Transcript of Remarks and Replies to Media Questions by Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergey Lavrov at the Press Conference on the Results of the Activities of Russian Diplomacy in 2006, Moscow, December 20, 2006

Unofficial translation from Russian

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, friends.

I am happy to see you. According to our tradition, we meet in December to sum up the results of the outgoing year and to discuss what to expect from the next year. We are pleased that the situation in Russia and its actions in international affairs attract the growing attention of journalists and political scientists both in our country and abroad. We appreciate the opportunity to communicate to you our vision and plans. Naturally, we do not impose and will not impose on anyone our views of any developments relating to Russia and our foreign policy. Honestly, we are not going to get involved in information wars either, although occasionally we are provoked, nor will we resort to "megaphone rhetoric," but of course, we will continue to try to meet the legitimate demand for objective information about Russia and our foreign policy.

The outgoing year was not easy from the point of view of foreign policy and international affairs, but as we look at its results, I hope that all of us have become wiser and more experienced and that we better understand the nature of today's world under conditions of globalization, its problems and approaches to them.

The most important thing that we ourselves sensed is that the role of the Russian factor in international affairs has considerably grown. This is due not only to the domestic strengthening of Russia and its ability to honestly and openly defend its lawful interests, but also to the fact that we, as we believe, have on the whole correctly defined the promising trends of world development today. I mean primarily the growing universal understanding that there is no alternative to the strengthening of the principles of collectivity in international relations. This understanding is supported, unfortunately, among other things by the sorry experience of unilateral force-based response at the cost of countless victims. But I repeat, understanding is gaining ground, and we are increasingly aware -- not just we, but also other nations -- that unilateral action with the use of force can only lead to the expansion of conflict-ridden space in world politics and the additional new problems to those ones which are not being addressed. Overall, I would say, there emerge real limits to the possible use of force. It is clear that no one can write out a correct recipe for settling any problem of today single-handed and that not a single one of those problems can be resolved through the use of force.

In the past year Russia has been assuming ever greater responsibility in international affairs, in proportion to its potential and real possibilities. It has not shirked suggesting leadership, including intellectual leadership, in the joint search for solutions to our common problems. During that year Russia chaired G8, the Committee of Ministers of the European Council, the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization and the Arctic Council. And we are satisfied with the results of our four chairmanships.

I think that the key outcome of our joint work with the G8 partners was the achievement of the verified balance of interests on such an outstanding topic of vital interests to all nations without exception as ensuring energy security. The relevant statement of the St. Petersburg summit explicitly formulates the principles of the mutual responsibility of producers, consumers, and transit countries, the principles of reliable and secure demand, reliable and secure supply. In the longer term we believe it very important to seek the implementation of all the provisions of that statement in their relationship, and then the foundation laid in St. Petersburg will make it possible to confidently address the entire complex of these issues in concrete areas, including our relations with the European Union, the United States, the Asia Pacific Region and other regions.

We tried to focus our chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on building a Europe without dividing lines and on raising the role and authority of the Council of Europe in securing the rights and well-being of the people of the continent through harmonization of the system of protection of political and social human rights in Europe, promotion of efficient forms of democracy and civil society, optimization of government and greater tolerance.

In the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization we held over 60 multilateral events, including meetings of ministers and senior officials on energy, transport, emergencies and information technologies. Agreements have been achieved on a number of infrastructure projects, which, we hope, will be initiated in practice next year.

In the Artic Council we endeavored to ensure the sustainable development of the region environmentally, economically, socially and culturally, the creation of comfortable living conditions, the preservation of the environment, and secure access for residents, primarily the native peoples, to modern education and the entire range of social services.

The keynote of all our work was struggle against threats and challenges. Much importance in this respect was attached to the initiative of Russia and the US in fighting acts of nuclear terrorism that was supported by the G8 St. Petersburg summit. Last month on our initiative the G8 Global Forum on Government-Business Partnership in fighting terror took place. The Forum approved a common strategy of counterterrorist actions, which will be implemented under G8 aegis next year under Germany's presidency, and it will involve non-G8 countries as well.

I will also recall the global anti-terrorism strategy approved by the UN General Assembly with our active participation. It is called upon to help develop additional effective international law mechanisms and practical instruments to fight terror. We have been attaching priority to the promotion of a dialogue between civilizations. The world summit of religious leaders in Moscow in early July was an important event. In November the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on Russia's initiative to stress the inadmissibility of the rebirth of racism, racial discrimination or xenophobia in any form and particularly emphasized the inadmissibility of the resurgence and heroization of Nazi ideology in any form. With our vigorous support the UN Secretary General has continued to advance the Alliance of Civilizations project. He received a report from the high level group, of which a Russian scholar, Professor Naumkin, was a member. The report formulates concrete areas for the further work of the world community in promoting the dialogue between civilizations with a view to forming the alliance of civilizations, and we will continue to view this project as a priority in our diplomacy.

The APEC Summit in Hanoi approved the initiative for the development of a dialogue between cultures and religions in the Asia Pacific region. We think it a good example for all the other regions in the world, and we will continue our efforts to avert a new split up of the world, now along civilizational lines.

The network of Russia's partner relations in bilateral and multilateral formats strengthened. This guarantees stability of the country's international status to fluctuations in the global political situation and I see this as an important result of our activities.

The CIS space naturally remained the main geographic direction of activities. Work continued on the reform of the Commonwealth in the interests of better opening up of its potential and adapting to new realities. Those issues were in the focus of a recent CIS summit in Minsk. Its important results included a decision to set up a council and fund for humanitarian cooperation in the CIS. This is the sphere that is particularly in demand by all citizens of CIS member countries.

In the EurAsEC framework, we closely approached the formation of a legislative base for a Customs Union. In the CSTO, new important decisions were made, which increase the ability to counteract growing threats and challenges to security. In the CSTO framework, we confirmed our long-standing proposal to NATO to establish interaction, particularly in combating the Afghan drug threat. With the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, along with joint activities in the security sphere, trade and economic cooperation has developed in an increasingly active manner, including in the framework of organizations set up by entrepreneurial communities of SCO member countries.

We continued to work actively with the European Union. A summit meeting was held in Helsinki and the first informal meeting of the Russian President with the leaders of all EU member countries. On the agenda is the preparation of a new document that will replace the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. Our mandate for negotiations is ready and we are waiting for a similar mandate to be obtained by the EU Commission.

The success of the Year of Russia in China was a new stage in promoting our strategic partnership with China and as you know, next year will be the Year of China in Russia. From the point of view of invigorating multilateral diplomacy, let me note that the first ever summit meeting was held in a trilateral format -- Russia, China, India -- and it was held in the framework of the G8 summit in St. Petersburg. Also, in September this year the first meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, China, India and Brazil (BRIC) was held. President Putin's visit to Vietnam was an important landmark in the strengthening of contacts of Russia with Southeast Asian countries. Relations developed with ASEAN and dialogue organizations created by that Association.

The Russian President's visit to South Africa and Morocco symbolized Russia's relations with African states' moving to a qualitatively new level. This year Russia's Foreign Minister paid visits to a number of African countries and our African counterparts visited Moscow.

We have managed to give a new impetus to our interaction with Latin American countries and integration organizations in that promising region, in particular, a political dialogue mechanism has been established with MERCOSUR. The contractual and legislative base has been strengthening in relations with Latin American countries, trade and economic cooperation has widened. There are prospects for Russia's participation in transcontinental economic and infrastructure projects.

This year, on President Vladimir Putin's instruction, the Foreign Ministry has accomplished a Survey of the country's foreign policy, for the first time ever. The need for those activities was prompted by the fact that a critical mass of changes allowing judging about trends in global development more confidently has accumulated. This Survey will be reported to the President and I expect that the wide public will be able to familiarize themselves with it. In our opinion, it allowed specifying our view of the current stage in the development of international relations from the point of view of Russia's growing role and growing responsibility in global affairs. It allowed preparing recommendations, where necessary, on readjustment of our course on particular directions of foreign policy in line with the goals and principles approved in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation back in 2000. When preparing the Survey, we closely interacted with our colleagues from other agencies, concerned committees of the chambers of the Federal Assembly, non-governmental organizations. and let me note that the role of scientific analysis of foreign policy has grown. One good example is the recently completed project implemented by scholars under the MGIMO aegis, the project entitled as the Modern Political Atlas. Its results were published recently in the Expert journal, and even though that was work that was not directly related to the preparation of the Foreign Policy Survey by the Foreign Ministry, the results of the preparation of that political atlas on the whole confirm our opinion that in the globalizing world, Russia has nothing to divide with other countries. Nothing to divide, but we are together responsible for our common future. And we are ready to take part in this collective leadership, this concert of the leading nations.

Naturally, we all need to change for that, change our views of the world. And this is the goal for each country -- it should collate its views with realities. About 15 years have passed since the end of the Cold War. Naturally, one may choose different reference points but anyway, time has come to decide as to where the international community should move on, while doing away with the legacy of the Cold War. That legacy has not been totally removed from our life, including political and psychological beliefs, prejudice and stereotypes. I am certain that the international situation has reached a sufficient level of clarity for all of us -- naturally, if there is the will to do that -- to be able to reach a common vision of the modern historic period, without which it will be impossible to restore the manageability of global development. We would like our partners to see strong Russia that has regained confidence not as a challenge, but as a chance to develop large-scale and mutually beneficial international cooperation. We are ready for that. We are free from prejudice that would make our view of things opaque or overburden our approaches to international affairs. We are building our foreign policy openly, on the basis of facts, in the spirit of pragmatism, and we do not regard anyone as our foes. But it should be clear -- this is one of the results of the year that passed -- that Russia will only cooperate on the basis of equality, mutual account of interests and mutual benefit. We realize that there are those who are surprised, perhaps even unpleasantly surprised to see this rapid revival of Russia, restoration of its abilities as one of the leading countries. But on the whole, we are open for cooperation with everyone, as each country is ready for that. We are in no haste. We have a lot to do inside the country. But the thing is that it is very unlikely that certain problems can wait, which exist in the world and which cannot be resolved without active participation of all influential countries, including the Russian Federation. We have never stepped aside from international affairs nor are we going to, but one should not get the impression that we are interested in cooperation more than our partners. As for differences, there seems to be no avoiding them ever, especially in relations between major powers. We do not overdramatize those differences because they are objective, they are conditioned by differing interests, which do not always coincide, and generally speaking, struggle for influence has always existed and will continue to be waged in the world. But in these circumstances responsible politicians should not blur the existing problems, but honestly seek to present their interests fairly and address problems on the basis of matching interests and looking for common ground on the basis of honesty and compromises and without any forbidden tactics. As a matter of fact, this is our guidance in our day-to-day work, and we urge all our partners to follow suit. Incidentally, a good example in this respect is the bilateral protocol signed with the US in Hanoi on Russia's accession to the World Trade Organizations. Overall Russia will always be on the side of those who understand the need to ensure collective security through joint efforts on the basis of understandable rules that are obligatory for all. We will firmly oppose any re-ideologization and re-militarization of contemporary international relations. A positive turnaround in the development of the international situation is a major mission of the Russian diplomacy and the world community as a whole, and if we fail to achieve it, and rather speedily, we risk falling under the pall of confrontational inertia, and then everyone will stand to lose.

So, next year we will try to preserve what we have achieved and, where possible, to build up on it. Of course, we will pay special attention to those factors of world politics which cause our concern. In this context I will mention a troubled situation in disarmament: in spite of the efforts taken over the years, the arms race has not been stopped, while intimidation, isolation and emphasis on force in the foreign policies of individual nations only prompt certain countries to defend their independence by getting access to asymmetric responses, including the drive to acquire nuclear technologies. Naturally, all this creates additional risks, and we will vigorously try to correct this situation through diplomacy. It is important for us to improve the atmosphere of international relations, to address those problems, including "long-playing" regional conflicts, which poison this atmosphere, and simultaneously secure access for all nations to modern technologies on a non-discriminatory basis, naturally, with due respect for nonproliferation regimes along with the strengthening of those regimes. In this context I will mention the initiative put forward by President Putin last January for establishing international uranium enrichment centers under International Atomic Energy Agency's control.

Work is going on today to consider the establishment of the first such center with Kazakhstan's participation in Angarsk. A similar proposal was made by President Bush for initiating global partnership in the peaceful uses of atomic energy. The St. Petersburg summit supported the idea of matching these two initiatives, and this is an important priority for us for the next year.

Russia will continue to make its contribution towards achieving a new, more secure and democratic world order that would be based on a multilateral rule-of-law-basis. We will promote more efficient collective efforts in the fight against terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking and illegal migration. In the same vein we intend to continue our active role in reforming the UN, OSCE and other international organizations, which undoubtedly should adapt themselves to new realities.

The further modernization of the toolkit of Russian diplomacy and the more active involvement of civil society, including nongovernmental organizations, the media, the political science community, academics and the corporate sector, in foreign policy processes. We feel that the broadening of contacts with civil society makes our foreign policy and its underlying interests more understandable to our partners, and this work will be intensified.

Our work with compatriots abroad is reaching a qualitatively new level. An important forum in St. Petersburg and a regular World Congress of Compatriots took place, and they structured our further plans with support from all the major diasporas. As a matter of fact, today, when the importance of cultural and civilizational resources in the development of any society is growing, one of our foreign policy priorities is the strengthening of what I would call the Russian world.

I think I am through with my remarks, and I am ready to take your questions.

Question: Russia today is accused of neo-imperialism in connection with its desire to charge world prices for energy. What do you think in this respect?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: This is not so. I think any unbiased observer understands that the very formulation of the question -- the way you formulated it -- rules out any other answers because transition to the market principles in relations is the fundamental condition of the development of economic cooperation. This is the way all nations do, including with respect to their allies. Allies are helped in other ways than distorted prices for goods and services. This is all I have to say.

Question: Yesterday Mr. Putin met with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad. Previously, Putin had met with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Can we say, in view of the difficult relations between Damascus and Beirut today, that Russia is mediating in this problem? Could you please clarify your position on the international tribunal for the case involving the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Russia was always active in the efforts to achieve a settlement of the Middle East crisis, a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the Lebanese track and the Syrian track undoubtedly are part of such a comprehensive settlement. As a member of the Quartet of international intermediaries we help find solutions. The road map that for the most part deals with a Palestinian-Israeli settlement nevertheless confirmed the need for comprehensive agreements on Middle Eastern affairs, including Lebanon and Syria, has been confirmed. Naturally, what is happening in Lebanon today -- and this is very similar to what is happening on the Palestinian lands -- cannot but cause most serious concerns. I mean the threat of internal confrontation. I am convinced that it is necessary to ensure national unity in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. This should be done on the legitimate grounds, in the constitutional framework. This is particularly what we stand for when trying to help the Lebanese society, the Lebanese government, Lebanese politicians to find ways to restore accord in the country. Naturally, this was what discussions with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora were devoted to. This was also discussed with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Given close ties between Syria and Lebanon and problems existing in relations between the two countries, I believe that our position in favor of early normalization of Syrian-Lebanese relations, including exchanges of embassies, including starting the delimitation of borders -- I think those signals have been perceived correctly in Damascus. At least we felt that there is President Assad's understanding, his readiness to have direct dialogue with Prime Minister Siniora. We support and encourage such a dialogue.

As for a role as mediators, I do not think, we do not claim this role. We appreciate the efforts of the League of Arab States, its Secretary General Amr Moussa. We support those efforts, the ideas he has promoted in an attempt to find solutions to the internal crisis in Lebanon. We feel that those ideas -- by the way, they are in line with our ideas of how this crisis can be resolved -- are increasingly in demand by all groups inside Lebanon.

As for the tribunal to investigate the assassination of the late Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, we firmly believe that those who are guilty of that crime, including those having committed it, organized and inspired it should be brought to justice. We supported the Lebanese government's request that an international tribunal should be established and we have taken an active part, we continue taking an active part in the work of its founding documents. Our key position with respect to those documents is that this tribunal should really be a body of international justice. Any politicization of its procedures and mechanisms should not be allowed. Our relevant proposals are reflected in the draft statute -- perhaps, not 100 percent, but the point of our proposals has been translated into the language of practical formulas. I repeat, we see this tribunal exclusively as a body of international justice. Now the next step is to be made by Lebanon on the basis of its constitution and as soon as we at the UN Security Council get a signal that this statute is acceptable from the point of view of the Lebanese Constitution, we will certainly move to practical steps aimed at the setting up of that body.

Question: You have said in your introductory remarks that you were pleased to see that Russia's role has grown in the past year. I think there are no leaders in European countries who would deny this. Everyone agrees with that. But I think they will also agree that it is now harder to have deals with Russia. Russia has grown more self-reliant. In this connection, I have the following question to ask you. Every time President Putin meets with Western European or US leaders, on the eve of those meetings the press calls for raising the issues of democracy, the freedom of the press, human rights. And every time those leaders raise those issues. Putin politely answers, but nothing changes. At least one gets this impression. My question is: Russia increasingly plays its part in international politics, but it tends to ignore the calls and one gets the impression that in the past years, under Putin, those issues, particularly in what concerns the electronic media, issues related to elections, the situation tended to worsen. Could you comment on that? There is a contradiction here between Russia's growing role and the fact that it preserves the right to ignore that criticism.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: You know, it is very telling that you have not cited any example of violation by Russia of any human rights, rights of its citizens, backing down on its international commitments. You have said that every time on the eve of summit meetings between Russia and Western countries, demands have been voiced in the press that a whole range of questions should be put to President Putin on democracy, human rights, freedom of the press. And you have said that every time he has responded, yet nothing has changed. Before I answer your question, I would like to understand what particular demands to Russia are meant.

Every time our partners set particular questions to us, related to their conviction that something is wrong somewhere in this country, when those questions are raised frankly, proceeding from the willingness of friends to help Russia mend this or that sphere of our participation in international affairs or this or that sphere of our domestic life, we always provide answers to those questions. We very frequently take into account recommendations voiced by our foreign friends. Suffice it to recall the following example: substantial alteration of our legislation in line with the recommendations and the conventions of the Council of Europe. This is a fact.

But if such criticism, especially if it is timed to coincide with Russian President Putin's visits, floods newspaper pages, TV screens, that is, when attempts are being made to convey that criticism to us using loudspeakers and microphones, first, anyway we listen to what is said and we try to understand if there is something concrete in that criticism, but we also get the impression which it is impossible to do without that the main goal is not helping Russia mend certain things the West is concerned about, but the main goal is swaying the domestic audiences in this or that Western country or trying to drive Russia out of balance. You were right to say that this criticism intensifies as Russia grows more confident. Perhaps, there is always the desire of rivals -- and there is rivalry and it will always exist between influential nations -- perhaps, our rivals are trying to weaken their rival. This is, I repeat, a natural desire, but it is particularly important to make sure that methods used in this competition should be fair and they should not go beyond the limits of decency.

In the same light, I am ready to comment on the second part of your question -- you have said that Russia tends to integrate into global politics, yet it ignores those calls. Again, if a concrete set of issues in connection with which the West has concerns is offered to us, we will provide concrete answers. But in general terms, I have nothing to add.

Question: Two days ago our TV group visited Abkhazia. Do Russian peacemakers intend to stay in Abkhazia after the current term expires?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Russian peacemakers have a mandate approved by the heads of state of the CIS, by the UN Security Council, including in the framework of close cooperation between collective peacemaking forces of the CIS in Abkhazia and the UN observer mission in Georgia. That mandate is indefinite, no expiration date. As long as the parties have not raised the issue of the effect of that mandate, it remains in effect. But I think it would be in everyone's interest, particularly in the interest of stability and security in that region, to make sure that all parties would cooperate with CIS peacemakers and ensure the implementation of all decisions made by the parties, including on the status of the Kodori Gorge. In violation of existing accords, Georgia's armed units are being deployed in the Kodori Gorge. The peacemakers have many times voiced the need to correct that. This position was supported by the UN Security Council in its resolution adopted in October this year. The Georgian side has failed to observe it thus far. We are certainly concerned about that. And we are also concerned over endless provocations against Russian peacemakers, those on a mission in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, a follow-up on my colleague's question on reaction in the West. In your opinion, has Russia's image improved this year in other countries? Has it worsened? What has contributed to that? What has obstructed that?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: First, I am not living abroad. I am living in Russia. True, sometimes I go on business trips. Naturally, I cannot judge as to what that image is like with the broad public. Certainly, I have seen attempts to paint it in black. I am not going to cite particular examples. You all know them. But they are really striking examples. Similar events happening in Russia and other countries, be it in the criminal sphere, in the sphere of corruption, have been described in a very different manner. If something happens in those spheres in the West, it is commented impartially for a day or two and then leaves newspaper pages and TV screens. This is not the case with Russia. Moreover, they often recall and start widely publicizing events that happened in Russia a year or two ago.

I certainly do not deny journalists the right to give their personal views, but I think that objectivity should be the main criterion and I hope that our communication with you will contribute to that. We are open to the mass media. The President sets the example to everyone in this respect. The Russian leadership in general has never tried to avoid contacts with the press. One can get answers to any questions. It is particularly important that while giving a picture of this or that phenomenon, one should also provide our point of view in a weighed manner. But quite often it happens that biased approaches prevail and recent events, for example, around Litvinenko's death is a proof of that. That is really a striking ability to talk about anything, dig out any witnesses who no one has ever seen in Russia, who no one knows in Britain, and flood the Western press with their interviews, while well-known facts which are available in Russia stay beyond the framework of those reports.

My attitude is very philosophical to what is happening. I repat, this reflects, perhaps, objective trends in the world, including the trend towards Russia's strengthening, including unending rivalry trends, the willingness to weaken a rival, make one's rival focus on minor issues, issues of minor significance to the country's development, to the development of its relations with foreign partners. Still, I hope that as we continue to develop our economy calmly and confidently, continue to develop our relations, our dialogue fairly, like partners, with all countries, with all organizations, the temptation to drive us out of balance by unfair methods will gradually wane.

Question: My question concerns the repeated death sentence by a Libyan court to Bulgarian nurses passed yesterday. What is Russia's position on the issue? In what way has Russia helped Bulgaria deal with that problem? Russia has more than once promised to provide assistance to Bulgaria, and you discussed this issue during your recent talks with the Bulgarian colleagues.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: In fact, you have answered your question yourself. We have not just promised our Bulgarian colleagues to help with settling this issue, but we have sent appropriate signals to Tripoli, at different levels. We have urged the Libyan leadership to show mercy and resolve this problem in a satisfactory manner, of course, within the framework of judicial procedure. I think that the sentence that has been handed down raises very serious questions. I share the opinion of those who consider it too severe and who think that it has ignored a number of factors demonstrated in the course of the trial. I do not know what possibilities are there in the Libyan laws to save the lives of those people, but this is what I am calling for.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, could you say when the head of the Latvia-Russia Intergovernmental Commission will be appointed? And is the delay caused by a political or a technical problem? Thank you.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: It's a bureaucratic one. It was very recently that we signed two intergovernmental agreements -- one on economic cooperation and the other on an Intergovernmental Commission. It was a month or six weeks ago, I think. That is why we need some time more to pick up a co-chair. But I will say that the agreements had taken such a long time to sign because of the passivity of the Latvian side, and without those agreements, of course, it was impossible to establish the commission. It is my conviction that it was a positive step -- we finally signed two important documents -- and I am sure that the commission will start working shortly.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, you said that the strengthening of the Russian world will be a priority for the Foreign Ministry for next year. Could you say how Russian diplomacy is going to protect the interests of the Russian-speaking population in the former Soviet republics, for example, in Latvia, where our embassy is rumored to have been playing more on the side of the local authorities than on the side of Russian citizens and non-citizens of that country? Thank you.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I do not know what specific example you mean. Our embassy has no right to conduct its own policy, embassy policy. We have a state policy, which is formulated by the President and implemented by the Foreign Ministry, in particular, through its missions abroad.

As for the ways in which we plan to protect the rights of Russian-speaking people in the former Soviet Union countries, they are well known: international law and the need to comply with the relevant obligations and appropriate norms and standards. In Latvia's and Estonia's case these are primarily the recommendations approved by the commissioner of the Council of Europe for Human Rights and the OSCE Commissioner for National Minorities. Apart from that, we are pressing for Latvia's and Estonia's compliance with these recommendations within the framework of our partnership with the European Union. When Latvia and Estonia joined the European Union in the spring of 2004 as part of another EU expansion, the goal of ensuring the rights of minorities was put on record in the Joint Statement of Russia and the European Union. As for the provision of that statement that Russia was to fulfil, we have already done everything. The European Union still has a little "debt" to pay. In particular, with regard to this problem. In our view, the European Union should work more vigorously to make sure that its territory -- and Latvia and Estonia are part of European Union territory -- should have no room for such a shameful phenomenon as the presence of people whose identity documents say "alien" in the column "nationality". Given the current naturalization rate all of Latvia's non-citizens will be able to receive nationality in over forty years, I think, whereas the figure for Estonia is 28 years.

I think this is a problem for, among others, the European Union and NATO. Indeed, the Baltic countries were embraced by those organizations as countries complying with the highest democracy standards.

Question: I have a question about the heroization of Nazism in the Baltic republics. The Estonian Defence Minister, as we know, characterized Russia as a hostile nation, while top Estonian officials continue to unveil monuments to butchers from SS troops and plan to raze down the tombstones of soldiers who liberated Europe from fascism. What diplomatic measures is Russia planning to halt the rehabilitation of fascism in Estonia? One more question, with your permission. What hopes do you pin on 2007 as Year of China in Russia?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: As for your first question, I have already mentioned some of the steps we are taking to prevent the rebirth and heroization of fascism, especially Waffen SS. We are going to use international institutions and primarily the most prestigious organization, the United Nations, which on our initiative has taken appropriate resolutions. We plan to work in the Council of Europe, within the OSCE, and also to work with our partners in the European Union and in the Russia-NATO Council. We think it sacrilegious and extremely dangerous to put the equation mark between the liberators of Europe and the invaders, and this is what is taking place in Estonia today. We believe that this is a challenge to the entire world community, and it is my conviction that there are many forces in Estonia itself that are not going to tolerate such a "revision" of the war outcome. We will continue our work in contacts with the Estonian leadership and on the international scene.

As for the upcoming Year of China in Russia, I think that it will be an extraordinary event. The year of Russia in China was a great success and included over 300 events. And those were not just for the sake of it, but meaningful events that evoked very positive responses among the public. The level of organization and technical assistance on the part of our Chinese friends was superb, and of course, we will try to reciprocate and organize all the events of the Year of China in Russia in a similar manner. And those events are going to be just as interesting and very varied in content and scope. So, there are very interesting developments in store for Russians and not only in Moscow but many other cities.

Question: Mr. Minister, could you clarify the substance of the UN Security Council's resolution on Iran? What are the differences on the resolution with the United States? When will the vote on the resolution be held? Thank you.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Work on the resolution reflects the continuation of the process of coordination of common approaches of the European Troika, Russia, the United States and China. Work in this format started nearly a year ago and the foundation was laid by particular accords. Those accords fix that we need to try to resolve all issues related to Iran's nuclear program through negotiations and diplomatic efforts. It has been agreed that the use of force is out of the question in dealing with that problem. The accords are that the UN Security Council should support the efforts by the IAEA, rather than replace the IAEA and should help start talks with Iran, rather than punish Iran.

If those principles are observed in our current activities, it might be possible to reach a common solution quickly enough. Unfortunately, we now have to overcome the formulas initially set in the draft prepared by European countries, which are at odds with the understanding I just explained.

Still, substantial progress has been made. In particular, in what concerns limitations on supplies to Iran of technologies, the Russian position was taken as a basis. It is that restrictions should not be all-embracing. They should only deal with spheres of particular concern to the IAEA: those include uranium enrichment, chemical processing of spent fuel, everything related to the construction of a heavy water reactor, and technologies that may be used to manufacture nuclear weapons delivery means. In this respect, I repeat, we have made a qualitative headway in our work on the draft, and this approach has been fixed. Unfortunately, our partners, while having accepted our logic, are trying to replay the situation in their favor by saturating other parts of the resolution by wording which will again make endless those restrictions to be introduced and would cut off channels for trade and economic ties with Iran in absolutely legitimate spheres. Besides, attempts are being made to put those legitimate cooperation spheres, not banned under the IAEA's position, under control of a UN Committee on Sanctions that it is proposed to set up under the UN Security Council. This is at odds with one of the fundamental principles -- the Security Council should not replace the IAEA or any other agency. It should rather help the IAEA promote the resolution of problems on issues on which the IAEA still have questions to Iran.

The draft still reflects attempts to limit those spheres of activities of the IAEA which the IAEA itself has voiced no concerns about. This is a wrong approach, given that we agreed that the IAEA should not be replaced by the Security Council. There also are certain provisions banning tours abroad by Iranian officials. We flatly regard them as an attempt to bring elements of punishment into the resolution. From the very beginning we agreed that this should not be done. I repeat, if we go back to those accords underlying the activities of the group of six countries and work fairly in line with them, we can quickly reach an agreement.

Question: Could you clarify Russia's position on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' recent statement on early election in Palestine? Second, what is your attitude to the intention of certain Arab countries to have nuclear facilities for peaceful purposes? What role could be played by Russia? I mean Egypt and the Gulf states. Thank you.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: As for the situation on the Palestinian National Authority's territory, I have said already that we are deeply concerned. Like in Lebanon, we want to do everything possible to prevent a split in society. We hope that the efforts that have been taken, including by Mahmoud Abbas, aimed at creating a national unity government, a technocratic government -- call it as you please -- these attempts will not be stopped and the situation will develop in the legitimate framework, in the framework of Palestinian legislation.

Let me note with deep regret that the accords reached in September this year on the creation of the national unity government were artificially stopped. And this was not done by Palestinians. I regret it because in September when I visited Ramallah and met with Mahmoud Abbas, it looked like we would stop the internal confrontation in Palestine and the accords reached between the PNA chief and the Palestinian prime minister would help move towards the resumption of a settlement process. I repeat that it's a pity that the Palestinians were not allowed to come to terms. We should learn this lesson and do everything possible to help them come to terms now.

As for the development of peaceful nuclear energy, we are open for cooperation with all countries that are bona fide members of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and are fairly cooperating with the IAEA. Still, we will insist that additional international legal norms should be introduced to strengthen the non-proliferation regime. I have mentioned already President Putin's initiative and President Bush's initiative. Those initiatives complement each other. Let me note that the growing numbers of countries find it necessary to strengthen the status of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement on IAEA Guarantees. There are ideas of the IAEA Director General on ways to make the non-proliferation regime more secure, We will do everything possible to promote the start of a dialogue on the drawing up of relevant international legal accords, while being ready to cooperate with the parties to the NPT Treaty, fair parties to accords with the IAEA on peaceful development of nuclear energy.

Question: The relations with the European Union have soured by the end of the year, and some problems have arisen. I would like to ask, do you think that these are mostly the problems of the European Union, or is Russia planning steps to help resolve them?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: If I said that the European Union has no problems, you wouldn't believe me. On the other hand, of course, this is a problem of the European Union, and there is no way I can contribute to its solution. I can only say that Russia has a sincere interest in any problems arising within the European Union being resolved. We have an interest in a stronger European Union, in a European Union speaking in one voice on questions of trade, the economy, foreign policy and security. This meets our interests because we want to develop our partnership with the European Union in a more efficient manner. Of course, we pay attention to the discussion going on and the priorities that the future German presidency is now formulating, including the special focus on agreements regarding further progress with the Constitution of the European Union. We sincerely wish success to these processes. I repeat, the more united the European Union is, the more efficient our partnership will be and the best results we will achieve, the more efficient our cooperation with the European Union will be in managing crises and ensuring security, in particular, by fighting the threats of terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As I have already said, we have taken our step as regards the future agenda of our relations with the European Union. The Russian negotiating position as the basis of our work on the new treaty on strategic partnership with the European Union is ready, and it is my conviction that in the immediate future the European Union will also agree the mandate for its delegation to the negotiations with Russia. It seems that these negotiations on the new document that will reflect the new dimensions of our cooperation will constitute the principle fabric of the next two presidencies in the European Union in 2007. Of course, we proceed from the assumption that early next year an agreement will come into effect on easing the visa regime and readmission that Russia and the European Union signed in May, 2006.

Question: The negotiations on an Armenian-Azeri settlement have been intensified recently. Do you see a chance for conflict settlement in the near future, in 2007-2008? And what additional proposals could the Russian side make? Does the Russian side reaffirm its official position, namely a commitment to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan? The Year of Russia in China was mentioned here, but you did not say anything about the Year of Russia in Azerbaijan. The Prime Minister of Russia visited our country. What do you think of the past Year of Russia in Azerbaijan, has it become another landmark in strengthening cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: As regards the talks on settlement in Nagorny Karabakh, making forecasts is a thankless job. We are a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, alongside the United States and France. The co-chairs' role is to help the parties reach agreement. Direct contacts between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia and between their foreign ministers are of key importance. The co-chairs help with organizing such contacts, listen to what the leaders have to say and try to draft proposals for subsequent meetings to help the leaders advance towards a solution. In 2006 we have noted considerable progress within the framework of such contacts. The contacts between Baku and Yerevan will continue. I will not make any forecasts for the timeframe for reaching agreement, but it gives me pleasure to note the intension of the leadership of both Azerbaijan and Armenia to continue contacts with a view to achieving such accords. Naturally, in doing so, we are committed to every principle of international law. The most important thing is to create as comfortable conditions as possible for the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia as regards the timeframe and rounds of further negotiations.

It stands to reason that I could not have mentioned all the foreign policy events of the outgoing year. I think that a year of one country observed in another is a very efficient and useful way of work, and we are trying to promote it energetically. It is not a pro forma thing, not just a series of events with speeches and bored officials. Events under the Year of Russia in Azerbaijan and reciprocal events were true cultural highlights, festivals of culture and art. That was how the concerts, exhibitions and artistic gatherings within those years were viewed. I am convinced that we need to promote this form of partnership, cooperation and friendly relations in every way, and I believe that the decisions taken in the CIS, to which Azerbaijan acceded, on the development of humanitarian cooperation within the Commonwealth, will absorb this invaluable experience.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, excuse me for going back to the question of Russia's image abroad, but the difficult problems with Ukraine and not simple relations with Georgia and Moldova are used by many as factors to impair the image of our country in Europe. What do you expect in this context next year? And how can the Russian leadership and the Foreign Ministry change this situation since the Foreign Ministry represents the interests of our country in the world, or is this useless and the campaign will continue? Thank you.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: You know, I observe this campaign from the sidelines, I am not at its origin, as it were, so, I do not know of any plans regarding this campaign. But the answer suggests itself on the three examples you mentioned -- Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. We are planning a summit with the Ukrainian leadership. It will be the first summit meeting of the Interstate Commission, the so-called Putin-Yushchenko commission, in Kiev on December 22. The commission will crown the first round of meetings that have already been held within its framework. All the auxiliary arms of the commission have already had their meetings, including the Committee for Trade and Economic Cooperation, the Committee for International Affairs, the committees for security, for humanitarian issues, and the sub-commission on the Black Sea Fleet. The Presidents will hear a summary report on what has been done and set objectives for the upcoming period. There are questions on each of those spheres. They are not simple questions. But there is a positive dynamic towards their resolution. I hope that some issues will be resolved during a meeting of the Interstate commission on Friday.

On the whole, we are satisfied with the development of relations with our Ukrainian partners. We do not feel that our image has been impaired in Ukraine. As for the way other countries present Russia's image in relations with Ukraine, I repeat, I am not going to make any evaluations, but I see a lot of subjective things there. Another example is Moldova. After the meetings of the Presidents of Russia and Moldova in August in Moscow and at the end of November in Minsk, the trend toward normalization of our relations has strengthened. A concrete, fair and professional discussion continues on all issues in our relations, including trade and economic issues. Those issues are gradually resolved and foundations have been laid for resolving the remaining issues. It is a normal discussion, without unnecessary emotions and polemics, the way the two presidents reached accords. We are pleased to see those accords being observed.

A different example is Georgia. Despite meetings at the President level, meetings of the foreign ministers, we cannot see any realistic approaches on the part of Tbilisi to relations with Russia. We cannot see any changes for the better. My counterpart, Georgian Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili yesterday said, as far as I know, that the main problem is that Georgia and Russia differ on moral issues and have different mentality. I tend to agree with him because we have pursued a policy which -- at least we want it to be moral. And part of that moral policy -- we also expect this from our partners -- is the observance of what we have agreed on. But there are facts -- I am not going to repeat them -- which clearly show that Georgia has persistently backed down on its commitments on such key issues as the resolution of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts. It has persistently refused to agree not to use force to resolve those conflicts. It has persistently created organizations expected to play an alternative role with respect to the leaders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, even though the Tskhinvali and Sukhumi leadership is Georgia's negotiating partner on accords that have been reached and approved by the UN and OSCE. Instead, rather than trying to come to terms with them, they are creating parallel, alternative organizations. The country tends to militarize. Provocations against peacemakers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia continue, that is, the accords blessed by the UN and the OSCE have been constantly violated. In the Abkhazia case, they have failed to observe the UN Security Council's resolutions. So, this policy certainly cannot be regarded as fair or moral. As for differences in mentality, perhaps, there are differences, but they are not in the mentality of the Russian and Georgian peoples. There are differences in the mentality of particular officials. If one has to find an external patron or patrons to be able to pursue immoral policies and to be able to find external patrons it is necessary to pursue an anti-Russian policy on practically all issues, this is also a specific of one's mentality. I am pleased that we have differences in this respect with my Georgian counterpart.

Question: My question is about Latin American countries. What is your view of a political dialogue with Latin American countries?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I view very positively our relations with Latin American countries. With many particular countries in the region, including Cuba we have independent mechanisms for the development of political dialogue. Of late, we have supplemented them with political dialogue with integration associations in the region. Last week in Brasilia we signed a memorandum on the creation of a mechanism for political dialogue with MERCOSUR, the South American Common Market. I am certain that political dialogue is a good instrument for the development of partner relations and a good instrument for creating conditions for the stepping up of economic interaction, interaction in the investment sphere, and our relations with particular countries in Latin America and the Caribbean and regional associations has advanced in this particular direction. I can see big prospects, including for that reason that there is mutual goodwill shown by the political leadership of our countries and serious mutual interests of business communities in Russia and Latin American countries.

Question: What are the key issues or the key forces that stand in the way of the peace process in the Middle East? In your opinion, is a Madrid-2 possible so it would speed up the peace process? And what are the practical steps that Russia is planning to take next year?

One more question: you frequently have talks with the Israeli leaders, and they always raise the question of the Iranian file. Has the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal been raised during negotiations or not?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Well, I have already commented on Mideast problems. What interferes with the peace process? A lot of things stand in the way of the peace process, including fixation on stereotypes, unwillingness to take the first step to meet the other party, unwillingness to drop public rhetorics -- a lot of things -- but we will all agree, I think, that it is very important to make sure that extremist forces on every side should not play a decisive role. In Israel or Palestine if we talk about Palestinian-Israeli settlement, there are sensible people and sensible politicians. It is not the first time we hear that Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas are ready to meet face to face. We think it very important that such a meeting should take place. Of course, the crisis is already entangled in such a number of problems that the desire to create appropriate conditions for such a meeting is understandable. But I think it would be right for the two leaders to agree to such a meeting without any preconditions because the problems are piling without any solutions in sight. And we should support and help them in every way. Madrid-2 is something that is being more and more in the public eye today. The Russian President came up with the idea quite some time ago that it was necessary to convene an international conference on all the aspects of Middle East settlement, not as a one-day event, but as a process, and the parallel with Madrid or with Oslo is quite appropriate in this sense. All the nations that have an influence on the current situation one way or another should be involved in this process. It is symptomatic in this context that the report of the Baker-Hamilton commission mentions the need to involve Iran and Syria in dialogue. We have talked about that for a long time. Generally, the problems of the region should be resolved through involving everyone in negotiations rather than through isolation. I think that any attempt to isolate anyone in the region, be it a country or a political force within a country, is one of the main obstacles to the resumption of the peace process.

As for the problem of nuclear weapons, Russia has been consistently voting in the Security Council and in other forums for implementing the concept of establishing in the Middle East of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, you have made dozens of international trips this year. Which one, in your view, was especially difficult and which particularly unexpected from the point of view of results?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I cannot make a choice, I cannot say which one was especially useful and which especially unexpected. All of those trips -- and you were involved in many of them -- were packed with events, negotiations, whether any document was signed or it was just confidential discussions. This is always useful. This is part of that same system of our bilateral and multilateral relations which enable Russia always to stay in touch with its partners and ensure the stability of our diplomacy in the face of any foreign policy changes. I do not think I can add anything to that. But in planning trips for next year, I will try to rank them by importance and unexpectedness.

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Thank you, happy New Year.