Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 14, 2015

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the opening of the exhibition devoted to the 130^th anniversary of Russian-Argentine relations

 

The exhibition devoted to the 130^th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Russian Federation and the Argentine Republic will open in the Foreign Ministry’s Building No. 1 on October 20. The exhibition will display exclusive materials from the Russian and Argentine foreign policy archives. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected to make a speech at the opening of the exhibition. We plan to invite journalists, and will inform you about this later.

Russian-Argentine relations have a rich history. Today they have reached the level of a comprehensive strategic partnership. Moscow and Buenos Aires maintain intensive political dialogue and are consolidating their bilateral cooperation in the UN, the G20 and other international forums. They are successfully carrying out large-scale joint investment projects on energy, civilian nuclear power as well as oil and gas production. We believe the two countries have a vast potential for further development of mutually advantageous cooperation in science, culture and education.

 

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the work of the Valdai International Discussion Club

 

On October 22, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will address the 12th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in Sochi.

The programme of the meeting, entitled “War and Peace. The Individual and the State. The Threat of Large Conflict in the 21st Century,” covers a broad range of topical issues of modern international relations and diplomatic, military, information and humanitarian cooperation in the context of the growing conflict potential at the junction of two eras.

Mr Lavrov’s address will be part of the already traditional dialogue between the guests of the forum and representatives of the Russian leadership.

 

Developments in the inquiry into the MH17 Malaysia plane crash

 

Regrettably, I have to say that we have entered yet another period of “information aggression,” which we have discussed with you more than once. I’d like to share my personal impressions with you. In the morning, I watched the Euronews coverage of the report into the MH17 Malaysia plane crash, which was published yesterday.  

Everything started with a detailed quotation and a video sequence of Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s statement making an appeal to Russia to fully cooperate in the inquiry and so on. Euronews followed by quoting other experts, politicians and officials. It presented the positions of all sides with the exception, of course, of the Russian Federation, although yesterday the Foreign Ministry’s official website published two comments, one of which was directly related to Mr Rutte’s statements. We do not understand the motives of the Euronews directors. Respectable and simply decent media always allow all sides about whom they are speaking to set forth their positions when preparing coverage on such a sensitive issue. Let me emphasise again that this was the case despite Russia’s reaction to the issue during the second half of the day yesterday. We hope that the TV channel will have a constructive attitude towards everything that we are saying. We are open to cooperation. To be honest, we no longer understand how to bring information to the media. Probably we should use “pigeon express”? Maybe it will work?

In this context, I’d like to repeat again on-the-record our reaction to Mr Rutte’s statements. We consider his appeal strange; all the more so as Russia expressed its readiness to cooperate on the inquiry mentioned by Mr Rutte from the very beginning. However, we were prevented from taking part in it under various pretexts. It is equally strange that Russia’s cooperation became a requirement immediately after the publication of the Dutch Safety Board’s report with “ready” conclusions. Where were they all before?

As for Russia’s reaction, the report is now being reviewed by experts, as we said yesterday. As you know, today at noon, Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency Oleg Strochevoi will hold a news conference at the Rossiya Segodnya International Multimedia Press Centre dedicated to expert opinions on this score.

I cannot but note the response of our colleagues from the State Department. In part, I’d like to quote a statement made by Deputy Department Spokesperson Mark Toner during a regular briefing. When asked why the United States blamed the crash on Donbass self-defence fighters, although the report does not blame anyone directly, he said:  “…that’s our belief and that remains our belief.” Having admitted that the report does not assign blame, he repeated: “But we said it’s – we believe it supports our overall argument that we’ve made…”

All of this mess that we see in the media every day is aimed at confusing the public and shaping public opinion and this is called propaganda.

I’d like to recall that the United States hastened to inform the public of its opinion about the reasons behind the tragedy in the first days after it happened. US Ambassador to the Russian Federation John Tefft told a Russian newspaper that the United States knew who was to blame and was simply waiting for the results of the report. Regrettably, the dovetailing of convictions and the results of the investigation are already becoming routine and not only in this particular case.

I will reiterate our position and say that, from day one, Russia has called for an objective, comprehensive and transparent investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing. Right from the start, we have sought to participate in the work of the expert group in a constructive manner, making the maximum contribution to it, naturally in the expectation that our specialists will receive full access to the information at the group’s disposal. Russia was a co-sponsor of UN Security Council Resolution 2166, setting requirements for the investigative procedure. Unfortunately, all of our proposals, in particular that the investigation should be transparent and that the UN Security Council mechanism should be utilised to that end, were ignored. Likewise, our calls for compliance with the said resolution were ignored. Contrary to the resolution, the UN Secretary-General did not submit to the Security Council comprehensive proposals on measures to facilitate the investigation. Our questions concerning the investigation, which were disseminated at the UN Security Council in September 2014, also ended up in limbo. Russian experts were not given access to all of the materials pertaining to the investigation. We understand that the conclusion regarding the crash that was made by specialists at Almaz-Antey, the chief developer of the Buk system, was ignored. Our Dutch colleagues also did not respond to our invitation to come to Russia to study Almaz-Antey’s materials on the Boeing crash.

I would like again to explain and point to certain inconsistencies. We invited the Dutch side (the experts and specialists who they choose) to come to Russia so that we could share our findings with them and submit some additional information to them on the ground. Unfortunately, our Dutch colleagues did not respond to the invitation. Then, the day the report is released we are urged to cooperate. It doesn’t work that way: Either we cooperate, and then we respond to an invitation and participate in the work, and our experts are given access or we practice deception, when international attention is focused on the report and at this crucial moment they claim that Russia is not cooperating. To reiterate, Dutch specialists and experts were invited to come to Russia to share additional information and work on the issue. They refused.

The importance of the work conducted by Almaz-Antey, as well as by the Federal Air Transport Agency, who have repeatedly submitted critical comments to the investigation group, is evident from statements by Almaz-Antey and the Federal Air Transport Agency. We still have serious doubts that the real goal of the Dutch investigation is to establish the true causes of the air disaster, not to substantiate the charges that were made earlier.

We also should not fail to note that our demands that the Ukrainian side submit to the international community a record of exchanges between military air traffic controllers, as well as information regarding the heightened activity of Ukrainian air defense forces in the area, were ignored.

We have also noted the strange fact that, all of a sudden, a year after the investigation began, it was reported that fragments of the missile that purportedly destroyed the airplane were discovered and that a new expedition of Dutch experts was sent to the crash site to collect the remaining fragments of the aircraft. This despite the fact that it was announced long ago that all of the debris had been collected.

Now a large number of statements will be made. You can go to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s official website and see that, since the moment of the crash, the ministry’s official spokesperson has repeatedly – in this hall, among other places – highlighted the strange fact that the wreckage had not been removed in full. We urged everyone who participated in the investigation to pay the most serious attention to this. We were told that everything that had to be collected from the crash site had been collected. A year later, it turns out that that there are new details and fragments which were included in the investigation.

Everything that I mentioned are only some of Russia’s questions to the investigation. Obviously, the way that it was conducted could not but have affected its results. At the same time, there is no getting away from the fact – and it was confirmed by the commission in no uncertain terms – that Ukraine is directly responsible for failing to close its airspace to civilian flights.

A way out of this situation could be to continue a duly adjusted investigation with the full participation of those states that have materials that can shed light on the disaster. Needless to say, we are ready for such work.

 

The situation in Syria

 

The military and political situation in Syria is unfolding dynamically. The Russian Aerospace Forces (ASF) continue to deliver air strikes on strongholds and infrastructure facilities operated by the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. The Defence Ministry reports on them in detail on a daily basis. There have been instances when foreign terrorists left their positions for neighbouring states. The Syrian army is pressing ahead with an offensive against terrorists in the provinces of Hama, Idlib, Latakia and outside Aleppo. Several towns and villages have been liberated.

In the early morning of October 13, a US transport aircraft, escorted by fighter jets, airdropped 50 tonnes of weapons and ammunition over the province of al-Hasakah in northeastern Syria, which Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed in his interview with NTV yesterday. Officially, the cargo was intended for some little-known armed units, the commanders of which allegedly expressed their willingness to fight ISIS. Frankly, hearing such news, and this is a proven fact, one can’t help wondering whose hands these weapons will end up in, and what harvest this will yield. I don't believe anyone has a clear answer to this question, and no one knows who will wind up with these weapons in the end.

The Russian Embassy in Damascus came under mortar fire on October 13, as we reported through our Embassy. The terrorist attack was carried out amid an outrageous anti-Russian information and propaganda incitement campaign launched in the wake of Russia’s air strikes against international terrorists in Syria. We hope that yesterday's shelling, which just avoided turning into a tragedy, will make those think twice who groundlessly accuse us of "indiscriminate" air strikes. Again, the question arises: what kind of outcome are those who foment this information and incitement campaign seeking to achieve?

On the same day, some media, clearly biased, cited Mohammad al-Julani, the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra – the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda – as he called upon other international terrorists to kill Russian soldiers wherever they are. This is what we have been talking about, but this time it is in the context of the Syrian crisis. Few publications have quoted al-Julani’s words in full, noting that, according to him, not Russia but the “Western crusaders” are the primary enemies of the terrorist movement. This is a selective approach to providing information. Importantly, not a word was said in today’s stories about Russia’s position, rather, the coverage focused on ISIS statements exclusively.

We’ve been constantly calling upon the Syrian internal and external opposition to objectively assess the reality and the situation. In this regard, we note that the Istanbul-based National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces has, in fact, announced a boycott of the efforts by UN Secretary General Special Envoy on Syria Staffan de Mistura, and is losing its credibility and influence with every passing day. The Istanbul-based opposition is clearly unable to back its alleged status as "the only legitimate" representative of the Syrian people.

During our intensive contacts with Damascus, international and regional partners, we clearly identify and stress that there’s no alternative to a political settlement in Syria through a broad-based inter-Syrian dialogue in accordance with the Geneva communiqué of June 30, 2012.

Let me draw your attention to another interesting argument, which everyone is talking about all the time and is accusing Russia of. We keep hearing that Russia shouldn’t support Bashar al-Assad, because he is the reason for the increased terrorist activities in Syria. We've been saying for a long time now that we do not provide support to al-Assad, and we believe it is important to preserve the Syrian state. They are trying to convince us that if Assad goes, the terrorist activity will subside, as ISIS is fighting precisely because of him. If so, this logic means outright compliance with the terrorist demands. Reading it otherwise is impossible. Frankly, it’s unsettling to hear that the civilised world suggests satisfying the demands of international terrorists. Previously, when it came to international terrorism and terrorist acts, the world spoke with one voice and acted decisively. Nobody proposed meeting the terrorists’ demands in order to weaken their influence or minimise their impact. On the contrary, everyone was talking about the need to step up the fight against these groups.

 

Russian cruise missiles allegedly crash in Iran

 

I would like to return to the issue that has been most actively discussed lately, about the four Russian cruise missiles that allegedly crashed in Iran. If you remember, the news was blared out by all the world's media outlets, citing unnamed Pentagon sources. To avoid making unfounded claims or political assessments, I will give you specific examples.

We always quote the media sources in which we read certain statements, but that does not help. So I will directly address people. I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to Jeff Zucker, the president of CNN Worldwide. Mr Zucker, CNN’s coverage of this issue devoted only as many as two lines to Russia’s denial of the false information about the alleged missile crash in Iran – in the lead-in and in a question to a guest, followed by a great story by a Pentagon correspondent about how it is a shame for the Russian arms industry and that there is no doubt that the missiles did crash. Anyway, the denial was given 15 seconds, while explanations, clarifications, and assurances that the Russian missiles did fall got about six minutes. If you, Mr Zucker, think this is the way for a media outlet to prepare material, well I have doubts about it.

Voice of America. I am addressing Mr John Lansing. Mr Lansing, in the news report, Voice of America did not show even the slightest doubt that the Russian missile crash is a proven fact, or even consider that it might require revalidation. The report began with the flat line: “Four Russian cruise missiles crashed in Iran,” full stop, investigative report completed. It provided references to an unnamed American source, as if citing this person gives one the right to say just anything – it sounded like such an ultimate truth source. Russia’s denial is included among other things, in the middle of the piece, where no one pays it any attention.

Next. Al Jazeera English. Mr Giles Trendle, please note that the lead-in and comments include one line that mentions Moscow’s insistence on the fact that all the missiles have reached their targets, followed by a large "voiceover" laying out the US Department of State’s point of view.

If you're talking about Russian missiles in the first place, at least make an effort to add Russia’s take on the issue. On the other hand, when you talk about how the Islamic State has obtained so many Toyota vehicles, for example – and we will discuss that later − that's when you need to give the position of the US Department of State. In my opinion, that is only fair. As it is, where did the story come from? Very simple. The US Department of Defence mentioned some Russian missiles that crashed in Iran. Responding to a question during a press conference, the US Secretary of Defence said there were certain signs that pointed that way. That was all the competence of the Secretary of Defence.

I also liked how the ICAO became worried about the safety of flights over the area where 26 Russian cruise missiles were launched from the Caspian Sea. As to the objectivity of their evaluation, I would like to remind you that in May−June 2014, we repeatedly informed the ICAO Council, in particular, the officials representing this organisation, of the potential danger of crossing the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine. Even before the Malaysian Boeing tragedy, we repeatedly insisted that the ICAO leadership should focus on the safety of flying over Ukraine. We warned them about a full-scale military operation going on there, involving Ukrainian Air Force flights and ballistic missiles. In response, we were told that due to the "political sensitivity" of the issue, no action would be taken until the moment the tragedy occurred. So they were motivated by “political sensitivity” then. Gentlemen, you have to decide: if you are so fussy about “political sensitivity,” then let's quote some facts when talking about cruise missiles that allegedly crashed somewhere, and if you’re all for objective and unbiased coverage of facts, then again – why keep changing your position and manipulating facts?

 

US Toyota pickup vehicles

 

The missile affair is as murky and unclear as the story involving US pickup trucks. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed this in detail yesterday.

Everyone is asking today why the ISIS militants and members of other terrorist groups use Toyota-produced pickup trucks. The most important question is the origin of so many vehicles in their possession. On the one hand, the issue is clear, but, on the other hand, everyone has been overactive in connection with it. I would like to say that the answer to this question should not be sought on the ISIS-controlled territory, let alone in Japan. Incidentally, that is precisely what the US Treasury Department attempted to do by sending an official inquiry to the Toyota headquarters about the origin of the pickup trucks in question. This is a confirmed fact. The answer is simple and possibly unexpected: the Toyota trucks were supplied to Syria by the Americans themselves and their British colleagues. What is most surprising is that the suppliers were the same officials who urged a serious investigation. It is they who display an amazing forgetfulness, because this information has been repeatedly reported by the Western media. In 2014, for example, the America-based Public Radio International published an interview with an adviser to the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, who intimated that the US Department of State had resumed the delivery of aid to the Syrian rebels, including 43 Toyota pickups (you can check this since it was on the air) and that certain models produced by that respected automaker had been on the Free Syrian Army’s wish list. A year earlier, Britain’s The Independent published an article detailing how the UK Government was sending aid to the opposition rebels, including identical pickup trucks.

This is apropos of how the unnamed sources comment on alleged missile crashes and how the same sources are at a loss regarding the origin of the Toyota pickup trucks used by ISIS. Therefore, don’t tell us tales about Russian cruise missiles. Better concern yourselves with your pickup trucks.  

 

The situation in Palestine and Israel

 

Regrettably, tensions continue to escalate in relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. According to media reports, 27 Palestinians and 6 Israelis have fallen victim to this escalation since October 1. Over 400 Palestinians, mostly young people, have been arrested by the Israeli authorities.

Eastern Jerusalem remains one of the main epicenters of the confrontation. The situation is made worse by the persisting Israeli ban on Muslim worship at the Al-Aqsa mosque, in force since September, and restricted Palestinian access to Old City.

We have to state with most serious concern that in recent days the wave of violence has reached other Israeli cities. Specifically, attacks on Israelis have been recorded in Tel Aviv, Kiryat Gat and Afula. The perpetrators – Palestinians and Israeli Arabs – are usually armed with cold steel and act alone. Similar terrorist attacks, which deserve a most resolute condemnation, have been committed against Israeli citizens in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories – in the area of Kiryat Arba near Hebron in the West Bank.

Simultaneously, tensions are growing in the Gaza Strip area, from where rockets were fired at southern Israel. In its turn, the Israeli Air Force delivered a series of air strikes in the outskirts of Gaza. On October 11, a pregnant woman was killed in one of these air attacks. On October 9, six Palestinian protesters were shot and killed in the zone near the West Bank barrier.

Moscow is renewing its appeal to the Israeli and Palestinian parties to take resolute steps in order to cut short violence directed against peaceful civilians and prevent a new spiral of armed confrontation that is fatal for both nations.

We intend to persist with our efforts, including through the Middle East Quartet, to achieve de-escalation in Palestinian-Israeli relations. The visit to Israel by Sergey Vershinin, special envoy of the Russian Foreign Ministry for Middle East settlement and director of the Department of Middle East and North Africa, and other representatives of the Quartet, which was planned for October 13-15, has been postponed at Israel’s request in connection with the latest events. The special envoys of the Quartet hope that they will be able to hold the scheduled meetings at the earliest opportunity.  

 

The peace process in Mali

 

Recently, the authorities in Mali managed to partly stabilise the northern part of the country by reaching an agreement with the parties to the conflict to cease hostilities.

On September 30, the Monitoring Committee of the Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali resumed its work. The implementation of the agreement involved a prisoner exchange, and consultations are underway for several separatist movements to join the peace agreement.

However, the situation in the country as a whole remains tense, with persistent confrontation between Mali’s government and the Tuareg-led opposition. The situation is further complicated by interference from radical Islamist groups that continue to perpetrate terrorist attacks against the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), Malian servicemen and civilians.

We agree with the assessments cited by Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General Mongi Hamdi in a briefing at the UN Security Council on October 6 concerning the need to improve the efficiency of MINUSMA and increase the impact of its activities.

We strongly believe that strict compliance with the Agreement by all its signatories is key to achieving a lasting settlement in Mali. We are confident that the efforts to improve the security situation must be supported by effective steps to address acute social and economic problems of the northern regions. We hope that the efforts of the Government of Mali will be supported by international partners, including at the International Donors' Conference in Paris on 23 October.

In this context, we would like to cite Russia's contribution of about 2 million US dollars to the International Civil Defence Organisation’s fund to finance the supply of medical equipment for the Gabriel Toure Hospital in the capital, Bamako. The official handover ceremony for the Russian aid is scheduled for October 19, with the Russian Emergencies Ministry representatives attending.

 

The UN Security Council resolution on South Sudan

 

On October 9, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2241 on the Renewal of the Mandate for the UN Mission in South Sudan.

Russia believes it is necessary to continue international efforts for a peaceful resolution of the armed conflict in South Sudan. However, a significant number of disputable points in the resolution raise our concern.

Specifically, we cannot approve attempts to threaten South Sudan with sanctions and ultimatums.  Such conflicts must be resolved through a constructive dialogue rather than pressure and sanctions. They are counterproductive.

It is also disturbing that the resolution’s authors are “evaluating” the activities of the hybrid court in South Sudan that must operate under the peace agreement signed by the parties last August and respective decisions of the African Union.

We cannot agree with the attempts to impose, despite South Sudan’s objections, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles by the UN Mission, something that undermines the sovereignty of this country.

Having considered all of the above-stated facts, Russia abstained from voting for or against the document. Venezuela voted the same way. We believe that the South Sudanese parties currently need support and encouragement for their efforts to fulfill the agreement on resolving the conflict in South Sudan, while threats and sanctions would only create more difficulties for them.

 

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the settlement regarding the Iranian nuclear programme

 

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding the Iranian nuclear programme comes into effect 90 days after the endorsement of the UN Security Council resolution in support of the action plan. Resolution 2231 was passed by the UN Security Council on July 20, making October 18 its adoption day.

This is an important stage in the life of the agreement because deadlines for all the measures stipulated by the plan of action and Resolution 2231 will be based on this date. In addition, all the parties to the agreement will make the first practical steps towards fulfilling their commitments. This concerns cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, and the lifting of the US and EU unilateral sanctions.

 

Talks in Libya

 

Moscow continues to closely watch the progress of the Libyan talks mediated by Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General Bernardino Leon.

We will welcome a positive response from the Libyan parties to the proposal to form a national government based on the agreements reached on reconciliation terms. This must become the starting point for reviving Libyan statehood in the interests of all citizens of this country.

 

Admission of international humanitarian organisations to the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics

 

We’d like to focus on the following crucial moments regarding international humanitarian organisations’ access to the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, which has become an issue of public moves by the heads of UN agencies and Western leaders, who address an increasing number of questions to Russia and demand that it secure a solution.

The reasons behind the humanitarian crisis in southeastern Ukraine are not the steps taken by the Donetsk and Lugansk leaders to streamline the operation of international humanitarian agencies and NGOs, but Kiev’s military operation and а trade and economic blockade of the regions it doesn’t control. Thousands of people have been killed and over a million have fled their homes since the Ukrainian Government launched a punitive operation in the southeastern regions in the spring of last year. In the autumn of 2014, Kiev severed economic ties with the region, stopped social payments and banking services for the people there and limited the freedom of movement between Donbass and the other regions of Ukraine.

It is often said now that foreign humanitarian organisations’ inadequate access to the region has complicated the situation there. But it’s not the attempts to streamline the operation of humanitarian organisations that have complicated the situation. This situation, which can be described as a humanitarian catastrophe, developed in the region long ago.  

The Russian Foreign Ministry knows about media reports on the suspension of international agencies’ and NGOs’ humanitarian operations in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics. Stephen O'Brien, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief, has made a statement on this issue.

Russia probably knows better than any other country about the difficult humanitarian situation in southeastern Ukraine and has been providing large-scale assistance to people in the region, regularly informing its partners about this.

The Donetsk and Lugansk request that international humanitarian agencies and NGOs register with the local authorities is designed to bring more coordination and transparency to their operation and to determine lists of humanitarian deliveries based on local requirements. The local authorities are responsible for the safety of these organisations’ personnel, which is another reason why they need to register them and to monitor their operation.

We don’t consider the registration request to be a violation of international humanitarian law or the fundamental principles of humanitarian assistance. At the same time, UN agencies and international organisations should strictly comply with the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, which are set out in the UN General Assembly resolutions.

Three organisations have registered in Donetsk – the International Committee of the Red Cross, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF or Doctors Without Borders) and  People in Need (Člověk v tísni), which have been working hard and tackling all arising issues constructively. We are urging the UN and all other humanitarian organisations to continue a pragmatic dialogue with the Donetsk and Lugansk authorities on mutually acceptable solutions and the resumption of humanitarian deliveries.

Practice shows that any issue can be settled and any difficulty overcome, and that those humanitarian organisations that wanted to work there have found a way to do so.   

 

Nagorno-Karabakh settlement

 

Assisting the sides in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is a foreign policy priority for Russia, remains in the focus of the Foreign Ministry’s attention. This issue was discussed in detail during the official visits by the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan to Moscow in April and May of this year, and it remains on the agenda of ongoing contacts between Sergey Lavrov and his foreign colleagues.

We have been working on this in close cooperation with the United States and France. During the recent 70th UN General Assembly, Sergey Lavrov met with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group to discuss the essential and practical issues of a settlement ahead of the co-chairs’ visit to the region this month, as well as the coordination of the three-member Minsk Group.

Unfortunately, the resumption of political dialogue has been hindered by increased tensions in the conflict zone and the growing number of casualties, including among civilians.

We hold that the continued escalation of this conflict is unacceptable. We urge the sides to stop using military force and to show the required political will for compromise.

 

Situation in Afghanistan

 

We are alarmed by the persisting security challenges in Afghanistan.

The Taliban movement has been trying to spread its control to entire regions of the country. The Taliban are most active in the north, where they have seized the Warduj and Baharak districts in the Badakhshan Province, the Imam Sahib and Qalay-Zal districts and part of Kunduz City in the Kunduz Province, the Khoja Gar district of Takhar, the Tala wa Barfak district of Baghlan, and the Kohistanat district of Sar-e Pol. Trying to expand the territory under their control, the Taliban also launched offensives in other Afghan provinces. The other day they attempted to seize the capital city of the Ghazni Province in central Afghanistan.

We are also seriously worried by the growing number of casualties among the personnel of international and humanitarian organisations in Afghanistan. Following a recent US bombing of a hospital in the city of Kunduz, another outrageous incident was reported in Kandahar City on October 12, where Ms Toorpaki Ulfat, a staff member of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, was shot dead by unidentified persons. We strongly condemn this murder and urge the country’s authorities to do everything in their power to protect the personnel of international and humanitarian organisations.

 

Transatlantic and Trans-Pacific trade and investment partnerships

 

Last weekend, mass protests involving up to 150,000 people took place in several European countries against the agreement on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. We believe that this public reaction reflects the concern of regular citizens and business communities in many countries over the fact that certain states diverge from the generally accepted rules of international economic cooperation and trade in favour of non-transparent closed associations. As the US claims, members of these “private” clubs intend to rewrite the rules of the global economy for their benefit.

As President Putin said in his speech at the 70th UN General Assembly, this policy of exclusivity draws new dividing lines in the global economy and ignores fundamental principles of free trade, investment and open competition. Eventually, this may result in a shattered global economic space.

Top-level officials have been discussing this unhealthy trend for a while now. The problem of low transparency in regional trade deals was raised back in 2013 during Russia’s G20 presidency. The G20 Leaders' Declaration contains the respective provisions.

Moreover, the UN General Assembly’s annual resolutions on international trade and development specifically state that the regional agreements must contribute to a multilateral trade system based on transparency, non-discrimination and justice.

In this context the reports on several countries finishing negotiations on a regional free trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are especially remarkable. It is too early to make any comments regarding the contents of this document because the talks took place in strict confidentiality and the final text has not been released yet. Unfortunately, this is becoming a trend. There are other similar cases. Much of what is going on in the sphere of economic integration involving leading Western players is kept secret until the last moment not only from external observers that are not participating in the integration but also from the parties that are involved in these associations. Non-transparency in relation to businesses and the public of the TPP countries, as well as in relation to their economic partners in the Asia-Pacific Region, is the main downside of these  projects.

We are convinced that regional trade agreements may be a supplement but never a substitution for the multilateral trade system. General rules of international trade must be developed by the WTO involving all interested parties. This is the only way to ensure legitimacy.

We proceed from this principle while promoting economic integration within the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in full compliance with the WTO rules and regulations. We seek to harmonise regional economic projects based on generally accepted principles of international trade.

 

Russia’s humanitarian aid for Myanmar

 

According to directives of the Russian Government, the Russian Emergencies Ministry in close cooperation with the Foreign Ministry is providing humanitarian relief aid to Myanmar after a serious flood in that country.

We hope that Russia’s humanitarian assistance will contribute to alleviating the situation following the natural disaster in Myanmar.

 

Opening Russia’s national tourist office in Germany

 

On October 2, the Visit Russia national tourist office opened in Berlin with the support of the Russian embassy and the Russian trade and economic bureau. This marketing centre in the German capital is the Russian tourist association’s third foreign office after Dubai and Helsinki.

The centre operates in coordination with the Federal Agency for Tourism and the Russian Ministry of Culture. The representative office will promote Russia’s tourist destinations and offers, and work with local tour operators and travel agencies.

The opening of the Visit Russia office in Berlin is very well timed. We hope that thanks to the project more trustworthy and quality information about Russia’s travel opportunities will become available.

 

 

Answers to questions:

Question: Yesterday, US Secretary of State John Kerry urged Russia to make the right choices in Syria, to decide whether it wants to fight terrorism or whether it is in Syria to mostly shore up al-Assad. But two weeks ago, Secretary Kerry said the United States would no longer insist on al-Assad’s resignation as a precondition for settling the Syrian crisis. Can you comment on these fluctuations and on Washington’s uncertain position with regard to Damascus and Moscow?

Maria Zakharova: Regarding Secretary of State John Kerry’s call for Russia to decide whether it wants to fight ISIS or not, I can tell you clearly and unambiguously that Russia is fighting ISIS. It’s surprising that anyone should have any doubts about this. There should be none.

We highlighted the terrorist threat in the region from the very beginning, and we urged our partners to come to their senses as long as four years ago. We told them that it was not part of the Arab Spring but a real terrorist offensive in the region. Our approaches to this issue – theoretical, practical, political and military approaches – constitute a streamlined and logical concept, which we have not changed. In truth, it’s surprising that some people wonder about this concept, for it is devoid of any contradictions. Russia is fighting terrorism in the region, which it views as a threat to its national security. We are not doing this covertly or in order to dominate the region, of which we have been recently accused, but we are doing this openly and transparently. We are not just open to our partners’ requests. We have taken the initiative to ask them for information and are willing to share whatever information we have. We have said time and again and at all levels that the Baghdad Information Centre can be used to coordinate our efforts. We have been doing and will continue to do everything possible to consolidate the international efforts in the fight against international terrorism, which is the main goal of our presence in the region, where we have come at Damascus’s request.

We are willing to answer your concerns several times a day. Feel free to call us and to ask your questions. If you have forgotten what we said a week, six months or four years ago, we will be glad to refresh your memory.

Question: Reuters reported that a thousand Iranian military personnel led by General Soleimani have arrived in Syria, allegedly to join the government forces in liberating Aleppo with Russian air support. Can you confirm this information?

My second question is about the Jeeps. Has ISIS seized these Jeeps from the opposition fighters, or have the opposition fighters gone over to ISIS together with their Jeeps? According to The New York Times, the opposition has asked the United States and its allies, which could have a negative effect on the Russian aviation.

Maria Zakharova: Regarding your first question, I think it would be better answered by our military experts. As I said, there is the Baghdad Information Centre, which is coordinating the official sides’ operations. Everything the countries involved are doing there officially is coordinated at the Baghdad centre. Please ask them to check your information. I think you’ll receive a detailed answer.

As for how the terrorists got hold of the Jeeps and other equipment, I gave that example for a reason. When we say that someone has taken hold of weapons, this information can be difficult for ordinary people to check. But everyone can identify a Jeep. You don’t have to disassemble it to check numbers on its individual parts, as you need to do in the case of firearms to determine who has supplied them. But Jeeps cannot be mistaken for any other vehicle – they are not manufactured there; someone had them delivered. This answers your second question, whether we are sure that, for example, the air defence systems, which the Western press writes so much about, will be delivered to those for whom they were intended and not to someone else. No one is or can be sure of this. You know what happened in Libya and Mali: first they armed Libyan “fighters for democracy,” and then they had to fight people who were armed with the weapons they had supplied, for example in Mali. Everyone knows this.

If you think that we talk about this only when answering media questions, you are wrong. We provide the same examples with factual information during talks with our partners, including Russian-US talks and meetings with our European partners. We always tell them that by arming “moderate” opposition they can never be sure that their weapons and these people will not resurface in a terrorist organisation. How can this happen? First, weapons are sold, and second, people migrate – don’t confuse this with migration – between groups on the ground. People go where they are promised higher pay, or their political views change and they change from “moderate” opposition to extremists. And they take along the weapons which they received as members of the “moderate” opposition. These are very complicated processes. No one is controlling them, and no one is registering the weapons that are delivered to the region. All programmes that were launched for a noble cause have failed. The programmes to train so-called instructors, those who would fight terrorism on the ground, have failed. You cannot be sure that weapons that are being delivered to the “moderate” opposition today won’t end with gunmen and terrorists tomorrow. Why do we say this with such certainty? It’s because we’ve seen this happen time and again in several countries in the region. The scenario is always the same. Why don’t our Western colleagues see this, and why can’t they accept hard facts? It’s a big question for us. Probably because if they do, they will have to change their concept for a settlement in the region, which they are loath to do, because they’ve invested so much time, money and political capital in upholding their stance. Changing it now would amount to admitting that their efforts were all wasted.

Question: According to the Japanese newspaper Nikkei Shimbun, President Putin’s visit scheduled for this year has been cancelled and could be postponed until next spring. The same source says that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov may pay a visit to Japan in January to coordinate the parameters of the presidential visit. Can you confirm this information? What questions are likely to be discussed, if the visit takes place after all?

Maria Zakharova: Unfortunately, we see that the Japanese media can discern no other topic in Russian-Japanese relations. This is very sad.

As for presidential visits, all the information on this score is provided by the press service of the Presidential Executive Office.

If Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit is coordinated and appears in his schedule, we will inform you.

We request in the future that you kindly use this information along with quotes from these sources.

Question: Could you describe the status of talks and contacts between Russia and the US on using the Syrian airspace? A US army spokesman said yesterday that two aircraft had been flying dangerously close to each other. Can you confirm this information?

Maria Zakharova: I can confirm in general terms that it’s dangerous in the region. This is for certain. Were it not dangerous, no effort on our part would be required.

I can answer in general terms that we are open to any dialogue with the United States on cooperation in the region. President Putin spoke about this in detail at the 7^th Russia Calling! Investment Forum yesterday. Let me repeat: We are open to any dialogue. The Russian Defence Ministry can inform you about the course of contacts between military experts.

A paradoxical situation is emerging. They tell us that we are acting on our own and that we are creating extra threats or impediments to the current operation in the region, this notwithstanding the fact, as President Putin said yesterday, that we had informed the US side. (Essentially, this is an unprecedented step, which, regrettably, remains unreciprocated at this stage.) Second, we said right away that it was necessary to coordinate our efforts not only with the US but also with all those making relevant efforts in the region in order, among other things, to minimise potential threats. We were, are and will be open to contacts.

I think this question would be better addressed to our US colleagues. We’ve never blocked any discussion format or channel. They are always open. We are constantly blamed and reproached for acting unpredictably. But what does our unpredictability consist of, if every day, at all levels, through all Russian government agencies, including diplomatic and military-diplomatic channels, we express the desire and send not just signals, but materials with appeals for cooperation. In response, we are told that we act unpredictably. But if you want predictability, you should start a dialogue. We are open to this. To reiterate: all specific data you can obtain from the Russian Defence Ministry. 

Question: This week, First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov travelled to Oslo. As far as I know, yesterday he met with the Foreign Minister of Sweden in Moscow. What can you tell us about Russian-Scandinavian relations?

Maria Zakharova: I can remind you that Mr Titov commented on the results of his visit in considerable detail. I won’t waste your time with this, as his views have been made public. If you have a concrete question on our cooperation with Norway, I’ll be glad to answer it.

Question: Does Russia plan to cooperate with Iran, Azerbaijan and Turkey in the fight against terrorism? Have you taken any steps towards this?

Maria Zakharova: Do you mean as an alliance? Why did you name these countries exactly? We have no limits or lists of countries with which we are willing or not willing to cooperate against terrorism, which is what distinguishes us from our Western partners. We’ve said that we are prepared to cooperate with any actors, countries and forces in order to fight terrorism more effectively, which is the main goal today. Therefore, not only are we willing to discuss antiterrorism efforts, but we are discussing them will the countries you mentioned: Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan. You know about the talks we conduct at different levels, the meetings and telephone conversations about which we regularly inform you and which Russia has held with these countries’ representatives at various levels. There are no restrictions there. We have been talking and we will continue to talk. The recent tragedy in Turkey, the bloody terrorist attack has illuminated the need to coordinate our efforts more closely and to pool the forces of all those who fight terrorism, wherever it may rear its head and by whatever name it may be called. And those who commit terrorist attacks, no matter what they are called, deserve only one thing: condemnation of their actions at all levels, by all organisations and countries. We must work to prevent terrorist attacks and to punish or destroy terrorists at all levels and with the use of all available instruments, because this is the only way to fight terrorism.

Question: Can you tell us about the outcome of yesterday’s meeting between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura?

Maria Zakharova: These meetings don’t usually produce a miracle solution, for example, to the Syrian crisis. This is not how it happens, unfortunately. These meetings are held to compare notes, so to speak, though not only that. They are also held to discuss all aspects of a settlement, to get answers to possible questions, to exchange opinions and share the impressions of the other meetings Mr Lavrov and Mr de Mistura had, and to map our future practical steps. This time, the sides analysed the entire range of issues pertaining to the Syrian settlement. We told Mr de Mistura what he wanted to know about the possibility of a political settlement and about our contacts with Damascus and the Syrian opposition. We reaffirmed that a political settlement is the ultimate objective of our involvement in the processes that are the object of our attention today. We also told him about the military operation, but only within the Foreign Ministry’s competence (the details are provided by the Defence Ministry) and based on the general analysis of Russia’s military-political efforts. At the beginning of the meeting, Sergey Lavrov spoke in detail about our goals for the meeting. All of them have been achieved. These contacts will continue.