

The US has advanced the initiative of “the free and open Indo-Pacific” with Japan, Australia and India. Do you think it has worked for the US to maintain and expand its influence in Asia?

Answer:

Many countries wish to gain more influence in Asia. And that is natural. The region has a great social and economic potential. The pandemic has shown that Asian economies are the first to overcome or start to overcome the COVID-19 crisis. As for the US policy in Asia-Pacific, the region does need some steps to solve multiple problems of economic development and to resolve various issues on unifying basis. Unfortunately, Washington promotes anti-Chinese sentiments and its relations with regional countries are based on their support to such an approach.

It is difficult to call the Indo-Pacific initiative ‘free and open.’ More likely it is quite the opposite: this project is non-transparent and non-inclusive. It is closed to a lot of countries and even whole regions if we talk about the Indian Ocean countries. Instead of well-established norms of the international law Washington promotes there an obscure ‘rules based order.’ What are those rules, who created them and who agreed to them – all this remains unclear.

The US actions in Asia should not substitute effective multilateral efforts of the functioning regional bodies. Among them are ASEAN, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, East Asia Summit, etc. Participants of these mechanisms and their partners, including Russia, work with each other on the basis of mutually accepted approaches. They strive for consensus decisions through negotiations.

Question:

While India has had strong military relations with Russia, the US has opposed India’s purchase of Russian sophisticated military equipment. Do you think the US efforts along with Indo-Pacific initiative have undermined the relations between Russia and India?

Answer:

Currently we have privileged strategic partnership with India. Our cooperation with New Delhi is gaining momentum, including in such important domains as energy sector and military-technical cooperation. Russia is strengthening its ties with India in the areas which the US and other Western countries have closed for cooperation with New Delhi.

We are certain that the government of Narendra Modi will continue to pursue a harmonious multidimensional policy, develop predictable and mutually beneficial relations with all countries, including Russia (it is also our goal) as well as the US. We are convinced that the last thing India needs when building up its armed forces and defense capabilities is prompting from the outside. Especially of the kind that is aimed at destroying good relations with Russia and other countries.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4342243

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at the joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Mongolia Nyamtseren Enkhtaivan, Moscow, September 21, 2020

21 September 2020 - 17:15

Sergey Lavrov (R)

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have held good talks with Foreign Minister of Mongolia Nyamtseren Enkhtaivan. We appreciate that this is his first foreign visit after being appointed to the position of foreign minister of our friendly neighbour.

We have just signed the protocols on completing the ratification of the Treaty on Friendly Relations and Comprehensive Strategic Partnership that was signed in September 2019 during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Ulaanbaatar. This treaty entered into force following today’s exchange of ratification credentials. I would like to note that it is for an indefinite duration; this is not common in diplomatic practice. I would even say it is rare. Our agreement on this aspect of the treaty points to the sustainability of our relations and the striving of our states, governments, presidents and nations to develop good neighborly cooperation in all areas.

Russia rates Mongolia’s contribution to the common effort to achieve Victory in World War II very highly. The participation of 75 Mongolian military personnel in the parade on Red Square in honour of the 75th anniversary of Victory confirms that this memory will last forever.

Today, we concentrated on the implementation of the agreements between our presidents in trade, the economy, humanitarian ties, transport and infrastructure. We reviewed preparations for a regular, 23rd meeting of the Russia-Mongolia Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation, which will take place in November, probably via videoconference.

We discussed preparations for new events in the framework of trilateral cooperation between Russia, Mongolia and the PRC, including projects on railway transport and gas deliveries.

Russia supports Mongolia’s interest in establishing and developing contacts with the EAEU. We noted the importance of the upcoming round of talks in the Mongolia-EAEU study group format on the expediency of signing a free trade agreement.

Mr Foreign Minister plans to attend a meeting in the Eurasian Economic Commission, where these issues will be discussed in more detail.

Our countries closely cooperate in the world arena in the UN and the OSCE and in various multilateral formats in the Asia and Pacific regions. Today, we confirmed our policy of harmonising our positions and ensuring coordination. Our positions are close or identical on most issues. We also reviewed the prospects for Ulaanbaatar’s cooperation with the SCO.

We have developed cooperation on countering the coronavirus infection. We agreed to continue providing each other with assistance in this area and encourage cooperation between our health ministries and other related agencies.

We closely cooperate in education. In the past few years we have steadily increased the number of federally funded grants for Mongolian students at Russian universities. Now, about 3,000 Mongolian students study in Russia. Today we spoke about our intention to continue this cooperation and develop joint projects on support for the Russian language on the territory of our neighbour.

In general, today’s talks confirmed our reciprocal efforts to promote partnership in all areas without exception.

In conclusion, Mr Foreign Minister kindly invited me to visit Ulaanbaatar once again. I will plan to do this, with pleasure.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4342430

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Al-Arabiya channel, Moscow, September 21, 2020

21 September 2020 - 19:05

Sergey Lavrov (E)

Question:

I would like to start by asking you Sir about a few topics and Libya is on the top of them, the threat of a possible regional war starting from Sirte still looms large. We now hear about understandings reached between Russia and Turkey on a comprehensive ceasefire in Libya.

If this is the case, can you explain to our viewers in a more detailed way Russia’s efforts to implement such a ceasefire and will there be any kind of guarantees that the ceasefire will hold, while Russia and other international actors seek a United Nations-sponsored political solution for the crisis?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well Libya is not just the concern of Russia and Turkey.

Libya is a huge headache for many international players and many efforts have been undertaken for the last 5 years or so by various countries in Europe and elsewhere, in the region, to try to put the war out and to overcome the disaster created by NATO aggression in 2011 in gross violation of the Security Council resolutions.

And the Libyan statehood which had been destroyed by the aggression is still to be assembled, re-assembled I would say, and Russia and Turkey are among those who would like to help.

Russia from the very beginning unlike many outside players established and maintained contacts with each and every of the Libyan parties, each and every of Libyan politicians, be it in Tripoli, Be it in Tobruk, be it in Benghazi, Sirte and elsewhere and I believe this is the only way to promote what all of us want to see namely a Libyan-led, Libyan-owned political process culminating in restoration of the Libyan statehood, a solution of all the issues regarding the future of Libya on the basis of the balance of interest of the 3 constituent parts of this country.

And apart from Russia and Turkey, France, Italy, Emirates, at various stages of the Libyan drama participated in promoting some kind of a dialogue and a very important role was played by the Berlin Conference which adopted a declaration, endorsed eventually by the Security Council, and lately, I would mention also Cairo Declaration which was supported by Saleh and Haftar, and then there were initiatives of Saleh and Seraj on the ceasefire, so in fact it is the wish and the efforts of the Libyan parties themselves which Russia and Turkey want to support and to encourage, and the consultations which took place several days ago in Ankara between Russian and Turkish diplomats and representatives of the Ministries of Defense, they were aimed at helping the parties to consolidate the cessation of hostilities which was established defacto for the last couple of months, and to make it legitimate and legal, that was the effort and I hope that we all can succeed.

There are some countries who don’t want this Libyan crisis to end the way the Libyans want to, and who still want to play the Libyan card and geo-political games, but I hope all sincere international, European and regional players would concentrate on the positive agenda as agreed at the Berlin Conference.

Question:

So as I understand it from you Sir, you have not reached the agreements yet and they are not finalized, but will there be guarantees for the ceasefire from any party?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well the agreement is to be reached by the Libyan parties themselves, and Russia and Turkey can only use their good offices to persuade the parties to consolidate the situation on the ground so that no fighting is resumed, and then to come back to the implementation of the Berlin agenda including the 5+5 military committee, including economic issues, first of all the solution of the oil problem, and of course political reform, constitutional elections and so on.

Question:

Has a fair mechanism for exporting and sharing oil revenues between the Libyan parties without foreign interference, has it been discussed?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well this is being discussed by the Libyan parties. This was raised during the contacts between Saleh and Seraj.

This is being discussed now with the people in Tobruk including the representatives of the Libyan National Army. All we do is to encourage them to sit down and to agree on how they share the natural resources given to them by history and by God.

Question:

Does Russia support the call for a complete, a complete arms embargo to all parties in Libya and the departure of all foreign forces from Libya?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well we cannot support the call because we did support the resolution of the Security Council which established without any calls a mandatory arms embargo on any supplies of arms to Libya and of any supplies of arms from Libya, and this embargo holds, and everybody must respect this, this was reconfirmed by the Berlin Conference, the European Union volunteered to establish a new Operation “Irini” to monitor the implementation of this embargo on the strict basis of the Security Council resolution requirements, and that is where we are, everybody must respect this.

Question:

But how about respecting the call by many Libyans and the international actors for the departure of all foreign forces from Libya?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well it depends what do you mean by the demands by the Libyan parties, there is a legitimate government as it were in Tripoli, and there is a legitimate parliament in Tobruk, and unless and until all the Libyans not only from Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and but also from Fezzan, agree on how they want to move their country forward, agree on the political reform, on power sharing, it will be very difficult to understand who is representing the legitimate Libyan government and who should legitimately decide that all foreign forces must leave the country.

So before we can handle the repercussions of the current crisis, started in 2011 by NATO aggression, we must overcome the debris left by NATO in Libya, we must restore the Libyan statehood and then the sovereign and independent Libyan State would decide who is welcome and who is not welcome on its soil.

Question:

But of course you understand what I mean by foreign forces that includes of course mercenaries from Syria or Sudan or other countries which are in Libya now?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well I answered your question, I answered your question, before the Libyans can decide who is welcome and who is not welcome on their soil, they have to agree what is their state looks like because the Libyan state whatever you thought about Gathafi, it was ruined in gross violation of international law by NATO aggression in 2011.

We are now trying to bring this country back and we welcome all efforts especially the efforts of the regional countries, Egypt, Algeria, Tunis, European countries, France and Italy first of all, but also countries like the United Arab Emirates, and so it’s in our common interest to stabilize Libya and to solve all the problems which were raised after NATO aggression when through Libya terrorists, illegal arms trafficking and other criminal elements were penetrating into the Sahel region and in the other direction flows and the waves of illegal migrants flooded Europe. All this is the result of that tragedy in 2011 and we want those who are now trying to bring this country together to remember the lessons of history.

Question:

I would like to move to Iran Sir, the issue of lifting the arms embargo on Iran on the 18th of October 2020, could very well lead to an arms race in the Gulf region, if Iran is able to buy arms there will be a race and much, much worse than the one we have now.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the US will put sanctions on those who violate the arms embargo which will not expire on 18th of October according to Secretary Pompeo and reports say that President Trump is planning to issue an Executive Order allowing him to impose US sanctions on anyone, anyone who violates the conventional arms embargo on Iran? Your thoughts Sir?

Sergey Lavrov:

There is no such thing as an arms embargo against Iran. The Security Council when it was adopting the comprehensive resolution 2231 which endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which settled the nuclear issue for Iran and this was adopted by consensus under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council in that resolution said that the supply of arms to Iran and from Iran would be subject to consideration by the Security Council and that on the 18th October 2020 this regime of sales to Iran would stop and there is no embargo and there would no limitations whatsoever after the expiration of this timeframe established by the Security Council.

I cannot speak for the Americans because they say many funny things and I know only one thing for sure that when the Americans, as their representatives officially continue to assert, that they still are participants of the JCPOA because of resolution 2231, I can only remind them that they should respect the hierarchy in the American Administration because their boss, President Trump personally signed an official decree dropping the United States from the JCPOA, any say which the Americans used to have as equal participants of the JCPOA has evaporated since then.

Question:

But as you know Sir, they argue that 2231 is a United Nations Chapter 7 resolution and it’s binding to all members, all members of the United Nations, so even though they have withdrawn from the JCPOA which is an agreement between countries, they cannot withdraw from a Chapter 7 Security Council resolution and hence they argue that any country, any member state of the United Nations is bound by the resolution and hence they are also bound by this resolution and they see the justification to activate the mechanism.

Sergey Lavrov:

You know they want to violate and to challenge the famous English proverb they want to have their pie and eat it. They formally left the JCPOA and the Security Council resolution 2231 provides for any action to be done in order to restore the sanctions regime to be initiated by a JCPOA member and they are not members any longer, and if they continue threatening with sanctions all those who would cooperate with Iran on the firm basis of the strict implementation of the conditions of resolution 2231 then I would not be surprised, because they do these sanctions all over the world, for any reason at all, sometimes even without any reason, I always knew that an elephant is a symbol of the Republican Party but please do not consider the world as a china store.

Question:

So do I take it that the snapback as far as Russia is concerned does not exist?

Sergey Lavrov:

The snapback does not exist as far as everybody is concerned except the United States. This was subject to discussion in the Security Council and 13 members, 13 out of the 15 members of the Security Council clearly stated that there are no legal political or moral reasons for anything close to snapback and all the statements to the contrary are null and void, this is the assessment of all members of the Security Council except the US and somebody else.

Question:

Forgive me Mr Lavrov, but are the Russian companies and Russian banks willing to face American sanctions?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well as I said the Americans lost any talent for diplomacy unfortunately, they used to have excellent experts, now what they do in the foreign policy area is to put a demand on the table, whether they discus Iran or anything else, and if their partner says, well I don’t think I can do it as you want, let’s negotiate, they don’t negotiate, they put an ultimatum, they give a deadline and then they impose sanctions, then they make the sanctions extra-territorial.

So I can only say that it is absolutely illegitimate to adopt unilateral sanctions not provided by the United Nations Charter.

Unfortunately this practice is becoming contageous and the European Union more and more is engaging the same tricks which the United States has introduced in the last 10 years or so, because don’t forget it all started by the Obama Administration, all those habits to resort to sanctions for no reason at all, they started before this Administration was inaugurated and I can only say that it is if you say whether companies of foreign countries would have to implement the sanctions, I cannot speak for business, business has its own assessment but it is absolutely clear that unilateral actions are illegal and illegitimate and to this effect you can read quite a number of resolutions of the General Assembly.

Question:

How does Russia see the road forward to a political solution in Syria, when every step is fraught with countless setbacks and delays.

Many argue that the Syrian Government is counting on a military victory over the opposition with the help of its allies. Is the political solution still even viable for Syria?

Sergey Lavrov:

I am fresh from Damascus where I was together with the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia who discussed during this visit the prospects of our economic cooperation and I discussed the political part of the current situation.

I don’t think that anybody who talks to President Assad and to his ministers can conclude that the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic is exclusively relying on the military solution. This is not true. The military confrontation between the Government and the opposition is over. The only two hotbeds on the Syrian soil is Idlib, where Hayat Tahrir Al Sham, which is one of the reincarnations of Jabhat Al Nusra is in charge, but the territory Hayat Tahrir Al Sham controls in Idlib is shrinking.

And our Turkish colleagues on the basis of the Russian-Turkish memorandum they make efforts to continue to fight the terrorists and to separate the normal opposition from the terrorist groups, we support them in this endeavour, so there is no fighting between the government and the opposition there.

And the second hotbed is the eastern bank of the Euphrates River where the illegal presence of the American troops is, combined with the Americans promoting separatist trends, playing with the Kurdish Guard in a very reckless manner I would say.

Their recent decision to bring the American oil company and to start pumping oil for their own purposes without any respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as resolution 2254 demands, of course this creates a very nervous situation for many countries in this region, Turkey of course.

But countries with the Kurdish population they are all rather concerned that this is playing with fire, we warned the Kurdish population of Iraq, of Turkey, of Iran, of Syria to be a harmonious part of their countries, enjoying all the rights of a national minority, but we also believe that if you try to encourage separatist trends the region might explode and I hope the Americans understand that they must think not only about the elections which are coming in a month and a half but also about the future of this region, which is one of the most important regions of the world.

And yes I did not answer a question about the political process. The Constitutional Committee resumed its work after the pause which was caused by the coronavirus infection.

Mr Pederson, who is the UN Special Envoy, visited Moscow, he was cautiously optimistic about the process, now they finalized the consultations on the agenda for the next round of the Drafting Committee of the Constitutional Committee, yes it is not going as fast as we would like to, but you cannot say that it is the government which is to blame.

The government could be a bit more forthcoming and we send this message to Damascus including during my visit, but we also see that the opposition is not in its best shape, and there are some internal struggles, internal fighting between the various opposition groups, we think that this all must be secondary to the overriding task to start negotiations on the Constitution in earnest and that is what we impress upon the Syrian parties.

Question:

Talks between Russia and Turkey on Idlib faltered and Russia suspended its joint participation with Turkish forces in joint patrols in accordance with the 5th of March agreement this year. Many fear a new major Syrian-Russian renewed military offensive on Idlib. Can you allay these fears?

Sergey Lavrov:

I just did I think. There is a Turkish-Russian Memorandum which is fully in force, the joint patrolling of the M4 route was suspended because of the security concerns.

Since the Hayat Tahrir Al Sham continues to make armed provocations and to attack the Syrian government positions, they were trying to attack the Russian air force base at Khmeimim and our Turkish colleagues confirmed that it is their commitment to fight the terrorist activities and as I said to separate the normal opposition ready for dialogue with the Government from the terrorists. So there is no need for the Syrian army, for the Alliance of the Syrian Government to attack Idlib, the only need is to attack the positions of terrorists and to eliminate this hotbed of terrorism which is the last terrorist hotbed on Syrian territory of that size, and now our Turkish colleagues have their predominant responsibility under this Memorandum which you asserted to, which you quoted.

Fighting terrorism is task number 1 and I can assure you that the joint patrolling of the M4 route would resume soon, as soon as the situation has calmed down.

Question:

But you know Sir when you attack terrorist cells they are embedded between thousands of civilians in that city and its inevitable that civilian victims will fall because of this.

Sergey Lavrov:

Well I can assure you that, well there are no operations conducted by Russia in Idlib or by the Syrian government. The only time we use force is when attacked by Hayat Tahrir Al Sham and the force is used in a very targeted manner not to damage civilians and civilian sites, and this is done with much more clear than the way Raqqa was levelled, where still we find a lot of mines, a lot of corpses, nobody is caring for them, so I can assure you that all necessary steps to implement the international humanitarian law as much as possible, have been taken.

Question:

All the Gulf states, all parties and the Security Council always affirm the need for a political solution for the conflict in Yemen. How does Russia view the best approach to a political solution for the Yemen crisis, should the Security Council get more involved or should it show more teeth to those who hinder the efforts for a political solution?

Sergey Lavrov:

Well we see the way forward in strict compliance with the proposal by Mr Griffiths who is the Special Envoy for Yemen by the Secretary General, and for the cooperation with Mr Griffiths by all parties including Houthis, including Southern Transitional Council and of course including the Government of President Hadi. Everybody must be cooperative.

We support the efforts of our Saudi Arabia friends to promote dialogue and understanding in the south of Yemen.

We support the United Arab Emirates, and we support the efforts of Mr Griffiths which I believe would bring us to success if everybody including President Hadi cooperates.

Question:

The latest Peace Agreements between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel, how does Russia view these peace agreements between these two countries on one side and the State of Israel on the other?

Sergey Lavrov:

We would be very much interested in seeing how this all evolves because we have all agreed on the basic parameters for the settlement of the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

There are numerous resolutions of the Security Council and of the General Assembly, there is the Arab Peace Initiative endorsed by the United Nations, there is the Quartet of international mediators, there is the Arab League, there are many players who contributed to the creation of the atmosphere which would be conducive to peace and stability in the Middle East, of course with respect, with full respect of the rights of Palestinians, and this can only be achieved through a direct dialogue between Israel and Palestine.

We are strongly in favor of this dialogue to be relaunched as soon as possible. We are ready to provide our good offices, be it as part of the Quartet, be it in any other capacity as Permanent Member of the Security Council, and we view the latest developments between Israel and the Emirates, between Israel and Bahrain, as facts on the ground, and we are getting assurances from all our Arab friends that these developments are intended to improve the climate in the region, would in no way be used to the detriment of the rights of the Palestinian people, but we have to see when the dialogue restarts.

We encourage our Israeli colleagues and Palestinian friends to create conditions and to use the good offices of the international community for relaunching such direct dialogue, it is the only way to understand what needs to be done under the present circumstances.

The fact that the annexation was postponed is of course better than you know to see it happen now, but postponing is not resolving the problem, the problem is still there and it is only the direct dialogue which could bring us to mutually acceptable solutions supported by both Israelis and Palestinians.

And yes I heard I think yesterday that Antonio Guterres announced that he is looking for some forms of resuming mediation by the United Nations and it would be very much interesting to see what the Secretary General has to offer.

Question: Sir, you have been very generous with your time with us and I really appreciate this opportunity. Mr Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, thank you Sir for this exclusive interview and we wish you the very best of luck. Thank you.

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you.

The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4342233

August 19th, 2020	#162
Alex Him Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 6,834 Blog Entries: 219	Statement by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on Russia’s proposal to convene meeting of heads of state of UN Security Council permanent members with participation of heads of Germany and Iran 14 August 2020 - 17:13 Debates around the Iranian issue within the UN Security Council are becoming increasingly strained. Tensions are running high. Iran faces groundless accusations. Resolutions are being drafted with a view to dismantling decisions that had been unanimously adopted by the Security Council. Russia maintains its unwavering commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. Its approval in 2015 was a landmark political and diplomatic achievement that helped fend off the threat of an armed conflict and reinforced nuclear non-proliferation. In 2019, Russia presented an updated version of its Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf Region, outlining concrete and effective paths to unravelling the tangle of concerns in this region. We strongly believe that these problems can be overcome if we treat each other’s positions with due attention and responsibility, while acting respectfully and in a collective spirit. Like anywhere else in the world, there is no place for blackmail or dictate in this region, no matter the source. Unilateral approaches will not help bring about solutions. It is essential that the positive experience gained earlier through intensive effort is maintained when building an inclusive security architecture in the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, we propose convening an online meeting of the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the participation of the heads of Germany and Iran, as soon as possible, in order to outline steps that can prevent confrontation or a spike in tensions within the UN Security Council. It is important to secure collective support for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 that sets forth an international legal framework for the execution of the JCPOA. During this leaders’ meeting, we propose agreeing on parameters for joint efforts to facilitate the emergence of reliable mechanisms in the Persian Gulf region for ensuring security and confidence building. This can be achieved if our countries and the regional states combine their political will and creative energy. We call on our partners to carefully consider this proposal. Otherwise, we could see the further escalation of tension and an increased risk of conflict. This must be avoided. Russia is open to working constructively with anyone interested in taking the situation back from the dangerous brink. This is an urgent matter. Should the leaders agree in principle to have this conversation, we propose that the foreign ministries of the seven countries agree on a meeting agenda, make the necessary arrangements and schedule a video summit. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285050 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian 14 August 2020 - 19:31 On August 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke on the telephone with Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs of the French Republic Jean-Yves Le Drian. The ministers discussed the Libyan settlement at length and exchanged views on the political and military developments in that country. They stressed the importance of establishing a durable ceasefire as soon as possible and resuming the political process in accordance with the decisions of the Berlin international conference on Libya and UN Security Council Resolution 2510. They also discussed the need to normalise the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme by adhering to UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Sergey Lavrov briefed Jean-Yves Le Drian on President Vladimir Putin’s initiative, put forward on August 14, on holding an online summit to work out ways of ensuring security in the Persian Gulf area. The ministers agreed on a schedule of bilateral contacts on a wide range of issues concerning Russian-French cooperation in accordance with instructions issued by President Vladimir Putin and President Emmanuel Macron. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285074 Comment by the Information and Press Department on the results of UN Security Council vote on US draft resolution to extend Iran arms embargo 15 August 2020 - 13:00 On August 14, the media reported the results of the UN Security Council vote on a draft US resolution on establishing a permanent and unlimited ban on arms and military equipment deliveries to and from Iran. The UN Security Council unequivocally rejected the draft resolution. Its initiators knew from the outset that this idea did not gain broad support. There are no reasons for introducing an arms embargo against Iran. The world staunchly rejects Washington’s line to undermine UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and to wreck the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. Nevertheless, the US side decided to move forward. Apart from the United States, only one non-permanent UN Security Council member supported the document. The voting result once again reminded our US colleagues that international law exists and that everyone must honour UN Security Council resolutions, including the one that approved the JCPOA. This also applies to Washington, which must honour the resolution in its entirety, and not only the part it finds acceptable. In turn, we will continue to do our utmost to prevent the United States from eroding the international legal foundations of the modern world order. Our vision of cooperation at the UN Security Council is that it is not a clash of ambitions but responsible joint work aimed at maintaining and strengthening international peace and security. The US determination to push the anti-Iran embargo through is far removed from this effort. The failure of the draft resolution shows vividly that it is impossible to resolve disagreements and mutual complaints that have accumulated in the Persian Gulf region through pressure and brute force or by demonising Iran. We need a meticulous search for effective multilateral solutions that must undoubtedly involve all the concerned states, namely, members of the UN Security Council, Iran and its neighbours. These solutions are called on to lay a solid foundation for collective security in the Persian Gulf, which the region needs urgently. This is not just a matter for the people living in this part of the world and their neighbours. Putting an end to the string of crises and conflicts is a task for the entire international community because the situation in the Persian Gulf has a major impact on shaping the overall geopolitical environment. Therefore, it is vitally important that all parties continue to consistently fulfil the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. On August 14, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin suggested convening a meeting of the heads of state of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the participation of the leaders of Germany and Iran. This is an invitation to launch a detailed conversation and constructive cooperation in the right direction. We hope that this proposal will receive broad support and will be implemented. We must not hesitate. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285107 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo 16 August 2020 - 16:41 On August 16, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov talked on the phone with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, with the American side initiating the conversation. The heads of the foreign affairs agencies exchanged views on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposal to convene a meeting of heads of state of UN Security Council permanent members with the participation of heads of Germany and Iran to coordinate reliable mechanisms in the Persian Gulf region for ensuring security while taking into account all stakeholders’ concerns, given that debates around the Iranian issue have become increasingly strained. The Russian side reaffirmed its unwavering support for UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which provides the international legal framework for the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian Nuclear Programme (JCPOA). Its approval in 2015 was a major political and diplomatic achievement that helped strengthen nuclear non-proliferation and regional security in the Middle East region, Sergey Lavrov stressed. The schedule of bilateral contacts for the near future was also discussed. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285317 Comment by the Information and Press Department on terrorist attack in Somalian capital 17 August 2020 - 13:02 On August 16, a terrorist attack was perpetrated in the Elite Hotel in Mogadishu, capital of Somalia. According to preliminary reports, 11 people were killed and 13 more suffered wounds of varying degrees. We resolutely condemn this bloody crime. We offer our deep condolences to the families and friends of the deceased and a speedy recovery to the wounded. We express our solidarity with the people and government of Somalia. We are confident that those guilty of masterminding and perpetrating the terrorist attack will not escape well-deserved punishment. According to the Russian Embassy in Djibouti, which represents Russia’s interests in Somalia, no Russian citizens were injured. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4285518 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the agreement to increase the US military presence in Poland 17 August 2020 - 18:51 On August 15, the United States and Poland signed an agreement on enhanced defence cooperation between the two countries. The agreement lays the foundation for the further buildup of the already substantial US presence on Polish territory. The total number of US troops in Poland is expected to increase by another 1,000 troops in addition to the 4,500 troops that are already stationed there. The document envisages the development of US Armed Forces command and staff and combat training centres, plus the creation of conditions for deploying army and transport aviation units, drones, task forces and elements of logistics and other support. Needless to say, this agreement did not come as a surprise to anyone – it formalised the 2019 agreements between presidents Donald Trump and Andrzej Duda. The anti-Russia message in this document is beyond doubt, and is in fact emphasised by US and Polish officials in every possible way. The agreed-upon measures fully meet the guidelines of the recent NATO summits that have reaffirmed a course of “containing” Russia, creating division lines and escalating tensions in Europe, while refusing to cooperate on the common goals proclaimed in OSCE documents after the end of the Cold War, the goals to create a common space of cooperation and trust. Once again, we must point out that the buildup of a US military presence in Poland will not resolve any security problem. On the contrary, it complicates an already difficult situation at Russia’s western borders and contributes to the escalation of tensions while increasing the risk of unexpected incidents. In our opinion, NATO’s assurances that the agreement only provides for an insignificant and rotational contingent of reinforcements are simply attempts to distort reality because the implementation of the agreement will allow the sides to fundamentally increase the offensive potential of US forces in Poland. These plans change the terms of European security and run counter to the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act that determines the common goal of enhancing stability in the Euro-Atlantic Region. It is now necessary to analyse how the provisions in the agreement comply with the commitment to not resort to “additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” in the Founding Act. The US is again demonstrating its willingness, if this is what is required by its interests, to forego not only their commitments under multilateral agreements but also the opinion of the majority of the European states. This completely discredits statements by NATO functionaries that the alliance is interested in enhancing security and reducing tensions in Europe. Russia’s specific proposals on de-escalation along Russia-NATO contact lines remain unanswered. We urge the NATO states to give up their stake on confrontation with us and return to restraint in the spirit of the Russia-NATO Founding Act. It is also clear it that it is high time to conduct a practical and sincere dialogue on European security and restore our military contacts. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4286070 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Federal Minster of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas 18 August 2020 - 15:32 On August 18, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Federal Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany Heiko Maas at the German side’s initiative. The ministers focused on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to hold a meeting of the leaders of the UN Security Council permanent members, Germany and Iran to search for ways to ensure reliable security in the Persian Gulf region with due account of the concerns of all interested parties. The sides reaffirmed their commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which created an international legal foundation for implementing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear programme. It was mentioned that the signing of this agreement in 2015 became a major political and diplomatic achievement aimed at enhancing the nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime and regional security in the Middle East. Following President Putin’s telephone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the same day, the foreign ministers discussed the latest events in Belarus in the context of its presidential election. They expressed hope that the situation would return to normal as soon as possible. Sergey Lavrov emphasised that any foreign interference in domestic processes is unacceptable, and drew the attention of Germany, which holds the presidency of the Council of the EU, to the external attempts to destabilse the situation in that country with which Russia has brotherly relations. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4290660 Excerpt from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Rossiya TV channel, Moscow, August 19, 2020 19 August 2020 - 13:08 Question: In addition to Ukraine, there is now one more point of disagreement – namely, Belarus. In your opinion, how actively will the United States and the EU try to influence, interfere in and put pressure on the political situation in Minsk? Perhaps today you even discussed this issue in your conversation with Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany Heiko Maas? Sergey Lavrov: Yes, we spoke about this today as well because we are rather concerned about the events going on in Belarus. We are concerned about the attempts to take advantage of the internal difficulties that Belarus, the Belarusian people and leadership are facing right now in order to interfere in these events and processes from the outside. Not only interfere but impose certain procedures on the Belarusians that external actors find beneficial for themselves. No one is making a secret that it is all about geopolitics, about the struggle for the post-Soviet space. We witnessed the same struggle at the previous stages of the development of the situation after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Obviously, Ukraine is the most recent example. What we are now hearing from European capitals – mainly from the Baltic states (Lithuania and Estonia), as well as Poland and the European Parliament – has little to do with Lukashenko, human rights or democracy. It is about geopolitics and the rules that our Western partners want to inculcate into everyday life on our continent and in other parts of the world. There are international legal frameworks that must serve as guidance when it comes to determining one’s attitude towards events in a specific country. In this case, if the neighbours of Belarus see flaws in the elections and how they were organised, firstly, Belarus is a sovereign state, with its own constitution, laws and procedures. To dispute or question the election results at a specific polling station or in general must be done so based on said laws. Secondly, if we follow our own obligations, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has an Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). One of its responsibilities is to monitor national elections in the OSCE member states. This responsibility is part of the obligations signed by all members of this highly respected organisation, without exception. We are being told that the violations during the election campaign were obvious and documented by voluntary observers, on social media, on camera, etc. The ODIHR itself, which was supposed to monitor the elections, claims that its representatives did not go to Belarus because the invitation was sent too late. This is not true, to put it mildly, because, like any other OSCE member state, Belarus’s only commitment is “to invite international observers to national elections.” The ODIHR applies different approaches to observing elections to the east of Vienna, in the post-Soviet space, on the one hand, and to the west of Vienna, especially in the United States, on the other hand. It may send 800 observers to one place, 12 to another and none to some other places. For example, the ODIHR did not send any observers to several elections in the Baltic states, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in Estonia and Latvia are deprived of voting rights because they are non-citizens, a status that is shameful for the European Union. For many years, Russia and its CIS partners have been proposing to introduce, once and for all, an election monitoring regulation that would be clear to everybody and include such rules as when an invitation must be sent, what number of observers must be sent as an advance team and how many observers per capita must be sent to observe a vote directly. Our proposals have been rejected. The countries that are now loudly claiming that the ODIHR could not come to the elections because it was not invited were among those who rejected our proposals with particular fervency. Opposing the development of such criteria, they told us that the ambiguity and flexibility given to the ODIHR is a gold standard that must be cherished by all means. There is no need to explain that this ambiguity of the ODIHR’s functions has only one purpose, which is manipulation by its core staff. Its core staff consists of members of NATO and the European Union. Therefore, if the ODIHR actually followed the regulation approved by the member states, it would not have struck an attitude and claimed that it was invited too late. They were supposed to go there and observe the elections. That would have given them more grounds to report on the violations that they are inflating right now in every way. I am not trying to say that the elections were perfect. Of course, not. There are quite a few indications to the contrary. The same was admitted by the Belarusian leadership, which is trying to start a dialogue with the citizens who are protesting against what they consider an abuse of their rights. I would simply advise everybody to not try and take advantage of the current situation in Belarus (which is complicated) in order to undermine a proper and mutually respectful dialogue between the authorities and the public or to make it provocative. We have seen clearly provocative calls in video footage and on social media. We have seen security officers being provoked, including by brutal force used against them. I really hope that the Belarusians and the many friends of Belarus abroad will be able to sort out their issues themselves and will not pander to those who need this country only to claim the geopolitical space and promote the familiar destructive logic of “you are either with Russia or with Europe.” As you remember, during the Maidan events in Ukraine in 2004 and in 2014, it was the “either/or” logic that many officials of the EU member states promoted. Now that they are talking about mediation (we have heard proposals from Lithuania and Poland; somebody said that the OSCE must act as a mediator), I urge everybody who is promoting such ideas, to do it not though microphones but to address directly the Belarusians and primarily the Belarusian leadership. Everybody who says that this mediation is the only solution to the current situation should not forget how our Western colleagues “mediated” in 2014 during the Maidan events in Kiev. The distinguished representatives of the European Union acted as “mediators,” reached agreements – and we all remember what came out of that. I believe the Belarusian people can rely on their own wisdom to resolve this situation. I do not see any lack of readiness for a dialogue on behalf of the country’s leadership. I hope that those who, for whatever reason, are not satisfied with the election results will show the same readiness. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4290963 __________________ Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln Last edited by Alex Him; August 20th, 2020 at 01:28 AM.

August 25th, 2020	#164
Alex Him Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 6,834 Blog Entries: 219	Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu 20 August 2020 - 18:20 On August 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey Mevlut Cavusoglu upon the initiative of the Turkish side. The parties discussed prospects of stepping up the peace process in Syria, and reaffirmed Russia and Turkey’s readiness to support the work of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, whose third meeting is scheduled for August 24. They noted the importance of increasing comprehensive counterterrorism efforts and preventing new terrorist attacks. The ministers had an in-depth discussion on the developments in Libya. They stressed that there was no alternative to a political settlement of the crisis in the interests of this nation based on the existing international legal framework, above all, UN Security Council Resolution 2510 and the decisions of the Berlin Conference held on January 19, 2020. They agreed to continue consultations to help the parties establish a cessation of hostilities as soon as possible and launch an intra-Libyan dialogue on ways to settle the conflict through political means. The ministers also discussed the schedule of upcoming bilateral contacts at the high and highest levels on a wide range of issues of mutual interest. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293652 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Prime Minister and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Edi Rama 20 August 2020 - 18:58 On August 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Prime Minister and Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of Albania and OSCE Chairperson-in-Office Edi Rama upon the initiative of the Albanian side. Developments in Belarus were discussed in the context of the Albanian OSCE chairmanship’s proposals to facilitate a dialogue between the authorities and the opposition. The minister noted that it was necessary to give the Belarusians a chance to resolve their issues themselves without interference in a dialogue between the authorities and society or imposing anything from the outside as well as to avoid the tragic experience of “European mediation” in Ukraine in February 2014. The parties reaffirmed the important role that the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission is playing in the efforts to settle the intra-Ukrainian conflict, including the need to prepare objective reports on the developments on both sides of the contact line in Donbass. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293674 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell 20 August 2020 - 19:20 On August 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell upon the initiative of the EU side. The situation in Belarus was the focus of the conversation. Both sides stressed that Belarusians themselves need to resolve the situation without outside interference. Sergey Lavrov drew Josep Borrells’s attention to the actions of certain EU member states that run counter to that principle, and urged taking steps to stop provoking confrontation between Belarusian authorities and the opposition. The high officials also discussed prospects for keeping in force the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme. They reaffirmed the lack of any legal grounds for the recent US initiatives at the UN Security Council on issues regarding the implementation of the JCPOA, which is an integral whole with UNSC Resolution 2231 endorsing it, and in which Washington officially terminated its participation in 2018. The parties exchanged opinions on certain current aspects of Russia-EU relations. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293684 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the verdict on the assassination of former PM of Lebanon Rafik Hariri made by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague on August 18 20 August 2020 - 19:59 The Russian Federation has invariably supported the work of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in the interests of honest and unbiased investigation and accountability for the guilty in this crime, being guided by the priority of unconditional respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Lebanese Republic and the need to ensure its sustainable and peaceful development. We hope the verdict issued in The Hague on August 18 will be properly perceived by all Lebanese people and will encourage them to enhance unity for the sake of national interests. After all, Rafik Hariri himself consistently and uncompromisingly supported Lebanon’s unity and indivisibility and urged representatives of the country’s many ethnic and religious communities to show solidarity in the face of any attempt to sow intra-Lebanese strife. We are convinced that today all influential Lebanese politicians must come together to extricate their homeland from this protracted crisis. With this in view, it is necessary to take consolidated steps to de-escalate tensions, renounce violence and prevent the country from sliding into chaos. For our part, we will render any assistance to the Lebanese people that we can. We favour a legal settlement of all urgent domestic issues by the Lebanese themselves via a constructive dialogue with a view to reaching broad national consensus and without any outside interference. We hope that all interested external parties will pursue a policy to facilitate the normalisation of the political and socioeconomic situation in Lebanon. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293708 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Trud newspaper, published on August 21, 2020 21 August 2020 - 00:00 Question: The UN marks its 75th anniversary this year, and will hold its 75th General Assembly. Will any new matters that have not been on the agenda before be raised? What questions does Russia intend to work on? Sergey Lavrov: True, the United Nations is marking its 75th anniversary this year. This anniversary has special significance for Russia as a founding member and a permanent member of the Security Council. We believe that it should help further strengthen the UN’s central coordinating role in world affairs, unite international efforts in countering challenges and threats the world is facing today, and build relations among nations in the spirit of genuine justice and equality. Unfortunately, the coronavirus pandemic has spread around the world, significantly curtailing the initial plans for this anniversary session. Most of the events of the high-level week, which is de facto the prime event of the year in international politics, as well as the meetings scheduled for the next few months will take place online. The choice of this format was dictated by necessity, but it should not affect the status or significance of the discussions. As for the agenda of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly, its draft is already available and covers a wide range of matters in almost all spheres of international relations, from strategic stability to sandstorms. As expected, questions relating to fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and overcoming its consequences will be high on the agenda. During the upcoming session of the General Assembly, Russia will uphold its principled approaches. This includes promoting a positive, unifying agenda, consolidating support for building a polycentric international order, ensuring strict compliance with the UN Charter, countering attempts to promote the concept of a “rules-based order” as an alternative to international law, and solving regional crises and conflicts by political and diplomatic means. We will continue our efforts to step up international cooperation in fighting terrorism, adopt truly universal, inclusive rules of responsible state behaviour in the information space, strengthening the existing treaty frameworks on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation and developing new ones, as well as opposing any attempts to distort the history and outcome of World War II as unacceptable. Of course, we will promptly respond to any new issues that may arise. Question: Our relations with the European Union leave much to be desired. The mutual sanctions are still in place, and many cooperation programmes have been frozen. What are the chances for warming on this track? Sergey Lavrov: I think it would be more appropriate to address this question to our EU colleagues. It was their initiative to suspend many inter-industry formats and political dialogue; some promising projects were paused, including those aimed at building a common trade, economic and humanitarian space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. At the same time, they told us that any significant improvement in relations will depend on the implementation of the Minsk agreements on the settlement of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine, to which Russia is not even a party. Unfortunately, this artificial and short-sighted correlation remains to this day – which suits Kiev perfectly. They ignore their obligations under the Minsk Package of Measures, not even trying to hide their interest in using the unsettled conflict to maintain sanctions pressure on Russia. We can see that the pandemic has clearly accelerated mental processes in the European Union. They are increasingly using the ‘greater strategic autonomy’ in international affairs rhetoric. President of the European Council Charles Michel initiated an intra-EU discussion on the pros and cons of the current approach to relations with Russia. We are looking at this process with a certain interest, although we don’t have any big expectations regarding it – the ideologically blinkered and inert thinking in relation to our country is too persistent in some EU states, even to the detriment of their own national interests. However, this is their choice, and they are responsible for it. I would like to add that we are by no means opposed to the EU's greater independence in international affairs. Some time ago, we even offered Brussels to cooperate on crisis management and the development of military technical capabilities. Even today, we consider the EU as a potential participant in the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept proposed by President Vladimir Putin. We believe this would benefit the European Union as well, combine regional integration potentials and facilitate European economic operators’ access to Eurasian markets. We hope that a sober analysis of the multipolar world will eventually prompt the EU to rethink its obviously outdated approaches on the Russian track. For our part, we, as before, are always open to honest and mutually beneficial cooperation. Question: NATO remains active on our borders, and our relations remain strained. What are the Russian Foreign Ministry’s conceptual approaches to easing tensions on the western track? Sergey Lavrov: Let me remind you that cooperation between Russia and NATO was curtailed in 2014, and it was not our initiative. All the improvements in our relations, including the dialogue and cooperation mechanism – the Russia-NATO Council (RNC) – were lost overnight. Today the RNC, an ‘all-weather’ dialogue format we jointly created in 2002, has become a platform where NATO countries are trying to lecture us on the Ukrainian settlement, although NATO has no role to play in it. It is obvious that the Ukrainian crisis is being used as a pretext, and is not the real reason for the alliance to return to its old ways of ‘containing’ Russia. Now, just like during the Cold War, they are fighting Russia ‘on all fronts,’ including information and propaganda campaigns, and that is their new raison d'être. NATO is increasingly active on the eastern flank, close to our borders, where exercises are carried out and military infrastructure upgraded. The alliance continues to expand its zone of military and political influence, inviting more and more countries under its umbrella allegedly to protect them from Russia. Since there are no real threats to security, these steps do little except create and deepen new dividing lines in Europe. We have repeatedly proposed that NATO take the path of de-escalating military tensions and reducing the risks of military incidents on the continent. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, we proposed an initiative to show military restraint, to move military exercises away from the Russia-NATO contact line, and other transparency measures. Russia has cancelled major exercises close to the borders of NATO countries, and has moved large military training events farther inland. However, the alliance is not showing any willingness to reciprocate. It has adopted the policy of ‘containment and dialogue’ with regard to Russia, but in reality, there is practically no place for real and open dialogue on pressing problems there. Question: Ukraine has been consistently undermining the Minsk agreements. It did not carry out the main provisions of the agreements adopted in December 2019 at the Normandy format summit in Paris. Does the new status for Donbass depend entirely on Ukraine under the Minsk agreements, or are there other solutions? What is the position of the United States, considering that Washington allocated $250 million for arms deliveries to Kiev? Sergey Lavrov: You are right to mention the Minsk agreements. This document was approved by the UN Security Council and Ukraine was among its signatories. It contains a provision (Paragraph 11 in the Package of Measures) that provides for, quote, “carrying out a constitutional reform in Ukraine … providing for decentralisation as a key element (including a reference to the specificities of certain areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions agreed with the representatives of these areas), as well as adopting permanent legislation on the special status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.” All this had to find its way into Ukraine’s new constitution, which should have entered into force by the end of 2015, as stated in the same paragraph. Enshrining the special status for Donbass in the constitution is key to achieving a settlement in Ukraine and resolving security matters, as well as socioeconomic and humanitarian issues. At the Normandy summit in Paris on December 9, 2019, the participants, including President Vladimir Zelensky, unanimously supported the agreement on the need to have Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk agree on all the legal aspects of the special status for Donbass in strictly keeping with the Minsk Package of Measures. It is time that our Ukrainian partners stop fooling everyone by coming up with excuses for not doing anything to carry out their existing commitments. To settle the conflict, the United States should stop adding fuel to the fire by supplying arms to Kiev. This begs the question: does Washington actually want peace in Ukraine, as its representatives continue to claim at various international venues? Question: What are the prospects for Russia to improve its relations with Georgia, a neighbouring country? Sergey Lavrov: Over the past 12 years, Russia and Georgia have been interacting outside of the diplomatic context. Let me remind you that it was Tbilisi who severed diplomatic ties following the South Ossetia gamble by Mikheil Saakashvili’s government. Russia has maintained its unwavering commitment to mutually beneficial and friendly relations with Georgia. We strongly believe that this meets the national interests of both countries and peoples with their common past and shared culture, and millions of intertwined human destinies. We fully support the policy initiated in 2012 by the government of the Georgian Dream – Democratic Georgia alliance to normalise our bilateral relations. We proceed from the premise that the further we go down the road of normalising our relations, the better. Nothing prevents this from happening as far as Russia is concerned. As for our Georgian partners, they have clearly lacked consistency on this front, and have been prone to seeking momentary gain by playing the anti-Russia card from time to time. However, life always sets things straight. Today, Russia has firmly established itself as Georgia’s second largest foreign trade partner, second only to Turkey, with $1.33 billion in trade (2019). It is to Russia that Georgia has been selling two thirds of its wine over the past several years. Russia retains its leadership in remittances to Georgia, which totalled about $430 million last year. Russian tourists (1.5 million in 2019) also want our two countries to build closer ties. In late 2013, Russia and Georgia resumed regular coach service between the two countries, and air service was restored in October 2014. Verkhny Lars, the only checkpoint on the land border between Russia and Georgia, started working around the clock. Our countries stepped up contacts in culture, sports, research, religion, as well as business ties. Against this backdrop, we even started working on offering visa-free travel to Georgian nationals. Unfortunately, the June-July 2019 events in Tbilisi derailed this positive momentum, when the President of Russia suspended air service with Georgia in response to a provocation by Georgian nationalists and radicals. We hope that air service will resume in the near future. We closely monitor the developments in Georgia itself, while waiting for the sanitary and epidemiological situation in the region and around the world to get back to normal, and regular air service to other destinations to resume. Political discussions between Grigory Karasin and Zurab Abashidze had to be halted due to the pandemic, and we expect them to resume in the near future. The same applies to the Geneva International Discussions on security and stability in the South Caucasus. I think that we could make better use of the potential offered by the Interests Sections at the Swiss embassies in Tbilisi and Moscow. Russia has always treasured its friendly ties with the kindred people of Georgia, with whom we lived in a single country for many centuries, even if the name of the country changed several times. We strongly believe that overcoming the existing differences and restoring and developing full bilateral relations meets the long-term interests of our countries and people. Question: In your view, what is behind the recent aggravation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, and how likely is it that it will escalate into a large-scale military conflict? Sergey Lavrov: The border conflict of July 12-16, 2020, became the second largest violation since April 2016 of the 1994 Ceasefire Agreement, drafted with Russia’s mediation. At the same time, this is the first time in 26 years that we are seeing highly intensive clashes involving field artillery, mortars and strike drones directly on the state border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, rather than along the line of contact in Karabakh. A number of causes led to this conflict. It goes without saying that the unresolved Karabakh problem is the root cause. Add to this the extremely overheated public space on both sides of the border. The geographic factor served as a trigger of sorts, namely, the Armenian side’s decision to reactivate an old border checkpoint located 15 km from Azerbaijan’s oil-exporting pipelines caused great concern among some and an unjustified response among others. Eventually, this led to a confrontation with the most unpredictable consequences. To stabilise the situation, the Russian Foreign Ministry urged the conflicting parties to immediately cease fire on July 13. I had telephone conversations with my colleagues from Armenia and Azerbaijan and met with representatives of organisations uniting Russian citizens with Azerbaijani and Armenian backgrounds. Both diasporas should be fully aware of their responsibility for complying with the Russian Federation’s laws and for fostering an atmosphere conducive to the normalisation of relations between Baku and Yerevan. All this time, Igor Popov, the Russian Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh, communicated directly with senior officials of both countries’ foreign ministries. As a result, the parties reached a ceasefire agreement starting from July 16 with active Russian mediation, although not from the first attempt. The situation became more or less stabilised in August and remains relatively calm on the border and the line of contact. Mutual public accusations are subsiding. We expect the negotiating process on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement to resume as soon as possible. We are working on this with our partners from the OSCE Minsk Group. Question: Will Russia be able to achieve the abolition of the non-citizen status in Latvia and Estonia, a practice that is humiliating for our compatriots there? Being non-citizens limits their political, economic and social rights. Sergey Lavrov: We consider the situation with the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia and Estonia to be discriminatory. Statelessness is a shameful social phenomenon practiced in these countries and mainly applied to Russian-speaking residents, depriving them of basic democratic and socioeconomic rights. It is outrageous. The number of stateless persons there is declining extremely slowly, mainly as a result of deaths or emigration of the Russian-speaking population. Latvia currently has 216,900 non-citizens (about 11 percent of the population); Estonia, 75,600 (about 6 percent). The authorities of these Baltic states do not recognise ‘non-citizens’ as belonging to national minorities, thereby excluding them from the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The non-citizens have no voting rights, they cannot establish political parties, participate in transactions with land and real estate without the consent of the municipal authorities, are not allowed into the civil service, the military service, the police, the service as judges or prosecutors, etc. International organisations such as the UN Human Rights Council, monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe, the OSCE, and others have published multiple recommendations and have repeatedly appealed to the Latvian and Estonian authorities to take steps to ensure that their language policy and legislation do not lead to direct or indirect discrimination. For example, in August 2018, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination published a conclusion on Latvia’s report, expressing concern about the educational reform, as well as the non-citizen problem. In March 2019, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights criticised Estonia for having a large number of persons with undetermined citizenship. In April 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee issued recommendations on the situation in Estonia, expressing concern about the limited scope of amendments to its citizenship law that excluded certain categories of children of non-citizens; about the strict state language fluency requirements for the naturalisation procedure; and the adverse impact of undetermined citizenship on political engagement. The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe on National Minorities, the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and a number of other international agencies also condemned the discriminatory policies of Riga and Tallinn. The Latvian and Estonian authorities’ reaction to international criticism remains inadequate given the gravity of the situation. In this regard, we are confident that EU membership should not be viewed by the Baltic states as a political cover-up for their illegal actions. For its part, the Russian Foreign Ministry consistently defends the interests of non-citizens. We use the capabilities of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe control mechanisms to protect the rights of national minorities. We insist on addressing the statelessness problem in the course of bilateral contacts with the Baltic states, including political consultations, noting that the observance, by Latvia and Estonia, of the generally recognised international standards guaranteeing equal rights to obtain citizenship is an important condition for progress in building neighbourly bilateral relations. Question: What role will Russia be ready to play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (in addition to the Middle East Quartet) to revive talks, in view of the critical situation resulting from the statements by the United States on Jerusalem? Sergey Lavrov: It is true that the situation with the Middle East Peace Process is nearing a critical point. There is no doubt that this resulted from Washington’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as the only and indivisible capital of the State of Israel and to transfer its embassy there. We proceed from the premise that the Jerusalem problem, like all other so-called final status issues, should be resolved through direct talks between the two conflicting sides, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Anticipating the outcome of these talks only complicates efforts to find a solution. The universally recognised international legal framework of the Middle East Peace Process, which includes UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative, proceeds from this understanding. We strongly believe that against this backdrop the efforts by the international community are very much relevant for facilitating the resumption of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks and achieving a comprehensive peace agreement between the parties under the auspices of the Middle East Quartet of international mediators, which includes Russia, the United States, the EU and the UN. This was the point made by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his remarks at the June 24 videoconference of the UN Security Council on the Middle East Peace Process. Russia supports this call. This multilateral mechanism is designed to accompany the Middle East Peace Process. However, it is currently paralysed due to the uncooperative position of the United States. Washington said it would continue working within the Quartet only to promote its peace plan, known as the “deal of the century.” In this context, we said that we were ready to continue working on the Israeli-Palestinian issue in a troika with the UN and the EU, with the option for other regional powers and organisations to join our efforts. In addition to this, it has to be noted that restoring Palestinian unity on the political platform of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation is a major prerequisite for resuming direct Israeli-Palestinian talks. In this context, we welcomed the timely steps by Fatah and Hamas to overcome the long-standing division, as announced on July 2, 2020 during an online joint news conference by the authorised representatives of Fatah and Hamas. As for Russia, we will continue working with the Palestinians in order to consolidate and carry forward the positive momentum. We intend to hold a meeting of the main Palestinian parties and movements in Moscow, as soon as this becomes possible considering the sanitary and epidemiological situation. In early July 2020, President of Russia Vladimir Putin talked on the telephone with President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas who responded to our proposal positively. Hamas leaders also informed us that they were ready, in principle, to take part in an event of this kind. Question: Kosovo Serbs are still essentially deprived of their rights. Russia stands for a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo problem, but nothing has changed. What efforts could promote the diplomatic solution to the conflict between Belgrade and Pristina? Sergey Lavrov: As for the Kosovo issue, I would prefer to focus not on the conflict between Belgrade and Pristina, but on the consequences of the shameless annexation of part of Serbian territory. It was executed by armed militants consisting of Kosovo Albanians with the connivance and direct support of the West, including the NATO’s aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. Following this outrage, a self-proclaimed quasi-state was created on the territory of a Serbian autonomous region. This was done unilaterally, in circumvention of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which is the basis of the settlement. The political leadership of that quasi-state blatantly ignores the international law, the legitimate demands and interests of the Republic of Serbia and Serbian people, and strives to legalise the current state of affairs, including themselves, by any means at their disposal. At one point, through great efforts and painful compromises, the negotiation process was launched. In 2010, the UN General Assembly empowered the European Union to become an intermediary in the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. Later, very important decisions were agreed upon, including on the creation of the Association of Serbian Municipalities in Kosovo. Plans called for a gradual transition to the mutually acceptable agreements, first of all, on ensuring the safety of Serbs in the region. However, Kosovo stonewalled all of these decisions. The dialogue is currently stagnating. That said, there is no alternative to it, regardless of anyone’s desire to cut the Gordian knot. Brussels and Washington are boosting efforts to relaunch the negotiation process. It is important to keep in mind that a serious and honest conversation is needed about the future relations between Belgrade and Pristina. It would only bring results if the legal interests of Kosovo Serbs, their concerns and international law are respected. External assistance must rule out blackmail and arm twisting of one side while encouraging questionable political appetites of the other side. The alternative to the dialogue would be very dangerous to everyone. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4293771 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of Belarus Vladimir Makei 21 August 2020 - 13:53 On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov spoke on the telephone with Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus Vladimir Makei. Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Makei considered the political developments in Belarus and discussed various initiatives advanced by Western countries with regard to the Belarusian government’s further steps. In this context, the two ministers noted that ways to address Belarus’s existing problems are its internal affair and do not warrant any external interference, let alone any “instructions” about with whom and how they should conduct a dialogue. They emphasised that all external actors need to respect the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Belarus, and stop trying to provoke confrontation in Belarusian society and undermine the process of normalising the situation. They also exchanged views on the progress in implementing a number of agreements reached between the presidents and prime ministers of the two countries, as well as in implementing the cooperation plans between the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294262 Foreign Ministry’s statement on the US’s illegal attempts to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran 21 August 2020 - 19:08 The United States continues its dangerous manoeuvres at the UN Security Council in the hope of carrying out its anti-Iran schemes. Having failed to push through a draft resolution on extending indefinitely an international arms embargo on Iran, which was resolutely rebuffed by the Security Council, the US began to badger UN leaders, including the UN Security Council president. The US wants everyone to recognise its alleged right to exert pressure on Iran with mechanisms envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. All this after the US officially withdrew from the JCPOA and has been crudely and shamelessly violating its own commitments stemming from related Security Council resolutions for over two years. The US has regularly denounced “the nuclear deal” and been doing all it could to undermine the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Now, having apparently forgotten its commitments, it has started talking about its own “rights.” The US claims that it has invoked a “snapback” of the UN Security Council sanction resolutions on Iran that were withdrawn after the signing of the JCPOA in 2015. However, the US’s statements will fail to produce the desired effect. These tricks by the United States have no basis in reality. The US itself walked away from the plan, thereby depriving itself of the rights and opportunities envisaged in it and in UN Security Council Resolution 2231. The US’s notice shows that Washington is misinterpreting this resolution and is not meeting its requirements. Neither is it meeting the requirements of the JCPOA that is part of the Security Council resolution. The US is trying to prove that it has the right to fulfil only those provisions of the resolution that are “convenient” to it and can be used for its anti-Iran policy. But this won’t do. Moreover, the US cannot include in its notice the description of “conscientious and exhaustive” efforts taken in settling disputes under JCPOA procedures because it did not make them. Meanwhile, these efforts were mandatory. Thus, the Security Council has no grounds on which to accept the US’s notice for consideration, not to mention take any action based on it. This would contradict Resolution 2231. Apparently, this is what Washington is trying to achieve by dragging other Security Council members into the wilds where international law does not exist. We are convinced that the US’s notice is legally negligible and cannot initiate the mechanism to restore the former resolutions against Iran. Insisting on its erroneous position, the US cannot hope for support in the Security Council. It is impossible to give up one’s commitments on a resolution and claim the rights that it provides. Russia has distributed a detailed legal argument to this effect. We are confident that the efforts to escalate tensions around Iran are erroneous and self-defeating. We urge the US to opt for reasonable solutions and not deprive itself of an opportunity to come to terms with Iran. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294549 Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden Ann Linde 21 August 2020 - 19:17 On August 21, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had a telephone conversation with Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Sweden Ann Linde at her initiative. The ministers exchanged views on the situation in Belarus, in part in the context of the initiative of the current Albanian and future Swedish Presidency of the OSCE on establishing a dialogue between the Belarusian authorities and representatives of the opposition. The Russian Foreign Minister emphasised that imposing any mediation or ready-made solution on Minsk is unacceptable. The attempts to dictate to Belarusian society what forces should represent the Belarusian opposition during the contemplated inclusive dialogue with the authorities were described as counterproductive. It is very important to let the Belarusians figure out themselves the complicated domestic political processes, in part with consideration for the Constitutional reform proposed by President Alexander Lukashenko. The ministers also discussed the prospects for cooperation with Sweden during its OSCE Presidency in 2021. They agreed on the urgent need to adjust the current personnel lineup in the OSCE, which is distinguished by an obvious geographical imbalance in the top positions in favour of representatives of the states “to the west of Vienna.” The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4294587 __________________ Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln

September 3rd, 2020	#168
Alex Him Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 6,834 Blog Entries: 219	Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s answer to a media question about sanctions against three Russian research institutes 28 August 2020 - 12:55 Question: Can you comment on the US sanctions recently imposed on three Russian research institutes? Maria Zakharova: We find it appalling that three Russian research institutes were included in the US lists of restricted parties. The most outrageous fact is that the sanctions were imposed on the very scientists and experts who have been working tirelessly for the past several months to develop a Russian COVID-19 vaccine. We do not understand how the US officials will explain to their citizens this attempt to punish the people who are working – and working successfully – on a treatment against the disease that has already killed more than 180,000 Americans. We are not sure that this is the right step towards cooperation against the pandemic although even Washington does not dispute the importance of this cooperation. It appears that, once again, the United States is using the sanctions leverage to promote its own companies – this time pharmaceutical – the same way as it continues to push its gas into the European market. As for our colleagues claiming that these research institutes are allegedly involved in chemical and biological weapon programmes, no evidence has been presented, as usual. In this context, I would like to note once again that, under the 1992 Presidential Executive Order, Russia discontinued Soviet chemical weapon developments. Under Article 3 of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), Moscow declared all of the country’s stocks of toxic agents. In 2017, the Russian chemical arsenal was completely destroyed under strict supervision. The destruction was confirmed by the competent international body, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which includes 193 countries, among them the United States. Russia continues to comply diligently with all of its commitments under the CWC. Specifically, the OPCW inspections in the Russian Federation never stopped and, in fact, continue to take place in accordance with the Convention provisions. The decision of the Bureau of Industry and Security only casts doubt on the OPCW’s efficiency and professionalism. It should also be noted that the CWC clearly describes the mechanisms to be applied in dispute resolution. Unfortunately, Washington has long preferred to act “at its own discretion” rather than within the framework of international agreements. It would be appropriate to note that currently, the United States remains the only CWC state-party that still has chemical weapons. Moreover, various inventions related to the use of full-fledged chemical warfare, including nerve gases, are still being patented in the United States. Russia’s activity in medical and biological sciences pursues only peaceful goals and fully complies with the obligations under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which is confirmed by the information annually submitted about the Russian facilities and biological activity in order to strengthen the credibility of the BTWC. Being the convention’s depositary and understanding the importance of its reinforcement, Russia proactively supports the adoption of a legally binding protocol to the convention that would describe an efficient inspection mechanism to alleviate any concerns regarding compliance with the BTWC by a specific state-party. In view of this fact, the decision by the Bureau of Industry and Security seems particularly cynical because it is in fact the United States that has, almost single-handedly, been blocking the work on such a protocol since 2001. We also have questions regarding Washington’s medical and biological activity both on the US territory and outside its borders. There are no grounds to assert that the activity of the American biological laboratories fully complies with the BTWC provisions. Major international scandals around US laboratories are quite illustrative in this context. For example, the investigation of the terrorist attacks linked to the dissemination of anthrax spores by post in the United States in 2001 found that the scientist who posted the envelopes with the toxin actually worked at the biology lab in Fort Detrick, an advanced biodefence facility of the US military. In addition to this, Russia has repeatedly expressed concerns with regard to the military biological activity of the United States in the post-Soviet space. In particular, the activity conducted at the Richard Lugar Centre for Public Health Research, built by the US Department of Defence in Georgia, where the US Army Medical Research Directorate-Georgia operates, is begging numerous questions. In order to eliminate the concerns with regard to fulfilling the BTWC, we believe it is necessary to enforce the mechanism under Article 5 of the Convention, according to which the states-parties must consult with each other to resolve any issues under the BTWC. Instead of the pressure of sanctions, we propose that our American colleagues sit down at a negotiating table with us to discuss all the persisting issues in the bilateral format. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302595 Press release on the consultations of deputy foreign ministers/special representatives of the BRICS countries on the issues of the Middle East and North Africa 28 August 2020 - 15:58 On August 26, as part of the Russian BRICS Chairmanship, Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa and Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov held consultations, via videoconference, of deputy foreign ministers/special representatives of the BRICS countries for the Middle East and North Africa. The conference was attended by Additional Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs of India P. Harish, Assistant Foreign Minister of China Chen Xiaodong, Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa Kwati Mashego-Dlamini and Director of the Brazilian Foreign Ministry Department for the Middle East, Europe and Africa Sidney Romeiro. The participants discussed in detail the situations in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf countries as well as the Middle East peace process. They stated that BRICS has a substantial potential for promoting collective efforts in the search for political solutions to the problems of the Middle East, and expressed a shared commitment to continuing their cooperation and deepening political dialogue among the five member countries. The participants agreed that regular comparison of positions and cooperation within BRICS on a broad range of issues of the Middle East, as well as other urgent international problems meet the demands of the time and that such practice should be continued at different venues, including the UN. After the discussion, they adopted the following joint statement: 1. On 26 August 2020, a teleconference of the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) was held under the Russian Chairmanship to exchange views on the current situation in the MENA region. 2. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys closely followed the spread of COVID-19 in the Middle East and North Africa and supported the efforts made by these countries to actively fight against the pandemics. They called upon the international community to strengthen coordination and forge synergy, provide more support to MENA states to fight against COVID-19 at an early date and help them defeat COVID-19 so as to recreate a sound environment conducive to peace, stability and development. 3. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed serious concern over continued conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa that remain a source of threat to regional and international stability and security. At the same time, they stated that regional crises should be resolved exclusively through political and diplomatic means based on unconditional respect for independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty of all MENA States. 4. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reaffirmed their commitment to the basic principle that peace and security in the Middle East and North Africa should be achieved and sustained in accordance with, and in full respect for international law and the UN Charter. Confirming the primary role of the UN Security Council in this process, they urged the North Africa countries to respect the AU Charter and the leading role of the AU Peace and Security Council. They advocated for the strengthening of the multilateral framework of international relations, while opposing unilateralism and promoting peace, stability and development in the Middle East and North Africa region. 5. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys shared the view that peoples of each of the countries in the MENA region need solidarity and support in fulfilling their legitimate aspirations to enjoy full civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and fundamental freedoms. 6. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed serious concern over the humanitarian situation of all religious minorities in the areas of conflict, especially those who were displaced or forced to flee their places of origin or stay in conflict zones or in the territories controlled by terrorist groups and live under the constant threat of violation or infringement of their human rights. They therefore called upon all Middle East states to reaffirm their commitment to respect the rights of every citizen in the areas of conflict. 7. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their solidarity with the people of Lebanon in connection with the massive explosion in the port of Beirut on August 4, 2020 which resulted in considerable casualties and large-scale destruction. They called upon all the members of the international community to provide assistance to Lebanon with the purpose of overcoming the consequences of the catastrophe and the speedy normalization of the political and socio-economic situation in the country. They advocated that, taking into consideration the legitimate aspirations of the Lebanese people for political solutions to the current challenges faced by the nation, Lebanese political forces should be able to work together in the current complicated conditions and take decisive steps for the sake of de-escalation of tensions, renunciation of violence and prevention of the situation sliding out of control. 8. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys noted that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security and that any acts of terrorism are criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed. They reiterated that the fight against terrorism must be conducted under the coordinating leadership of the UN in accordance with the norms and principles of international law, including the principles of respect for sovereignty, independence and equality of all States, and opposing double standards. They reiterated that countries must urgently consider expediting finalization of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) under the UN umbrella. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys welcomed the activities of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group, in particular the progress achieved on the Draft Counter-Terrorism Strategy. They noted the timeliness of this document and expressed their confidence that it would greatly contribute to the consolidation of the efforts of the BRICS States in the fight against terrorism. 9. Regarding the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the country. They expressed their conviction that there can be no military solution to the Syrian conflict. They also reaffirmed their commitment to advancing a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process in line with UNSC Resolution 2254, culminating in constitutional reform and free and fair elections. They noted in this context the importance of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva launched with the decisive participation of the countries-guarantors of the Astana Process and all states engaged in efforts to address the conflict through political means and welcomed the efforts of Mr Geir Pedersen, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria, to ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of the Committee. They expressed their conviction that, in order to reach general agreement, members of the Constitutional Committee should be guided by the commitment to compromise and cooperate constructively without foreign interference. They also welcomed the signing of the Additional Protocol to the Memorandum on Stabilization of the Situation in the Idlib De-Escalation Area. They reaffirmed the international obligations to fight terrorism in all its forms and highlighted the importance of unity in the fight against terrorist organizations in Syria as designated by the UN Security Council. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys emphasized the fundamental importance of allowing unhindered humanitarian aid in accordance with the UN humanitarian principles and the post-conflict reconstruction of Syria that would create conditions for the safe, voluntary and dignified return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their places of permanent residence thus contributing to achieving long-term stability and security in Syria and the region in general. They also expressed concern with all those in vulnerable situations and condemned persecution on ethnic or religious grounds. 10. Reaffirming their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Libya, the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys called on the Libyan parties to the conflict to show mutual restraint and stressed the importance of establishing a long-term lasting ceasefire in Libya, in order to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable solution through a Libyan-led and Libyan-owned political process under the auspices of the United Nations. They stated the need to fully implement the decisions of the International Conference on Libya held in Berlin on 19 January 2020 and UNSC Resolution 2510, noting the importance of parallel progress on all three tracks of the intra-Libyan negotiation process (military, political and economic), with substantial assistance from the United Nations Support Mission in Libya. Encouraging the UN Secretary General to promptly designate a Special Representative for Libya, the Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys noted a significant role played by the African Union and the League of Arab States in promoting a peaceful intra-Libyan dialogue and political process. 11. The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys reaffirmed their continued support for efforts made by the Iraqi Government towards national reconstruction, development and a mutually respectful and inclusive national dialogue with a view to overcoming common challenges and enhancing stability. Stressing the need to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq and the inadmissibility of any interference in its internal affairs, the BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys noted the importance of supporting the Iraqi people in their fight against manifestations of extremism and terrorism and promoting economic recovery of the country. They further acknowledged the importance of stability in Iraq for regional and international security. They further condemned in the strongest possible terms the heinous and inhuman violence perpetrated by terrorist and extremist groups, such as the self-styled ISIS, in the territory of Iraq. 12. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their grave concern over the ongoing conflict in the Yemen Republic that affects security and stability not only in that country, but throughout the entire region. They noted in this regard the need for a full cessation of hostilities and establishment of an inclusive negotiation process in Yemen mediated by the UN. They reaffirmed the general consensus that progress towards resolving the numerous challenges confronting Yemen, cannot be achieved without a constructive dialogue with due account of the legitimate interests of different political forces of the country. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys stressed the importance of providing urgent humanitarian assistance to Yemenis and facilitating the rapid, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian supplies to all people and across all regions of the country. They warned that without sustainable peace in Yemen, the humanitarian crisis will only continue and worsen. 13. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys are convinced that failure to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict continues to hamper peace and stability in the Middle East. They remain committed to a just and lasting peace in the region, stating that a two-state solution must be sought, guided by the international legal framework previously in place, such as the relevant UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative, resulting in the creation of an independent and viable State of Palestine, existing peacefully side by side with its neighbours. They expressed the need for new and creative diplomatic efforts to achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement and emphasized the importance of an early launch of direct negotiations between the Palestinian and the Israeli sides. 14. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed their serious concern over the ongoing tensions, including one-sided actions in the Gulf region. They reaffirmed the support of the BRICS countries for the efforts to resolve the existing disagreements through negotiations and diplomatic engagement, stressed the need for promoting a positive and constructive agenda in the region, in which all countries jointly respond to common threats and challenges. 15. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys supported the steps taken by the Sudanese leadership to strengthen national accord and overcome social and economic crisis in the country. Welcoming the commitment of the Sudanese government to the nationwide effort to bring an end to internal armed conflicts, primarily in Darfur, they looked forward to the successful outcome of the negotiations between the Sudanese government and the opposition movements. The BRICS Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys expressed support for the responsible drawdown of the United Nations – African Union Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) and its transition into the future United Nations Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), taking into full consideration, in the process, the opinion of the Sudanese people. 16. The Deputy Ministers/Special Envoys committed themselves to meet again in India during its Chairmanship in BRICS in 2021. They also reaffirmed the advisability of holding regular consultations on the Middle East and North Africa at various venues, including the UN, and expressed their readiness for holding relevant working-level consultations when required. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302838 Comment by the Information and Press Department on the suspense of restrictions on the use of force against journalists in the United States 28 August 2020 - 16:12 We are concerned about the decision of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to temporarily lift a lower court’s preliminary injunction on federal law enforcement officers’ use of force, threats and dispersal orders against journalists documenting Portland protests. We do not regard as convincing the US judges’ argument that the injunction, which was adopted in late July in a lawsuit initiated by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), allegedly prevents law enforcement personnel from reliably maintaining law and order because it is too difficult for them to distinguish peaceful citizens, including members of the press, from violent demonstrators. The decision has created a dangerous precedent by legalising police violence towards journalists, which contradicts not only the US legislation, in particular the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but also the universally recognised democratic principles when it comes to freedom of the media and unrestricted activities of journalists. As of August 2020, human rights organisations have reported over 700 cases of unjustified arrests and assaults by law enforcement personnel against members of the press who are covering protests in the United States. This police violence is unacceptable. We urge the US authorities, acting in accordance with Washington’s international obligations in the sphere of human rights and freedom of the press, to conduct a thorough investigation into all such violent actions against journalists and to create conditions for members of the press to exercise their professional duty. We hope that the concerned international authorities and human rights organisations will react accordingly and will provide an objective assessment of US law enforcement officers’ actions. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4302885 Comment by the Information and Press Department on the escalation of Russophobia in the run-up to parliamentary elections in Montenegro 28 August 2020 - 19:26 We are seriously concerned about the developments in Montenegro in the run-up to the national parliament elections to be held on August 30 this year. For the sake of their own political and campaign interests, the highest Montenegrin officials are using the entire arsenal of confrontation, deliberately escalating tension. They do not confine themselves to attacks on their domestic competitors but are again vigorously playing the anti-Russia card. Moscow is being accused in advance of trying to influence the conflict between the Montenegrin authorities and the Serbian Orthodox Church, interfering in the electoral process on the side of anti-government forces, and implementing its “imperial ambitions in the Balkans,” all without any evidence. Hints of a possible repetition of the 2016 scenario have become more frequent, when hysteria over an “attempted coup” was unleashed in the country, allegedly initiated by some “Russian agents.” Unfortunately, the current Montenegrin authorities fell into the habit of whipping up Russophobic sentiment prior to every important social or political event, categorically representing Russia as an enemy who is to blame for every problem – in the spirit of Western corporate trends. This consumerist approach to our bilateral relations, which are somewhat challenging at the moment, contrasts sharply with the signals periodically sent from Podgorica about its interest in Russian-Montenegrin normalisation. In the meantime, we see how negative feelings continue to accumulate and how an unfriendly atmosphere is being created towards Russians visiting Montenegro, whom the authorities in that country have recently begun to actively invite to local resorts. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4303452 Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on the statements by Deputy of Estonian Parliament Marko Mihkelson 28 August 2020 - 19:28 We attentively read the speech of the Deputy Chairman of the Estonian Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee Marko Mihkelson on Belarus on August 25 of this year. We cannot but agree with him on one very important point – concern for the future of the Belarusian people, fraternal for Russia, in this difficult period. As distinct from this Estonian deputy, who advocates a colour revolution scenario and a change of power in Belarus, we really want to wish our neighbours a good and peaceful life and to maintain the sovereign right to make their own choices. To achieve this it is necessary to avoid fueling tensions and stirring up strife from outside but rather to keep a cool head and abide by the international legal principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states. In urging the EU and NATO to interfere with the situation in Belarus, Mihkelson ignores the fact that Belarus is not a member of these organisations; Belarus continues to develop relations with the Russian Federation in the Union State format and as part of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). Legally, this means that the said countries have certain commitments, including those in the military and political areas. Accusing Russian leaders of “dictatorship” and “aggressive plans” as regards Belarus, the Estonian MP does not stop at direct interference in the affairs of not only Belarus but also Russia in an effort to suggest “other options” for its citizens. We would like to advise him to look at his own country where the Russian-speaking Diaspora, which accounts for nearly a third of the population, is deprived of basic political and civil rights. The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4303462 Warning for Russian citizens travelling abroad in connection with US threat 28 August 2020 - 21:07 In connection with the arrest of Russian citizen, 27 year-old Yegor Kryuchkov, in the United States on August 22, 2020 and following the warnings published by the Russian Foreign Ministry on September 2, 2013, April 10, 2014, May 22, 2015, April 11, 2016, February 16, 2017, February 1, 2018 and January 25, 2019, we would like to again draw the attention of our compatriots travelling abroad that they could face a threat of persecution by the US law-enforcement agencies and special services. This threat exists both in the United States and can be created through inquiries by its authorities in third countries. We have to state that despite our numerous appeals for normalising cooperation based on the 1999 Treaty between the US and Russian Governments on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, US law-enforcement bodies continue to arrest Russian citizens all over the world. Since 2008, 56 such cases have been recorded, including six in 2019. We have repeatedly faced situations where US special services organised open provocations against our citizens and even abducted them. This happened with Konstantin Yaroshenko in Liberia in 2010 and Roman Seleznyov in the Maldives in 2014. Both were taken by force to the US without investigation. Having ended up in the hands of US justice, Russian citizens often face a biased attitude and real legal iniquity. To force them to confess to framed charges, they are subjected to powerful psychological pressure and kept in unbearable conditions. This is what happened with Marina Butina who was convicted in the US just for having a Russian passport. If our citizens refuse to plead guilty, they are demonstratively sentenced to long prison terms, something that happened to Yaroshenko and Viktor Bout. The example of Bogdana Osipova is also indicative. She was charged in the US with the abduction of her own daughters, and her demands that her former American husband, who was physically abusive, pay alimony were qualified as extortion. In the process she was subjected to open blackmail, with promises to reduce her seven-year term if she gave up her children who lived in Russia and were Russian citizens. The situation is complicated by the fact that after the Russian consulates general in San Francisco and Seattle we closed by the US authorities in 2017-2018, Russia has lost any consular presence on the US West Coast. This was a serious blow to our ability to provide timely support to imprisoned Russians in the US. Naturally, Russian diplomats are doing all they can to help their compatriots in trouble, ensure their lawful rights and help them get home as soon as possible. However, we would like to advise our compatriots to thoroughly weigh the risk of persecution by the US when planning foreign travel. This primarily applies to trips to the United States and the countries that have extradition treaties with it. You can see the list of these countries on the website: https://2009-2017.state.gov/document...tion/71600.pdf The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4303492 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s greetings to organisers, participants and guests of the 4th international charity festival of Christian culture, Russia- Greece: Together Through the Centuries 29 August 2020 - 20:00 I would like to extend my heartfelt greetings to organisers, participants and guests of the 4th international charity festival of Christian culture, Russia-Greece: Together Through the Centuries. Holding this event has become a strong tradition, evidencing the fact that ties of friendship and mutual assistance uniting our nations are deeply rooted in history. The Greek public has widely acknowledged Russia’s substantive contribution to Greece’s obtaining its independence in the early 19th century. Russian representatives will participate in next year’s events in Greece marking the bicentenary of the start of the national liberation struggle. Symbolically, our countries have agreed to hold a joint Russia-Greece History Year in 2021. It is gratifying that regardless of the uneasy epidemiological situation, the festival resumed its work after last year’s break. This year it is to be held on Russian territory. Russians revere the patron of the island of Corfu, Saint Spyridon of Trimythous as much as the Greeks honour the saintly and righteous warrior Fyodor Ushakov. It is indicative that the Russian Foreign Ministry’s reception mansion is located on Spiridonovka Street, which was named after the church built in honour of this Orthodox saint. Revisiting the joint glorious pages of our history helps us maintain our mutual trust and promote a creative agenda that benefits both the Russian and Greek peoples. I wish you new experiences, strong health, high spirits and all the very best. Moscow, August 29, 2020 The source of information - https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy...ent/id/4305731 __________________ Where should they dig the Very Deep Pit? Piglet said that the best place would be somewhere where a Heffalump was, just before he fell into it, only about a foot farther on. (c) Alan Alexander Miln

Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode