THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
official site

Question: Let us first turn to news. This week has seen much ado about the London Times publication describing the agenda the new American administration proposed to Russia. Indeed, the day of Obama's inauguration the leadership of the American Embassy in Moscow raised the issue of resuming Russian-American talks on nuclear weapons. So let us treat this as a fact. What kind of talks is Russia prepared to have with America in nuclear sphere?

Sergei Lavrov: We are prepared to talks which will enable us to preserve strategic arms limitation and reduction regime, certainly, in the context of defensive arms issue, as in the framework of the dialogue on strategic stability, these key issues have always been linked, which has proven efficient. We are satisfied with the fact that the new administration in Washington gives priority to these issues, since in the recent two years and a half previous US administration has not given any clear answers to our numerous proposals to start elaborating an arrangement to replace the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, which expires in December 2009. We stand ready to move forward in reduction and limitations, certainly, with due account of the interests of Russia’s national security.

Question: Americans speak of an 80 percent reduction.

Sergei Lavrov: I have not heard of this, and officials do not confirm any numbers. As I have already said, in these talks we shall first and foremost aim at ensuring Russia’s national security, certainly, taking into account the US national security interests. It is not just a matter of reductions, but ensuring that verification mechanisms are shaped, which the previous US administration avoided discussing. We note that Barack Obama's team is ready to discuss the whole set of issues including verification and control mechanisms through mutual inspections. We expect that as soon as a disarmament group is formed within the Department of State (this has not been done yet), we will be able to immediately start consultations and prepare for the negotiation process. We are short of time, as there is not much time left before December.

Question: Before the CSTO Summit in Moscow the President of Kyrgyzstan stated that the Kyrgyz leadership intended to close American military base in Manas. Strictly speaking, this is a matter of Kyrgyz-American relations, and it should be dealt with in the course of Kyrgyz-American talks, yet Russia's presence in this case is obvious. However, my question is about something different. Looking at the map one can see that it will be difficult for Americans to continue their operation in Afghanistan without a base in Manas. Afghanistan is a typical example of a common threat which we will have to continue fighting. And what happens then? The base in Manas is closing down, end of story, or, can one try to imagine what it could be transformed into, like a joint NATO-CSTO military base, excuse me for this exaggeration?

Sergei Lavrov: You have said quite rightly that it is up to a sovereign State to decide on whether to deploy foreign military bases on its territory or not, and that is how the Kyrgyz leadership made its decision. I can only remind that in recent three years the Kyrgyz Parliament, the Kyrgyz society has regularly asked whether this base is necessary and whether it is worth the trouble. We have been reminded lately of numerous incidents which occurred at this base, in one of which a Kyrgyz citizen was killed. Kyrgyz citizens suffered as a result of traffic accidents involving the servicemen of the American base. It also caused damage to the environment. Taking this in consideration, I understand why this issue has been so topical for the Kyrgyz society.

As for the impact of a decision, in particular, the Kyrgyz leadership's decision to close down the American military base in Manas, on the possibility to combat terrorism and drug trafficking in Afghanistan, I believe that this issue calls for a comprehensive approach. There are plenty of ways for the anti-terrorist coalition to build up its capacities. This was discussed by President Dmitry Medvedev at the press conference during which President Bakiev was asked a question on the future of the US military base in Manas. He stressed then our willingness to interact with the countries of the anti-terrorist coalition, to which some additional facts attest. Several days ago the American side asked us to activate last April's NATO-Russia arrangement on the transit of non-military cargo intended for the International Security Assistance Force through Russian territory. In about 24 hours we gave our consent to that and now we are waiting for our American partners to be ready to send us a specific request on the quantity and the nature of the cargo. As soon as this is done we will give the necessary permission.

Question: Are similar operations in Afghanistan feasible without Manas?

Sergei Lavrov: They are, certainly. If I have understood American officials, Pentagon representatives, correctly, they believe that the closure of the Manas base will not affect the efficiency of the US activities during the anti-terrorist operation.

Question: For many years the Collective Security Treaty Organization has strived to establish systemic relations with NATO. NATO has preferred to build relations with separate countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, etc. Can it be assumed that the CSTO Summit’s decision to establish Collective Rapid Reaction Forces will give an impetus for shaping systemic relations not with separate CSTO countries, but with the whole Organization as a new politico-military alliance speaking with one voice in relations with NATO, which, in its turn, will recognize the CSTO?

Sergei Lavrov: The issue which in recent years has manifested itself in NATO’s refusing the CSTO proposals to cooperate with regard to Afghanistan, is obviously a matter of ideology. It is an ideology-driven stance reflecting some NATO members' unwillingness — let me stress that far from every NATO member oppose that — to recognize the CSTO as an equal partner. In my opinion, such stance adversely affects our common goals; nevertheless, everyone gradually become aware of the reality.

The CSTO member-states' annual "Channel" operation to suppress drug flow from Afghanistan to Central Asia has already won attention and practical interest of a number of countries, including many NATO member countries. The CSTO members regularly invite certain NATO countries to take part in this operation as observers. By now, as many as 20 States have been involved in this operation in one way or the other, although so far they have participated in it as observers. Thus, there is obviously practical interest in it, yet it cannot be legally and politically formalized due to the stance of the minority of members of the North Atlantic Alliance. I cannot tell you how the establishment of the CSTO Collective Rapid Reaction Forces will influence NATO's readiness to cooperate. The CSTO has not made this step in order to make the Collective Security Treaty Organization more attractive to NATO. We aim at improving the efficiency of the joint actions to suppress threats specified in the Collective Security Council decision. Those are, first of all, combating aggression, terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime, as well as joint efforts to manage natural disasters and emergencies. In other words, those are issues which regularly become topical in this region and make it necessary for us to think for ourselves on how to address them more efficiently. If NATO wants to cooperate with us in anti-terrorist, anti-drug sphere, combating organized crime —all of which are directly linked with the situation in Afghanistan and around it — we will be certainly willing to do that.

Question: Who are this minority in NATO, the countries whose troops are in Afghanistan, or some other countries?

Sergei Lavrov: I would not answer this question, as — let me stress once again — it is up to NATO whether to accept the CSTO's proposal to cooperate, or not. Yet I have no doubt that everyone would benefit from such cooperation, including from facilitating the fulfillment of tasks NATO has set for its force in Afghanistan.

Question: Mr. Lavrov, this interview is to be published on the Diplomatic Personnel Day. It has been celebrated for seven years now, yet this year is different: there is a global economic crisis, tectonic changes in the world politics and world economy. In what shape are Russian diplomats celebrating their holiday?

Sergei Lavrov: I think it would be immodest to say that we are going through this holiday without any problems. One cannot be too perfect. At the same time, I would really give a positive assessment to the last year's results. It is my sincere opinion. Russian leadership, too, believe that the year has been helpful in terms of international affairs. It was harder than previous years for certain reasons, such as the crisis in the Caucasus, global financial crisis, to which the crisis in the Gaza Strip and the crisis of energy products supplies to Europe were added at the end of the year.

There appeared a whole set of rather complicated issues. Yet the way those issues were addressed and the clearer situation in the world and in Europe after these developments, offer hope that it will be easier for us to deal with our partners. I hope that both they and we could understand many things better. There are no more reasons to hide from real problems which we need to resolve jointly. This applies first and foremost to the issues of European and Euro-Atlantic security, in which problem potential is very high and in which the existing structures have proven inadequate.

We have already mentioned NATO, CSTO. The existence of security structures incapable of interact with each other and agree on how to cooperate and not shape ideology-based relations with each other, should become a subject of discussion. What we want is that the extensive work on the new Euro-Atlantic security treaty supported by President Dmitry Medvedev, start as soon as possible and that we, acting fairly and not trying to outplay or decieve anyone, engage in a discussion on the way to further ensure the principle we agreed long ago. I mean the principle that no one in the Euro-Atlantic space shall ensure their security at the cost of the security of any other State in this region. This is what is meant. The specific proposals which we made to our partners in the OSCE and NATO-Russia Council, as well as during our contacts with the European Union have attracted practical interest. Now it is important that they are discussed substantially and not evaluated using some ideology-based standards of the past.

Question: I have a question, a substantial one. What will this new European security system look like, would it be any new NATO-Russia-EU agreements, a renewed OSCE or anything else?

Sergei Lavrov: These talks should involve everyone who deals with security issues in the region. Those are not just NATO, or the European Union, and clearly not just the OSCE, they also include the CSTO, CIS, and organizations in which politico-military issues are given substantial consideration and for which these issues are a field of activities.

We do not suggest establishing any new organizations, neither discontinuing nor dissolving any existing ones. We advocate that all States get together at a forum also involving all the organizations we have just discussed. Russia advocates that all of us examine current situation based on the principle I have mentioned which was agreed long ago both in the framework of the OSCE and NATO-Russia Council and implies indivisible security. It says that no one shall take any steps to ensure their security undermining the security of any other participant in the process. This principle does exist, and it has been set forth in political documents and legal instruments, but is not implemented in practice. That means that there is something wrong with the mechanisms for its implementation. This also applies to strategic stability and conventional arms control. Besides, it applies to approaches to settling conflicts in this area. Certainly, this principle extends to terrorism, drug threat, and we need to unite our efforts in all these spheres and not try to address these issues by ourselves excluding a State or an organization.

Thus, we expect that first and foremost a specific professional and non-political discussion will take place on the most topical issues related to our functioning in Europe and Euro-Atlantic region. And only after we have realized what kind of cooperation can be established among all States and organizations in this region, we will answer the question of what to do then. We have no ready predetermined answers or recipes. We would like to jointly elaborate collective mechanisms for the implementation of this principle which we have collectively agreed.

Question: Let me ask the last question. This week President Medvedev has said that nothing concrete has been prepared for the G20 Summit in London which is to focus on anti-crisis measures. One of my programs featured former Belgian Prime Minister Wilfried Martens who now heads European People's Party and was invited to Russia by Vladimir Putin, leader of the United Russia. He told me that visiting recently the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris he asked about ideas developed for the Summit, a common economic agenda for the world. It turned out that there are none. Is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs doing anything in this field? I would like to ask at what stage we are at the moment? Much is spoken about economy, and everyone can explain everything. Yet no one knows what to do.

Sergei Lavrov: The work in this field is done mainly by Ministers of Finance. Our Minister of Finance Mr. Kudrin maintains relevant contacts. There is still some time before the London conference. The main thing is that the impetus which was given to our common efforts at the first G20 Summit in Washington last November, is not lost.

It was agreed then that there is much that should be changed and that there is a need for an action which should be, first, joint, and second, different from what we have done before on the basis of old rules. It was also agreed that we should examine how world finance mechanisms function in reality and how different regulatory and control measures are implemented. It would be pity if all this does not go beyond the papers and the London meeting results in attempts not to change anything and leave everything as it is but for some superficial corrections. I think it would be a time bomb. One will have to deal with the reform of the world financial system later anyway, but the situation will be more complicated. Therefore, Russia advocates concrete measures which are to be agreed and implemented collectively. I hope that the time remaining to the London Summit will be used to implement the Washington Summit philosophy in practice.