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

Old April 22nd, 2017 #41
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 19, 2017



19 April 2017 - 16:51





UNICEF March review on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has released its latest monthly review of the humanitarian situation in Ukraine (for March 2017).

Fund officers are working on both sides of the contact line and are stationed in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Kramatorsk, Donetsk and Mariupol. UNICEF participates in implementing projects in education, water supply, sanitation, healthcare, including the fight against HIV/AIDS, nutrition, and child protection. Only one-third of the UN humanitarian appeal for UNICEF has been funded ($9 million out of the necessary $32 million).

Citing the OSCE, the review notes that hostilities are subsiding though public facilities are still occasionally shelled, which disrupts water supply. In terms of civilian causalities, it is reported that five adults and a child have been killed and 36 wounded.

The chronology of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics trade blockade, as portrayed in the review, is indicative: it creates the impression that the blockade was imposed as the Kiev authorities’ response to so-called external management of all Ukrainian businesses except Waters of Donbass and MTS. The review does not say a word about provocative actions by the notorious anti-terrorist operation veterans, who closed transport links with Donbass early this year – as if these actions never happened and no one knows about them.

Among events with an impact on the general situation, the review mentions the murder of a “former Russian legislator”, the temporary closure of the Russian-Ukrainian border on its Chernigov stretch, and the attack at the Polish consulate general in Lutsk.

Note that the plight of children in Donbass (UNICEF estimates the number of children in need of help at a million) is made worse by the Ukrainian government blocking food and medicine supplies to the country’s southeast.

We, for our part, are doing everything we can to aid the population in need. By March 23, 2017, Russia had sent to the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics 62 humanitarian convoys carrying over 66,700 tonnes of supplies – mainly food, medicine, fuel, construction materials, electrical equipment and generators, farming equipment, and school books.

According to Russia’s Federal Migration Service, the number of Ukrainians currently in Russia was 2,300,320 as of March 16, including 1,015,214 from south-eastern Ukraine. There are 31 temporary settlements in 14 constituent entities, and Ukrainian refugees receive regular food and other aid and medical care.

I would like to touch on fake news and hoaxes – in fact, blatant misinformation – in this context. I announced a figure today that shows that Russia has sent over 60 humanitarian convoys to the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Just remember what it all began with: tweets and Western press reports about Russia launching an armed invasion of Ukraine. Convoys in duly marked white lorries were made out to be carrying armoured vehicles and not humanitarian aid.

Who is circulating fake news? I don’t think the culprits are hard to find. Everyone is keeping silent for some reason now. No one spots a single humanitarian convoy in Donbass, no one is tweeting anything of the sort, and we don’t see any relevant contributions in the Western press. I don’t think we will see any, for that matter.



The appearance of fake Facebook accounts of Russian foreign missions

We are moving now from the information aggression against Russia to an even more complex issue. The number of fake social media accounts, on Facebook for example, of Russian foreign missions has beein on the rise. Fake accounts created for our embassies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia published incendiary and misleading items on high-profile issues in the focus of users’ attention. We have noticed the extremely high professionalism of these fake accounts’ authors. But this is only part of the story and not the most interesting one.

Instead of blocking these fake accounts after our requests, the Facebook administrators and moderators blocked the official account of the Russian Embassy in Slovakia and preserved the fake account created by cybercriminals.

We see this as part of the information attack on Russia. This issue involves hackers, influence, information aggression and wars, provocations and the like. We regard the appearance of such fake accounts within the framework of yet another round of the Western information aggression. We urge users to be cautious not only with regard to the information published on the accounts of Russian embassies and government agencies, but to be more cautious generally, because your personal accounts and the accounts of your companies can be duplicated to mislead the users. Many users can fall prey to this scam.

Since Facebook does not have an office in Russia, the Foreign Ministry has forwarded all information regarding the above facts to the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor). Of course, it would make more sense to forward our complaints to Facebook’s office in the United States. I would like to tell you a story from my personal experience.

I have a Facebook account. It is quite popular and has many visitors. It is my personal account. It will serve well as an example. Many people, not just journalists and public activists, but also ordinary social media users, ask me whether it is really my account, considering that there are so many fake accounts around. Several years ago, I came to the conclusion that it is too difficult to try to answer all such questions. However, people need to have clear information when the issue concerns a public person, and so there should be some verification for such accounts. As you know, Facebook has a page verification option, which implies placing a special verification sign, or checkmark, on your page. I provided authentication to prove that this really is my page and asked Facebook to give a verification sign to my account to differentiate it from fake accounts, so that visitors would know where to receive reliable information. Can you guess what happened? We are still waiting for the checkmark. The company’s explanations were both ridiculous and strange. First they told us that in order to receive a verification sign the account needs to have a large audience. My audience now is over 300,000. I believe this is a good figure for a Facebook account and sufficient to get a verification sign. Then they told us that they had technical problems and that it is very difficult to assign such checkmarks via their American office. However, verification signs have been assigned to other applicants, including members of the unregistered opposition. It’s very difficult to understand how the system of assigning these verification signs works.

I have told you about this to answer the question on why we had not acted through the company’s US office. But we did, and we raised the issue repeatedly with our American partners and the US Embassy in Moscow, asking them for direct contacts and assistance in developing a dialogue with one of the largest companies in the US cyber space. Regrettably, we see that Facebook, while proclaiming the policy of fighting fake information, sometimes becomes, wittingly or unwittingly, the source of fake news. The United States and the US State Department, which spend so much money on fighting fake news, should start by looking at themselves, focus their attention on this American company and see what is happening there. How can it be that the official account of an embassy is blocked while the fake account continues to prosper? This means that something is amiss, that improvements are needed and a communication channel should be established. This is not just an ordinary personal or company account.

Once again, I know very well how ordinary users and company representatives suffer when their accounts are faked. We are talking about the accounts of official organisations. Just look at the number of terrorist attacks in Europe. Our embassy accounts are the only source where many social media users can find reliable and prompt information and the embassy’s contact information, or leave their comments. This is an issue of not just information security but overall security. This is why we have referred the matter to Roskomnadzor.



Balkan media publications on the supplies of Russian weapons during the 1991−1995 conflict in former Yugoslavia

We have noticed a number of Balkan media publications on the alleged supplies of Russian weapons, including S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, to Croatia during the 1991−1995 conflict. This information is presented subtly but contains obvious hints of Russia’s allegedly questionable role.

We have posted our reply in the appropriate section. I would like to recall that, about a month ago, we launched a rubric to list and expose fake news to try to prevent the circulation of false information.

We would like to stress that we strictly adhered to our obligations under international law regarding the UN embargo on exporting weapons to warring parties during the crisis of 1991−1995 in Yugoslavia. It is common knowledge that, during that period, Central and Eastern European countries, as well as post-Soviet republics, had stockpiled many Soviet-made weapons, ammunition and military equipment. As far as we know, unscrupulous Croatian businessmen took advantage of this circumstance to supply Zagreb. The Russian Federation never had anything to do with this.

This propaganda campaign, based on ill-intentioned speculation around this media leak, pursues an absolutely obvious goal: it aims to damage cooperation between Russia and friendly states on the Balkan Peninsula and to complicate cooperation with our partners, primarily with Serbia. I repeat once again, we will track these materials and promptly respond to them.



CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s anti-Russia comments

We cannot help but comment on CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s first extensive appearance at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, on April 13. He lashed out at Russia, saying that it meddled in US elections and in the internal affairs of other states and that Russia was a territory of propaganda in the person of RT. The usual lot. We have already heard all kinds of different variations on that theme. Specifically, the main blow fell on WikiLeaks. It was this organisation that provoked the CIA Director’s ire.

He said directly that the internet resource WikiLeaks had cooperated with Russian secret services and was supposedly used by the GRU to leak emails stolen from DNC servers. For him, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden are traitors.

What’s interesting is that the CIA Director has used WikiLeaks resources with much success – I am not even mentioning the fact that he used them for official purposes – even though, in his opinion, all these internet resources and related people are traitors and do other countries’ bidding. It is not my story, it’s yours. He used this openly in the public internet environment.

For example, he wrote in his Twitter post of July 24, 2016, that WikiLeaks-published DNC emails were “evidence” that President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party favored Hillary Clinton during the primaries. Given this he should sign up as a traitor himself, if he used and quoted this material in support of his views, or sort it out in some other way. How come? If you use these materials yourselves, you should finally make up your mind on whether people who work for Russia are traitors or not. But it can’t be like this. One should be ashamed of talking about it. The Twitter post has been deleted, but there is a copy. Mikhail Bulgakov once said that “manuscripts don’t burn.” Neither do tweets!



Prizes for demonising Russia

I must congratulate our colleagues from The New York Times on such a remarkable achievement as the 2016 Pulitzer Prize they received for a series of stories on Russia. The main theme was that there is no difference between post-Stalin Russia and modern Russia; the intervening 62 years are a wall-to-wall tragedy. This is the kind of “exposé” that earns prizes!

After these materials and the hows, whys and whoms of prize-giving, one should consider the role of the US national media and the entire current propaganda campaign with regard to the Russian Federation. There is no other way to describe them but propaganda-mongers.





Answers to media questions:



Question:

The first round of the French presidential election will be held on April 23. The campaign is taking place amid an unprecedented anti-Russia information hysteria, which also targets those candidates who favour friendly relations with Russia, for example, Marine Le Pen. What do you expect from the election?



Maria Zakharova:

Our only expectation is that the election will be held in accordance with French laws and that French citizens will elect a new president. We also hope that our position is clear to both Russian and international journalists: elections are an internal affair of France and the choice of the French people, which we greatly respect.



Question:

What is Russia’s official position on the US Air Force dropping the “mother of all bombs” on a target in Afghanistan?



Maria Zakharova:

If you want information about the details of this event, you had better ask our military experts. We have pointed out repeatedly that US actions in Afghanistan are absolutely unsystematic, and that they have not helped stabilise the country but have in fact undermined it. Regrettably, the more time goes by, the more evidence of this we see.



Question:

In a recent interview, US President Donald Trump admitted the threat of a nuclear war between the United States and North Korea. The North Korean Foreign Ministry said, in turn, that the country was prepared to respond to an all-out war with an all-out war. What do you think about the possibility of a war between them?



Maria Zakharova:

I think it is a battle of words of mass destruction. This is how I would describe it. The problem is not new, and it has a solution, which can be found through negotiations. The issue has a legal framework, history and experience. The Trump administration is not the first US administration to address the issue. Our American colleagues have an unfortunate tendency: they act first and analyse the problem later. We saw this in the case of Ukraine, Syria and in many other situations over the past decade. We would very much like for the situation to take a different course in this particular case, that is, start with analysing the problem, then draw conclusions and choose the best strategy, and only then make statements and act. As I said, the international community has considerable experience in this sphere. Some methods failed, while other produced a positive result. We would like the US administration to refrain from making hasty statements and acting as it always has, but first analyse the problem and choose a strategy and only then act.



Question:

The United States and North Korea are exchanging loud statements and accusing each other of pushing the world towards a nuclear conflict. In this situation, Russia and China have called for resuming the six-party talks.



Maria Zakharova:

Yes, I can confirm this. We have seen very many situations that developed under a hastily chosen scenario that involved the use of military force. Can you name at least one case when this scenario had a happy end? I doubt that you can think of one, because there are no examples of this. Creating yet another flash point of military danger is a dramatic perspective, especially when the issue concerns nuclear weapons.



Question:

A deputy foreign minister of North Korea has told Al Jazeera that the six-nation talks aiming to make the Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons were “throttled at birth.” Is this just a phrase, or does this mean that Pyongyang will not talk?



Maria Zakharova:

I can only reiterate that we are committed to our agreements and experience in that it should be reviewed again to see where we succeeded or failed, analyse our mistakes and achievements, and move on.



Question:

You have commented on the upcoming French election. Is it really the same to Russia who wins it?



Maria Zakharova:

We see this as the French people’s choice. A new team will be formed following the election, and new priorities will be chosen, including a new concept of relations with Russia. We will work with our French colleagues [whoever is elected]. As for preferred candidates and support, Russia has never done this. This is not our style. Regrettably, our Western colleagues have expressed support for some candidates openly and publicly, or stealthily, before the election, as if they can decide for the people who is stronger and who has slim chances. This is contrary to international law, including the UN Charter, and the democratic voting and election principles. This influence sometimes amounts to direct pressure on the voters. This happens when the leaders, foreign ministers or the really influential politicians from a foreign country call on people in another country to think about their choice and caution them against voting for a certain candidate, because this would allegedly create problems and difficulties. What is this if not interference in the internal affairs of states?



Question:

How will you assess the situation if North Korea holds yet another nuclear test? How would you comment on Pyongyang’s threats to launch ballistic missiles every week?



Maria Zakharova:

As I have said, we support the international documents that provide a view on the situation in the region, including North Korean missile launches, which are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. The situation should be analysed comprehensively based on past experience and the legal framework. You know that we promptly publish our views on the concerned countries’ activities in the region.



Question:

The America for Bulgaria Foundation has recently published a report on anti-democratic propaganda in Bulgaria, in which Bulgarian media that criticise the United States have been condemned as Kremlin propaganda bullhorns.



Maria Zakharova:

I would say that it’s not everyone that merits the name of a Kremlin bullhorn. So, don’t stick it on every Tom, Dick or Harry. It takes hard work to get it. Getting the name for nothing? That’s out of the question.



Question:

What is the Foreign Ministry doing to prevent a humanitarian disaster in the Syrian city of Deir ez-Zor, which has been under siege for nearly three years?



Maria Zakharova:

You know that we provide humanitarian aid to Syria. We have been doing this since the start of the crisis. For many years now, Russia has been delivering humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicines, as well as by organising such assistance, which is no less important that the deliveries. Organising the delivery and distribution of humanitarian aid is a very difficult and dangerous mission. We cooperate with the international agencies concerned, including the UN, and the NGOs that are involved in humanitarian activities in Syria. This is part of a complex package of measures. I can request information about Deir ez-Zor for you.



Question:

I graduated from the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN). On April 13, we had a concert at the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris. RUDN is a unique university because it has students from 150 countries. We know that you defended your PhD thesis under Professor Alexey Maslov.



Maria Zakharova:

You know everything, don’t you? No chance of keeping anything secret from you.



Question:

What are your impressions of the university?



Maria Zakharova:

I have the best impressions about RUDN University, considering that I defended my PhD thesis there. I defended it at the doctoral council. I have the best impressions about the academic advisors there and those who provided their expert opinions about my work. It used to be a wonderful institute, now a university. It offers very broad opportunities for students and those who want to enrol at it.

I want to say that nearly every delegation that comes to Russia for talks with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has someone who graduated from a Russian university back in the Soviet times, including RUDN University. Students from many countries now study at this university under exchange programmes. All of them have the best of impressions about it.



Question:

We live in the world’s most cultural country, Russia. Do you know that classical music helps dairy cows produce more milk at European farms? Could we have such music therapy together with you at the Moscow International Performing Arts Centre? We only talk about war at your briefings.



Maria Zakharova:

I believe our briefings are the most therapeutic event imaginable. They have a total health improving effect. Everyone who attends them gets better.



Question:

Even the Russian Defence Ministry organised a concert of classical music in Palmyra. All journalists, including cameramen, would come along if you organised such a concert.



Maria Zakharova:

We’ll have to think about a soundtrack for Russia’s foreign policy.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2732506
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #42
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the planned meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Spitsbergen



19 April 2017 - 17:34



In connection with media reports on the plans to hold a meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Spitsbergen in May, we believe it is necessary to make the following statement.

Russia operates based on the premise that all the states that are party to the Spitsbergen Treaty of 1920 should be interested in ensuring that Spitsbergen remains an archipelago of peace and neighbourliness.

In the context of NATO's current policy of "containing" Russia, accompanied by unprecedented military preparations near the borders of our country, the attempts to bring Spitsbergen under the wing of this military-political bloc and to hold its meetings there are at odds with the spirit of the 1920 Treaty. We consider this to be a provocative policy.

We also took note of the fact that the agenda of the seminar includes, among other things, discussing how geopolitics and the future of the Arctic are interconnected. We strongly believe that there are no problems in the Arctic region that require NATO participation to solve, let alone militarily. The escalation of tension is not in the long-term interests of the countries of Northern Europe and weakens, rather than strengthens, their security.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2732562
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #43
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Ministry Press and Information Department comment following a ruling by the UN International Court of Justice



20 April 2017 - 08:29



On April 19, the UN International Court of Justice delivered an order on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Ukraine in the case concerning Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).

The Court ruled, without taking a vote, that the claims made by Ukraine against Russia with regard to ICSFT are implausible and therefore there is no basis for indication of provisional measures.

The Court also called upon the parties to the dispute to work for the full implementation of the Minsk agreements, recognizing that these agreements were adopted and signed, in particular, by the representatives of Donetsk and Lugansk – a fact that Ukraine attempts to deny.

With regard to ICERD, the Court did not uphold any of the provisional measures requested by Ukraine. Kiev’s claims that Russia is allegedly carrying out a policy of “erasing the cultural identity of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar communities” were not supported. The Court also considered ill-founded an entire range of Ukraine’s accusations, such as the existence of allegedly ethnically motivated disappearances, murders and detentions in Crimea, persecution of media and civil society organisations, bans on meetings and public events held by members of Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar communities, and the impossibility to receive education in Crimean Tatar language.

The Court indicated three interim measures regarding ICERD: one concerns availability of education in the Ukrainian language, another – the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to conserve its representative institutions, and the third, addressed to both Ukraine and Russia – to refrain from any action which might aggravate the dispute.

It is important that the Court took up a principled position and did not support Ukraine’s claims regarding the allegations of “aggression” or “occupation”, or the status of Crimea, as falling beyond the scope of the proceedings.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2732665
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #44
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Mikhail Ulyanov, Director of the Foreign Ministry Department for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, at an extraordinary meeting of the OPCW Executive Council, The Hague, April 19, 2017



20 April 2017 - 10:19



Madam Chairperson,

Colleagues,

We have reconvened here to continue the April 13 discussion of the crucial emergency measures to be taken in connection with the most headline-making event this year. We received the first reports 15 days ago, yet no serious action has been taken to investigate these reports. At any rate, we have no information about the OPCW representatives visiting the Khan Sheikhun area. Continued inaction can seriously damage the prestige of our organisation, which received the Nobel Peace Prize for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria.

On the first day of this meeting, some delegations spoke as if the Syrian government’s involvement in the alleged chemical attack on Khan Sheikhun had been established beyond doubt. The United States not only placed the blame on the Syrian government but even meted out punishment without waiting for investigation results. Its missile strike on a target in a sovereign state was in flagrant violation of international law, including the UN Charter. There are grounds to describe it as an act of aggression. This is not a polemic attempt to hurt the American delegation. This conclusion is absolutely free of emotion and is based on the Definition of Aggression that was approved at the UN General Assembly in 1974. This Definition says clearly that acts that qualify as aggression include the “bombardment by the armed forces of a state against the territory of another state.” This is exactly what happened in Syria.

It is puzzling that a number of countries from among the closest US allies rushed to express their approval of this missile strike. Time after time, they point to its supposedly “proportionate” nature. “Proportionate” to what, I wonder? The presence or absence of chemical weapons on Shayrat airbase? In truth, a request to the OPCW to conduct an inspection at the airbase would be a proportionate response to suspicions regarding the presence of chemical warfare agents. This would make it possible to establish the truth in the shortest possible time, acting efficiently and strictly within the legal framework. Unfortunately, the United States, as we see, does not believe in the effectiveness of the CWC mechanisms and prefers to act outside its legal field, resorting to gross violations of international norms instead. In all likelihood, the show of force and intimidation was the purpose of this illegal action, not the destruction of chemical weapons, the presence of which in Syria no one has so far proved.

To support its actions, Washington refers to it having absolute confidence in the culpability of Damascus. This is what our American colleagues themselves call “bad déjà vu.” We heard these same things from our American colleagues 14 years ago before the invasion of Iraq. In bilateral contacts, our American partners then – just as they do now – referred to allegedly reliable intelligence. As everyone remembers, this story had a disgraceful ending. Our American and British colleagues still have to wash off this stain. They should have learned the lesson. But no, they are doing exactly the same thing this time again, without even trying to make their position more credible.

A recent interview by Foreign Office Secretary Boris Johnson to The Telegraph, in which he called the use of chemical weapons by the government aircraft very likely, is a case in point. That is, the head of British diplomacy is not positive about it actually taking place. Then why do British colleagues allow themselves to make absolutely peremptory statements in the international arena? Aren’t they ashamed to support a missile attack triggered by nothing more than assumptions?

Russia is regularly called upon to “get on the right side of history.” We heard the same thing 14 years ago. Subsequent developments made it clear that we didn’t need to go anywhere, because we were on the right side. Back then, France and Germany were with us and persistently sought compliance with international law and the provisions of the UN Charter. It's unfortunate that these two countries have now adopted the opposite position. It looks like they haven’t learned the lesson of history, after having been on the right side of it in 2003.

We would like to remind everyone that there’s still no clarity regarding the Khan Sheikhun events. All charges against Damascus are unsubstantiated and based on questionable materials from social media provided by the long-discredited White Helmets non-governmental organisation, which is closely associated with the terrorists from Jabhat al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. We suggest that everyone get familiar with the materials put together by experts from Swedish Doctors for Human Rights who arrived at a conclusion that the children shown in the White Helmets footage were unconscious and under the influence of psychotropic substances.

The US Ambassador to the UN recently showed heart-rending pictures of Syrian children in the Security Council who allegedly came under the chemical attack at Khan Sheikhun. Incidentally, she didn’t even mention the Iraqi children exposed to chemical weapons in Mosul at about the same time. This topic leaves our Western colleagues absolutely indifferent. This also applies to the humanitarian disaster in Mosul, which they, guided by double standards as always, have swept under the carpet.

Following the example of our American colleagues, we were going to show some visual materials. Unfortunately, when he learned about our plan, the US permanent representative to the OPCW – and all of you, colleagues, just witnessed it – became panicky and hysterical. As a result, we were unable to show these pictures on the big screen. So, we will have to show them to you from a distance without using proper equipment. These photographs show us children with dilated pupils – almost the size of the iris – whereas the primary sign of sarin exposure is contracted pupils. This corroborates the conclusion made by the Swedish doctors that children in Khan Sheikhun were under the influence of narcotic or psychotropic drugs.

The following photos do not show signs that are typical of mild or moderate lesions, such as excessive salivation, lacrimation, or watery nasal discharge. Clearly, those who made these production shots are poorly versed in how chemical weapons work.

The type of ammunition presented in the video from Khan Sheikhun does not belong to airborne weapons, since it’s not outfitted with tail fins and is not properly marked. Most likely, it’s a homemade mine or some kind of metal item that is not related to full-fledged airborne ammunition. One such picture is enough to dispel the notion that the government air forces used chemical bombs. Many authoritative experts believe that makeshift chemical munitions were blown up in Khan Sheikhun rather than aviation bombs.

We are not trying to change our opponents’ minds, far from it. We showed these pictures to make a point that not everything is as simple and straightforward as someone is trying to make us believe. Only an immediate, professional, high-quality investigation can provide answers to all the questions. We will not be satisfied by an investigation carried out by the OPCW's Fact-Finding Mission in its usual way, that is, remotely, without inspecting the site of the alleged incident, and by just studying online materials and interviewing witnesses residing in the countries neighbouring with Syria.

To be truly effective and credible, an investigation must meet at least three criteria.

First, the investigative actions must be carried out directly onsite at Khan Sheikhun and Shayrat airbase where sarin used in Khan Sheikhun was allegedly stored.

Second, it is important to ensure a geographically balanced investigative team as expressly provided for in the Convention and the FFM mandate. We have to bring this up, because, according to our data, the FFM does not comply with the principle of broad and balanced geographical representation. If this is not the case, the Technical Secretariat can correct us and release a list of countries whose representatives are on the segment of the mission which investigates cases of alleged use of chemical weapons by government forces. We realise that disclosing identities is undesirable for security reasons, but there’s no secret about the names of the countries from which the experts come, or the number of representatives from each country. Clearly, representatives of those countries that are most hostile to Damascus should not dominate the FFM. It is hardly necessary to prove that high-quality professionals are available not only in North America and Western Europe, but in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America as well. When some Western delegations criticise Russia for posing the question of equitable geographical representation, they care not about the reputation of the mission, but their monopoly in it.

Third, the investigations cannot be based mainly on using online materials and polling opposition members. It is necessary to use the entire available range of investigative actions, as stipulated in the CWC and the FFM mandate, as well as the recommendations of the Joint Investigative Mechanism. Particular attention should be paid to collecting material evidence and samples directly on the site of the alleged incident.

If these three conditions are met, which are by no means far-fetched or excessive as some of our opponents are claiming, we can count on carrying out a swift and high-quality investigation. This is what the draft decision advanced by Russia and Iran, which is being reviewed by the Executive Council, aims for. We look forward to all countries that are interested in establishing the truth supporting it. We are willing to consider, carefully and constructively, possible additions and amendments to the text. Voting on this document will let us know whether all the Executive Council members really want a vigorous and effective investigation, as they state, or whether some of them hide their indifference or desire to conceal the truth behind this slogan.

Before putting the draft to vote, it is important to work through all the possibilities that may lead us to a consensus. We are willing to immediately start consultations to this end, including with the US delegation. If our American partners are genuinely interested in establishing the truth by conducting a serious and immediate investigation, we have a chance to strike a deal. If not, then virtually no chance of finding mutually acceptable solutions is left.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2732765
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #45
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with Kommersant newspaper, published April 19, 2017



20 April 2017 - 14:37





Question:

Do you know when and where President of Russia Vladimir Putin will meet with US President Donald Trump?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have reaffirmed our readiness for such a meeting several times. We understand that contacts at the highest level are crucial for adjusting the agenda, areas of focus and the direction we are moving in.

We confirmed our willingness to organise such a meeting during our contacts with our American colleagues. Last week’s visit by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow has strengthened our belief that the new US administration is also willing to move towards this goal. However, for a meeting of our leaders to be successful, we need to prepare for it, which is what we are doing.



Question:

When can it be held?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The tenor of our relations with the United States is such that any premature announcements or any information planted ahead of time will play a negative role. So, I will end my answer by repeating that we are working towards this.



Question:

Several weeks ago, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said the meeting could be possibly held before the G20 summit, which is scheduled for July in Hamburg, Germany. Is this still possible, or is there too little time left to prepare for this meeting?



Sergey Ryabkov:

Anything is possible. Overall, the issue concerns the coordination of our leaders’ schedules, as well as our expectations of such a meeting.



Question:

What do you expect from it? Will it be just a chance to feel each other out, or do you expect practical agreements to be reached at it?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We have formulated a series of priorities, which we believe should be discussed during preparations for this meeting. Our American colleagues also have practical and clear issues they plan to raise. We cannot say that our priorities coincide always or on all issues. However, this is normal, especially considering the low level of our relations with the new US team, the obstacles that have been deliberately erected by the previous US administration, and the efforts taken by certain forces to hinder the normalisation of Russian-US relations.



Question:

Talking about priorities, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said at a news conference in Moscow that Russia has handed the US some cooperation proposals, including on cybersecurity. In what other areas did Moscow propose cooperation to Washington?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I would probably be disloyal to my profession if right here and now I provided you detailed information about what was or was not done in this respect. I can only say that specific ideas and proposals can be presented in various forms. In particular, there is a non-paper format.



Question:

This sounds paradoxical…



Sergey Ryabkov:

This does not refer to tweets or emails. Such proposals are typically presented on paper. The non-paper format makes it possible to send a less official signal than, say, a message or a diplomatic note. It is rather an invitation to dialogue, to sharing comments. Overall, the status of this kind of document is lower than of any other written form.



Question:

Why did Russia choose this format for making its proposals to the US?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We don’t want to do anything that would inconvenience the other side. We understand that everything related to Russia or relations with Russia is, unfortunately, a source of controversy in the US today, especially in Washington, where the concentration of political thought, which is not always conducive to normalising bilateral ties, is the highest. Far from everything that comes from us is taken neutrally, in a business-like manner by the Americans. On the contrary, much of what we say, write or ask about becomes – to use a word that is common in the US today – toxic.

On the whole, however, I believe we have found a form in which we can get our ideas across to the US side. And we received some comments from it. Now our priorities have become clearer.

The information security issue that you’ve mentioned is multi-dimensional. It includes fighting cybercrime in the classical sense of the word (say, bank card scams) and encroachments on intellectual property. The Americans have brought in the issue of “political hacking.” It is not a taboo to us, either, even though it was “overheated” by the Obama team’s efforts. We are willing to discuss the entire range of these issues with the Americans. We proposed this dialogue to the previous administration but got no response. Now we have renewed this proposal and hope that the response will be more positive.



Question:

Following Mr Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, the creation of a Russia-US working group to normalise relations was also announced (it has been dubbed the “impasse-busting group” in the media). Do I understand it right that you will head it on the Russian side? Who else will be there, and when will it start working?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No decision has been made yet, including on the group’s composition, and it would be irresponsible of me to say that I could head this group on the Russian side.

There were various forms of dealing with controversial issues. Under George W. Bush, there were so-called check lists. The sides exchanged lists of issues that caused tension or irritation. And then those issues were addressed, with different degrees of success, in an effort to reduce the number of items on those lists.

Under Barack Obama, there was a bilateral presidential commission where issues were analysed and addressed by issue-specific groups. This work was coordinated at the level of Foreign Minister and Secretary of State. However, this format is history now.

Today it seems some compact mechanism will be put in place. Not a top-heavy structure with the participation of representatives of numerous agencies but a fairly flexible structure that will be able to change its configuration depending on specific issues. However, we have yet to reach the point of finalising this effort to announce officially who will be in charge of this mechanism on both sides – above all, because not all vacancies have been filled on the US side yet. This process is not going smoothly, but we take an understanding view of it. The most important thing is that as a result of the talks with the Secretary of State in Moscow, a firm decision was made to establish such a group. It is expected to work without excessive rhetoric or historical digressions (although it is impossible to do without that completely), and its participants are expected to focus on specific issues. I believe they will be making proposals for the leaders – ideas that would help clean up the “mudflow” that was generated under the previous US administration.



Question:

Who proposed creating this group?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I cannot disclose the details of the talks. It would be more correct to say that both sides’, both ministers’ readiness to accept the idea show that it has been around for a while. It was not a case of somebody making a proposal and somebody taking a pause, giving it a thought and then making a decision. It was a direct, specific result of the very interested dialogue at a ministerial level.



Question:

How would you personally start cleaning up the mudflows?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I would start off – and if I am so directed this is what I will do – with humanitarian issues. This refers to problems that are like thorns in the tissue of our relations. In particular, the fate of pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko and the arbitrary detention of Russian citizens in third countries on US [arrest] warrants without proper notification of the Russian side.

There are a number of other serious problems, including those in need of comprehensive analysis and high-level political decisions. In particular, this refers to the restrictions encountered by Russian individuals and legal entities in conducting dollar [denominated] transactions. Simply because the US banking system is under the control of supervisory agencies that have to comply with the sanctions imposed under Barack Obama.



Question:

Is easing or lifting the sanctions a precondition to normalising Russian-US relations?



Sergey Ryabkov:

There is no question of any preconditions simply because at the end of the day the sanctions remain outside the context of any discussions conducted with the Trump administration.

Any new mechanism, any additional structure that will work to eliminate bilateral irritants will not include sanctions as an area of its responsibility. For a very simple reason: Issues related to the reunification of Crimea and Russia were resolved and closed long ago. There is simply no subject for discussion here. As for other sanctions, if the US suddenly shows interest in addressing this issue, naturally we will not be silent and will respond. However, until now this discussion has added up to statements that the sanctions will be eased if Russia fully implements the Minsk agreements. If we hear this again we will respond by saying what we think about it, who should be implementing the Minsk agreements and who is not doing so, and so on. I don’t think this discussion is productive. I’m referring to the Kiev authorities, of course. And then the sanctions were imposed by the Americans and it is up to them to lift them.



Question:

Will Russia not even insist on lifting the most recent sanctions that Barack Obama imposed shortly before leaving the White House, when 35 Russian diplomats were expelled and the diplomatic missions in Washington and New York were denied access to their recreation facilities?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I would describe that not as sanctions but rather as rudely banging the door shut by the outgoing administration in an attempt not simply to produce a deafening noise but see to it that the remains of our bilateral crockery crashed to the floor so that those who came later would be unable to assemble the broken pieces but throw out the trash. However, this should remain on the conscience of the former US administration. We are self-possessed, cool-headed people.

Although of course it must be said that impounding diplomatic property is a direct violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and encroachment on the principle of the inviolability of private property that the US is so concerned about.



Question:

What’s stopping Donald Trump from reversing this seizure?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I’m not in a position to say why this has not been done yet. I can only suggest that the US is focused on more important, bigger issues. However, of course this issue is important for us, not least as an indicator of the line that Washington intends to follow on the Russian track today.



Question:

You mentioned Ukraine. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, speaking after the recent G7 meeting, said that Rex Tillerson had asked why US taxpayers should be interested in Ukraine. After the Moscow talks and in general, do you get the impression that Ukraine no longer interests the US?



Sergey Ryabkov:

No, I do not. I get the impression that the topic of Ukraine is being worked up by our colleagues, as before, disregarding one obvious fact, namely that complaints and questions should be addressed not to us but, above all, to Kiev. This is sad. Yet, I believe that this will eventually be adjusted sooner or later. The more so that we lay down our arguments fully and clearly and explain why the situation does not at all look the way it seems to our G7 colleagues, especially some of them.

Let me note that we have never shied away from talk or discussion, including of a more profound and specialised nature, on all that has to do with the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the situation in southeast Ukraine in general, with US representatives.



Question:

Despite the fact that the Normandy format does not include the US?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The US was not included in the Normandy format and is still not included, but a dialogue was underway. However, today, the same as with the so-called “impasse-busting group,” using your term (by the way, I quite like it), we have no idea who on the American side will be in charge of this matter on a daily basis and at a responsible level. Appointments have not been made there as of yet, but I think that this issue, too, will clear up soon.



Question:

The new US administration plans to increase the defence budget by over $50 billion, which is as much as Russia spends on its defence. Is this a matter of concern for you?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The budget process in the United States is rather complicated and is not always predictable. It is influenced by diverse interests and actions that do not always pursue similar goals. Of course, the administration often has the decisive say. However, other groups can influence the process through members of Congress, and there are also business interests, the differing priorities of the armed services’ branches, and much more.

I wouldn’t cite any firm figures until the budget is approved, even though they have already been made public.

Of course, we can see that the new US administration has opted for strengthening the country’s military might and for projecting it across the world. As we know, Republican administrations usually do this. Actually, the new policy programmes announced in Washington do not differ much from what we saw in the past few years. Moreover, many Republican leaders in Congress openly say that their hero and touchstone is Ronald Reagan, who made the “peace through strength” philosophy the core of his foreign and military policies. In light of this, we are ready for this possibility politically and in practice.

We don’t want to see the appearance of more crises in the world and the United States using its impressive military might without due regard for the situation in different parts of the world and in violation of international law. This is why we were alarmed by the US air strike on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria. It was an act of open aggression against a sovereign state. We wouldn’t like to see Washington use this strike as an example of how one should act. We believe that this is exactly how one must not act.

There is room for discussing the problem at all levels, from expert and military to the top political level. We will continue to do this. In principle, the Russian and American militaries should build up their dialogue, but this possibility is hindered also by a binding restriction on our military cooperation, which was approved by the previous US administration. We hope this restriction will be lifted eventually.



Question:

According to the American media, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson brought a three-step plan for a Syrian settlement to Russia. What can you say about this plan?



Sergey Ryabkov:

The US proposals on Syria are largely similar to the previous US policy. There are some new elements, but none of these can be described as innovative or strikingly different from what our American colleagues said on this issue before.

For our part, we have been working consistently to promote a political solution to the Syrian problem, in a broad sense. The mechanisms for this are in place – the Astana process and the Geneva platform. A political track is the only possible option for dealing with the problem that has been created by the Khan Sheikhoun attack.

An international mission of experts should be sent to Khan Sheikhoun and the Shayrat Airbase. This is the only alternative, if we don’t want our belief in the effectiveness of the OPCW to be buried by the lack of political coordination.

A dangerous play with double standards is underway in the West. We say that a mission must be dispatched to both sites and that this mission must be geographically balanced, because trust between Russia and at least some Western countries has plummeted to zero. In response, we are told that Russia is deliberately undermining trust in the OPCW and its Fact-Finding Mission. We are not against the FFM continuing its work in Syria. But we want it to work properly, instead of tending to the political and geopolitical interests of a small group of countries. Its work must be focused on finding facts, as it proceeds from its name. Regrettably, the latest meeting of the OPCW Executive Council has confirmed our fears that many parties reject this simple truth.



Question:

Will the United States bomb North Korea?



Sergey Ryabkov:

I hope not. Regrettably, we must admit that the risk of a serious confrontation has increased dramatically in that region. I would like to point out an element of our vision of this problem, that no steps should be taken that could be exploited by the confronting sides as a pretext for escalating tensions. This spiral of escalation, and this vicious circle of the mutual build-up of pressure in response to pressure is a direct path to serious complications and, hypothetically, even an open conflict.

This can be avoided if the parties act responsibly. There are scenarios for translating this logic into practical actions; we are discussing them with our American colleagues. We know that our Chinese friends are also discussing them. The US Vice-President is touring the Asia Pacific region, and we hope that based on the results of his tour Washington will come to see that there is no alternative to a political settlement and de-escalation.



Question:

In November 2016, the INF Treaty Special Verification Commission met for the first time in many years. What were the outcomes of this meeting, and how is this issue discussed with the new administration?



Sergey Ryabkov:

We believe that this meeting failed to produce any substantial results, since it essentially consisted of the sides exchanging the same arguments that they already knew all too well. We were unable to move beyond stating our differences.

Russia still firmly believes that by deploying MK41 land-based launchers as part of Aegis Ashore system to Romania and similar sea-based launching systems, the US violates the INF Treaty. By the way, these launching systems were used to fire Tomahawk missiles against the Shayrat Airbase, and the same launchers can be reset, if I may put it this way, to fire interceptor missiles. This means that these canisters can be used both ashore and offshore to fire attack missiles, which is forbidden under the INF Treaty.

We also have concerns regarding target missiles used by the US in its tests of missile defence systems. Special ballistic missiles were designed to this effect, and they also violate the Treaty in terms of their range capability. We are not talking about dummy-missiles here, since guidance systems and other elements of these missiles are tested during launches, alongside trajectory measurements. This technology can be used to create ground-launched medium-range missiles, which violates the Treaty.

Russia has also raised concerns regarding the US drones.



Question:

At the same time, the US blames Russia for testing a new type of land-based cruise missiles. In their public statements the US officials have not designated any exact model, while the media pointed to 9М729 missiles.



Sergey Ryabkov:

I have seen only the SSC-8 index under the US classification leaked in Michael Gordon’s article for The New York Times. However, the points of reference that were transferred to us were not enough to keep the conversation going. So far, we have been receiving fragmented signals from the US without any evidence. However, we are ready to continue dialogue on the INF Treaty. We are not avoiding it. All this could continue if Washington demonstrates the political will to move forward.



Question:

Donald Trump has called the New START a unilateral treaty, and promised to push for its renegotiation. Is Russia ready?



Sergey Ryabkov:

By February 5, 2018 the parties must meet the Treaty’s limits on means of delivery and warheads. I am confident that Russia will meet the target levels and will abide by them. We expect the US to do the same. This was the message we conveyed to the other side at the recent regular session of the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the New START Treaty in Geneva.

I would not like to speculate about where the dialogue on the future of this document will take us. Once again, I have to say for the third time that we have to wait until the key positions in the US administration are filled. In addition, the review of the US nuclear strategy ordered by Trump will also take some time. As soon as these two processes are completed, we will be able to better understand where the administration stands on this issue.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2733721
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #46
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov for TASS on the OPCW Executive Council session



20 April 2017 - 21:40



The outcome of today’s vote at a special session of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Executive Council shows that the Western group of countries and some of the states that joined it are not interested in establishing the truth. They failed to demonstrate their willingness to take the only right step in this situation, specifically, to send a team of investigators to the scene of the chemical incident in Khan Sheikhun and to the Al-Shayrat air base, from which the alleged “chemical attack” was supposedly carried out, as they claim. Those countries continue to stick to their line, disregarding any argument, and continue to impose on the international community the same pseudo conclusions that they pushed on the UN Security Council.

They do not need the truth. For them, everything has been settled: Damascus is to blame, according to them, and Moscow, they say, is just obscuring the matter, preventing the OPCW from doing its job.

However, without collecting evidence at the location and establishing the facts, all their accusations against the legitimate government of Syria remain groundless. The West always has its own “pocket” specialists on hand, who are ready to write any report at the first signal and fit pseudo evidence into pre-formulated conclusions. Today, our diplomats in The Hague and the Russian Defence Ministry’s official representative talked about this amply and convincingly.

We are grateful to the countries that supported the joint Russian-Iranian draft solution. We heard many reasonable arguments in statements by representatives of the countries that abstained from voting.

And we strongly condemn the irresponsible stance of those that voted against it. The Western group has once again revealed the essence of its destructive approach.

These countries caused serious damage to the reputation and authority of the OPCW. By disrupting this badly needed process, they have again complicated the search for a way out of the Syrian crisis.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2734389
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #47
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Ambassador Alexander Shulgin at the 54th Special Meeting of the OPCW Executive Council on the Voting Results, The Hague, April 20, 2017



20 April 2017 - 22:00



Madam Chairperson,

First of all, I would like to thank the delegations of Algeria, China, Sudan and South Africa for supporting the Russian-Iranian draft decision of the Executive Council.

The results of the vote that just took place were distressing to us. The proposal that we put forward in conjunction with Iran on the immediate start of a full-fledged investigation into the circumstances of the incident with the use of chemical agents in the Syrian province of Idlib on April 4 was not supported by the required number of votes. In particular, the states from the Western group opposed this draft decision. We are all the more disappointed by this since the Russian delegation, mindful of the instructions issued by a number of colleagues from other regional groups, was looking, until the last minute, for an opportunity to reach a compromise. Upon agreement with our Iranian partners, who co-authored this draft, we submitted a revised version of it, which includes almost all the comments made during yesterday's meeting. We assumed that no one would step forward to reject such a document. Still, it happened. We see that this was done under far-fetched and unconvincing pretexts. However, we would like to ask our colleagues from the Western group to think about the repercussions of their actions rather than celebrate their victory. They blocked a decision aimed at a prompt initiation of a mission to find out what really happened in Khan Sheikhun on April 4 and whether there actually were chemical weapons at Shayrat Airbase. Instead, we are told to wait patiently for the FFM to finish its remote work going through a mass of some information without even going to the site.

We are told that the FFM already took some biomedical samples, which were analysed and revealed the presence of sarin. Moreover, they say that the results of this investigation are final and not subject to any doubt. But let me ask you where, how and when were these samples taken? Was the chain of custody, established by the OPCW itself, complied with when safekeeping the evidence? It would be good to receive answers to these questions, especially since the mission, as we know, has never gone to Syria. I’m asking these questions for a reason. In my remarks on April 13, I already said that the Russian military, who collected the materials testifying to the use of chemical weapons in Aleppo, are being forced to bend over backwards trying to explain how they found the fragments of ammunition, to whom they reported and even asking them to present some obscure logbooks. They kept asking us about this during a special video conference, and posed an ever greater number of questions during a meeting on the sidelines of the Executive Council. And this in spite of the fact that our specialists already have a pretty much clear general picture of what actually happened there. Still, four months later, the FFM has not yet come up with any conclusions. I emphasise that they have been analysing this for four months and are still unable to come with any conclusions. Then here, all of a sudden we see such incredible efficiency and conclusions that are not subject to any doubt. So, think for yourselves why we are insisting that the results of a full-fledged comprehensive investigation should inspire confidence not only to a group of Western countries, but to all other states as well.

The fact that the delegations of some countries, primarily from the Western group, are always shying away from accepting the decisions proposed by us and the Iranians suggests that they are, in fact, not interested in establishing the truth.

We operate based on the premise that these irresponsible maneuvers – this is precisely how the Western countries’ initiative to urgently convene the Executive Council in the wake of the events in Idlib should be seen, followed by embarrassed and unintelligible explanations that there’s no need for a solution at all – precisely these irresponsible maneuvers did not escape the attention of some thoughtful delegations. This is evidenced by the large number of countries that abstained from voting today. Of course, we expected that they would vote in accord with us. It would probably be correct to boldly declare their position at this critical juncture and resolutely engage the OPCW’s full potential. But in and of itself, the lack of approval of the view presented by the United States and its closest partners speaks volumes about the fact that the vision of the situation imposed by the Western group is beginning to be perceived critically instead of enjoying unconditional and automatic support. I fully subscribe to the statement by the distinguished Ambassador of Algeria who, explaining why his country supported the Russian-Iranian draft decision, called on everyone to learn lessons from the past. He said that there was a time when people on the African continent were led to think that some things are “absolute truth,” but after a certain time these so-called absolute truths turned out to be absolute lies. Well put. In my remarks at the Executive Council meeting – and some Western colleagues resented me for that – I brought up the false arguments used by the United Kingdom and the United States to invade Iraq, an invasion the consequences of which that country is experiencing to this day.

In a word, it is gratifying to know that many delegations are beginning to look deeper into this situation. I believe this is a guarantee that we will eventually block the imposition of politicised and self-serving approaches.

Russia is committed to the CWC’s goals and objectives, and reserves the right, acting strictly within the framework of the Convention, to take any measures that it deems appropriate to shed light on what happened in Khan Sheikhun, and to verify the allegations of the United States about the supposed use of the Shayrat Airbase for delivering air strikes with the use of chemical bombs.

Thank you. Please see to it that this statement is circulated as an official document of the Executive Council’s special session.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2734399
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #48
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and an answer to a media question at a news conference following a meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers, Astana, April 21, 2017



21 April 2017 - 11:32





The meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers has come to a close. It was the last stage in the preparations for the next SCO Summit, which will be held in Astana between June 8-9. We have discussed a package of documents that will be offered for approval by our heads of state. These primarily include the decisions on completing the procedure for the full accession of India and Pakistan to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. It will be an event of historical significance, which will help strengthen the SCO’s prestige and influence on the international stage. Following the addition of India and Pakistan, the SCO will account for 43 per cent of the world’s population and 24 per cent of global GDP.

The next country we will discuss to join is Iran. As many participants at the meeting said today, Iran has settled the problem of the UN Security Council sanctions and hence fully meets the SCO membership criteria. We hope that during their June summit in Astana the heads of our states will be able to discuss the possibility of launching the procedure for admitting Iran into the organisation as a full member.

The other documents we discussed include the draft Convention on Combatting Extremism. It is an extremely important and innovative document, which offers provisions based on internal law for combatting extremist ideology and extremism as a factor that undermines the stability of countries. We hope that this convention will be approved by our heads of state.

Work on the SCO strategy against narcotic drugs has continued for a second year. Today we have agreed to boost the work of the concerned agencies in our countries to complete the programme and the action plan for its implementation in time for the Astana summit.

We also discussed a draft convention on cooperation in environmental protection, which is also an issue of concern to us. As you know, this is one of Russia’s priorities, and our SCO partners are acting likewise.

Lastly, we expect to sign an intergovernmental agreement on the SCO University, which operates as a network of 80 universities from the SCO countries.

Our discussions on international matters included Syria, of course. This issue cannot leave anyone indifferent considering the related geopolitical events, in particular, the recent ungrounded accusations of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government and our Western colleagues’ refusal to send inspectors to the site so that they would see for themselves what happened there and collect samples.

We told our partners how the Syrian issue was discussed during the recent visit by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Russia and also during a meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Syria in Moscow on April 14. All parties have confirmed the need for strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254 which provides for an exclusively peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis based on an inclusive dialogue between all Syrians. It also says that the Syrians themselves must decide the future of their country.

Our SCO partners also clearly reaffirmed the importance of compliance with UN Security Council decisions on the approval of the Minsk Agreements on the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.

These are the main results of our meeting. I believe our talks were very positive, useful, business-like and also practical.



Question:

You said you discussed the Syrian agenda. According to Russia as a guarantor of the ceasefire, which of the Syrian opposition forces is more committed to implementing their obligations: the armed opposition or the High Negotiations Committee? What is the main obstacle hindering the intra-Syrian talks?



Sergey Lavrov:

We are indeed worried by the actions taken by the United States and its Western allies to prevent inspectors from going to the site of the chemical incident in order to establish the truth. As I have said, this is an attempt to find a pretext to refrain from the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 on a political settlement in Syria and to encourage the international community to accept this as a reason to return to the old plan for changing the Syrian government.

The overwhelming majority of the UN member states reject this policy. I also believe that this course is also rejected by those who support the Astana process, which was initiated by Russia and Turkey with support from Iran. These three countries act as the guarantors of the ceasefire agreement signed between the Syrian government and the armed opposition. We have been working to convince more armed opposition groups to join the ceasefire agreement. The situation has been complicated by a reverse activity: those who support Jabhat al-Nusra are trying to involve new armed groups into this terrorist organisation in order to keep them away from the Astana process.

The situation on the ground is very complicated, because there are very many armed players, primarily the Syrian Army and Russia’s Aerospace Forces that support it, Iranian units and Hezbollah, which are contributing to the fight against terrorism at the request of the Syrian government. There are also special operations forces from some Western countries there, as well as Turkish armed forces and the US-led coalition forces. If all these forces could be convinced to turn against terrorism – ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, a positive result would be achieved very quickly. However, we have not yet succeeded in this. Conflicts between the armed opposition have not abated and the Kurdish forces, with whom Russia and the United States are cooperating, which the Turkish authorities consider to be wrong, are a matter of contention.

There are very many external factors here. It is very important to see that we are using the Astana process to strengthen the ceasefire regime and determine the criteria which all forces willing to dissociate themselves from the terrorists must comply to. We also use the Astana platform to create joint mechanisms with Turkey and Iran which will be used not just to register ceasefire violations but also to respond to these violations by calling their perpetrators to account. In addition to this, an agreement is being formulated at the Astana platform to stabilise the situation by uniting the districts that comply with the ceasefire agreement into a constructive group which will contribute to the efforts to drive extremists from Syria.

We will not abandon the political process. We are actively advocating the need to start working on a new Syrian constitution as soon as possible. You have mentioned the so-called High Negotiations Committee (HNC), which refuses to work on the new constitution or to accept the UN initiatives advanced in Geneva, under which work on the constitution, preparations for elections and the fight against terrorism must begin now. The HNC doesn’t agree to discuss anything but the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad, which is not stipulated but is directly prohibited in the UN Security Council resolution.

There is serious work ahead, and those who directly influence and finance the HNC should review their policy of kowtowing to the opposition who persist in their destructive stand.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2734712
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #49
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini’s visit to Russia



21 April 2017 - 15:21



High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini will come to Moscow on a working visit on April 24 at the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

During the talks, Sergey Lavrov and Federica Mogherini will review key aspects of bilateral relations and important issues on the international agenda.

Russia-EU relations are going through a difficult period. The EU's focus on continuing the sanctions pressure on Russia remains the main irritant. Russophobic sentiment in the European Union is being actively stirred up. We keep hearing groundless accusations of us trying to weaken the EU and influence the outcome of elections in a number of member countries.

For our part, we proceed from a recognition of the need to overcome existing disagreements. We are interested in a stable, predictable and independent European Union that remains our key trade and economic partner (accounting for almost 45 percent of Russia's foreign trade). We are willing to resume and maintain full-fledged cooperation channels with the EU across various spheres.

Despite the current state of the political dialogue and the “freeze” imposed by the European Union on official formats of industry-specific dialogues, our cooperation continues across a number of areas. The first improvements can already be seen, and prospects for mutually beneficial joint work have been outlined. Examples include regular bilateral talks on countering terrorism and organised crime, and regional cooperation, including the implementation of a cross-border cooperation programme for 2014-2020.

We look forward to a substantive discussion of ways to restore our cooperation with the EU. We are willing to build mutually beneficial relations with the European Union and its member countries on the basis of equality, respect for national interests and the objective interdependence of our respective economies, which are geographically close and complement each other.

The international topics to be discussed during the talks include the situation in Ukraine, the Western Balkans, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, the implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to resolve the situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme, and the Middle East peace process.

The Ukraine crisis remains at the centre of our disagreements with the European Union. We hope that the EU will stop ignoring Kiev's stubborn refusal to fulfill its part of the commitments under the Minsk agreements, primarily with respect to the political settlement, and will pay attention to manifestations of aggressive nationalism, as well as violations of freedom of speech and reporters’ rights in Ukraine.

We are concerned by the unstable situation in the Western Balkans, the lack of progress in the Belgrade-Pristina Dialogue, which is being conducted with the mediation of the EU. We regard as unacceptable attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states, or to revise the outcome of the vote of their citizens.

In the context of the Syrian settlement, we note the potential of the EU as a major humanitarian donor, which increases the moral responsibility of Brussels, meaning that assistance should not be tied to political demands and preconditions. A balanced alignment of priorities is also needed with regard to the humanitarian situation in Iraq and Yemen. We underscore the importance of making the political process in Libya inclusive.

We note that Russia and the EU have similar approaches to the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. We are willing to continue to compare notes regarding the implementation of the JCPOA.

Progress towards forming a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific could provide an effective tool for bringing relations between Russia and the EU out of their current state. Russia continues to view this project as the most promising in terms of ensuring the long-term and sustainable development of the entire Eurasian continent, which can become an effective tool for taking relations between Russia and the European Union out of their current crisis.

Promoting interaction between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union could provide an economic basis for such a long-term project. Establishing an EU-EAEU dialogue would help establish a broad zone of stability and peace in Eurasia.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2735080
 
Old April 22nd, 2017 #50
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the Greater Albania threat to stability in the Balkans



21 April 2017 - 15:49



A series of recent statements by various Albanian politicians regarding the redrawing of borders in the Balkans have raised particular concern. We assert that, under the guise of unfounded accusations of attempts to destabilize southeastern Europe aimed at Russia, efforts are being made to implement the Greater Albania project, now based on the Albanian constitution, which gives Tirana the right to defend the interests of Albanians abroad. Under the guise of hypocritical talk about the need to stabilise the region under the NATO umbrella, the very foundations of stability are being shaken; a new policy course has been adopted to redraw the borders in the Balkans, which will inevitably increase the conflict potential.

Such is the context for the statements by Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama and the “head” of the self-proclaimed independent Kosovo Hashim Thaсi on their readiness to join forces in a single Greater Albania state. These statements were echoed by Jonuz Musliu, the head of the south Serbian municipality of Presevo Valley, mainly populated by Albanians, who announced the region’s will to become part of the enlarged state. Part of the same context is the notorious Tirana Platform adopted by the ethnic Albanian parties in Macedonia and undermining its statehood.

Indicatively, the main patrons of Tirana and Pristina – the United States and the EU – either remain timidly silent or issue common meaningless phrases. We cannot help but agree with the assessments of the events voiced by Serbian Prime Minister, President-elect Aleksandar Vucic and Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic, who resolutely condemned Albanian politicians’ rhetoric and demanded an adequate response to what is happening from Brussels, Washington and key European countries. The bitter irony is that, as Mr Vucic noted, if he allowed himself to publicly suggest uniting Serbia with Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina), he would “hang from a flagpole” in Brussels.

We think it necessary for the international community to jointly point out to Tirana and Albanian politicians in other Balkan countries that making territorial claims and speculating about redrawing borders is unacceptable. We call on our Western partners to abide by international law and common sense, but refrain from applying double standards as they sometimes tend to do.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2735157
 
Old April 25th, 2017 #51
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexey Meshkov’s interview with Interfax News Agency, April 22, 2017



24 April 2017 - 10:58





Question:

Mr Meshkov, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini is expected to come to Russia soon. What would be the ideal outcome of this visit from Moscow’s perspective? What do we want it to produce?



Alexey Meshkov:

We expect it to be an extension of contacts the Russian Foreign Minister and the EU High Representative had during various international events.

The Mogherini visit provides an opportunity for an in-depth discussion of, firstly, the entire range of Russia-EU relations and, secondly, international problems of interest for both parties. It should be noted that our positions – I mean those of Russia and the EU – on a number of major international problems, primarily a Middle East settlement and the Libya crisis, are quite close.

We will have a chance to better understand each other’s positions on other issues, specifically the Syrian problem and so we expect a constructive and business-like dialogue. For our part, we are prepared for this.



Question:

Is it likely that the upcoming talks will result in a roadmap for step-by-step normalisation of Russia-EU relations?



Alexey Meshkov:

At this moment in time, it is not on the agenda. However, it will be recalled that Russia has submitted to Brussels relevant proposals in areas, where, as we see it, we could make some headway. We hope to hear the EU’s substantive reply to this during the upcoming Mogherini visit.



Question:

It was announced today that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey would pay a visit to Russia on May 3. Why does he visit Russia so often?



Alexey Meshkov:

Russia and Turkey are gradually normalising the entire gamut of their relations. A very constructive bilateral meeting at the level of Deputy Prime Ministers was held just a few days ago. The parties discussed economic matters, including measures in the agricultural area, which had been unexpectedly introduced by Turkey.

The parties reached an agreement that relevant consultations at deputy ministerial level will be held as soon as possible. Russia will be represented by a deputy minister of economic development.

As far as the Foreign Ministry is concerned, the visa issue was discussed. We reiterated that Russia was prepared to move towards easing visa formalities for holders of service passports and for big businesses, primarily those working with Russia.

It’s important that the visa formalities for lorry drivers be eased; our consultations on easing visa formalities for civil aviation crews are actually at the final stage. Thus, the Russian consular service is ready to work with our Turkish partners.

As is only natural, much will depend on whether Turkey is ready to make progress on the entire range of relations.



Question:

Mr Meshkov, what about the Turkish referendum? What do we think about the results? Will President Erdogan’s victory help improve relations between Russia and Turkey??



Alexey Meshkov:

We think that the Turkish people have the right to decide what kind of legislation is preferable for them. The Turkish people have voted in the referendum and the referendum results must be respected.



Question:

Will its outcome affect our bilateral relations?



Alexey Meshkov:

I don’t see any direct connection.



Question:

Given that Donald Trump approved Montenegro’s membership into NATO and that the Montenegrin parliament will hold a vote, on April 28, on the country’s accession to the alliance, do we think that this is a threat to Russian security? How does Moscow assess this and what measures are being prepared?



Alexey Meshkov:

It is no secret and it was repeatedly stated that the most important issues in the life of this or that country should be decided by their peoples. This is what the democratic process is all about. In this case, it is the Montenegrin people’s right to decide in a referendum whether they want their country to join NATO or not.

As far as our relations are concerned, not only their accession to NATO as such but also a number of steps taken by the Montenegrin leaders – that they joined the anti-Russian sanctions and the anti-Russian smear campaigns in the local media – are certainly having and will inevitably have a negative effect on the entire range of Russia-Montenegro ties.



Question:

Ahead of the next NATO summit in May, what remarks would you make concerning NATO’s advance towards Russian borders and the stationing of the NATO military, specifically a contingent from Germany, within 100 kilometers of the Russian border for the first time since the end of World War II? How far is Russia ready to go in its response to these steps?



Alexey Meshkov:

As we look at NATO’s multinational military preparations close to our borders, we involuntarily recall the events that happened 100 years ago, when preparations were being made for a foreign military intervention during the Civil War in Russia. Of course, we live in a different world today, but our Western colleagues should remember that the main threat to international security comes from our common enemy, international terrorism.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2735596
 
Old April 25th, 2017 #52
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s opening remarks at talks with High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Moscow, April 24, 2017



24 April 2017 - 11:41



Madam Mogherini,

Colleagues,

Welcome to Moscow. We are happy that you have accepted our invitation, which we sent to you a while ago. It is better to discuss issues of concern at a meeting. I would like once again to express gratitude to you and the staff of the European External Action Service (EEAS) for your condolences over the terrorist attack in St. Petersburg. This heinous act is one of many terrorist attacks, which have hit, regrettably, many European cities. We are convinced that we must focus on the real threats facing us rather than imaginary security risks.

This is a difficult period in Russia-West relations. We are not happy about this, but it was not our choice. We are still willing to restore full cooperation with the EU, Russia’s largest trade and economic partner. We have much in common in terms of history, culture and values with the people of the EU.

We have expressed our willingness more than once to normalise relations at a pace that would be acceptable to the EU. We are willing to go as far as you are prepared to go. Today we would like to hear EEAS views on this, on our assessment of relations between Moscow and Brussels, as well as on the Russian proposals for promoting these ties, which we have forwarded to the European Commission.

In short, there is much we can discuss. Welcome to Moscow.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2735741
 
Old April 25th, 2017 #53
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, Moscow, April 24, 2017



24 April 2017 - 14:50



We have held very productive talks. We had detailed discussions of the key aspects of the current Russia-EU relations, which cannot be described as positive. I can tell you that there was no unnecessary lecturing, and that we tried to listen to each other’s arguments. I believe that this is the only possible attitude.

Russia continues to view the European Union as a neighbour and its largest trade and economic partner, which is a fact. We are convinced that the further development of bilateral ties based on equality and mutual respect meets the long-term interests of our people and will help strengthen global and regional security and stability.

We have reaffirmed our mutual desire to build up political dialogue, which, we believe, should become regular. We have talked about cooperation between our industries and sectors, including in energy, transport, academic, cultural and humanitarian exchanges, as well as environmental protection. Many problems that need joint solutions have accumulated in many of these spheres. In this context, we drew our partners’ attention to the importance of cooperation through sectoral dialogue formats, which have been suspended by Brussels.

We also spoke about the ongoing campaign in the media. I believe that we heard what the other had to say about unacceptable attempts to restrict media freedom or use the media for internal political purposes.

We have told our partners about the development of Eurasian integration and its importance for Russia-EU dialogue. We have proposed developing direct contact between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the EU. We are ready to hold practical discussions of these ideas, especially considering that they can help strengthen the competitiveness and integration of Greater Eurasia, including the EU as part of the Eurasian continent. We have never abandoned the long-term strategic goal of creating a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific coast based on the principle of equal and indivisible security.

We also talked about positive changes that have taken place over the past 18 months in the efforts to build up our cooperation on terrorism, drug trafficking and illegal migration. As I have said, it is gratifying to note the resumption of our dialogue on counterterrorism after a long pause.

We discussed the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, primarily in Syria. The developments in Libya, Iraq and Yemen are of course a matter of concern for Russia and the European Union. We have shared with our partners what Russia is doing to promote a settlement in Syria through inclusive national dialogue and by actively relying on the Astana process. Russia expressed support for the intra-Syrian consultations in Geneva under UN auspices. These talks should be conducted in strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

As you know, Russia has been working and continues to work with the European Union as part of efforts to implement the agreements on the Iranian nuclear programme.

We discussed Ukraine. Both sides confirmed that there is no alternative to fully implementing the Minsk Package of Measures. I laid out Russia’s fact-based perspective on the obstacles that still hamper the implementation of the Minsk agreements, primarily, Kiev’s refusal to affirm the very concept of the document adopted in February 2015 in Minsk. Our Ukrainian neighbours are trying to change the agreements, drastically rewrite them and bend them to their interests, which of course would lead to a deadlock. Let me reiterate that Russia has provided evidence. I hope that our EU colleagues in their work with the Ukrainian Government will push for strict compliance with the Minsk agreements. As a guarantor of these agreements, Russia is ready to do its part of the job in full. We will work with Lugansk and Donetsk to make this a reciprocal process when Kiev finally begins fulfilling its commitments.

Overall, the talks demonstrated that there are many issues on which our positions differ. It is clear that this is to a large extent attributable to the general context of our relations that resulted from the EU’s reaction to actions by the Russian Federation ahead of the anti-constitutional government coup in Ukraine and the events that followed, dictated by the need to prevent the abuse of rights of Ukraine’s Russian speaking population.

Nevertheless, let me reiterate that while there is this system-wide issue, and we are not turning a blind eye to it, we want to keep the conversation alive, which is a good thing in itself. Let us hope that in the end of the day a reasonable and fact-based perspective on what happened and is happening there prevails. In any case, we are neighbours and have to live side by side. Problems should be discussed in order for them not to become artificial obstacles to dialogue.

I am grateful to the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini for our joint work.





Question (for Sergey Lavrov and Federica Mogherini):

Have you discussed reciprocal sanctions and prospects for a system-wide revision of relations between Russia and the EU? Russia advanced such a proposal a year ago. Ukrainian officials do not hide the fact that the current Verkhovna Rada will not consider the laws that are necessary for full compliance with the Minsk agreements. Has Federica Mogherini discussed this issue with Kiev? Is it possible to partially lift the sanctions before the Minsk agreements are fully implemented, in case there is progress in their implementation?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, as Federica Mogherini mentioned, we both agree that yesterday's incident outside the contact line in Donbass should be thoroughly and quickly investigated in a completely transparent manner. Whoever the culprit is, this person or people should be held accountable. Once again, we express our condolences to our American colleagues who lost one of their citizens and wish a speedy recovery to those who were wounded in this incident. I reiterate, we share the view that it is important to gather all the facts and prevent this tragedy from triggering political speculation.

With regard to the sanctions, this topic surfaced in our conversation. As you may be aware, we ourselves never initiate this discussion, but it surfaced predictably, because, as you rightly noted, it is part of those artificial issues that accumulate in our relations with the European Union. Federica Mogherini said an interesting thing to the effect that the EU wants everyone to comply with the Minsk agreements. Understandably, this includes the Kiev government, the self-defence forces in Donetsk and Lugansk, and the European Union, because Germany and France have, by and large, acted on behalf of the EU, all the more so since all these agreements were approved by the UN Security Council. If these agreements are to be implemented by everyone, then probably Russia should convince Lugansk and Donetsk, who put their signatures under the Minsk agreements, to constructively and fully fulfil their part of their obligations, whereas Germany and France must ensure that the Ukrainian government does the same. We strive to do our part of the deal well, but, unfortunately, Kiev is avoiding a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk, although it is mentioned in black and white in the Minsk documents.

In turn, we discussed how our European colleagues work with Kiev. If Federica Mogherini wishes to do so, she will tell you what Brussels is doing in order to have Kiev fulfil its commitments. If the EU's position is that everyone should fulfil their share of the obligations, then why are the sanctions imposed on Russia alone? The obvious sabotage by Kiev of everything that is written in the Minsk document should have some response on behalf of those who have taken this government under their wing.

Since Federica Mogherini said the word "Crimea," I will mention, in parentheses, that Crimea is part of the Russian Federation in full accordance with the will of the people of Crimea. I have not heard EU challenging statements made by numerous British prime ministers when it came to the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas). At all times, whenever the UN General Assembly issued a resolution to Great Britain to the effect that Argentina and Britain need to sit down and talk, London invariably said that no one can challenge the right of the people of the Falkland Islands to self-determination. We are asking for at least the same attitude towards the people of Crimea who are much closer to Russia.

With regard to auditing relations between Russia and the EU, we proposed not just auditing them, but taking stock of them. Audit in Russian means a slightly different thing than the English term "review." A little less than a year ago a paper came up, and today we saw that it is part of a dossier that the delegation brought to Moscow. We expect that this paper will continue to be scrutinised and that the answer will come and be based on the practical interests of our partners rather than the ideological biases of individual EU members.

Federica Mogherini now said that we share many common interests with regard to cooperation in solving international problems, and gave a list of them, which includes the Middle East, North Africa, the Palestinian problem, Afghanistan, the Korean peninsula, the climate, and much more. We also agree that these are common problems and it is important to join our efforts in finding a solution to all these international issues.

Why don’t we let our imagination run free and imagine that we have resolved all these issues, the situation around Russia and the EU calms down, and find ourselves stuck in an interesting situation where we are neighbours, and the advantages of our interaction are clear to everyone, especially in today’s highly competitive era. So, everything will be settled, but we won’t be partners. I’m not even sure what to call such relations. We also discussed this.

The Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation states that we reiterate our interest in a strategic partnership with the EU. We failed to find the word "partnership" in EU’s new document on foreign policy, which was adopted last year just like our concept. It used to be there before. Now it says that the development of relations with Russia is a "challenge" for the EU. I'm trying to ponder this subject. The Brussels policy to "freeze" relations between us and to keep them that way (in an attempt to "punish" us for the people of Crimea exercising their free will) and at the same time to cooperate with us in order to resolve international issues looks half-hearted and ambiguous. The issue is not about what we are going to do in a particular region of the world. It is important, but, in the interests of our respective peoples, it is imperative to answer the questions of how we are going to live side by side, and whether we will seek compromises or try to impose our point of view on our partners?

The ideological dispute has taken on a new dimension in Europe. The values ​​are being interpreted differently. We do not want Russia to be drawn into that dispute. We wish the European Union could reach a consensus within individual countries and in Brussels so that the EU is united and strong, and no domestic games divert the European Union from maintaining partnerships, including with the Russian Federation.

Our relations are still not systemic, but we very much want all these artificial barriers to be removed and give way to a normal, honest and mutually respectful dialogue based on facts, rather than fleeting interests driven by ideology.



Question:

You had talks with US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently. Reportedly, the possibility of restarting the investigation into the incidents in Khan Shaykhun and at the Shayrat air base was mentioned during these talks. Is it possible to resume the investigation given that the majority of the OPCW members voted against the Russian-Iranian proposal?



Sergey Lavrov:

First, the special session of the OPCW Executive Board ended up essentially split with only a two-vote difference between those who blocked our proposal and those who supported it. Nevertheless, according to the procedural rules, it was not approved. This is strange, because this resolution was about nothing more than the opportunity to conduct an independent, impartial and transparent investigation with inspectors on site, including the site of incident in Khan Shaykhun. According to the White Helmets (at least, no other detailed account was provided), chemical weapons were allegedly used by the Syrian government there. The airfield allegedly used by the Syrian war planes carrying chemical munitions was supposed to be inspected. I reminded the Secretary of State that on the day of the incident, on April 4, our American colleagues, including himself, asked us to urgently help them send inspectors to the airport to check for munitions loaded with chemical substances. When our initiative in The Hague was brought up, neither our Western colleagues nor the OPCW Secretariat agreed to send inspectors to that airfield, claiming that the OPCW only investigates the sites where chemical agents had been actually used. I drew the attention of Mr Tillerson to this disconnect and asked him to return to his original position about the need to inspect the airfield.

Second, I also explained to him that in order to ensure transparency, it is necessary for us to be provided with information. Reportedly, the samples had already been taken and were being analysed. Where were they taken? By whom? In what laboratory are they being analysed? Was the rule that no one should tamper with them on their way to the laboratory complied with? There are a number of requirements that have long been applied in all such instances. We wanted to get information about how these requirements were met in the course of taking samples which, according to our partners, has already taken place.

The Americans also claim that they are willing to support the OPCW and the body it created, the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), to look into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria and no one should question its integrity and professionalism. We were told that we voted, including in the UN, for creating such a fact-finding body, so how can we question its actions now? We are not questioning the fact that we adopted such a resolution, but, among other things, it says that the membership of this body should be based on the broadest possible geographical representation. I already had the opportunity to mention that the FFM consists of two segments, one of which is dealing with complaints coming from the Syrian government, and the other complaints about the Syrian government. Both these segments are headed by British nationals.

Four months ago, after eastern Aleppo had been liberated, we, in conjunction with our Syrian colleagues, gathered samples in Aleppo which, in our opinion, indicate that chemical agents were used by the opposition. Four months later no results have been reported to us. In response to our inquiries, they keep telling us that they need more time. However, the segment of this body dealing with complaints about the Syrian government, in a matter of a few short days following the incident in Khan Shaykhun, already managed to come up with the statements which confirm the accusations made immediately after the incident by the White Helmets and other NGOs about the use of sarin. On the one hand, we have four months and nothing happens. On the other hand, without any information about the provenance of the samples, or the lab they were taken to, four short days later they claim that this was a case of using chemical weapons. I reiterate that this is done by two segments of the same body, both of which are headed by British nationals. Perhaps, they should trade places, and this will help make things more constructive. Seriously, this is not a laughing matter. This is an attempt to create a distorted reality, and then exploit it in an attempt to move away from implementing the Security Council resolution on Syrian settlement based on a Syria-wide dialogue and to embark on the path seeking to overthrow another government in this region. We will look forward to the OPCW, based on its mandate which requires the widest possible geographical representation, sending experts to Khan Shaykhun and the airfield, and making sure that all of this is done in a transparent manner rather than shrouded in secrecy from the member countries which pay for this body to continue its work.



Question:

Serious statements have been made about alleged violence in Chechnya against LGBT people, including murder, torture and the like. Is the EU concerned about this? Over 30 members of the LGBT community have gone into hiding in Russia, waiting for a chance to leave the country. Should the EU or the individual EU countries propose a plan for saving these people, so that it’s easier for them to emigrate?



Sergey Lavrov:

Federica Mogherini has said that the EU would like to resume human rights dialogue with Russia. But it was not Russia who blocked almost all other channels of sectoral dialogue. We are willing to talk, but this should be done comprehensively rather than by choosing what one partner wants to discuss and leaving all other issues for later. Our dialogue on human rights will resume as soon as we relaunch all sectoral dialogues. This is what we discussed when we touched upon human rights.

Today we did not discuss the alleged disappearance or torture of LGBT people in Chechnya. We have seen the EU statement made several days ago regarding the alleged disappearance, torture and even killings of LGBT people. However, this statement also contained the phrase, “If confirmed.” We would prefer that the EU wait until these allegations are confirmed before making such harsh statements, if our partners really want to establish the truth.

I would like to repeat what President Vladimir Putin has said more than once, which is that we are concerned about reported violations of the rights of anyone and everyone in Russia, and it does not matter who these people are. We are against any discrimination. We have a law protecting children from adverse influences, which is extremely important now considering the goings-on in social media. But even this law does not prohibit anyone from doing what they please with their own lives.

As for the specific concerns about the alleged violations of the rights of LGBT people in Chechnya or any other region of Russia, we will investigate facts but not act on suspicion or rumour. The Russian authorities have pointed this out many times. So far, we have no information at our disposal to confirm these allegations, but we are really concerned about any violation of human rights. However, accusations must be backed with facts and not used for political purposes, even though it has become fashionable in the EU countries to use the Russian factor for domestic political purposes.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2736003
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #54
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the terrorist attack in Afghanistan



24 April 2017 - 16:11



On April 21, the Taliban staged yet another attack, this time against an Afghan National Army base in Balkh Province in northern Afghanistan. They have killed over 200 people, most of them Afghan military personnel.

It is regrettable that the most pessimistic predictions on a new season of fighting have materialised in Afghanistan. We have to say that the bloody internal conflict in long-suffering Afghanistan has not abated despite the presence of NATO forces, which was deployed there years ago, and despite the massive foreign investment in strengthening Afghanistan’s defence and law enforcement agencies.

This terrorist attack is the latest evidence of the need for intra-Afghan peace talks and a direct dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban as soon as possible. Russia reaffirms its willingness to help launch the process of national reconciliation in Afghanistan, including through the Moscow talks on Afghanistan.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2736187
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #55
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference with OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier, Moscow, April 25, 2017



25 April 2017 - 15:26



I have held talks with OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier and his delegation. OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier has come to Moscow to attend the sixth Moscow International Security Conference sponsored by the Russian Ministry of Defence. We welcome this opportunity to hold a detailed exchange of views on current issues on the OSCE agenda.

We began by both condemning the cynical act that led to the death of an OSCE monitor, a US citizen working with the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM). Two other monitors were wounded.

We strongly believe that measures to properly protect the SMM staff should be tightened. To achieve this, work should be stepped up within the Trilateral Contact Group and the Joint Centre for Control and Coordination (JCCC), which has been established at the request of President Poroshenko of Ukraine and includes Russian and Ukrainian military officers. We strongly believe that it is important for the OSCE SMM to enhance coordination with the parties to the conflict on both sides of the line of contact.

We have discussed how to ensure an impartial, objective and transparent investigation and how OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier will take prompt action in this connection. We proceed from the assumption that the investigation should involve, along with the OSCE SMM, representatives of the Trilateral Contact Group and the JCCC that I have mentioned, as well as the authorities of Ukraine and the Lugansk People’s Republic.

Russia appreciates the OSCE’s contribution to the effort to overcome the Ukrainian conflict. This is not the only conflict on its agenda. We see the OSCE’s desire to help solve the problems in Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh, and its positive involvement in the Geneva discussions on security and stability in the South Caucasus. In all these areas, there are very complex obstacles to progress towards a settlement, but at least the “outside players” intend to create the conditions necessary for the parties involved to search for compromises.

Russia consistently advocates strengthening the OSCE and enhancing its role in the Euro-Atlantic region and in the international arena as a whole. We are convinced that strengthening security and trust in the OSCE’s area of responsibility and erasing divides there are absolute priorities. In this regard, I would like to note the importance of implementing the agreements reached at the last 2010 OSCE Summit in Astana to create “a true community with united and indivisible security” in the OSCE space. We also would like to see the OSCE concern itself more with aligning the integration processes underway in Eurasia, within the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), certainly with the participation of countries that have joined neither of the two.

We are satisfied with our cooperation with the OSCE Secretariat. We would like Russian citizens to contribute to its effective work in full conformity with the principles of impartiality and neutrality, on which OSCE activities are based in line with the Organisation’s mandate.

We are supportive of the OSCE’s increased focus on countering terrorism, drug trafficking, and cybercrime. We took note of the productive activities of the Office for Combating Transnational Threats created with the support of Russia. We believe we could create − within it − a separate unit for combating drugs. Thismatter is relevant for all European countries and the majority of the OSCE members.

As you may be aware, Russia is in favour of continuing the work to improve the OSCE, to develop its Charter, and to redress the imbalances that persist in its individual bodies. We want to make sure that the attention that goes into the three baskets (security, economy and the environment, and the humanitarian sphere) is distributed evenly between them without any excessive focus going into any of the three.

We note the importance of the OSCE’s external relations with its partners outside the Euro-Atlantic region, which include organisations with the participation of the Russian Federation, primarily, the CSTO, the CIS and the SCO, whose members are also members of the OSCE.

Today, OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier visited the CSTO headquarters. We welcome our cooperation, including in the area of providing assistance to the Central Asian countries with an eye towards enhancing their ability to combat modern threats.

We reviewed the activities of specialised OSCE institutions, such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the Office of the High Commissioner on National Minorities, the Representative on Freedom of the Media, and field missions. We operate on the premise that all OSCE executive entities need to act in strict accordance with their mandates, in the interests and in accordance with the requests of the host states, as enshrined in the fundamental documents of the Organisation.

We welcomed OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier’s initiative to hold OSCE Security Days. This is a very useful format which makes it possible to put together the positions of official delegations, experts and researchers, and representatives of civil society. We consider it a very useful addition to our common efforts to strengthen mutual understanding and establish an equitable and mutually respectful dialogue on a wide range of security issues.

We agreed to maintain contacts on all the matters discussed today. As I mentioned earlier, we will take part together in the Moscow Conference on International Security tomorrow.





Question:

Is lack of respect for the mission the main reason for Sunday’s tragedy?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Lamberto Zannier):

I do not see a connection either between what the parties think about the SMM or how much respect they have for it, and what happened on Sunday. Most importantly, there must be an impartial, open, and transparent investigation with the participation of those who enjoy appropriate authority in their mandates. This is the Special Monitoring Mission itself, the Contact Group, and the Joint Centre on Control and Coordination. Of course, they must interact with the Kiev and Lugansk authorities.

The SMM publishes a weekly table of violations of OSCE obligations committed by the sides. As Mr Zannier said, both sides impose restrictions on the freedom of movement of the OSCE, and commit violations concerning storing heavy weapons in warehouses. Most often, the absence of such heavy weapons in places where they are supposed to be, is observed in the Ukrainian army.

We are not trying to figure out who is cooperating with the SMM and how. One thing is clear: the SMM observers must enjoy unconditional safety. First, it is important to ensure coordination of the mission with those who control the territory on either side of the contact line. The mission is likewise interested in working with the JCCC, which is staffed with Russian and Ukrainian officers. We are convinced that it is important in all respects to have individual regions of Donetsk and Lugansk regions represented in this centre. Third, the investigation, which must absolutely be carried out, must be based on the facts. Only the experts can determine what happened there. It is important to find out whether it was a leftover mine, or a radio controlled land mine. If there was malicious intent, the perpetrators must be held accountable.



Question:

Following the incident with the SMM vehicle, President Poroshenko of Ukraine said the issue of sending UN peacekeepers to Donbass should be revisited. Do you think it should be discussed now?



Sergey Lavrov:

President Poroshenko makes a lot of statements. It is hard for me to comment on them. All of them are designed to evade responsibility for signing the Minsk Agreements. Nothing of what the Ukrainian government was supposed to do has been done under various pretexts. Any incident – long before even an attempt is made to look into it – will be used to divert attention from the Minsk Agreements. They say absolutely nothing about any peacekeepers but they support the SMM’s role. This does not mean that there can be no further agreements. However, such agreements, especially those involving the deployment of peacekeepers, require the consent of all parties to the conflict. So Mr Poroshenko should talk to Donetsk and Lugansk, as he is bound to do under the Minsk Agreements, which he constantly avoids.



Question:

Yesterday, several US officials, including the country’s top military command, once again criticised Russia for allegedly supplying arms to the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. They directly accused Russia of providing arms and said they were ready to stand up to it. Could you comment on these statements? Could these accusations be connected to the surge in the Taliban’s activity in Afghanistan and the intensification of their operations against US and Afghan forces, which were provoked by the Americans with the help of the “Mother of All Bombs”?



Sergey Lavrov:

These are unprofessional, groundless assertions. Whatever might be said about Russia these days, nobody has presented a shred of evidence to back them up. I am confident that those in the US who are paid to provide the country’s leadership with reliable intelligence know very well that this is a lie. I am also sure that these people know who is arming and supporting ISIS in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, in the north of which ISIS has already struck root. I believe they also know that. If this is not simply a lack of professionalism, then perhaps it is an attempt to divert attention from plans to change course regarding a settlement in Syria. Over the past few days there have been growing suspicions to that effect. We are aware of the attempts by some of our colleagues to bury the UN Security Council resolution on a political settlement in Syria based on an intra-Syrian dialogue and to get back to the old topic of regime change. Naturally, we’ll oppose them. I’m sure that that UN Security Council will not deviate from its firm position, as enshrined in Resolution 2254.

Regarding the statements by US officials, they not only allege that we are arming the Taliban (this is simply untethered from what any objective reading of the information would support), but also that we in principle are for dialogue with the Taliban. It may be recalled that under former president Barack Obama, the US maintained contact with the Taliban secretly, in circumvention of the principles established by the UN Security Council at the request of the Afghan government for the Taliban’s participation in a national dialogue. These principles were very simple: first, putting and end to hostilities and contacts with terrorist organisations; second, reaffirming respect for the constitution of Afghanistan. When the Taliban opened their office in Doha, the capital of Qatar, the US got in contact with the Taliban without any preconditions. They also did a lot of other things.

Today, we are advocating one simple idea: getting the Taliban involved in a national dialogue based on the principles approved by the UN Security Council at the request of the Afghan government: cease hostilities, renounce terrorism and respect the constitution.

Just yesterday, the US, through one of its representatives, said that it is also willing to accept the Taliban’s participation in the national dialogue if the Taliban puts an end to the violence and renounces terrorism. The US representative did not mention respect for the Afghan constitution as a precondition. You can draw your own conclusions. I am convinced that without dialogue between the government and the Taliban on the basis of these principles, there is little reason to expect national reconciliation in Afghanistan. This is what we want – for Afghanistan to stop being a source of terrorist and drug trafficking threats, which dramatically increased during the many years that the NATO mission was present there and now that a new NATO mission is there.

It is wrong to lay the blame at someone else's door. It is necessary for everybody to unite and help the Afghans establish their national reconciliation dialogue on the basis of the principles enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution.

Two weeks ago, an international meeting on Afghanistan took place in Moscow with the participation of the Afghan government and neighbouring countries. We invited US representatives to that meeting. They refused to attend, claiming that their policy toward Afghanistan has not been formulated yet. It would seem that if it is in the process of being formulated, it is just the right time to sit and listen to what people involved in a settlement in Afghanistan have to say. However, the US chose not to send its representatives to Moscow. It seems that this is also part of its strategy – trying to blame Washington’s failures in Afghanistan on Russia. This is not what partners should do and it is especially incomprehensible why [they] are now trying to whitewash the mistakes made by the NATO mission under the Obama administration. This is strange.



Question:

Could you confirm today’s media report that Russia has restarted the memorandum on preventing incidents in Syrian airspace at the request of the US?



Sergey Lavrov:

Regarding the question about the memorandum, it should be addressed to the military, as it was signed between the defence ministries. The Russian Aerospace Forces and the US Air Force as part of the US-led coalition are working there and the question about what they are doing to prevent incidents should be addressed to the militaries. I assure you that our group, the Russian Aerospace Forces are taking all necessary measures to ensure the safety of our service personnel.



Question:

As we know, you have already seen the show Optimists that will be aired on the Rossia 1 network. How accurately does it capture the “thaw” atmosphere? What thoughts or memories did it provoke?



Sergey Lavrov:

I’m not that old. In the early 1960s I was still in primary school. However, my mother told me about the “thaw.”

Yesterday, I watched the first few episodes – not from beginning to end but in fits and starts. It is a very interesting genre and it has an exciting plot. As for plausibility, I will say that a diplomat’s work is in fact not so exotic and does not involve everyday adventures like those shown in the first two parts. On the other hand, I understand that what the writers want to show about the diplomatic profession is not the protagonist and his partners actually sitting and writing papers or talking in a language incomprehensible to the average person. That would have been a little boring.

I think the show is interesting. Let’s hope that despite the artistic license it will help anyone interested in a career in diplomacy to make up their mind.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2736997
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #56
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the Sixth Moscow Conference on International Security, Moscow, April 26, 2017



26 April 2017 - 11:17





Mr Shoigu,

Colleagues,

Ladies and gentlemen,

Over the past five years, the Defence Ministry’s Conference on International Security in Moscow has become a major part of the academic and practical events on military-political issues held around the world. The high-level representation of participants, which allows for expert dialogue, and the ambitious agenda covering the current key issues provide the grounds for comprehensively analysing current risks and threats and finding solutions for them.

The global situation has neither become more stable nor predictable. On the contrary, we see tension growing both globally and regionally, the continued erosion of international law and attempts to use force to promote unilateral interests, strengthen one’s security at the expense of others’ security and contain the objective development of a polycentric world order at any cost. These actions are damaging our common objective, which is joining our efforts to deal with real rather than imaginary threats.

The upcoming panel discussions at the conference will focus on the struggle against international terrorism, which has grown to an unprecedented scale. For the first time in human history, terrorists want to create their own state, a caliphate with its own territory, population and man-hating ideology. Much is being said at various levels about the need to redouble efforts against this global evil. The Joint Communique of the G7 Foreign Ministers Meeting says that “international cooperation remains of paramount importance in the fight against terrorism.” It further says, I quote: “Countering terrorism and violent extremism and bringing perpetrators to justice remain top priorities for the international community.”

These fine words have been said before, but they have not been turned into reality. However, joint actions and the creation of a broad counterterrorism front, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed at the UN in September 2015, are still being hindered by political ambitions and double standards.

Russia continues working to rally the international community in the fight against terrorism. We have submitted a draft resolution on combating the terrorist ideology to the UN Security Council. We have urged for the introduction of a comprehensive trade and economic embargo on ISIS-controlled territories in keeping with Article 41 of the UN Charter, with sanctions to be imposed on embargo violators.

Adopting the rules of responsible behaviour for states when utilising information and communication technology (ICT) is another important objective. These rules should make it impossible to use ICT for military purposes or interference in internal affairs. The rules must also prevent international terrorists from using ICT. Within the UN, Russia pushes for devising a universal criminal law convention on countering cybercrime.

We will never succeed in our fight against terrorism unless multiple conflicts are resolved, primarily in the Middle East and North Africa. The ceasefire in Syria that was facilitated by Russia, Turkey and Iran in late 2016 and the launch of the Astana process contribute to the intra-Syrian inclusive dialogue.

On the contrary, the recent missile strike by the US against the Shayrat airbase in Syria was a blatant violation of international law and an act of aggression against a sovereign state, which only aggravated the existing problems, making the prospect of building a broad counterterrorist front even more distant and illusive. This begs a comparison with what happened in 2003 in Iraq with the devastating effect on the country and the emergence of ISIS as a direct consequence. I think that there is no need to explain to this audience once more that a dangerous turn of events, including outside the region, could result in ill-advised steps of this kind.

Provocations like the one that took place in Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 call for a professional investigation under the auspices of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and following a geographically balanced approach. This should be an open and transparent investigation. We are witnessing attempts to block this process, which only confirms our doubts in the good faith of those trying to exploit the April 4 incident in order to shift the agenda, abandon UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and advance with the long-standing idea of regime change in Syria.

Of course, the surge in terrorist activity should not overshadow other dangerous challenges the world is facing today. The deteriorating situation around the Korean Peninsula is a matter of grave concern as Pyongyang continues its nuclear missile programmes, while the US and its regional allies have disproportionately stepped up their military activity under the pretext of the ‘North Korean threat.’ The accelerated deployment of US THAAD complexes in the south of the peninsula as part of the US global missile defence shield has an especially destabilising effect.

Russia is fully aligned with the consolidated position of the international community regarding Pyongyang’s policy, and reaffirms its commitment to all UN Security Council resolutions. However, it is obvious that the recent emergence of the prospect of using force is fraught with catastrophic consequences for the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia in general.

Russia is interested in ensuring security and stability across the Asia-Pacific Region. Having all countries in the region follow the generally accepted rules of behaviour is an essential prerequisite for success, including respecting international law, peaceful settlement of disputes, and non-use of force or threat of force. Russia has proposed to its partners and proactively promotes at East Asia summits concrete measures to build a security and cooperation architecture on a non-bloc and inclusive basis. We see that these efforts are highly relevant. China, India and many ASEAN countries share our approaches. By the way, the fruitful dialogue within the SCO clearly demonstrates that international contacts can be effective, when based on the principles of equality, taking into account each other’s interests and respecting the right of states to choose their own development model.

If we look at another part of the world, the Euro-Atlantic region, one cannot but feel alarmed over its considerable residual conflict potential, which is largely fuelled by NATO’s unilateral actions. Defence Minister Sergey Shoigu has just discussed this in great detail. The unilateral deployment of the US global missile defence system’s European segment is an extremely serious obstacle to strengthening strategic stability. This system is aimed at changing the balance of forces in the area of offensive arms. The deployment of an anti-missile umbrella can bolster the illusions of invulnerability and impunity and tempt one to make unilateral moves while addressing global and regional issues, including lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. The development of non-nuclear strategic weapons and efforts to prevent the conclusion of an agreement on the non-deployment of weapons in space have a negative impact on international security. The unwillingness or inability of the United States and some other countries to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) gives rise to more and more questions.

We are convinced that it is vital to establish a zone of equal and indivisible security from Vancouver to Vladivostok, as formalised by the decisions of OSCE summits and those of the Russia-NATO Council. More and more Europeans are advocating resumed dialogue in the interests of effectively addressing numerous issues for the purpose of establishing a European security architecture that would involve the Russian Federation.

The resolution of the intra-Ukrainian crisis by completely and consistently implementing the Minsk Package of Measures should help restore mutual trust. Unfortunately, the “war hawks” are gaining the upper hand in Kiev. Armed provocations continue along the demarcation line, as proved by reports of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. A blockade imposed against Donbass continues to have a negative impact on this region and the whole of Ukraine. We expect our partners, including our Normandy format partners, to more insistently and openly compel the Kiev authorities to honour their obligations assumed in Minsk.

Colleagues,

The entire world history shows that wars are not unleashed by generals but by politicians, who have special responsibility for maintaining peace and security. Obviously, it is impossible to accomplish successfully global tasks such as the fight against international terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction without renouncing the philosophy of hegemony and one’s own exclusivity. It is high time we return to the basic principles of international life formalised in the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in domestic affairs and the resolution of disputes by peaceful means.

Russia, jointly with its partners and like-minded countries, will continue to assert solid principles in global affairs and to form the entire new global governance system reflecting the 21st century imperatives. We are ready to work together, jointly search for various options to overcome our challenges on the basis of equality, mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests. We urge all our partners to do this. Any other road will inevitably lead us all into a dead end.

Thank you and good luck for the rest of your conference.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2737799
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #57
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Excepts from a joint news conference of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov following talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, Moscow, April 26, 2017



26 April 2017 - 13:19





Question (addressed to both ministers):

Do you think the exchange of visits by Russian and Saudi officials will help you find new points of contact in your fruitful cooperation on Syria? Will King of Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud make a visit to Moscow soon?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Adel al-Jubeir):

I fully agree with my Saudi friend’s opinion of the Russian-Saudi relations, which have been on the rise recently. However, we have more ambitious plans.

The Intergovernmental Commission, whose chairs met in Moscow in December 2016, has become more active. Its members have plans for a plenary meeting this autumn. These plans include discussions of practical investment projects, including in energy and agriculture. We are pondering plans for nuclear energy cooperation. A Rosatom delegation visited Riyadh this month. Twelve intergovernmental projects are being discussed; they will certainly boost our relations to a fundamentally new level.

During a recent visit to Riyadh, Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko met with His Royal Majesty King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, who reaffirmed his intention to accept the invitation he received from President of Russia Vladimir Putin to visit Russia at his convenience.

As I have said, we appreciate the Saudi authorities’ attention to Russian pilgrims. Today our partners have kindly agreed to take additional measures to make the Russian pilgrims’ stay and travel to and from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia even more comfortable.

I would like to mention another important element of our relations: ties between our regions. Over the past few months, the heads of Tatarstan, Ingushetia and Chechnya visited Saudi Arabia, where they met with senior Saudi officials.

I fully agree with what my Saudi colleague and friend said about a settlement for Syria. Russia and Saudi Arabia wholeheartedly support the decisions taken by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and the UN Security Council, including Resolution 2254.



Question (addressed to both ministers):

Saudi Arabia has said more than once that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be removed, either by political or military means. Have you smoothed over your differences on Syria regarding President al-Assad’s role in the country’s future?



Sergey Lavrov:

As we have said when answering the previous question, I cannot say that there are any insurmountable differences in our views on Syria. Russia and Saudi Arabia are both members of the ISSG and its ceasefire and humanitarian task forces. These task forces meet in Geneva every week to discuss issues within their competence. Also, Russia and Saudi Arabia co-authored UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which sets out the principles for a Syrian settlement, including that the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria.

Of course, the practical implementation of this principle must be discussed and coordinated between the Syrian government and the entire range of the opposition, as per Resolution 2254. It was with great difficulty and only with support from external players, including Russia and Saudi Arabia, that the talks have been launched. There is hard work ahead under the UN guidance. It involves the external players using their influence on the Syrian parties to urge them to act as constructively as possible to find mutually acceptable solutions in the name of their country’s future.

Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has reaffirmed his country’s support for the Astana process. Our efforts in Astana have helped us reach a ceasefire agreement, and we are working now to ensure compliance with it and to create a mechanism for responding to ceasefire violations. The idea of the Astana process was a major, and possibly decisive, argument that led to the resumption of the Geneva talks. We want to develop these two processes in a coordinated manner.



Question (for both ministers):

The Iranian armed forces and Hezbollah in Syria are being accused of implementing a plan to change the demographic situation in many Syrian cities. In addition to this, they are being accused of committing genocide. The possibility of withdrawing the Iranian troops and Hezbollah combat units from Syria was discussed but the situation hasn’t changed. What do you think about the role of Iran and Hezbollah in Syria? What can be done in this regard?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Adel Al-Jubeir):

With regard to your question about “ethnic cleansing”, in fact, this process is the result of an agreement between the Syrian government and the corresponding opposition groups in a particular region. We believe it can be instrumental in reducing the death toll.

During hostilities, the opposing sides and those who want to help them often have to make decisions that are not ideal from the point of view of preserving the principles of a settlement. We are convinced that such measures are beneficial on a temporary basis to save people's lives. The liberation of eastern Aleppo proved this. The methods used back then helped save many lives. Unfortunately, we don’t see any attempts to learn through this experience when it comes to Mosul, Iraq, now.

As for the presence of Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, as you may well be aware, we do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organisation. We operate on the premise that both were invited to Syria by a legitimate government. Of course, we are aware of Saudi Arabia’s position. Clearly, we are not on the same page in that regard, to put it mildly. Nonetheless, we share the view that all without exception Syrian sides and all without exception external actors who have any influence on these sides should be involved in the process if we want to resolve this crisis. Of course, terrorist organisations recognised as such by the UN Security Council, such as ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, must be excluded from the process. Just like Russia and Saudi Arabia, Iran is a member of the ISSG and has declared its commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 2254. Being part of the Astana process, Iran, along with Turkey and Russia, is one of the three guarantors of the ceasefire regime, which is critical at this stage. In this sense, this is a common position of both Russia and Saudi Arabia.



Question (for both ministers):

Russia has suspicions that certain parties to the process designed to resolve the Syrian conflict are trying to back away UNSC Resolution 2254 and go off the political settlement track under the pretext of the government forces allegedly using chemical weapons at Khan Shaykhun. Russia has a clear position on this account: it is necessary to conduct a transparent and thorough investigation. Can Saudi Arabia support this position in view of the fact that there are voices saying that Damascus should be punished even before the results of the investigation become known, which runs counter to the presumption of innocence?



Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Adel Al-Jubeir):

I agree with the part of Adel Al-Jubeir's statement where he talked about supporting a full-fledged investigation seeking to establish the perpetrator of the crime prior to deciding on the punishment. As you may be aware, we advanced a corresponding draft decision at the OPCW, which calls for an investigation in strict compliance with the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission’s mandate that provides for a wide geographical representation of the experts working in this mission.

I mentioned earlier that the fact that both segments of the Fact-Finding Mission are headed by British nationals is a matter of great concern for us. This runs counter to the principle contained in the mandate of this mission which I mentioned. I have already cited the facts showing that when it comes to suspicions regarding the use of chemicals by the opposition, this mission has been dragging out the investigation for many months. When it comes to accusations of the Syrian government, they become much more efficient. We’ve been accused that when we put forward a draft decision on the need to conduct an objective, impartial and transparent investigation, we are departing from our own position where we voted for creating the Fact-Finding Mission. However, we voted for a body that was supposed to be well-balanced, rather than be led by two Britons (with all due respect for their professional abilities). As you may be aware, our Western partners have blocked this draft decision, claiming there was no need to do anything extra. They intimated to us that our US colleagues have irrefutable data and practically a list of names of Syrian officials and military who made the decision to use chemical weapons, as well as all other facts relating to the April 4 incident. Sure enough, they cannot share these facts with us for reasons of secrecy and confidentiality.

We cannot follow the principle expressed by a character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger when he said "trust me." We prefer the principle articulated by Ronald Reagan, who said trust but verify. In turn, the official representatives of London and Paris are saying that again there’s no need to do anything else, or to make any decisions, because, as it turned out, the samples have already been taken at the site of the incident, are being analysed and the findings will soon be presented. This begs the question: if the UK and France are aware of it, why aren’t other members of the international community? We asked many times publicly and in private conversations who took these samples, when, in which particular area, and how these samples were delivered to a lab to make sure they haven’t been tampered with, what kind of laboratory it was, whether it is OPCW-certified, and many others. We addressed these questions to the head of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, but we have yet to receive their response. We haven’t received answers from the British or the French, who argue that everything is in order and there’s nothing to worry about.

Another aspect that we haven’t discussed before concerns allegations by the detractors of an objective investigation that it is impossible to send experts to the area where the chemical agents were used for safety reasons and that this allegedly relies on assessments by a corresponding UN institution. We went ahead and checked these allegations. They turned out to be false. The corresponding department of the UN Secretariat presented us with a position which states that there are no obstacles to organising an inspection mission to Khan Shaykhun and the airfield in question. In addition, the Syrian government officially guaranteed safety to the inspectors coming to the airfield.

As for Khan Shaykhun, someone known to London and Paris must have taken the samples, meaning that both these capitals know people who are able to go to Khan Shaykhun. So, the safety issue can be taken care of, all the more so since Head of the High Negotiations Committee Riad Hijab, a well-known opposition member, stated publicly shortly after the April 4 incident that he and his entire committee are willing to support an independent investigation with an on-site visit.

As I already mentioned, we are aware of the position of Saudi Arabia and Riyadh’s suspicions and accusations toward Damascus regarding the use of chemicals. However, the fact that Adel Al-Jubeir has confirmed his support for an objective Investigation completely coincides with our approach.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2737984
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #58
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Remarks by Director of the Foreign Ministry Information and Press Department Maria Zakharova at the 39th Session of the UN General Assembly’s Committee on Information (COI), New York, April 25, 2017



26 April 2017 - 16:04





Mr Chair,

Let me thank the previous COI Chair, Mr Kakha Imnadze, for his work, and congratulate the present Chair, Mr Jan Kickert, on his election. I wish him success in his new post.

Let me also acknowledge my gratitude to Acting Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications and Head of the Department of Public Information Maher Nasser for the Secretary-General’s reports on the DPI’s activities for last year and the beginning of the current year, which he has submitted to the COI. Their conceptual and evaluative content is a meaningful basis for further discussions of the Department’s work.

We highly appreciate the work done by former Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information and Head of the Department of Public Information Cristina Gallach.

As we see it, the Department’s performance in the three key areas – informational and explanatory, strategic communications, and news services – can be assessed as generally positive. Last year, the Department did much to efficiently promote the UN agenda and provide information support for the versatile activities carried out by the United Nations.

As we believe, the DPI’s achievements are a result of its well-grounded focus on strategic planning, timely and precise establishment of priorities, and targeted information campaigns. The DPI has managed to remain as efficient in expanding cooperation with the member-states, civil society, the media, the business community and academic circles, as well as with such promising partners as the advertising business, mobile telephony providers, representatives of the entertainment industry, etc. In so doing, the Department has also strengthened cooperation with colleagues from other UN divisions.

However, we have questions to these reports’ structure. Like last year, they are weak on analysis and forecasting, and are sometimes limited to a performance survey. Moreover, there is a clear imbalance between the report’s sections on individual committee activities. For example, three and a half pages are devoted to information support for the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, while there is only one paragraph on information support for the fight against terrorism.

This imbalance is obviously unacceptable for any subject under discussion, which differs from one year to another. We believe that equal attention must be paid to these crucial issues on the international agenda. The Department of Public Information should focus on information support for conflict prevention and settlement, the fight against violent extremism and the creation of the basis for a lasting peace, which are the key issues on the agenda of the new UN Secretary-General. Other key issues are the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, climate change and mass movements of refugees and migrants. Two major media campaigns are being successfully implemented, including 17 Goals to Transform Our World and Together – Respect, Safety and Dignity for All.

We appreciate the Small Smurfs Big Goals campaign launched by the Department of Public Information, UNICEF, the UN Foundation and Sony Pictures to encourage young people everywhere to learn about and support the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. In this context, the UN Information Centre in Moscow and Sony Pictures teamed up on March 19 to celebrate the International Day of Happiness at Masterslavl, Russia’s largest interactive educational project for children. There are many such centres in Russia, but Masterslavl is among the biggest.

We think the attention of the new UN Secretary-General and the UN Department of Public Information (DPI) toward issues of gender equality and the empowerment of women is warranted.

We believe it important that the DPI highlight the organisation of events to celebrate humankind’s victory over the evil of Nazism in the 20th century, combat the glorification of Nazism and the proliferation of ideologies of hate, including in light of the risk of radicalisation of young people in some parts of the world. The UN was created in response to the global catastrophe of World War II. These lessons of history must never be forgotten. May 8 and 9, which were declared Remembrance and Reconciliation Days under UN General Assembly Resolution 59/26 of November 22, 2004, must be given appropriate information support.

We have a positive view of the DPI’s information and educational work on the tragedy of the Holocaust. The scale of events planned for Holocaust Remembrance Week with assistance from the UN Information Centre in Moscow is evidence that this tragedy resonates in the hearts of a vast number of Russian citizens.

We support the DPI’s contribution to the UN projects for young people. We have great appreciation for the efforts of Ahmad Alhendawi, the first UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth who has recently resigned. Last summer, he took an active part in the Terra Scientia Russian Educational Youth Forum.

We consider it important to continue to support the Model UN by trying to bring UN activities closer to the intellectual youth environment. This project has rapidly spread across Russia and is underway at the country’s leading humanitarian universities in Moscow and the regions, and also at general schools.

We would appreciate it if the DPI contributed to preparations for the XIX World Festival of Youth and Students, which will be held in Sochi in October 2017. The organisation’s assistance to this global youth event would help strengthen the positive image of the UN among teenagers and students. In this context, we hope that a new UN Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth will be appointed soon and will serve as a link between the UN and the Organising Committee of the Sochi Festival of Youth and Students.

Mr Chairman,

Multilingualism is one of the basic principles of the United Nations. It fosters unity in diversity and mutual understanding between nations. We note the annual workshops for Russian universities that have signed memorandums with the UN Secretariat on professional training of highly-qualified translators for international organisations, which were mentioned in the report – workshops that are organised by the UN Information Centre in Moscow.

We still expect the Department of Public Information to make available adequate resources to ensure translation services in Russian, as well as to prevent a deterioration of their quality. We reaffirm the demand for maintaining language parity. A lot was said about this at the present session and even more will be said yet. Unfortunately, this problem has not been resolved for years. On the whole, we consider it necessary to ensure that content be provided in all of the UN’s main languages as promptly as possible.

We support the Department’s focus on modern information and communication technology, including Russian social media. At the same time we believe it is necessary to further promote UN online resources in the Russian-language segment of social media, even though significant progress has been made here already.

It is essential to intensify the activity of the Russian-language section of the Organisation’s News Service – from developing multimedia content to maintaining the high quality of traditional information products.

We note the traditionally high professional standards of the UN Russian-language radio service and hope that its approaches toward the responsible mission of providing prompt information support for the Organisation’s key events will be further improved.

At the same time we must draw attention to the fact that since January 1, 2017, 15-minute daily Russian-language broadcasts by United Nations Radio have stopped airing. These broadcasts were prepared in keeping with the UN General Assembly Resolution of December 6, 1999. The need for such programmes was approved under Committee resolutions every year, including 2016, and the decision to cancel or reformat them should be made by the Committee, not the Department of Public Information on its own. We would like to ask the Department to explain this situation and take the necessary organisational steps to reinstate Russian-language broadcasts. There are also questions concerning the fact that the Secretary General’s report А/71/227, Section Radio and Internet News, Points 59-69, makes no mention of the Russian service whatsoever.

At the same time it is encouraging that the DPI reaches out to new audiences with the help of original communication strategies and digital communication tools. In this context, the Sustainable Development Goals in Action project, developed by the Department in collaboration with the Association of GSM Network Operators – a software application for smartphones allowing users to work toward Sustainable Development Goals – seems quite promising.

On the whole, we consider it necessary to steadily step up the efforts to bring the design, technical tools and content of the Organisation’s website and social media in line with the constantly changing and growing demands of the audience. This is key to success in popularising the UN’s activity on a global scale.

The DPI’s stated intention to introduce a digital library system, as well as the trend toward transitioning to digital media in the interest of reducing the paperwork in the UN system, can only be welcomed. However, this should not lead to the deterioration of UN reading halls and libraries on the ground. As such, we cannot agree with a policy of reducing the number of depository libraries. We believe this resource is still needed and effective for information and propaganda purposes.

We also believe that the development of information and communication technology cannot serve as grounds for giving lower priority to traditional media. After all, traditional media – television, radio and newspapers – are in great demand in countries and regions where the internet is not generally available. We are all different and this should be taken into account. What’s more, we believe it is of paramount importance to maintain live contact with people through direct communication with the audience.

The section Peacekeeping Operations (Point 40 of the Secretary General’s report Strategic Communication Services) mentions interagency cooperation with the aim of covering military operations to free Mosul from ISIS. We believe such cooperation should be established in the interest of providing a more comprehensive coverage of the operations against ISIS that are being conducted in Syria together with the country’s national government, including with the participation of the Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides in Syria.

The Secretary General’s report devotes considerable attention to UN information centres. We are convinced that this important component of the Department’s activity must not be subjected to revision. Information centres continue to play a key role in promoting the Organisation’s agenda and raising its profile in receiving states. We note that the change of leadership at the Moscow Information Centre has not slowed the pace of its work. The high efficiency and quality of its work have been maintained while new interesting projects have also appeared on its platform.

We urge the DPI, as an important practical step to intensify its activity, to develop and flesh out the idea of holding regular meetings with the press secretaries of permanent missions to the UN to coordinate positions on current issues of the DPI’s activity and cooperate with country representatives. Then perhaps not so many questions will accumulate ahead of annual interactive dialogues. They can be dealt with as part of the Department’s and permanent missions’ current activities. We raised this issue several years ago and I believe this practice would be useful if meetings between the Department and permanent missions could be held on a monthly basis or as required by the Department and the missions, maybe once every two months, to address problems, for example, concerning press releases, inadequate translation or discrepancies in the content of press releases in different languages. In this way we would be able to attend Committee meetings well prepared in the course of our business.

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

I must say a few words about the problems confronting the international media environment today. Freedom of expression, impartiality and objectivity are increasingly sacrificed to considerations of political expediency while the global information space is degrading and disintegrating into co-opted fragments, following the development of confrontational trends in global politics. Impunity for crimes against journalists remains the sad reality in a number of countries, both peaceful and those that are conflict zones.

There is a crisis, unprecedented in the depth of the problems and the intensity of the risks involved, caused by global political turbulence and the return by a number of states to the practice of confrontation in the information sphere following cold war patterns. The practice of unwarranted legislative and functional restrictions on media activity is spreading. Against this backdrop, media resources are experiencing a credibility crisis provoked above all by a dramatic decline in professional standards, as evidenced, among other things, by the mass production of so-called fake news stories. Such planted stories are comparable to an epidemic in terms of the extent of damage caused to the affected environment. As in the case of the systemic fight against any transborder pandemic, there is a need for a strategy to counter this threat at a supranational level.

Our delegation proposes including in the text of resolutions that will be drafted by the UN General Assembly’s Committee on Information, recommendations for the DPI to start working to develop basic parameters for a strategy to fight fake news stories and disinformation. Russia will be willing to provide comprehensive support in achieving this goal, the importance of which for the purpose of the creative development of a healthy media environment is hard to overestimate.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2738369
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #59
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Press release on Turkish airstrikes against Iraq and Syria



26 April 2017 - 20:07



Reports coming in say that the Turkish air force carried out airstrikes on the night of April 25 against Iraqi and Syrian regions bordering Turkey. Turkey has stated that the air strikes targeted positions held by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Syrian Democratic Forces headed by the Democratic Union Party, close to the PKK. They report around 70 Kurdish fighters dead.

Moscow is deeply concerned by these actions. The Turkish military has acted here against the Kurdish forces that are genuinely combating terrorist groups, above all ISIS, on the ground. At a time when the war on terror in Iraq and Syria is far from over, these actions clearly do not help to consolidate counterterrorism efforts and aggravate an already tense situation.

We are also concerned over the fact that the Turkish airstrikes were carried out against sovereign states’ territory, bypassing these states’ legitimate governments. We consider such actions unacceptable and in breach of the basic principles of relations between states.

In this situation, we call on all parties to show restraint. It is important to show the needed political foresight and focus our attention on the most important task today – combating the terrorist international in the form of ISIS, al-Nusra and other affiliated groups.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2738658
 
Old April 29th, 2017 #60
Alex Him
Senior Member
 
Alex Him's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 6,834
Blog Entries: 219
Post

Permanent Delegate of the Russian Federation to UNESCO Alexander Kuznetsov’s remarks at the plenary meeting of the 201st session of the UNESCO Executive Board, Paris, April 25, 2017



27 April 2017 - 13:53



Mr Chairperson, colleagues,

Today, as international terrorism threatens our common cultural heritage, youth radicalisation takes on threatening dimensions, and modern information technology is used to spread hatred and enmity, UNESCO's mandate to “build peace in the minds of men and women” is more relevant than ever before. In its recently adopted historic Resolution 2347, the UN Security Council welcomed the central role of UNESCO in protecting cultural heritage from terrorists for a good reason.

Clearly, the situation with the criminal destruction of the cultural heritage of Syria calls for urgent measures on the part of UNESCO. The action plan for the implementation of the Strategy for the Reinforcement of UNESCO's Action for the Protection of Culture and the Promotion of Cultural Pluralism in the Event of Armed Conflict submitted to the current session of the Executive Board, provides a good basis for building up work in this area. Our number one goal is to save Palmyra, the crown jewel of human civilisation, which was captured and destroyed by terrorists and liberated again. The first thing to do here is to demine the area, without which it is impossible to properly assess the damage and to begin the reconstruction process. Russian mine pickers are already working in Palmyra. Creating an international demining coalition in Syria would help to speed up this work. We call upon all our UNESCO partners who are interested in preserving historical heritage to get involved in addressing this critical problem.

The world needs a strong, efficient and effective UNESCO capable of meeting current challenges and providing an appropriate response. In this regard, high expectations are associated with the election of a new Director General, hopefully, a worthy successor to Ms Bokova. However, the future of UNESCO depends to a large extent on us, the member states, and our determination to support the organisation at this difficult juncture.

The first thing that can and should be done by the member states is to help the organisation overcome the protracted financial crisis. We consider refusal by any member to pay their fees or attempts to impose political conditions on them as a violation of the Charter of the organisation and its Financial Regulations. It is unacceptable to tighten the financial noose around UNESCO's neck and at the same time ask it to be more efficient.

The second thing that needs to be done is to agree on strategic priorities with regard to the activities of UNESCO. We should focus on areas where UNESCO is indispensable or has more experience and expertise than other international institutions.

The third and final thing is that we should give up any temptation to use UNESCO’s platform to address fleeting political concerns. We fully share the thought expressed in this regard by the Delegate of India. The attempts to consider issues of territorial belonging or to square historical accounts are an absolutely dead-end track and a disastrous path to take for our organisation. The politicisation destroys it from within. Eliminating hot-button issues, which clearly have no solution here, from the agenda will save us both time and effort, and also allow us to focus on what our countries and peoples expect from UNESCO.

Thank you.





The source of information - http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/...ent/id/2739017
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 AM.
Page generated in 1.40077 seconds.