Speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V Lavrov at MGIMO (U) MFA and answers to the questions asked by students, Moscow, 1 September 2012

Dear Anatoliy Vasilyevich,

Dear Evgeniy Petrovich,

Dear friends,

First of all, I would like to congratulate all students, faculty with the Knowledge Day. I am glad to continue the tradition of annual meetings that we hold in our Alma Mater. I am especially glad to statistics, announced today by Anatoliy Vasilyevich. Behind the dry statistics, indeed, there is an excellent quality of education, which MGIMO provides with, and an excellent opportunity to ensure that, in addition to knowledge, the students formed as individuals, which is important in today's highly competitive world. The represented data, demographics of the applicants show that the university has become one of the leading universities of the Russian Federation and is steadily strengthening its international reputation and world ranking.

MGIMO (U) honorably represents our country at various international venues. Here is one simple recent example. In the framework of the OSCE it was decided to support the study of problems of Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian security. The initiative for such a research to be realized by the leading centers in Germany, France, Poland and Russia was supported. Our country was represented by students and researchers of MGIMO (U). It is pleasing that many of the graduates of MGIMO are choosing a diplomatic path as their career; thus helping to ensure the continuity of the Russian diplomatic service. In the past year, 80% of young professionals from MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy accounted for the new hires of Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Today in the Russian education system and university science there is a significant increase in investment. We are trying to ensure that MGIMO has not been overlooked by the party, including in addressing such an important and urgent task, as the construction of a new dormitory.

Of course, these investments are needed in order to develop new areas of the university activity and the use of innovative technology. It is encouraging that these noble efforts involved both Russian and foreign business circles. Significant contribution to the solution of problems of MGIMO is introduced by the Board of Trustees, among the members of which are many of MGIMO graduates, including those involved in major businesses.

Dear friends,

Over the past year there have been many developments. Profound changes in the international landscape confirm that we are in a transitional period of the world development, accompanied by severe shock. Euro-zone and world economy as a whole are agog. Panic does not subside in various parts of the world. At first, it is Syria, and in general the entire region of the Middle East and North Africa. Tension retains over Iran's nuclear program, on the Korean Peninsula. The situation in Afganistan and around it remains unclear. The threat of proliferation of WMD (weapons of mass destruction) has not disappeared, as well as terrorism, drug trafficking, environmental degradation, food shortages, and the spread of epidemics. These are just a few examples from a long list of threats and challenges. To respond to these challenges, the international community is required, above all, to understand them and collectively work out a solution to the issues.

The current situation, in my opinion, is unprecedented. In essence, it involves determining the main parameters of the XXI century world order.

Russia is one of the centers of the emerging polycentric international system and is fully aware of its level of responsibility in this new stage of history. The serious works are being performed on clarification of priorities of our country in a changing world, in accordance with the Decree of President Vladimir Putin on May 7 this year "Measures for the implementation of the foreign policy of the Russian Federation."

In this Decree, as well as in his speech at the meeting of ambassadors at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia on July 9 this year President Vladimir Putin has formulated specific tasks of Russian diplomacy. I will not list them today. I know that prior to our meeting today you became familiar with this decree and with the President's speech at the meeting of ambassadors, other articles and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and the latest materials of MFA of Russia, which set out the assessment of what is happening in the world and the arguments in support of the Russian approaches. I will not dwell on the nature of each of these problems. I presume that we will have time for interactive dialogue with you.

Prior to going further, I will emphasize the primary task set by the President. He said that the positive balanced role of Russia in world affairs is becoming more and more popular during his speech at the MFA of Russia. This allows you to more actively influence the international situation and more effectively defend Russian interests. And for this it is necessary to act on the pre-emption, to be ready for any developments.

The crucial importance of analytical work and the predictions of the likelihood ways of world development come from it. And there appears to be, we have an advantage, because today we are free from ideological blinders, which often limit the scope of some of our foreign colleagues. History shows that reasonable forecast cannot always be done with a mechanical extrapolation of past experience into the future, and even the current trends. The more so that the probability of major shifts in world affairs continues to grow. I think that many things have to take a fresh look, and anything at all to start "from scratch." This situation, of course, presents certain risks, but also many opportunities.

Russian diplomacy has always been famous for its high intellectual potential, which in today's environment is supported by the active development of our cooperation with of the Ministry with academic, expert and business communities, non-governmental organizations and other civil society establishments. In this regard, I would like to mention the important role of MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy which have a serious practical support of our analytical work and forecasting. In conclusion I will say that studying at MGIMO (U) is a great opportunity to join those who have served in the Fatherland and defend its interests. I am sure that you would take advantage of this opportunity: those who will choose a diplomatic career and graduates who will invest their talent in journalism, science, political science, law, and business. Although, of course, those who worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years, even decades, to a certain extent are biased and feel that the diplomacy is the most fascinating profession. But again, you will have to decide being in the status of graduates. We will try to make sure that you will learn about our profession as much as possible at the MGIMO. I have finished my speech and ready for your questions.

From the answers to the questions:

Question: Recently, APEC summit was launched in Vladivostok in which Russia will become a host and will participate as a full member of the WTO for the first time. Does it impose any special obligations on Russia or give it special rights?

S.V.Lavrov: The chairman of any international forum has the rights, defined by the practices of a particular format. Speaking about APEC, the president usually selects key and priority topics for the agenda. There is a tradition though that you cannot cross out everything that was done prior to the entry of the State for the chairman position. Especially the issues of APEC concern have long-term implications. Problems of this format cannot be solved in one year, during which the country serves as a chairman. Therefore, continuity and novelty of this approach are important.

An agenda, proposed by Russia, which was supported by all the member countries of APEC, provides the continuity on the topic for the further development of integration and liberalization of trade and investment regimes in the Asia-Pacific region.

As for the additional topics that reflect the priorities of the Russian presidency with the trends observed in the region, it is an innovative development, food security and improvement of transport and logistics systems in the Asia-Pacific region, which includes sea state, where logistics are complex and require a systematic approach. These priorities were supported. Apart from the rights, there are obligations which are much greater. First of all, I am saying that we are responsible for ensuring that everything went well from the protocol and organizational point of view and in the meaningful sense. For the semantic aspects of the Russian presidency, the APEC summit in Vladivostok - the event which crowns the work done during the year, when more than 90 activities of the line ministries were held, where all the possible aspects to be submitted for discussion by the summit were considered and the corresponding contributions to the declaration were prepared. The declaration will be taken in Vladivostok as part of the main event on September 7-9.

In the organizational sense, our protocol services with protocol services of the Administration of the President more than once visited the Russky Island and other objects, involved in the summit, and reported that everything is fine. We hope that it is so.

Question: It is not a secret that you are a big fan of rafting. Tell us, please, what gives you more thrills – rafting on a vacation or overcoming political barriers during work?

S.V. Lavrov: These are different feelings. The pass of the complex rapids as well as the solution to a difficult problem, especially when it is possible to reach a consensus that reflects the interests of your country, bring satisfaction. The last time I felt such satisfaction from a trip to Geneva, where on June 30 on the initiative of Russia and the former UN Special Envoy / LAS K.Annan a meeting regarding Syria was held, with the participation of all permanent members of the UN Security Council, members of the Arab League, Turkey, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Kofi Annan. We worked 8 hours with breaks and meetings in smaller groups. The result produced a solid document known as the "Geneva communique." The participants also formed an "Action Group."

I did not think it would be possible to reach a consensus at the time, since contradictions in Syria have been very serious. This was not concerned with the ultimate goal – everyone agreed that we want to see Syria as a stable, free and independent democratic state, where all citizens enjoy rights, including minority rights - that our positions are the same. Though in terms of reaching to this destination, as you know, there are profound contradictions. Our Western colleagues and some members of the region are for the external intervention, and Russia, China and other countries are convinced to immediately make the warring parties stop shooting at each other and sit down at the negotiating table.

Despite significant contradictions, it was possible to adopt comprehensive and detailed document which sets out our proposals to all Syrian parties (both the government and opposition in all its forms) at the beginning of a conversation about the transition period, particularly the formation of a representative body of the transition on the basis of agreement between the government and all opposition groups. And the document was written - the consensus was recorded on paper.

The Russian side proposed an approval of the document to the Council, but to our surprise, Western colleagues refused to do. Perhaps they felt that the consensus reached, our interests are reflected more there than theirs. But then it confirms suspicions that some foreign partners are guided by their own geopolitical interests in Syrian crisis, not the needs of the Syrian people, as the "Geneva" consensus demanded, first of all, to stop the violence and start talks.

The main point of the document lies in this and reflects the fundamental interests of the Syrian people. We were guided by this understanding. It is a pity that the UN Security Council refused to approve the document due to the objections of some Western delegations.

A very important and qualitative leap in the ability to negotiate in the format of external players was reached in Geneva. Hopefully, all the thoughts that were expressed there that serve in the fundamental and not pretentious best interests of the Syrian people will in demand by L. Brahimi, who came into office after the UN / Arab League Special Envoy in Syria Kofi Annan.

Question: As you know, Russia formally joined the WTO, and in this connection I would like to know what prospects will be opening for our country?

S.V.Lavrov: Prospects are discussed in the media and expert community. I will not list all the problems that arise in the discussions on this topic. It is clear that we are talking about balance. Like any agreement on accession to multilateral structures it reflects the balance of interests. You know that the negotiations were more than 18 years, during which a detailed consideration by the specific aspects of trade, economic and investment processes that our partners and us have to face. We are definitely going to feel some effect from the facilitating access of imported goods to Russia – prices should drop down for our customers on many goods. We will also feel a significant increase in export revenues, primarily - industrial products in the countries that are our traditional partners, such as the Member States of the European Union, with which we previously (before August 23) has a lot of discriminatory barriers.

In all the circumstances, considering the views of those who criticized Russia's accedence to the WTO, and those who actively insisted on this, I think, the achieved balance, which included the protective measures for a number of sectors of our economy (such as agriculture, banking, aviation, automotive ) will help in the foreseeable years to get the necessary experience to work on WTO rules and increase the competitiveness of the Russian economy, as competition in the Russian market will be more challenging. At the same time, WTO membership gives us the opportunity to fully participate in the determination of rules of trade in goods and services, investment, which will be developed as part of the further modernization of the international trading system. I think that, ultimately, affiliation is beneficial.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, you have already touched upon the topics of Syria, but would like to clarify whether it is possible to solve the internal conflict in the Middle Eastern country without the intervention of foreign forces, and what should be done in addition to the recent Geneva meeting?

S.V.Lavrov: Of course, you can. I am sure that the only possible solution is up for the Syrians to decide. Besides, everyone is talking about that. The resolutions of the UN Security Council emphasize that the regulation should be achieved by all Syrian sides, and only the Syrians can determine their own destiny. This fully corresponds to the basic principle of the UN Charter. Therefore, the UN Security Council may not decide differently.

We meet regularly with representatives of the Government of ATS and all opposition groups. There are internal opposition (both moderate and radical) and external one. Syrian National Council (SNC) is the most frequently mentioned one – his representatives are our regular companions. Eighteen months ago, the new chairman of the SNA A.Seyda as a part of a large delegation visited Moscow and began the conversation by saying that the Syrians are definitely interested under all circumstances to remain in a warm and close relationship with the Russian Federation. He also said that, actually, there is not a conflict but revolution going on in Syria and it is necessary to proceed from it. We replied that if what is happening is a revolution, then what does the SNA want from the UN Security Council? The Security Council has no authority to support the revolution and external interference, which the opposition Syrian National Council is calling for. External intervention should be positive (in effect), and we insist that the key players intervened very specific way: each of them must make inner-Syrian sides ((both government and opposition), especially those whom have influence, to stop the violence. That's what we said in Geneva, and this is reflected in the Geneva communique.

But when our partners say the government must first stop military operations, withdraw all troops and weapons from cities, and only then turn to the opposition with a request to do the same, it is not a working arrangement. We are talking about either a naïve situation or a provocation here. When there are fights in the cities, to say that the only option is a unilateral surrender of one of the warring forces – it is an unreal situation.

It is not about the ideology here. We are not holding on to any regime or characters of the Syrian situation but coming from what is realistic and what is required to solve the main problem - stop the violence and save lives. The Russian approach responds to this problem because the first point of our plan is a requirement to stop the violence and start negotiations.

Besides, the largest inner-Syrian opposition coalition is the National Coordinating Committee - which is sharply anti-governmental, recently initiated a four-point plan which is echoing the Russian approach. Those points are an end to violence, the immediate solution of acute humanitarian problems through the delivery of appropriate care, the release of prisoners in government jails and those who took the opposition, and the beginning of negotiations. We fully support these areas, because they coincide with our approach.

The Russian position, as well as the approach of the National Coordination Committee of Syria, which requires the parties to stop shooting at each other, is consistent with the task of the soonest recovery from crisis and the interest of the avoiding the increase in victims. Those who require a unilateral surrender of government forces and armed groups at the same time encourage the opposition to continue the fight; it turns out, based on the fact that they are willing to pay a premium in the form of numerous human lives. This is the fundamental difference between the approaches. If the position of those who insist on the continuation of the armed struggle until the government voluntarily run away somewhere (as we are told in public and in interviews), I have created a lasting impression that they are not driven by the interests of the Syrian people but by their own geopolitical calculations in this important region.

Question: The events in London around the founder of the Wikileaks website Julian Assange, who takes refuge in the Embassy of Ecuador, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Britain wants to extradite him to Sweden, were quite a hot topic. How could you evaluate this situation?

S.V.Lavrov: It certainly is an important aspect relating to the freedom of access to information and protection. It was interesting at first to read something that was made public by Wikileaks. It opened your eyes to many things, and I did not see in the materials that can be regarded as damage to the national interest or the security of the states whose representatives were quoted in the materials Wikileaks.

Rather, the documents shed light on how the states and how they relate to their partners, how they are valued, who they are seen as, and what manners they have. That was curious, nothing more. Anywho, at large, we had the feeling that this is what prevalent in diplomatic and political circles of some of our partners – it got confirmed.

With specific regard to the current situation, in which J. Assange found himself in, we are often lectured about justice in our country, although the judiciary in each state is constitutionally declared as an independent branch of government, and its decision must be respected. There are well-known examples that we have been judged upon, as well as the cases in which a jury trial in the United States, for example, unanimously frees killer. There was this episode many years ago with one of Hollywood actors, who killed his wife and her lover. A jury unanimously acquitted him. This has caused an explosion of public anger, but no one questioned the court's decision.

I do not know whether you are aware of what J.Assange is accused of in Sweden and how procedurally correct the charges against him - he was accused of a strange form of a sexual assault. In both cases, women were with him not forcibly. I will not continue this topic. At the web sites you can find some interesting things. Now there is little information being published when talking about J.Assange. I have already mentioned the principle of freedom of expression and the protection of sensitive information. There is also the principle of respect for the right to asylum. Especially as the UK is notorious for political asylum, everyone virtually gets it. Embassy of Ecuador, where the Australian citizen remains at, whose extradition is required by Sweden, operates on the territory of Britain. He is sure that he will be sent to the US. He asked for political asylum in Ecuador, and he got it. Yes, it is a conflict. While he is in Ecuador, I think no one will try to do reckless things. The right to asylum must be either respected, or challenged during the legal process. There are relevant legal provisions for this. Threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy as the Winter Palace was stormed are outside the legal field.

Question: As a citizen of Russia, especially as a student who has gotten Estonian language to study, cannot fail to interest the problems of the region, above all, the relations between Russia and Estonia. We remember that some time ago it was reported on the demolition of the monument to Soviet soldiers, the construction of the monument soldiers "of the Waffen-SS." We all know about the attitude of the Russian-speaking population in Estonia. In recent years, fortunately, this news comes less often. In your opinion, whether the situation has stabilized, or you can wait for an escalation of the conflict?

S.V.Lavrov: First, I think you got a very interesting language as "one," as I understand it. Estonia is our neighbor. I am convinced that in time the management of MGIMO (University) acted very correct. Soon after a not very pleasant situation for all of us, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the university began to take concerted action to implement the curriculum languages ​​of our neighbors, including those who served on the uniform of the USSR.

We are interested in good relations with Estonia. We proceed from the fact that our people have nothing to argue about. Some time ago (about five – seven years ago) we even signed a border treaty, which is very much like our Estonian neighbors and the European Union. Estonia was accepted to the European Union in 2004, along with Latvia, Lithuania and a number of Eastern European countries. Incidentally, such a move violated the rules that existed at the time, because the criteria of EU accession is a provision stating that the candidate should not have territorial disputes with its neighbors and must be made of the border. During a wave of expansion in 2004, Estonia and Latvia, had no sharp borders with the Russian Federation.

Since then we have signed the relevant border treaties with Latvia and Estonia. Latvia has ratified, in Russia, it also held a bilateral treaty, which came into action. The border is framed, the last demarcation works are being held. In Estonia we have signed a contract, where it is clearly stated that the territorial claims should not be repeated, as it was in the so-called Treaty of Tartu in the early twenties of the last century. Estonian colleagues assured us that there will be no claims and that the new contract finally closes the border issue. But when the document was submitted for ratification, the Estonian parliament-in-law mentioned the Tartu Treaty, in a context that preserves the territorial claims against Russia. Naturally, in such circumstances, we were not able to approve the document and withdrew its signature from the treaty. At the same time we declare that we are now ready to restart negotiations, but no surprises like the one experienced in the Estonian parliament.

It is - just one example of the conservation revanchist mood, attempts of our Baltic neighbors stir topic of so-called "occupation", to demand compensation. The other day, as I understand it, the President of Lithuania established a commission to investigate the crimes of the Holocaust, Nazism, and "occupation." They openly say that Russia needs to claim compensation, but they don't mention the fact that the industry of our Baltic neighbors was created in the years that they consider the occupation, and they deny everything positive that was in our relationship. This, of course, facilitates the building of cooperation in the new circumstances, although the interest in this in our business community, and among the scientific intelligentsia and youth is great.

You mentioned the problem of the perception of the outcome of World War II and the view on it. There is no doubt that the efforts to heroes of the Nazis and those who collaborated with them are continuing. We also see it in Estonia and Latvia, and, unfortunately, in the position of the European Union, which has a famous "principle of solidarity." They are hiding behind this principle, when the absolute minority of the EU begins to impose their views absolute majority.

Here is a typical example. Annually Russia in collaboration with several other States to the UN General Assembly resolution condemning all forms of racism, neo-Nazism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, which contains the call for States to prevent the practice in similar displays on its territory and in its relations with other countries. The document does not call anyone by name, and does not point fingers. The European Union completion is voting against the resolution. In response to our questions about the reasons for such action in meetings with EU counterparts we do not hear a clear answer, moreover, that leading the streets of the cities of the former members of the "Waffen SS" - is the freedom of speech.

But the freedom of speech is not unlimited. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights expressly state that freedom of speech is limited, including for reasons of morality, security, public health, and respect for religious beliefs. If these limits are fixed by law (as they are in Russia, and in most European countries legislated), these rules must be followed.

We want to remove the existing disagreements in our relations with Estonia, and we advocate to resume work on the design of the border and to begin negotiations on a new border treaty.

But we will not be in dialogue with the Government of Estonia and other EU countries turn a blind eye to violations of obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Convention on regional languages. Of course, the biggest problem in our relations with the Baltic States – is the problem of statelessness. It is a shame of European Union and NATO which is representing itself as not so much as a military defensive unit, but as a "school of democracy." If this school has the "students" who consider themselves as "graduates" of the state, who are trying to set the tone, and who are quietly reject the appeals addressed to them to implement the recommendations of the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the UN on the sharp reduction in the number of non-citizens and to promote the elimination of this shameful institution, I have questions to those who are trying to protect them.

They tell us: let your Russian-speaking compatriots, who cannot get citizenship in Latvia and Estonia, pass the language tests, after which their citizenship will be appropriately dealt with. Many of them are doing so, though the number of people naturalized in this way is not a source of optimism, given that there are about 10-15 thousand people a year, and in both countries, about half a million people. We even put the question that the children who were born in families of non-citizens are automatically granted citizenship, as well as older people, who are having difficulties in learning the language. We were promised, in particular by our Latvian neighbors, but did not do so. The next referendum on the subject is going to happen in Latvia. I think this is a manifestation of democracy. I suppose that such procedures will be involved. To maintain the statelessness which does not exist in international law, is unacceptable, regardless of the referendum.

I would like to mention the last thing regarding the subject of referendums. When Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania held a plebiscite in favor of secession from the Soviet Union and the independence, people's voices did count. Most of them probably voted for secession from the USSR. So, they wanted to be loyal, decent citizens of their new countries. Their voices are needed then, and now they seem not to count. It is striking that, for purposes of quota Estonia and Latvia in the election to the European Parliament the population of these countries is calculated taking non-citizens into account. When these countries are having municipal elections, non-citizens do not have the right to vote and be elected. I think the word "shame" gently describes the situation.

Question: Serey Viktorovich, I have a quick question. Can you say that your success started exactly at MGIMO?

S.V. Lavrov: I will not talk in terms of success or failure. The satisfaction that I get from work is rooted in my student years. Education is a hard work, and at MGIMO we had not only learning, but also the physical labor in construction teams. I went four times and each time I was satisfied. Since then, every year, working in various positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the satisfaction does not go away.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, what is the role of Central Asia in Russia's foreign policy?

S.V.Lavrov: We believe that our first priority is relations with our neighbors in the Commonwealth of the Independent States. The Central Asian region is very close to us. There's a country which we have alliances within the CSTO and the CIS, and there are economic integration format - the Eurasian Economic Community, which is being developed with the tripartite integration process between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. I know that Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are also interested in connecting to the specified format of more thorough integration. I think we have mutual interests in terms of the integration of allied relations - it is shown in the course of regular contacts between the presidents of Russia and the Central Asian states. Such an attitude was confirmed in the recent contacts between Presidents V.V.Putin and A.Sh.Atambaev. In the development of their agreements additional documents for further cooperation in all spheres are being prepared. Such documents, I think, will be consistent enough in the foreseeable future.

I mentioned the CSTO. Its importance in today circumstances is increasing. No one knows what will happen in and around Afghanistan after 2014. We do not quite understand the statements of American partners that now they leave Afghanistan because they dismantle the terrorist threat, but at the same time they want to leave there tens of thousands of their soldiers on the well fortified bases. We are trying to understand how it fits into the assessment that there is no terrorist threat, and have a dialogue. In any case, the international forces in Afghanistan are under the mandate of the UN Security Council, which has been renewed annually. Before these forces will be withdrawn from there, you need to report to the UN Security Council, what are the concrete achievements made ​​in the fight against terrorist and drug threats. We are interested in ensuring that these forces are successful; we provide opportunities to ISAF to transit through the territory of the Russian Federation for their supply, rotation equipment, and weapons.

Naturally, we want more results, especially in the fight against drug trafficking. ISAF is working, as I said, with the sanction of the UN Security Council. The backbone of their forces is contributing NATO countries. During the period when the forces were in Afghanistan drug production has significantly increased. Accordingly, the export of drugs from Afghanistan increased. Central Asiancountries are suffering from that, as well as Russian Federation, the European countries and to a lesser extent - the United States, because the United States are experiencing more serious problem of drugs coming from Central and Latin America.

Our proposal regarding ISAF the drug crops effective destruction, as well as drug labs, encounters a reserved attitude and fear of the increasing threat to troops operating in Afghanistan. The refusal of NATO countries on our proposals to establish cooperation between international security forces that operate inside Afghanistan, and the CSTO, regularly conducting an operation to intercept drug convoys from Afghanistan is quite incomprehensive. Professionals believe that such cooperation and coordination in real time would increase the the fight against drug trafficking and drug production significantly. NATO partners are denying it without explanation. I think the point is that they do not want to consider CSTO as an equal to North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is a fact that it does not improve the situation of drug trafficking and terrorist manifestations in the region of Central Asia. Interaction between the CSTO and NATO in these areas would be in demand. But they cannot be forced. Therefore, in the framework of the CSTO, we, along with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and other members of the Organization are taking special measures to ensure the security in the Central Asian region. I am confident that our cooperation in this regard will only deepen.

Question: It is said that the profession of a diplomat - the lot of men. How can you explain this? In your opinion, when will women be in demand in the diplomatic sphere as well as men? And will they be at all?

S.V.Lavrov: You asked four questions, but three of them are unnecessary. You started with a question-assertion: it is believed that the profession of a diplomat - a profession for men. I do not think so. The rest of your questions are irrelevant. Anatoly Vasilevich, in my opening remarks mentioned that this year more girls got in the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) then boys did. It is clear that after graduating the University not all of them are going to work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Business is of the large demand, many of them choose journalism, and law. The majority of people who come to work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - is the contingent of MGIMO, although we accept graduates over thirty schools from across the country - from Kaliningrad to the Far East.

I would like to thank the management of MGIMO once again, who is willing to act unselfishly in helping kids to pass the University courses that introduce kids deeper with international issues.

But this is a digression. Every year the number of young men and women who are accepted to work for the diplomatic service for The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is at least the same. We do not have any prejudice. More women are promoted to important positions. Today, I have no statistical calculations, but I regularly meet with representatives of the Women's Council of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They point out that this trend is growing rapidly: there is a woman on the position of Deputy Director of the Department, the General Consul-woman, woman ambassador, a female representative to UNESCO. I agree that this is not enough. It is clear that the problems arising in the case of birth must somehow be solved. The relevant laws are accepted, but in the future it all depends on the person. But some in the Foreign Ministry are married, and prefer to engage in the family - it is their choice and right. But there come a lot of talented girls who want to work. After some time they turn into serious female diplomats. We will only support such process.

Question: As you know, each young specialist after graduation needs to pass a certain school, working in various places, including third world countries. How and after what time does the diplomat commissioned in one of these countries could become a representative in one of the developed regions? If it is not a secret, how much time did it take for you personally?

S.V. Lavrov: It is individual. Ambassadorial post could be received at the end of your career, or it could be received in the middle of it. There is no mandatory list of some of the regions through which one must pass in order to become an ambassador. Traditionally, since the diplomacy of the Russian Empire and then the Soviet period, the emphasis was not on "bringing" diplomats to as many countries and regions as possible, but on the specialization. At the current stage, after 1992, the Ministry took a shot to question a number of issues related to specialization, to solve even by force. I am going to give one specific example. The Board once considered sending staff member to Mongolia for the fifth time during his work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it was a pre-retirement trip. Head of Human Recourses (at the time was Administration) strongly opposed: he is not going to travel to Mongolia, let him work in Europe. A man pleaded, was literally on his knees – he was saying that he loves Mongolia, where everyone knows him; there is access to the guide, fishing, and hunting. No, they didn't allow him to go.

The West has a different system. After spending two or three years in one country they can transfer you into another country without coming back to the capital. So you can travel for ten years before returning to work at your Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are pros and cons of both systems. I think the optimal solution - is a combination of the two principles. The specialization is very important, especially when the contacts are established, when you start working as a young embassy employee, start making connections, and then your acquaintance - young officers of the Ministry of the specific country - making careers and getting important naming. It is a sin not to use such communication, everyone else is using it.

On the other hand, when discussing a particular topic, there is a growing need for a broad-minded view, especially when it comes to working in the capitals of major countries - countries of the "eight", China, India, Brazil and South Africa - countries with interests in most aspects of the international agenda. Therefore bilateral ambassadors and diplomats who are working in Russian embassies in these countries should have extensive knowledge. Typically, not all can be learned from the Internet or from our internal office materials.

How much time do you need? I became a representative to the UN in 1994, when I was 44 years old. By the time I worked in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 22 years. But it is - not a record. We have ambassadors who traveled for the first time in the post when they were 35 - 37 years. So go for it. The main thing – is the desire to be capitalized in the results.

Question: Will Russia adopt Western standards in environmental issues? If not, whether our own system, no less effective than Western be created?

S.V.Lavrov: We're going to monitor the environment much more closely than until recently. Our country has a heavy legacy in this regard - especially evident in the northern latitudes. You know that due to the melting of ice, the transit through the Northern Sea Route, which is becoming more convenient navigation has grown rapidly. At the time, V.V. Putin visited an inspection trip to those regions, and decided that it is necessary to urgently enhance the ecology. Appropriate measures have been taken.

We have our own standards; there are international obligations, in particular, through organizations such as the Council of Baltic Sea States. Habitat protection in the waters of the Baltic Sea – is one of the priorities. I mentioned the Arctic. Protecting the environment and indigenous people living there - one of the priorities of the Arctic Council. The Black Sea Economic Cooperation is operating, where there are also agreed standards of environmental policy. The Caspian Sea - five Caspian states formulated a Convention for the Protection of Ecology and Biological Resources, etc. As for other multilateral formats – the example of the Asia-Pacific Economic cooperation was a success. One solution, which is being prepared for approval by the leaders (at the summit in Vladivostok) – reduce the import of duties on environmental goods to 5 %, a list of which has to be agreed upon.

I will of course mention the United Nations Environment in which Russia is an active participant in the development of connecting not regional but universal standards. In addition, we have standards that take into account the specifics of the international nature of the problem and the environment in the Russian Federation. I can assure the priority of these efforts of our leadership, and I am sure that they remain relevant.

Question: What are the problems and prospects of Russian-Indian relations at the present stage, as the Internet and the media do not possess the general information about the region?

S.V.Lavrov: I remind you that in addition to the Internet and the press there is scientific literature, in which the Russian-Indian relations are described quite seriously and all-encompassing. India -is our strategic partner. At last year's meeting of the presidents of Russia and India a declaration in which the partnership between the two countries called privileged strategic, emphasizing the special nature of our relationship was adopted. It is determined by the history, the Soviet Union's solidarity with India in the period of its decolonization and independence when the Soviet Union supported the country politically and created the commercial production. It should also be said about the cultural cooperation and cultural ties. Indian movies still occupy, perhaps, one of the first places in popularity in this country.

We are the strategic partners on the problems of the world order as well. Russia and India have the same look at the problems of the world, and together we advocate for all States to observe faithfully the obligations under the UN Charter, we did not interfere in the internal affairs of each other, to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states without exception. Moscow and New Delhi for ensuring that the rule of law, of which the Western partners like to say with regard to the situation in the States, has been provided and in international relations. In other words, we want the international law to be respected. India is our ally in this regard. Both countries advocate the democratization of international relations. Given the close nature of the relationship between our two countries, India's role as a major regional power whose interests go far beyond the region, as well as our partnership in the BRICS, support the further connection of India to the various multilateral agencies. This also applies to the country gained full membership in the SCO, and joining a group of permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Question: Since I got Amharic language after allocation, I would like to ask about the prospects of Russian-Ethiopian relations.

S.V.Lavrov: Ethiopia is also our longtime friend. We support African countries in their struggle against colonialism. They remember the role that our country played in the liberation of Africa from colonial rule. Ethiopia has been one of the leaders of African nations. The headquarters of the African Union are located in Addis Ababa. This also makes the more significant role of Ethiopia in African affairs, and not only because the relations with the African Union established the European Union, Russian Federation, and the United States. Unfortunately, at the present time, there are serious problems of Ethiopia with Eritrea. Once it was a single state, then there was a "divorce", which has not issued until the end of the onset of complete tranquility. We support the decision of these problems through dialogue. There is an appropriate UN Security Council decision. Between our countries cultural ties and political contacts are developing very well. However there is a lack of more serious economic component. Bilateral trade and economic relations in volume are far from the existing potential.

Do not worry about the language that you would get. You mention about this with an impending doom. I was dumbfounded when I came to the old building of MGIMO on September 1, 1967 and saw that I would learn Sinhala language. I was then convinced that it's somewhere in Africa, rather in Senegal. And it turned out that this is the language that is spoken by 70% of the population of Sri Lanka.

Question: My further training will be related to a group of the Finno-Ugric languages, Estonian language in particular. You have already vocalized the problems of this region. What, in your opinion, are the most promising ways of cooperation with these countries?

S.V.Lavrov: I have already said about Estonia. We advocate that all the problems that we do not gloss over would be solved and would not prevent us from moving forward, which is in the interest of both states. We are ready for it. I think that with a good will from the Estonian leadership they can address the issues and get mutual benefit from cooperation especially since we are neighbors and we have a natural advantage for a number of issues.

With regard to the Finno-Ugric people, except Estonia, this group includes Hungary and Finland. We have a close relationship with Finland. It's a common knowledge. There are regular contacts between the Presidents, heads of government at the ministerial level. On the 20 of August on the invitate of my Finnish colleagues, I traveled to Helsinki, where, in addition to meetings with the President, Prime Minister and the meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I was speaking at a meeting of ambassadors of Finland abroad. This is quite an honorable invitation, and it reflects the level of trust and mutually beneficial relations between the two countries with good economic component and a lot of potential, including in the tourism sector (last year there were more than 10 million border crossings between Russia and Finland). So now we are faced with purely practical tasks on the organization of more convenient check points. Finns come to St. Petersburg for three days without visa, and support us in the need to rapidly transition to a visa-free regime with the European Union. So, we're very positive about the relationship.

We also have good prospects for relations between Russia and Hungary. Despite the fact that Hungary is a member of NATO and the European Union, it does not try to create a problem in our relationship. I think that in the near future the bilateral relations in the economic and investment exchange may seriously deepen. You have good prospects, and I wish you success.

Question: We celebrate the anniversary of the end of World War II on September 2, but at the same time, we see Japan's claims to the Kuril Islands. Japan raises similar claims to Korea and China. Why haven't you signed a peace treaty with Japan, and why this cannot be done within the framework of an international organization, such as the APEC?

S.V.Lavrov: APEC – is not an interstate education and Economy Forum. It has a special status, so any inter-state political and legal arrangements in APEC, by definition, are not considered. It discusses economic issues.

At present we do not see any obstacles to the development of relations with Tokyo even in the absence of a peace treaty. There is a bilateral Declaration of 1956, which, in essence, restored relations between the two countries. It mentions the need to conclude a peace treaty to discuss regional issues. Peace treaty comes first under all circumstances. Our position is simple and this is not the first time we are stating it: a peace treaty, the San Francisco Treaty and other non-generic documents are important.

But more important than any multilateral legal instrument – is the UN Charter, which records the results, including territorial of the Second World War. All UN member states, before becoming a full member of Organization are signing and ratifying the Charter. This is - the point from which we need to start.

Question: Does Ministry of Foreign Affairs have a lack or excess of young diplomatic personnel?

S.V.Lavrov: We do not feel lack or excess of personnel. However, there is a problem. At the beginning of the 1980s – to the end of 1990s of last century, when we received the cooperative movement and private enterprise, the newly formed private companies required personnel with good knowledge of foreign languages ​​for communication abroad. Since the wages at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were close to the poverty-stricken, the offer of $ 500 a month seemed attractive to employees of the Ministry, and the layer of "workhorses" - mid-level diplomats (first, second secretaries and even counselors) - seriously depleted during this period. Some time ago, we began to feel it. Youth came to replace the older generation at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but he "dip" was formed in the category of young, but experienced people who have worked for a dozen years in the Foreign Ministry, who could independently prepare documents. Now the problem is solved, since the new wave of graduates who are annually accepted to work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is gaining power (though still not a "tsunami", but close). I am just kidding, of course. In fact, I think that now we have an optimal balance of staff.

Question: What are the geopolitical implications that Russia could experience after the handover of Tuzla Spit to Ukraine?

S.V.Lavrov: The question was important enough for eight years. We are having negotiations with the Ukrainian colleagues regarding the problem of the Sea of ​​Azov, Kerch Strait and the Black Sea. All of these issues are interconnected, and discussions are ongoing, but there is a basic understanding of some aspects, although a final agreement has not been reached. I am sure that the interests of the Russian Federation, as well as Ukraine's interests will be fully satisfied. We must seek solutions that will be comfortable for both of our countries.

Question: If Peter the Great was at the reign, where would he build the capital?

S.V. Lavrov: At the time Peter the Great had already built a capital in St. Petersburg. So do not understand your question. There is no need for a new capital - we have two capitals - Moscow and St. Petersburg.

Question: MGIMO - is not only learning, but also a sport. Are you a rooter of "Spartak?" Are you going to the Yegor Titov farewell game on September 9?

S.V. Lavrov: I will be in Vladivostok, but if I made it back in time back, I would make sure that I go. We played together in a mini-football several times. It really is the individual experience. You feel differently on the field, when such professionals are playing with you. Sometimes I talk with many "Spartak" players on the football field - U.V.Gavrilov, D.A.Alenichev and others. You should love not just sport in yourself, but yourself in sport. It is necessary to engage in sports. I am sure that MGIMO (U) provides such opportunities.

Thank you and take care.

1 September 2012