From the answers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey V. Lavrov on the questions of editorial office and readers of the «Russian newspaper» in the framework of the «Business breakfast», Moscow, October 22, 2012

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, it was some time after the incident with the forced landing of the Syrian aircraft with Russian citizens on board in Ankara. Now what can you say about the nature of the cargo? In fact what was the Syrian board carrying? Why did Moscow, as it seems, have pretty calm reaction to the arisen situation? If Americans were in place of Russian citizens, Washington probably would have acted much more harshly.

Sergey V. Lavrov: Regarding to the cargo, we immediately told about it as soon as checked waybills and got all the information. It was electrotechnical equipment for radiolocating stations, which has a dual purpose, and is not banned by international treaties, conventions or decisions of the UN Security Council. This is an absolutely routine delivery of spare parts. Russian supplier had contractual obligations of a decade ago to provide spare parts for the radiolocating stations, so they could function properly. When the Syrian authorities had informed about the need in some components of this electrotechnical equipment, then it was manufactured, packaged and sent to Syria by the legal way. It does not represent any danger to the passengers, flight or security in general. This cargo is not explosive and does not shoot. I repeat that this is the dual-use equipment that can be used both for military and civilian purposes. But it is not «shooting product», but radiolocating equipment. Then, after the fact, we set all this. Given that it is a routine story, it does not report to the government. A supplier just sends spare parts legally.

As an afterthought, we found that when the pilot had been very close to the air space of Turkey, Turkish dispatcher had told him that they would have to land the aircraft for inspection, and if the crew did not want to do this, the aircraft could change the route - either went back or flew the Turkish territory. The pilot said that he was ready to land, because the board did not contain anything illegal. This fact shows that in his head no one did have intentions to carry out some illegal delivery.

According to the Chicago Convention (ICAO), any country that has reasonable grounds to believe, that the aircraft contains a military cargo, has the right to land this aircraft. In fact, Turkey did it. Turkish party inspected the cargo and released the plane with the crew and passengers confiscated the cargo for further investigation. Turkish authorities allegedly refused on repeated requests by the crew commander to issue a receipt for forfeiture. This moment we are alert about. Moreover, in parallel from the mouth of the Turkish officials were heard categorical statements that the board had contained weapons and ammunition. Now Turkish colleagues, whom we daily fumble on all aspects of the issue, told us that there was electrotechnical equipment. In this situation, we ask them to say publicly that there were no weapons and ammunition on the board. At this moment we are waiting.

The second and more important aspect of the situation is how the dealing with passengers including Russian citizens was. First, when we heard that the plane flying from Moscow had been forced to land, consular employees, who got the passenger list, and realize that there are our citizens in this list, immediately demanded to provide access to them. For more than eight hours of airplane staying in Ankara the access was not provided. Turkish colleagues referred to the fact that the plane was about to depart, but it did not happen.

Secondly, for two hours people had being kept in a closed aircraft, which engines were turned off and the air conditioning did not work. One of the passengers, the husband of Russian citizen, became ill, and people were forced to seek medication on board. Then the hatches were opened, and it was said that all would be taken to the airport. But no one would be invited. Then our citizens saw in the windows that the bus is on the airfield, and this bus had no driver. So they did not go anywhere, but a food was brought on board, which was not enough to feed even children.

All this we found out when the plane had already landed in Damascus. Then we found the Russians, who were on board, and asked how the things really happened. The situation is different from the one we were presented by Turkish colleagues. Therefore, we will seek the clarity to know, who gave the appropriate orders, and who banned our consular officers the way to board. All this is important, since it characterizes the relationship between the countries. And we are quite close neighbors with Turkey; we have a good relationship, even strategic. There are mechanisms of high-level summits; contacts are developing in various directions. We would not like such episodes marred bilateral ties.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, the Congress of Compatriots will be at the end of this week in St. Petersburg. First Congress was held in 2000, and it had a rather ritualistic character. It was said that we remember, love, appreciate the generations of emigration for preservation of language and culture, there were a gala ceremonies of citizenship returning, passport presentation. Now it is time to set more ambitious goals, such as a return of capital and minds, isn't it? Will qualitatively different tasks be formulated on this Congress?

Sergey V. Lavrov: During last Congress, with the support of the organizations of compatriots, we formulated new challenges. We agreed that we will move from a paternalistic model of cooperation, which is mostly limited to humanitarian help to veterans and those, who are in trouble, transfer of funds and the provision of material assistance to targeted work to support the consolidation of compatriots in each country, so that they could more effectively win respect, protect their rights. The vast majority of them stays, where they are living, but they want to live there as equal citizens of the State. We will help them in this, because there is some discrimination, not only in Latvia and Estonia, but also in some European countries, where there are examples, when our people can't implement social, economic and humanitarian rights, such as in terms of education in Russian.

This issue became core in the activity of the Government Commission on the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad. Certainly, humanitarian assistance is retained, but the main force is left to help organizations of our compatriots in terms of consolidation and ensuring of the beseeming role in the internal life of the state, where they are living. We help them in this including promotion of Russian-language publications. Thus, there was the creation of the portal of mentioned Government Commission, which is quite popular. Books of the series «Russian in ...» regularly publishes – there are the editions «Russian in Germany», «Russian in Syria», there was the presentation of the books «Russian in England», «Russian in the United States».

There was the formulation of the project «Russian School Abroad», which is about to get financing. Target is set so that the first step in every country of the CIS was, at least, one school with education by Russian standards. But one schools, of course, is a very little, we want to have many of them. Upon receiving of monetary assets, we will step up the work. We want that the program does not end only in the CIS, and will be implemented in other countries, where many of our compatriots are living.

As to the return of capital, it is not on the profile of our commission. I think directive methods will not work there. There is the same in the situation with minds. Minds and capital will return, when they feel that in Russia there are opportunities for their productive, profitable applications. It is the task of the Government. The Cabinet of Ministers and the country leadership know this. One of the indicators is the order of the President, which aims on creation of the most comfortable conditions for business. The most important is that all will be implemented.

Question: What is the reason of the negative image of Russia abroad, in your opinion? This happens only because something wrong is in our country? Or is the whole point in the active foreign policy line of Russia?

Sergey V. Lavrov: Any country has internal problems including Russia. We do not hide and speak openly. We established appropriate contacts with the United States, the EU and other states, which are interested in a dialogue on human rights issues. In this framework, we can discuss any issues and concerns that arise from our partners. Russia also participates in the Council of Europe and the UN Council on Human Rights. These structures have monitoring procedures that are intended to provide assurance that the corresponding country is moving towards fulfilling of its commitments in the democracy field, the rule of law and human rights. We deal with all these procedures. We welcomed the delegations of the Committee (UN) against Torture, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, etc.

We are open. And if our foreign partners, both bilaterally and in international organizations, are genuinely interested in helping of resolving of our problems, we have all for this. We need to use the channels that are created with the Americans, the EU, through international organizations.

But if the goal of the partners is to score domestic political points in the relation to or without relation to any of the electoral cycle, raise the reputation among voters and do at the expense of public criticism of Russia, it is a bit different genre. And people will be engaged in this trade, as long as they have the feeling that it brings to them « domestic political gain». It has nothing to do with real concern for human rights.

This September in the State Duma there were the hearings on the situation of human rights in the EU. Naturally, at the request of the State Duma the Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared the relevant interesting materials that can be found. Representatives of the member states of the EU, and the European Commission were welcomed at these hearings. Similar event on human rights issues in the United States was in the respective Committee of the State Duma on October 22. Deputies asked to provide statistics. To be honest, I was surprised to know that, as it turns out, millions of citizens, who are formally eligible to vote in the United States in an age that allows voting, can't use this right. Thus, each state has its own tricks: somewhere you can vote on the driving license, somewhere you are required more serious identity. But as a result, I think that about 5 million people can't vote. In the United States there are plenty of analysts in relation who benefits - the Republicans or the Democrats.

Of course, you know that the presidential candidates are nominated by «Green Party» and other smaller parties protest at the fact that they are not allowed to participate in the debate. Not to mention the fact that the United States, the Great Britain and the number of other Western countries have not fulfilled the commitments taken in the framework of the OSCE and they have not incorporated the obligation to invite international observers of the United Nations on the elections into their national laws.

Russian officials visited the United States to watch the American election in the OSCE Mission and in the framework of bilateral contacts. In many states, they are simply not allowed at the precincts. When we say «the OSCE», we are beginning to look like the men, whose have problems with diction and speech. It is in fact so. I talked with Condoleezza Rice, when she was working as Secretary of State and making any claims. So I suggested: «Condi, let's gather our experts in the field of human rights, election monitoring and exchange the best practices». To this she answered the following: «What are our problems now? ». I reminded her that in the United States the presidential election is not direct, but through the formation of the Electoral College. As they say, if in a state there is the overweight at two percent, the candidate, who received 51%, takes all votes, and the electors are formed by that party. I also reminded her that in 2000, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush. But with the electoral vote was not the case - there was a problem. As you recall, they were converted, and finally the conversion was stopped by the Supreme Court, in which Republicans were the majority. As a result, the president came to power, in favor of whom a minority of U.S. citizens was voted. Do you know what did Condoleezza Rice say to that? She said: «Yes, I'm well aware of it! But these are our problems; we have become accustomed and adapted to this system. It works, and all is well». Perhaps their system is working, because the Democrats do not go on the streets, when Al Gore was defeated. But refusing to discuss these things, say that is not necessary for us to observe, is also wrong.

And our colleagues from the European Union can‘t always go away of the answer to the question, why there is such shameful thing as aliens in the middle of Europe, the EU, and NATO.

Question: Our Western partners are often reminded that as a result of the «Arab Spring» Russia lost its influence in the Middle East. Do you agree with this? What conclusions did Russia generally make from the «Arab Spring»?

Sergey V. Lavrov: We do not agree with this estimation, if only because we communicate with almost all major countries of the region no less intense than before, and may be even more active. They are happy to come to Russia; we are also in contact with all opposition groups in the Syria. None of them, even the most radical opposition, does talk the things that we hear from our Western colleagues and some politicians in the region.

Although there are examples such as Yusuf al Qaradawi, who is religious figure, and he is famous for the fact that regularly addressed invectives to us through the channel «Al Jazeera». But this is anomaly, pathology. The vast majority of the Syrian opposition, all Arab and other countries, with which we communicate, clearly begin every conversation by saying that it is important for them Russia maintains its presence in the region.

Whatever happens, as in the past, when the region was freed from the colonial yoke, Russia will be considered as a reliable partner and an important factor ensuring geopolitical balance there. There is no prejudice in the relation of Russia.

October 8-10 this year Moscow will be visited by the Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki. It would seem that in its time in Iraq relation also there was the prediction that Russia will on the «wrong side of history». But we firmly adhere to the principles, worked to ensure everything was under international law, and not just because in the UN Security Council the poor Colin Powell shook the test-tube with white powder, which he was slipped, and said that it was anthrax, and if we do not start a war, Saddam Hussein will poison the whole world.

And then we defended the international law, precisely because we did not give consent to the approval of the war in Iraq by the UN Security Council resolution. Just as we do in Syria case and, of course, remember the Libyan lesson, which almost all the rest keep in mind - then international law was subjected to severe testing, and UN Security Council decisions were distorted. See what is the result of this in Libya, and I'm not talking about the tragedy in Benghazi and a fierce battle in Bani Walid.

Our Western partners in the UN Security Council do not really want to talk on the situation in Libya, but they propose to approve a resolution on Syria. We believe that you ought to learn the lesson from the Libyan experience, and in any case not to repeat this colossal mistake. For us it is the absolute axiom.

And about the spell that we are «on the wrong side of history» and that we «lost the Middle East», it is all from the evil one, the desire to wishful thinking, but at the same time trying to set up any force against us. But only marginals from regional groups can play in this game. Serious countries and serious opposition leaders are well aware of how things should look and see Russia as a stabilizing component.

Question: Do you believe that Israel or the United States will bomb the nuclear sites in Iran? How real the war is?

Sergey V. Lavrov: As shown by the Libyan experience, the military scenario, unfortunately, is possible. Therefore, we will be very demanding for any visits in the UN Security Council. We will not miss such artful interpretations any more. We will ensure that no resolution was subject to interpretation like Libyan.

With specific reference to Iran, we hear the statements of our Israeli and the United States partners. Now there is no evidence that Iran has decided to include a military dimension to its nuclear program. The whole Iranian nuclear program is under the supervision of the IAEA. There is the enriching of uranium to 4.5% for the purposes of fuel production. Some of our colleagues say, why Iran need the fuel, Russians deliver it for Bushehr. But it is a fuel that is not prohibited by the NPT. Uranium is enriched to 20 % that is necessary, according to Iran, for the Tehran research reactor. It is in fact so. There is a fuel of greater level of enrichment. Unfortunately, the IAEA has not been able to agree a scheme, by which fuel is supplied to the reactor from the outside. Arisen difficulties were not our fault, though this reactor is not prohibited, and Iran's request to get fuel is legitimate.

The main thing is what Iran makes is not prohibited by the rules of the NPT and the IAEA. But the problem is that the issues arose, when it became clear that many years ago there was a secret Iranian nuclear program. And since then, the IAEA has consistently and carefully aimed to understand the nature of this program. Nothing forbidden nothing was found in terms of practical actions, but there are only the documents, on the origin of which the IAEA wants to get clarification from Tehran. We, of course, support this position, because it is unacceptable to have any breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

But all that Iran has declared over the years as part of their nuclear program is under IAEA monitoring. There are cameras, which are tracking of centrifuges and other facilities in real-time. IAEA inspections regularly visited it. We certainly want to see Iran's cooperation with the Agency becomes denser, and Tehran will fulfill the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement. Despite the fact that the document is optional, given the history of Iran's nuclear program, it would be important for Iran to comply with additional requirements relating to this Protocol.

But, I repeat, now all declared Iranian facilities are under IAEA supervision. The quickest way to ensure that we will lost the «eyes and ears» in the country is to start bombing of Iran. I am convinced that there will be a strong movement within the country, which some experts aptly described as the desire to break off relations with the international community and expel the inspectors. In this case, we will continue to wonder what is going on Iranian nuclear facilities.

This is the quickest way to ensure that the radical politicians in Iran will be pushed to the requirement to begin the development of military dimension to its nuclear program. Not only in Iran, but also in the Middle East, in the Arab countries there are more people, who do not even whisper, but say that the only way to protect yourself from all the revolutions, coups and regime change is to have a nuclear weapon. This is the most dangerous in terms of security in the world, it is the consequence of so-called policy of «democratization of the Greater Middle East» and the «Arab Spring», which roused the forces leading to regional chaos. Attempts to «fish in troubled waters» and change unwanted regimes on pleasing are analyzing including those, who are now regarded as an ally of external forces.

Question: Do not you think that the most of the European leaders are ready to cancel Schengen visas with Russia in words, but in reality the process is stalled?

Sergey V. Lavrov: I will not reveal the big secret, when I say that, of course, this issue is political. As for the subject of concerns they are absolutely legitimate. We agreed on the List of Common Steps, which contains the our answers to European Union questions, as well as the European Union answers to our questions. The need of biometric passports, understanding of the procedures at the border and measures to detect illicit movement, prohibited substances, etc. were written, and everyone knows what to do. By the middle of 2013 in the presence of desire, we clearly can close all these issues. So I say that the issue is political.

Our partners, saying that they are opposed to artificial deadlines, do not explain what they mean. In our turn, we tell that we are not in favor of artificial deadlines, and just ask, when you do this and that, and when you examine the submitted report on what has been done.

I have the feeling that there are some members of the European Union, which for political reasons want to keep this, as they seem, a lever of pressure on Russia. It is sad. This is again due to the mentality that characterized the era of «zero-sum games». But we remind that when the OSCE was establishing, one of the founding documents was contained that we are committed to go toward freedom of movement, the visa facilitation. It was in 1975. You can imagine how the Soviet Union was resisting that obligation then. But it still was written at the urging of the West. Now the Western countries are in the position of the Soviet Union in sample of 1975.

Question: In the end of last week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognized that the Russian Federation is guilty in violation of the right in relation to the education of children, who are studying in the Transnistrian schools with Romanian language teaching on the base of the Latin script and decided to pay the applicants of about 1 million 20 thousand euro and collect another 50 thousand euros to compensate their legal costs. How does Russia act in such situations?

Sergey V. Lavrov: Unfortunately, the ECHR is increasingly beginning to politicize the work, and it's sad. So this approach undermines its reputation, and our relationship to this body of Justice. This is not the first time – there was a case of «Ilie Ilascu». We published еру statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so I do not want to repeat here.

We have no ability to influence on the education system in Transnistria and the way they build their training programs. Moreover, if I remember correctly, after the outcry against the intention to eliminate the teaching on Latin, it was returned to the training programs. In this situation it is necessary to take it for granted. But the Court did otherwise. And I am convinced that there can be no other assessment, except that the decision is clearly politicized.

We will study this decision. Since we are talking about the Court, the lawyers have to work. After reviewing of all the aspects, we will reach the corresponding conclusions. Now I am not going to prejudge them.

Question: Should Russia necessarily perform the ECHR decisions?

Sergey V. Lavrov: This is our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. Until now, we pay money even for decisions, with which we absolutely disagree, such as the known case of «Ilie Ilascu». But when the Russia are demanded to take actions, referring to the Transnistria, where we supposedly have effective control, we just ignore it as unacceptable approach.

We are worried by the fact that politicized solutions multiply including to Russia address. But, I repeate, we will study in detail this case and then make a decision. We need it ourselves, and this is the other side of the coin. We need it ourselves to bring order to the implementation of legitimate and correct decisions, when our citizens do not get money in the end winning the case in a Russian court and passing all the national authorities, which confirmed that the state should pay the man. They are delayed payment. Almost half of the cases in the European Court are the cases of such kind. It is necessary to bring order to ensure the payment of compensations to our citizens on the decisions of the Russian Courts.

Question: It is impossible not to ask about Georgia. What are the prospects of Russian-Georgian relations in connection with the results of the recent elections?

Sergey V. Lavrov: We will judge not by words, but by deeds. Already many words were spoken about the desire to normalize economic and humanitarian relations and the trade. We proceed from the fact that people really want to make changes. This was clearly demonstrated. How do these changes transform into practical action, probably we will see soon. The government has already started working. I do not think that the first issue on the agenda will be the relationship with the neighbors, but perhaps in the nearest future we will be able to judge from the official policy, and not from pre-election public statements.