Disarmament Documentation

Back to Disarmament Documentation

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Russian Foreign Policy in 2007, December 26, 2007

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's Interview with the Newspaper Vremya Novostei, Published on December 26, 2007.

Question: You a few days ago called the speech of Vladimir Putin at the international conference on security in Munich in February one of the important events of 2007. Did that speech become a watershed in Russian relations with the West?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Our line in relations with the West remains invariable. We develop partnerships with all countries that are interested in this and which are ready to do it on an equal basis. The West is a partner from whom there is no getting away. The same European Union - it is our chief economic partner, our common civilization. Our future is together with Europe. But we also have neighbors like such great countries as China. Or India - although not an immediate neighbor of ours, but very close. One more neighbor of ours is a leading player in the world without whom it is difficult to tackle problems - the United States. Powerful economic centers are currently taking shape in different regions of the world. With economic power they are also acquiring political influence.

Question: That is Russia is one of these centers, and the Munich speech underlined this?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: The Munich speech was not about this. We did not have to particularly stress that we are a center of economic power and political influence. This is an objective fact. Everybody knows it. The chief aim of Munich was to emphasize the problem of mutual understanding and call on everyone not to cling to the Cold War stereotypes; those of the period when some of our western partners suddenly decided that they "had won" and Russia "had lost" in the Cold War. Some people suddenly became confirmed in their thought that from now on everything in the world will always be done according to Western templates.

Many times both the President and other Russian leaders called in trustful conversations with the parties for abandoning this ideology, as well as any ideology altogether, and concentrating on the unification of efforts instead. Without this it is impossible to solve the problems of terrorism, drug trafficking, the threat of proliferation (of weapons of mass destruction - Ed.), epidemics and poverty. Only by acting jointly can we endeavor to neutralize these threats. In this regard, there can only be jointly developed recipes, involving all players on the international scene. This is particularly true of crises. There can be no unilateral decisions, whether it is Kosovo, Iran or Lebanon or the Middle East problem as a whole. It is not for nothing that the principle of unanimity of the Security Council permanent members is written down in the United Nations Charter. One cannot try to present international cooperation so that everybody should follow the line of someone alone. This is the road to a deepening, not the solution of problems.

Question: The media now transitionally select the most important foreign policy events of 2007. Which events are seen by the Russian Foreign Minister as the most important? Say the first top five? The Munich speech is one. And the other four top listed?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Well, it is somewhat artificial - at the end of the year to name the five leading events. But the Munich speech is in this class, of course. Other important events are largely derivatives from the Munich speech. We called for an honest, frank conversation when none of the chief players in the world arena, none of the main centers of power and none of those from whom a multipolar world is formed would have a hidden agenda. This conversation must begin with an honest statement of one's lawful interests, with an honest acknowledgement of differences and with an honest elaboration of compromises for movement forward.

I would call next our actions over CFE (the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe; Russia suspended its participation in it on December 12 - Ed.). It is a derivative of the Munich speech. We had long in nonpublic consultations endeavored to convince our partners (to ratify the CFE Treaty and comply with it - Ed.). They had not listened to us. We accentuated the urgency of the situation and thus moved the problem off dead center. It is not solved yet. Additional efforts will be required to solve it. But an awareness of the need for this has come thanks to our well-thought-out steps. Yes, steps tough, but not closing the door.

Question: What is the third important theme of the outgoing year then?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: The situation surrounding missile defenses (MD). In Kennebankport President Putin put forward an unprecedented proposal. (Vladimir Putin at the beginning of July called on George Bush to give up the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe, suggesting in exchange, inter alia, joint use of the radar leased by Russia in Azerbaijan - Ed.).

This proposal, if accepted, will lead us to allied relations with the US and Europe in the area of strategic stability, moreover with the involvement of other states. Previously relations in this area came down to an understanding between Moscow and Washington not to bring the situation to mutual destruction. Accords predicated on an awareness of this were being elaborated.

Putin proposed a qualitatively new approach implying mutual trust and the complete openness of intelligence which each side obtains using its high technologies. Combine the capabilities that determine the protectedness of each of the sides, it was suggested. This means to "overcome one's old self" and reach what was earlier an absolutely unthinkable level of partnership and cooperation. We still do not lose hope that this approach will be accepted, although the chances for this are decreasing.

Question: That is the Americans "have not overcome their old self"?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Neither would I say of us that we have entirely "overcome our old self." But our President has called on us to do so; for this proposal also imposes on us huge obligations. Such was his determination and political will - to overcome the remnants of the old mentality. Few have grasped this aspect in the West. But this is really an unprecedented thing.

Question: Among the top first there is room for two more events…

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I would single out the incipient turning point in the CIS. And this occurs despite all the difficulties, despite the entire bifurcation of the CIS into two, provisionally speaking, areas: CSTO and GUAM (the Collective Security Treaty Organization consists of Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. GUAM incorporates Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova - Ed.). And this is despite all the contradictions stemming from the line of our western partners towards these two main groups of states in the CIS.

Yet the last summit (held in Tajikistan on October 5 - Ed.), by adopting the CIS Development Concept and the plan of its realization, made an important step forward from disunity and centrifugal to centripetal tendencies. These tendencies rest on all the participants' interests cleansed of any ideology. It has turned out that if we get rid of diverse phobias, then all twelve CIS member countries have common interests - in the economy, transport infrastructure and energy. There are common problems in the migration sphere, and they are to be tackled only collectively. And in the humanitarian sphere we are simply duty-bound to step over the politicized issues and do everything to ensure that the interest of the citizens of all our countries in communication - scientific, cultural and, after all, sports communication - is realized.

Question: And lastly, the fifth?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: It is what we are doing in the part of the CIS that is called EurAsEC (the Eurasian Economic Community is made up of Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan - Ed.). This area nearly coincides with the CSTO area. Integration processes in EurAsEC will receive a powerful stimulus with the formation of a customs union. Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are pioneers and leaders in this process. But the other EurAsEC members may also join in. This is one of our priority tasks for the near term. A juridical base has been created in the outgoing year. It has yet to be substantially reinforced. But it has already been laid, and this is one of the five main outcomes of the year, once you have preferred to single out five from them.

Question: The most difficult negotiations in 2007 were Iran and Kosovo?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Kosovo - extremely difficult negotiations were being conducted on this problem. In this regard, we have no coincidence in starting positions. Our western partners, especially the US and a number of European states, have decided to ensure independence for Kosovo at any cost, even at the cost of a violation of international law. And in this regard, we simply cannot concur with them.

Iran is a different situation. Unlike Kosovo, the ultimate aim here coincides: to ensure the preservation of the nonproliferation regime (for weapons of mass destruction - Ed.) and nevertheless reach an agreement which will recognize the right of Iran to the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy. The differences are only tactics, they are serious but, I think, surmountable.

Equally difficult were the negotiations on missile defense. In this regard, there seems to be an apparent coincidence of the ultimate aim: to maintain strategic stability and ensure missile nonproliferation. But the American side chooses unilateral methods that ignore our concerns, although these concerns are absolutely lawful and set out by us with the utmost frankness. These methods evoke anxiety and give rise to doubts as to whether we share coinciding aims in this regard.

Question: The MD aim declared by the Americans is to destroy missiles that theoretically in the future might be launched from Iran. But if the aim is not this, then what is it?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We have most serious assessments that the aim is not the creation of a system directed at neutralizing hypothetical threats from Iran, but at containing Russia. We are ready to share the aims declared by the US. But for their achievement the US uses methods that make us think that after all the aim is entirely different.

Question: Maybe there is one more aim - a change of the Iranian regime?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I think this is an associated aim. We in the Six (Russia, the US, China, Britain, France and Germany are active mediators in resolving the situation around Iran - Ed.) have clearly stated that our aim is to make certain that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful and has no military component. A change of regime is not part of our task. We did not sign in to this. If, in advancing towards the declared aims, our American partners will pursue the aim of a change of regime, then this will be a tactless partnership. That will be a substitution of notions and we will oppose it.

They are assuring us that there are no hidden aims whatsoever. But we want to make certain of this in practice. In particular, it is necessary to attest to the positive shift in Iran's cooperation with the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency - Ed.). And it is necessary to return to the initial agreement that a freeze on the program of uranium enrichment in Iran is by no means an aim in itself, but a means to make certain of the peaceful orientation of the Iranian nuclear program.

Question: But the Iranians, Sergey Viktorovich, were also quite rascally. Russia this month even delivered to them the first shipment of enriched nuclear fuel for the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, which the Russians are building. It would seem that after this the Iranians do not need to enrich uranium themselves any more. They've got the Russian fuel, why want more? But Teheran did not heed the advice of Moscow to suspend uranium enrichment activities…

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We consider that there is no economic need for Iran to continue the uranium enrichment program. We are trying to convince the Iranians that freezing this program will benefit Iran itself, since it will immediately lead to talks with the entire Six, including the US. These talks will be called upon once and for all to remove all the suspicions that the Iranian nuclear program has some components other than peaceful. Iran's agreement to this proposal would meet everybody's interests.

We honor our contractual obligations for the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant. There arose questions between us and the Iranians this year with regard to this project. They were settled. After this we began fulfilling our fuel delivery obligations. The project at Bushehr is being implemented under the full control of the IAEA and against the 100 percent guarantees of this agency. Our Iranian partners know that in the case of the slightest departure from the principle of 100 percent control by the IAEA we will freeze cooperation. But nothing of the kind occurs at present. All the parties fulfill their obligations and the project is going to be realized.

Question: The greatest tension and exchange of barbs in the outgoing year seems to have been with Britain? Even in the run-up to the New Year a controversy broke out over the closure in Russia of the regional offices of the British Council…

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I am a little bit surprised at how our British partners interpreted the situation with the British Council: as though we only now suddenly told them about the closure of its offices. The British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary say that we have acted illegally. Just a couple of words about the background of this issue. The entire problem was created by our British colleagues. They put forward absolutely unrealistic demands for the extradition of Lugovoi. (The former security service officer and now businessman and deputy Andrei Lugovoi was suspected by the British of involvement in the murder in London in autumn 2006 of Alexander Litvinenko. - Ed.) Then the British demanded changes in our Constitution, since it does not allow such extradition. And they did it in a way completely inadmissible in interstate relations. They inflicted systemic harm upon our relationship.

This had to be corrected. We value our partnership with Britain. But it was they who made the first step towards the creation of the present situation. And we await their first step in remedying it. When we explained to the British colleagues the inadmissibility of the extradition of Lugovoi in violation of the Russian Constitution, they applied repressive measures to us. These measures included the expulsion of our diplomats, a total cessation of contacts with FSB [the Federal Security Service] and, I stress, the freezing of the talks on the conclusion of a visa facilitation agreement between Russia and Britain. For some reason, they try to maintain a silence on this last measure, either because of misunderstanding or intentionally. Although all of this was announced this past summer in one package.

Question: And does all this relate to the work of the British Council in Russia?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We, following the laws of the genre, adopted mirror retaliatory measures. We had to retaliate. And we retaliated by the expulsion of a matching number of British diplomats. Making a gesture of goodwill, in response to the cessation of contacts with FSB, we did not discontinue contacts with their agencies. But in response to the freezing by the British of the talks on a visa facilitation agreement we froze the talks on an agreement on cultural centers. This agreement was to have provided a legal base for the activities of the British Council in the Russian Federation, since today these activities are illegal.

The sole understanding is confirmed in the 1994 agreement on cultural cooperation, where it is mentioned that the agent on the British side for the implementation of this agreement will be the British Council. At that time, taking advantage of the battered condition of the Russian state, the British side without prior arrangement opened, in addition to the office in Moscow, 15 other offices of the British Council in Russia, for which purpose some understandings had been concluded with regional and municipal authorities. But those understandings have no legal force in interstate relations.

Moreover, in a number of cases offices of the British Council were put on the platform of Britain's diplomatic representations. But British Councils also engage in commercial activities by way of the teaching of English and in other forms. It will be recalled that under the Vienna Convention diplomatic representations have no right to engage in commercial activities if they do not pay taxes for this. All of this was out of control and spontaneous. When we began to sort things out, the British side acknowledged that there was a problem. After several reminders by us and legal actions, the taxes were paid. And the British side agreed in earnest to begin negotiations on an agreement which would determine the rules and conditions for the activity of cultural centers - British in Russia and Russian in Britain. Without this, activities of the British cultural centers in Russia's regions are illegal. So that the work of these offices will be suspended.

Question: It was a difficult year, Sergey Viktorovich. Did you manage to go on holiday for at least a couple of weeks in 2007?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I had one vacation.

Question: It was when you traditionally rafted down turbulent rivers of Russia on inflatable rafts?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Yes.

Question: And where are you going to celebrate New Year's Eve?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: In Russia. On Siberian expanses.

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

Back to the Top of the Page