Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov briefing on NATO-Russia Council meeting, December 7, 2007

Transcript of Remarks and Replies to Media Questions by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov Following Russia-NATO Council Meeting at Foreign Ministers Level, NATO Headquarters, Brussels, December 7, 2007

We are satisfied with the discussion that took place at today's Russia-NATO Council meeting. It has once again shown that our partnership bears a mature character which enables us to openly discuss any vital issues. On some of them we can and already come to an agreement; on others we are not in agreement so far. But these differences do not hinder our dialogue. We hope that's the way we will continue expanding the field of coinciding interests and approaches. The main thing is the striving to jointly work on a basis of mutual respect, including respect for the analysis of each other regarding the threats which today are common to us.

The outgoing year was very packed with events as part of Russia-NATO Council activities. A Council meeting and a political science conference took place in Moscow and St. Petersburg. I think that the Council can and should remain an important tool for ensuring stability and security that enables us, as I've said, to consistently expand the field of joint activity.

Of course, our further cooperation under the Council's auspices will feel the impact of a whole array of factors, and not least among them I shall mention the Alliance's evolution. It is not fully comprehensible what direction its transformation will proceed in and how this will fit with international law, with the UN Charter, with the decisions of the UN Security Council and with the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. An enlargement policy is being pursued in parallel with the transformation. We know of the intentions of the NATO members to make this question one of the central at their upcoming summit in Bucharest next year. And we would not like that a project stemming from the political past, which the eastward enlargement of NATO is, would become a reality. We are convinced that this would not contribute to bolstering our common security or fighting the common threats to us. On the contrary, it could result in the appearance in Europe of new dividing lines, and perhaps even dividing lines within individual states, which we all surely want to avoid.

Not everything is understandable to us in respect of certain actions of the Alliance, including those close to our borders. I mean the modernization of the military structure in the Baltic states and the creation of US bases in Romania and Bulgaria. We simply do not understand the motives behind these actions. We today openly spoke with our partners about this. Such moves only compound the arms control situation in Europe, which, through no fault of ours, has been deadlocked in recent years. In these circumstances, as you know, we are forced to suspend our application of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. This suspension will begin on December 12, as stipulated in the law signed by President Vladimir Putin. We, of course, note the desire of our partners to seek and find exits from the prevailing situation.

We had useful consultations on the CFE Treaty; they are continuing. There is an understanding of a whole series of questions requiring solving in order to restore the viability of the arms control regime in Europe. On other issues we have not yet worked out such an understanding. History does not end on December 12. We are ready to continue consultations. As soon as a satisfactory solution is found on all Russia's lawful concerns, as soon as mutually acceptable accords are reached, I am convinced that the regime of control over conventional armaments will be restored, but now in a new, not absurd, but realistic and generally acceptable way.

We also spoke about the US plans to deploy a third missile defense position area in Europe. We have been closely watching the ideas and discussions aimed at combining the third US missile defense position area with the missile defense project of NATO as a whole. It is well known that Russia has a joint project with NATO that concerns theater missile defenses. We are not indifferent to what direction the system NATO intends to create will proceed in. If it is merely tailored to the unilateral plans of the US, then, of course, you understand that in this case it will be difficult for us to continue cooperation in the Russia-NATO Council framework on this concrete theme. But, I repeat, despite the difficulties, we have quite a few examples of good results in the Russia-NATO Council-related work. Adopted in Sofia in April 2006, the document on the growth prospects for our relations is being implemented quite productively. We adopted today an interim report on the implementation of the accords set forth in the Sofia document. On many of them there is substantial, noticeable progress. On a number of others - movement has not yet begun. We are ready to travel our part of the road. We expect our partners to act likewise.

We discussed the situation in Afghanistan. The vital security interests of Russia and the NATO nations really coincide here. It is both the threat of drugs and the lingering terrorist threat. They have to be fought by combined efforts. Our joint project for the training of personnel for the anti-narcotic agencies of Afghanistan and the Central Asian countries is being successfully implemented. We are also considering other cooperation possibilities, particularly in logistic support of the International Security Assistance Force and in helping to equip the Afghan National Army. I think there is a good field in this regard where we can move towards finding mutually acceptable forms of interaction.

Of course, we did not pass over the situation in Kosovo. You well know our position: we can support only a solution which is acceptable to the sides themselves - to Belgrade and Pristina. And, of course, the supreme instance, which alone has lawful authority to settle this problem, is the Security Council of the United Nations.

Question: What will the reaction of Russia be to a unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence if such a declaration is made?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Reaction will be based on international law and I very much hope that other members of the international community will proceed on that basis too.

Question: Now a meeting with your Polish counterpart will take part, and I would like to ask what you expect from this meeting and whether you have brought to Brussels some proposal for the Poles on lowering the embargo on Polish meat?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We are indeed meeting with Minister Radoslaw Sikorski. We already became acquainted "at close range" in Annapolis, where we took part in the international Middle East conference. Today I expect to discuss with my counterpart further steps to develop normal relations between our countries, including a schedule of contacts at diverse levels.

As to the situation with the veterinary problems that have arisen, I understand the appropriate specialists of the two countries are already in contact and actively working. We know of the keenness of the Polish Association of meat producers and exporters on solving these problems. They are actively cooperating with the veterinary experts and I think that we are on the right path.

Question: In the course of the event in Annapolis Russia suggested that a Middle East event be held in Moscow. Has any new information appeared on this theme? How are the decisions made in Annapolis for an exit from this crisis being implemented? A second question relates to the initiative of Russia for resolving the crisis around the Iranian nuclear program, particularly after the troika's report on this question.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: As to Annapolis, the main thing I believe is that the sides conscientiously fulfill the commitments they assumed in the Joint Statement adopted in Annapolis, and that there should be a continuous follow-up of these efforts on the part of the international community, above all, the Quartet and the League of Arab States. It is equally important that this process should not drag on. The parties have agreed to do everything possible to find a solution on all key issues of the creation of a Palestinian State before the end of 2008. It is our wish to see it happen exactly this way. As to the further process of the international follow-up of Middle East settlement, Syrian-Israeli relations and Lebanese-Israeli settlement were included as one of the agenda items even in Annapolis. In subsequent stages these issues must receive their further development. Ideally it is necessary to strive towards resuming direct negotiations between Israel and Syria for solving the problem of the Golan Heights and find how to arrive at a final settlement between Israel and Lebanon as well.

An undoubted problem remains the task of restoring Palestinian unity. I have heard that Mahmoud Abbas has reiterated that he will not agree to creating a Palestinian State within temporary borders, within incomplete, not fully agreed-upon borders. From this viewpoint, of course, the restoration of Palestinian unity has a special significance. We want together with many other countries, primarily with Arab and European nations, to actively contribute to this.

Moscow as a possible venue for another international meeting was mentioned by many of our colleagues taking part in the meeting in Annapolis. We are ready for this. It is necessary to thoroughly prepare any meeting, wherever it may be held, and so do that it is a step forward and encourages Palestinian-Israeli accords and leads to broader tasks in ensuring a comprehensive Arab-Israeli settlement.

Answering the question on Iran: we are conscientious participants of the group of six countries: Russia, the US, China and three European states, which worked out their initiative position on solving the Iranian nuclear problem as early as 2005. This position envisages work on two tracks: a negotiation track, the IAEA and the activation of the capabilities of the UN Security Council solely in order to help the IAEA settle all the problems that arise in connection with the past Iranian nuclear program. To make certain that there is no military component in this program. The report you've mentioned confirms the data, which we also have, that the IAEA has not discovered that component there, at any rate, as of now. And the work of the IAEA must, of course, continue in Iran. This twin-track, which presupposes both the openness for talks and the activation of the Security Council to help the IAEA, was agreed upon. As we had agreed among us six, the Security Council should react to the development of the situation, depending on the way Iran's dialogue with the IAEA develops. We note favorably that Iran has begun to cooperate more actively with the IAEA and we count on this being full-scale cooperation

Question: Russia has already said that a discussion of the question of South Ossetia and Abkhazia joining Russia is soon due, even though Russia has always been saying that it will always recognize the integrity of Georgia. Is this not a case of verbal aggression and the encouragement of separatism and is this position not connected with the fact that Georgia actively seeks NATO entry and will the precedent of Kosovo be a precedent for you for the settlement of the conflict with Georgia?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Neither the President of the Russian Federation, nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have made any statements…

(The correspondent: "Your politicians have made such statements…")

If I quote your politicians, excuse me, I simply do not want to do it, I haven't known such words since childhood.

As to Kosovo in principle, the way the Kosovo crisis is settled will surely have a precedent. And not because we are saying it. And not because our western partners are saying that there will be no precedent. It is not for us or them to decide. A precedent will be created simply because it will occur. And how the situation is going to evolve and how it is going to be resolved is being looked at by a lot of other countries in Europe and elsewhere and not only countries in the Balkans. So those who plan to take liberties with international law, with the UN Charter and with the Helsinki Final Act should think twice before stepping on a slippery slope which may be fraught with unpredictable consequences and will not add to stability in this region of Europe. Although it is stability that those pay lip service to who call for the recognition of Kosovo independence as an unalternative option. We are convinced that the troika of negotiators managed to do very useful work. Direct talks were begun. Belgrade came up with a whole series of consistent, very constructive and flexible proposals. Practically on all the questions that Belgrade raised there is a real possibility to come to an agreement. And only the absence of reciprocal movement on the part of Pristina now hinders solutions from being found. Once again I call on all who publicly speak of there being no alternative to Kosovo independence not to block the talks, but to give the parties a possibility to find mutually acceptable positions and encourage them to do so, rather than hold one party by its coattails, not letting it display a compromise.

Source: Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, www.russianembassy.org.

Back to the Top of the Page