Transcript of the Press Conference of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergei V. Lavrov on the Foreign Policy Results of 2004 at the Press Centre of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (Moscow, January 19, 2005)

Unofficial translation from Russian

Sergei Lavrov: Good morning. I am delighted to welcome you to this press conference. And I want to offer my New Year congratulations to those whom I have not yet congratulated and wish them success in their work this year. We appreciate the open and good-natured relationships that have shaped up between us and the journalist community and hope to develop them in the same way.

The past year has been by no means a simple one for Russia or the world community. It saw some tragic events in this country and other countries. But on the whole, if you look at the results of the year, we consider them to be productive for our domestic life, our economic development and for our foreign policy. We have sought to relate our foreign policy as closely as possible to the solution of the issues of Russia's social and economic development and to bring everything we are doing on the world scene closer to the interests and needs of our people.

In turn, a stable and growing economy certainly bolsters the international positions of Russia. Today we have better opportunities not only to promote political dialogue with other countries, but to back it up with concrete economic and investment cooperation projects. That applies to the relations with our closest partners, the CIS states, and to Russia's relations with the majority of European nations, the Asia-Pacific countries, the Middle East, Latin America and of course with the United States. So, the policy which we describe as multi-directional relies on the real capabilities of Russia, the interests of Russia and similar reciprocal interests of our partners in practically all the regions of the world.

Our international contacts show that the overwhelming majority of the world nations are interested in seeing Russia continue to play an active role in international affairs. Of course, there are those who regard Russia with suspicion and are even urging something like countering Russia and counterbalancing Russia's activities in the international arena. But you won't be surprised if I describe such an approach as a call for reviving confrontation. We will not succumb to that. We will not be provoked The principles of our foreign policy remain unchanged. We are not to be provoked. We will continue to uphold our principles firmly and consistently, but at the same time in a constructive and responsible manner without backsliding into confrontation. We are convinced that there is simply no alternative because the scale and substance of the problems facing the international community do not permit the luxury of falling into confrontation and renouncing multilateral collective partnership in eliminating the threats and challenges that face all of us. It is from this position that we approach the major events that will take place in the early months of this year, including the Russian-American summit in Slovakia, the celebrations of the 60th anniversary of Victory over Nazism, the Russia-European Union summit and the G-8 summit as well as a number of other foreign policy events planned for 2005.

The recent tragedy in South and Southeast Asia has highlighted anew the fact that there is no such ting as other people's misfortunes. The response of the world community became further proof of the need to combine efforts in fighting terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and other new threats and challenges, in controlling natural disasters and in cleaning up their aftermath through collective effort.

I would confine myself to these introductory remarks, and let us use the time we have for your questions.

Q: Experts differ in their assessments of the past year for Russia on the international scene. Some say that it was a successful year, while others are of the quite opposite opinion. What is the real picture?

And my second question. Thursday will see the inauguration of US President George Bush. How does Russia plan to build its relations with the US in the next four years? What concrete decisions does it expect from the Bratislava summit? And what do you think about yesterday's statement by Condoleezza Rice to the effect that the US intends to pay more attention to Russia's domestic political problems, specifically the development of democracy in our country? Thank you.

Lavrov: I have said that this was not a simple year for Russia and for other states. I am not going to list last year's events. They are well known and they did indeed call for quick responses and imaginative solutions. But I am on the side of those who consider the results of the year to be positive for Russia and for Russian foreign policy. I have already noted that the correctness of our line for a multi-directional character of our activities in the international arena has fully demonstrated itself. That line is based on pragmatism and on ensuring our national interests, above all, the country's security, the creation of most favourable external conditions for the development of the economy and for raising the living standards of the Russian people. Substantive results have been achieved in all these areas: the legal and contractual framework of our relations with our neighbours and other countries has been strengthened, and the infrastructure of the border regime and the development of the Russian borders is growing stronger. Making the country secure is very important. Just yesterday a further step was taken with the signing of the treaty on the state border with Kazakhstan, the longest bilateral border in today's world.

Our trade, economic and military-political links with our partners and allies in the CIS space were growing stronger. Let me mention the agreement on the common economic space of four countries -- Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, and also the development and strengthening of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, as well as the establishment of a Russian military base in Tajikistan in addition to the one in Kyrgyzstan. Those two bases ensure the CSTO's efficiency in what concerns the mechanism of rapid response to threats and challenges that was created in the framework of that Treaty. Interest in the CIS becoming a more efficient organization is generally growing. The Commonwealth is being reformed to make it capable, fully in line with its charter, of promoting integration processes depending on the level of readiness of member countries for this or that form of integration, be it economic or military-political integration. Along with the CSTO and the common economic space, I will mention here the Eurasian Economic Community. The Commonwealth itself is seen by all of its members as an important forum for coordinating positions, exchanging views and defining strategic directions of interaction between our states in those spheres where their interests coincide.

Efforts continued to settle conflicts on the CIS territory. Among positive developments I would mention the fact that hardly anyone today counts seriously on possibilities to resolve those conflicts by using military force. Attempts to resort to those ways last year with respect to certain conflicts on the CIS territory failed and thus demonstrated that they are counterproductive. Perhaps, this is an important conclusion for the future. Now, I think, all the parties concerned are firmly committed to the need to take diplomatic, political, peaceful measures to settle those complex conflicts. This is one result of the year and an important conclusion for the year that began.

Our interaction with the United States continued to grow stronger. We must be allies in fighting terrorism, there is simply no choice. Both our countries are leaders in the global anti-terror coalition, and last year we made an additional contribution to the strengthening of that coalition: the UN Security Council adopted a most important resolution, No. 1540, on the basis of a Russian-US draft resolution. It formulated a new important principle in combating terrorism for the whole international community, including the need for a more responsible approach to preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists and the need to build secure barriers to that in each country, in particular, through employing the potential of regional organizations. We see this aspect as a very important one as well.

Along with the United States, leading European nations and other countries, Russia has become a full-fledged participant in the security initiative related to nonproliferation of mass destruction weapons.

Our country has been promoting a very useful dialogue with the United States on strategic stability. The two countries have a quite concrete plan of action, approved by their presidents, in virtually every areas of ensuring security and promoting economic and other collaboration in bilateral relations.

Our relations with the European Union have been making progress, but, perhaps, we would like that process to proceed more intensively. However, we recognize the difficulties that the EU member countries and the European Union as a whole have come up against in connection with enlargement and deep-going reforms in the European Union, including the ongoing process of enactment of the new EU Constitution.

We also note a considerable strengthening of our relations with countries in Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region. We are not just developing bilateral ties with countries in those regions, but we are also establishing relations with their sub-regional groups and joining integration processes that are rapidly advancing there. I will stress once again that this is happening not just because we want to extend our ties to some or other countries or regions, but because those processes rely on mutual interest. We feel this interest on the part of our partners, and we have responded to it proceeding from our own interests. Coincidence of interests in the economic sphere, in the sphere of interaction concerning regional and global security is obvious. We feel it in our contacts with Latin America and the Asia-Pacific region.

Last year confirmed that the United Nations -- and this is Russia's persistent position -- is an irreplaceable forum not just for harmonizing moves but also for coordinating practical steps of all countries, for resolving conflicts, for combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. I have already mentioned an important resolution of the UN Security Council on non-proliferation. I will also mention another UN Security Council Resolution 1566 that was adopted on Russia's initiative soon after the Beslan tragedy. It expressed more precisely requirements to all countries in the struggle against terrorism, including the need to have common standards for assessing activities of various individuals charged with participation in terrorist activities. We believe that in this sphere of strengthening multilateral foundations for global policies Russia's position was quite productive last year.

As for your second question, I have already mentioned the Bratislava summit among the most important events to take place in the near future. It will allow Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President George Bush to exchange opinions and views on the implementation of agreements reached at their previous meetings. As I have already noted, those agreements were quite concrete and executed in the form of instructions to relevant agencies of the two countries. There are a concrete plan of action and a schedule. The two presidents will take a look at how those agreements are being implemented. The dialogue will be quite extensive. Bilateral issues connected with trade, economic, and investment cooperation will be discussed. Quite a lot was done in this sphere last year. US companies are increasing their presence in the Russian market, while Russian companies are moving into the American market. There will be many other things to discuss in what concerns bilateral relations, especially since the plans for the future are quite ambitious. In addition to bilateral relations, there are international issues that will certainly occupy an important place at the Bratislava summit. Combating terrorism, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, combating drug trafficking and organized crime -- these are the topics of international dialogue on which Russia and the United States must play the leading part, due to their potential and their interests in the international arena. I think there will also be questions related to the need to enhance the international community's readiness to deal with natural calamities like the tsunami in South and Southeast Asia. This has been discussed for quite some time. Russia, as represented by our Ministry for Emergency Situations, has repeatedly proposed to create a global agency for natural disaster response, and under the current conditions this initiative may get further impetus, considering the weak links that have been exposed in the world system of the interaction of states in this field. And of course there will be an exchange of views with our American colleagues at the Bratislava summit on regional conflicts in various parts of the world. For a whole variety of reasons the United States and Russia participate in the mechanisms of resolving practically each of them. With very few exceptions, it depends to a large extent on our countries how things will proceed in the Middle East and other trouble spots on the planet.

As to what I think about new US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's statement that she will pay more attention to the internal political situation in Russia, including the state of democracy and human rights, I can merely say that this is no news for us. The State Department regularly publishes reports on human rights in various countries. These assessments do not always coincide with the assessments of other countries, including Russia. We note that this is a kind of American tradition. We also watch closely how other states honor their international human rights obligations. I believe we will have common criteria in this field, based on the existing documents to which Russia, the US, and other states have subscribed. Of course, our internal political situation is our internal matter. Life in Russia develops in accordance with the Russian Constitution and the decisions that the Russian leadership adopts pursuant to it. If somebody's decisions at the national level in a country come into conflict with its international commitments, then this is cause for international community's concern. I don't think that in any other case such interest can in any way impact Russia's attitude and its policy. When we hear constructive criticism, we always listen to it. When the analysis of our internal situation is used in order to try to bring us all back to the times of the Cold War, we will not agree with that. I don't think that those who in recent months have used mass media to present the situation in Russia as nothing short of a rollback to totalitarianism are acting out of honest considerations. Some people probably are not happy that Russia is growing stronger; some people do not find it after their heart that Russia is becoming more and more independent politically and financially. But I am confident that such attempts of some figures to use mass media for promoting such views will not meet the support of serious politicians, and we know Condoleezza Rice as a serious politician. It is unlikely that the US administration will diverge from the course formulated by the two presidents regarding the development of partnership between our two countries. At least we have no doubt on that score.

Q: What real results have been achieved in fighting the main evil, international terrorism? Bin Laden is still at large. There are explosions going off in Iraq and Afghanistan, and individuals like Akhmed Zakayev are roaming freely in the US and Europe.

Lavrov: I have already mentioned some concrete results of the fight against terrorism last year. These include important concrete resolutions of the UN Security Council that put higher demands to all states as regards practical compliance with the resolutions aimed at strengthening the global anti-terror coalition, preventing weapons of mass destruction and means of their delivery from falling into the hands of terrorists. These include the strengthening of the Non-Proliferation Initiative, interaction between Russia and NATO on counter-terrorist issues, including the signing in Brussels in December of last year of a joint plan of action within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council for fighting terrorism, which envisages exchange of confidential information, joint exercises and training, the development of explosives detectors, and other very concrete activities that take our counter-terrorist partnership within the Russia-NATO Council to a new level. These include Russia's participation in Operation Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean aimed at preventing the smuggling of materials that terrorists can use for their purposes, as well as the decision of the Black Sea countries to commit the Black Sea cooperation mechanism, the so-called Blackseafor, to fighting terrorism and WMD proliferation. Such decisions have been adopted, and they will be implemented, including through collective patrolling by Blackseafor military vessels of the Black Sea area; the joint exercises carried out in Russia with our NATO partners: Accident-2004 and Kaliningrad-2004; and the strengthening of counter-terrorist topics in Russia's dialogue with the US, the European Union, and many other countries. Strategic groups have been set up to further bilateral cooperation on counter-terrorism, they work, they meet with the participation of foreign ministries, special services, and other agencies that are involved in such activities. The exchange of information is very useful. In a number of cases attempts to prepare and carry out terrorist acts were prevented. So, I see impressive achievements in this field. The terrorist threat is still there of course, but nobody has ever said that the fight against terrorism will be over quickly. For this fight to be more successful it is necessary to renounce double standards in this field and apply the same yardstick to all those who train and inspire terrorists and certainly to those who perpetrate terrorist acts. And in this connection we expect that the people suspected of complicity in terrorist activities will be extradited to the countries that demand it. Especially since Resolution 1566 of the UN Security Council passed in the wake of Beslan expressly stresses the need to apply common criteria to such individuals. Ideally, there should be a common list of all those involved in terrorist activities. Russia has submitted a relevant proposal to the Security Council. It is now being studied, and a special group has been created to explore this issue.

Q: In your opinion, how efficient is the CIS structure since there has been a lot of criticism of this organization, particularly, by Georgian authorities? Is everything functioning normally in this organization and is not it necessary to reform it?

Second, are you going to discuss such acute problems as the creation of join anti-terror centers in Georgia and the signing of a big framework agreement during your visit to Georgia? Do you expect this visit to lead to a breakthrough in Russian-Georgian relations and their warming?

Lavrov: As for the CIS, I have already said briefly that we feel that all CIS member states are interested in making it more effective. There are grounds for expressing such wishes. Many decisions that have been made since its inception have remained on paper and have been declarative. There is a whole range of problems related to the fact that the agenda of meetings of the heads of state and the heads of government is packed. The common tendency in reforming the CIS is easing the burden on the Council of the Heads of State and the Council of the Heads of Government to let our leaders focus during their meetings on strategic issues related to cooperation, on finding spheres where our interests coincide and where there is real potential for joint activities. At the same time, issues related to particular spheres that have so far been submitted to the heads of state for consideration could be dealt with at the level of ministers, be it foreign ministers, interior ministers, defense ministers, the heads of special services or law enforcement agencies. All those ministries have their structures in the CIS. Practice shows, and particularly the latest meeting of the Council of Interior Ministers, such mechanisms work quite successfully to resolve problems that concern all countries. Under the circumstances, this is especially felt in the law enforcement sphere. There also are sectoral bodies that meet from time to time or don't meet at all and seem to have no issues for joint discussions. Perhaps, it would be better to liquidate such bodies. Such work is under way. In our contacts with all CIS states, we are taking an inventory of auxiliary CIS bodies, and we will prepare relevant proposals for coming summit of the heads of state.

There are spheres where there is interest for the CIS to be better structured. One of those spheres in humanitarian cooperation in the broader sense of the word, including culture, art, cinema, theater, education, science, sports, or tourism. There are framework documents related to many of those spheres, and perhaps time has come to consider whether we should make them more specific and sign some agreements that would facilitate various exchanges in the sphere of education, cooperation aimed to support of CIS languages in the CIS, the holding of film and theater festivals, and sports events. The Commonwealth Cup championship now under way in Moscow is a very popular football event. So why don't we consider holding similar events in other sports? We have been considering those things all the time. Preliminary conclusions we can make on the basis of our first contacts with our CIS partners indicate that we can carry out reforms while preserving the fundamental principles of the CIS, namely, its voluntary nature and the possibility of integration at varying speeds. At the same time, we will find spheres where life itself prompts our countries to establish closer cooperation.

As for the visit to Georgia, we have agreed to hold this visit on February 18, as far as I remember. I hope that before that we will resume negotiations on the Big Treaty and other issues in our bilateral relations, including the creation of anti-terror centers by using available infrastructure in Georgia, in particular, that of existing Russian military bases. Unfortunately, there has been a break in the negotiations on the Big Treaty for several months. However we hope that in the near future, before my visit, there will be additional contacts with the Georgian side to continue discussions on the whole range of bilateral issues, which will speed up the resumption of work on the treaty.

Q: Sergei Viktorovich, you said there would be no Cold War. But I have lived in Russia for 13 years, and I have seen that relations between our countries under Putin and Bush are not as warm as they used to be under Yeltsin and Clinton. Don't you find that there has been certain cool down in our relations and people tend to look at each other rather as an enemy, than a friend?

And another question. How have the political changes in Russia in the past months, that President Putin mentioned, affected Russia's image abroad?

Lavrov: I don't think that relations between presidents Putin and Bush are less warm than between presidents Yeltsin and Clinton. Along with other things, one should understand what we mean when we speak about warm relations. They may be very warm, even hot, but they may fail to lead to concrete actions. And they may be friendly, normal, kind, not overheated, and promote equitable partnership, dialogue, and cooperation on practical things.

I can say that we regard relations between the two presidents as being in line with the latter model. These are relations of mutual respect between the two leaders who are well disposed to each other. They can meet and can discuss any issue, get answers and respect each other's position. The presidents can agree on how to further relations. But it is true that their accords do not always implemented in full measure the way the presidents would like to see them implemented. Sometimes bureaucracy tries to modify them. We find that wrong, and we will persistently work for decisions made by our leaders to be translated into life properly. As I have already said, this will be discussed in Bratislava.

I have not heard that any more or less substantial segment of the public in Russia tends to regard the United States as an enemy. Even in the hardest times when Cold War had begun after World War II, we did not regard the United States as an enemy. Both countries had the term "potential enemy". This was due to the fact that the United States and the Soviet Union had huge nuclear missile capabilities. But I do not think that most Russians consider the United States an enemy.

As for our domestic political reform, as it has been noted many times and as any unbiased observer can see, they have been implemented strictly in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the principle of federalism declared in it. The Council of Europe's Venice Commission has recently confirmed that these reforms are in line with the principle of federalism. There are assessments from foreign observers on that score as well.

As regards Russia's image, we all want to be perceived in the world -- this is a natural wish that every country should have -- as a normal country. This is not an end in itself for us. Reforms are carried out in order to strengthen our country and to respond to the challenges to the integrity of our country that are quite tangible, and to its place in the world. These reforms are necessary for governance to be more effective and facilitate the development of the economy not only in the fuel and energy sector but in the high technology sphere as well. This indeed calls for serious attention on the part of the state at all levels, including the regional level. In order to ensure that the government takes more account of the needs of people, the Public Chamber is being created. The world needs a strong Russia because it is in everybody's interests, it is in the interests of more effective fight against terrorism, more effective fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and new challenges. If those who understand this see these reforms as being positive for our country and for the destinies of the world, then we believe that their assessment is correct. Those who think that a strong Russia is not in their interests they will probably perceive a different image. But, I repeat, this is not our problem.

Q: How do you assess the visit of Syrian President al-Assad to Russia? Could you comment on the hullabaloo around the sale of missiles to Syria?

Lavrov: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will visit Russia for the first time since taking office in 2000. Syria is one of our most important partners in the Middle East. We have long-standing good relations with this country. We attach great significance to this visit in terms of reviewing the whole range of our bilateral cooperation. We expect a number of agreements to be signed in the field of trade and economy, which will further strengthen the legal framework of our relations, and agreements dedicated to the development of our cooperation in the fields of energy and transport, in metallurgy, and the mining industry.

The situation in the Middle East will certainly be discussed. Syria is one of the key states for the Middle East settlement that must cover not only Palestinian-Israeli relations, but also the Syrian-Israeli and the Lebanese-Israeli tracks. Russia, like Syria, consistently advocates a comprehensive approach to the Middle East settlement so that its various aspects are not ignored. There can only be a comprehensive solution, whereas attempts to lift certain elements out of the context merely will only complicate and delay the moment when settlement can become possible.

And regards the ballyhoo, as you put it, over missiles, I have already had an opportunity to comment on it, just as our Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov has. Our cooperation with Syria has a broad format and is multifaceted. It includes military-technical cooperation. But in our relations in this area we have never violated our international commitments, we have never supplied weapons that are either banned by our international commitments or that could in certain quantities destabilize the situation in conflict-ridden regions. All these principles are enshrined in Russian laws, and we scrupulously adhere to them in our relations with all countries, including, of course, Syria.

Q: When I have talked to German investors, I had the impression that the idea of Russia within the German investment community has changed considerably. What can you as a foreign minister do to change this impression?

And what sort of relationship do you hope to develop with the new president of Ukraine?

Lavrov: Frankly speaking, I have not heard from our German colleagues that German business is beginning to have doubts about investing in the Russian Federation. To the contrary, the plans and wishes that a number of German companies have had about investing in Russia are still there. All this was confirmed during President Putin's visit to the FRG in December of last year. As I talk with my colleagues from other countries, including representatives of American, European, Asian, and Latin American business, I feel that their interest in investing in Russia not only remains but is actually growing. The main factors of this interest are the continued budget surplus in the country for several years in a row. This year the budget surplus is over 4 percent of the GDP. Another important factor is also the steady growth of the Stabilization Fund, which is one of the guarantees of Russian economic stability. Russia's recent decision to offer our Paris Club partners to repay a large part of the Russian debt ahead of schedule was taken by the members of this club as another proof that the Russian economy was developing steadily. I can feel that all these factors increase interest in investing in Russia. This is my assessment of the situation. I repeat, I have not heard a different opinion from my German or other colleagues. Yes, we do read a lot of materials in the media expressing the concerns that you have mentioned. But I have already commented on these materials. I don't think all of them are written with good intentions, and we take them for what they are.

As regards Ukraine, President Putin has stressed more than once that we will respect the choice of the Ukrainian people. That fully applies to Viktor Yushchenko, who won the lastest presidential election in Ukraine. He has repeatedly said that he wants to make his first visit as Ukrainian president to the Russian Federation. Russia and its President will certainly respond to this wish.

Relations between our two countries are immeasurably deeper and broader than the situation that prevailed during the prolonged election campaign in Ukraine. Those relations are predetermined by history, geography, economy, culture, and the fates of people. There is no other way for our people but to build up those relations in all spheres. I know that there is hardly a politician in Ukraine who would pursue a different policy with respect to Russia. And there is hardly a politician in Russia who would approach the development of relations with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people otherwise than in a partner-like, neighborly and friendly manner. So, I proceed from the assumption that these objective interests will underlie relations between our countries in the future.

Q: How would you comment on President Bush's words that he did not rule out the possibility of military actions in Iran? What measures will Russia to prevent the worst scenario?

Lavrov: Speaking about Iran, I would like to stress that the main parties to negotiations and contacts aimed at resolving the nuclear issue in that country proceed from the need to settle it by political, diplomatic methods. There are opportunities for that. This was confirmed by the meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in November of last year, which considered the agreement reached among three European countries: France, Britain, and Germany, on the one hand, and Iran on the other. It was supported by Russia that had parallel contacts with the European troika and Iran.An agreement has been reached on the freezing of Iran's uranium enrichment program and continued close cooperation between Iran and the IAEA, free of closed topics. If all parties adhere to the agreement that calls for the development of cooperation with Iran in the energy and economic spheres and in the settlement of the situation in the region, I am convinced that we will achieve the desired results. I don't consider it useful to speak, even hypothetically, about the situation that may arise if someone resorts to other methods than diplomatic and political ones. I repeat, it is my conviction that that a peaceful, political resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem on the basis of the reached accords, mutual account of interests and respect is possible. Russia will do everything for those accords to be implemented.

Q: Mr. Minister, according to the information we have, you will make a visit to Azerbaijan in February. What issues will be discussed? Will the Nagorno-Karabakh problem be discussed with the Azerbaijani leadership?

Lavrov: The visit to Azerbaijan is scheduled for February 2. Naturally, we will discuss the current state of our bilateral cooperation. It is indeed very ramified cooperation that embraces all spheres of life, including trade, economy, investment, and cultural ties. Much attention will be paid to the preparation of Azerbaijani President Ilkham Aliyev's visit to Russia in the second half of February. We will discuss the preparation of CIS reform. Karabakh settlement will most certainly be touched upon too. Russia is one of three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group that has a mandate to promote the search for solutions to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. We note that in the past months, after the meeting of Azerbaijani President Ilkham Aliyev and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan in Astana in September of last year and their meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin there, there was (I will say with cautious optimism) certain progress. Representatives of Armenia and Azerbaijan, including their foreign ministers, have maintained contacts with each other, and the Minsk Group co-chairs have provided assistance to them. According to our cautiously optimistic estimates, the process is moving in the right direction. Naturally, in Baku we will exchange opinions on the pace of this process and on how to lead it to completion.

Q: Sergei Viktorovich, President Vladimir Putin has called into question the possibility of holding an election in Iraq in conditions of foreign occupation. How could you reply to comments by many analysts, in particular, in the Arab world, that Russia has allegedly called into question the possibility of holding a democratic election? Will this mean that Russia will not recognize the outcome of this election? What is your vision of relations between Russia and Iraq after the election?

Lavrov: We are just weighing the information we have. I am convinced that anyone has access to this information. Security situation in Iraq tends to worsen day by day as the election date -- January 30, 2005 -- approaches. There is a large multinational contingent deployed in Iraq, and it is trying to control the situation in the country and resolve numerous security problems. A state of emergency has been extended in Iraq, and it will last longer than January 30. This is hardly a normal situation for holding elections. It could even be described as an emergency situation. Therefore it will hardly be possible to say that the election will fully comply with the generally accepted standards. Still, if Iraq's interim government, despite all those problems, confirms the need for holding the election, and it takes place, no matter what its outcome is, the Iraqi people itself should decide on the legitimacy of the election, rather than outside observers or groups. We proceed from the assumption that there is a dire need for this election in principle in order to start a real process of restoring the Iraqi people's sovereignty over its country. It is necessary to have a body elected by Iraqis themselves even though not in ideal conditions. This will usher in a new phase in the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty. This process has been stalled so far, mainly due to the failure to establish dialogue between various parties in Iraq and launch a national reconciliation process, for which interaction is necessary between Iraq's interim government and all political, religious and ethnic groups, including the opposition. As I have noted many times, it was as far back as a year ago that we started pointing out to the need for an internal dialogue in Iraq and the need to initiate the process of national reconciliation before the interim government of Iraq was formed. At that stage many shared the idea, but eventually the interim government of Iraq was formed in a different way, not on the basis of dialogue. Nevertheless, the idea of such a dialogue and the need for national reconciliation and national accord are enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 1546.

I repeat that unfortunately there has been no real progress in this area although at the conference in Sharm-el-Sheikh in November of last year all of its participants, including Iraq's neighbors and the G-8 countries, China, and the UN Secretary General spoke in favor of such a dialogue being initiated before the elections. It did not work out that way for various reasons. So, let me repeat once again that if the election is held after all, it is up to the Iraqi people and not to outsiders to determine the legitimacy of this election. But our position is that in any case there is no alternative to national accord in Iraq, and the sooner real progress in this direction begins, the better. We will be ready to assist it in every way.

Q: Following the appointment of Viktor Kalyuzhny as Russian ambassador to Latvia and his statements, there has developed an opinion that Russia's priorities in Latvia are economic, including the port of Ventspils. Is that really so? And one more question. When will the treaty on the border with Latvia be signed?

Lavrov: Our interests regarding Latvia are the same as our interests regarding any other neighbor, any other country. We want the relations to be normal, good-neighborly and mutually beneficial and to be based on universally accepted norms and the international obligations of our countries.

The economy is of course one of the key components of any bilateral relations. We are interested in the development of mutually beneficial cooperation. We would also like to see all the problems between Russia and Latvia resolved, including the signing of the border treaty, and the coordination of the principles of our relations in general. President Vladimir has proposed to sign the border treaty in Moscow on May 10. The Russia-EU summit will be held in Moscow on that day. Since the border treaties with Latvia and Estonia have long been ready and our colleagues from the European Union have repeatedly expressed interest in seeing our border treaties with Latvia and Estonia signed, I think the day of the Russia-EU summit would be a good occasion for signing the treaties on the state borders with Latvia and Estonia. We have also proposed that simultaneously with these treaties, a Russian-Latvian, and a Russian-Estonian declarations on the basic principles of relations be adopted. A similar document with Lithuania was signed many years ago. These declarations would lay down the basic principles of our relations, including of course the problem of human rights and ethnic minorities. We have handed over relevant documents to our colleagues from Latvia and Estonia. We expect an early reaction from them so that we could agree these documents, with a view to adopting them in Moscow on May 10.

Q: The latest statement of the Georgian Foreign Ministry on the termination of monitoring on the Russian-Georgian border by the OSCE mission has triggered a flurry of accusations from the Russian side addressed to Georgia that it allegedly supports terrorists and allows them to stay in the Pankisi Gorge. What is the latest the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry on this?

Lavrov: It was Russia that raised with the OSCE the question of terminating the monitoring mission on the Russian-Georgian border. The mission played its role at a certain point when our two countries were not controlling that border well enough. It played a rather political and psychological role because unfortunately in practical terms it did not contribute to reducing the number of violations on the border. The OSCE mission patrolled the border at fixed times and along fixed routes, which of course were well known to all those who might have wanted to illegally cross the border. At the same time, the mission cost considerable amounts of money, more than 15 million euros. Since the OSCE is not an overly rich organization, clearly that money could have been used much more effectively, including for the needs of Georgia itself, to implement various projects in Georgia, such as those aimed at strengthening its border services. We, on our side of the border, are better prepared to have it controlled by Russian border guards. One shouldn't regard it as political sabotage. This is prompted by purely pragmatic considerations, and our OSCE colleagues admit, at least privately, that the mission is no longer needed and is not worth spending money on. As for terrorists and their using the Pankisi Gorge, the past year saw increased cooperation between the border and law-enforcement services of Russia and Georgia. It yielded certain results. But the problem has not been solved completely. We expect that such cooperation will continue under the bilateral agreements between the corresponding security and border guard services of the two states in order to prevent terrorists from using the Pankisi Gorge as a shipment post, as a rest area, etc.

Q: How do you assess the results of the recent visit to Moscow by Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura? You said in particular that it is necessary to build a bridge between our countries. How do you see it? What is Russia planning to do and what would you like the Japanese colleagues to contribute to the building of that bridge? And what should be done in order to determine the date of President Putin's visit to Japan?

Lavrov: I had an opportunity to assess the results of the talks with Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura on the day he was in Moscow. I will recap briefly that I consider the talks to be very useful above all because they confirmed the need to develop our relations on the basis of the Plan of Action approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in 2003, which envisages the development of broad mutually beneficial cooperation between our countries in all areas while simultaneously continuing negotiations on the peace treaty. I think that the talks led to more realistic awareness of the need to move along the path charted by our leaders.

Before determining the date of Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Japan, it is necessary to understand what its real content will be. There are many accomplishments in Russian-Japanese relations that, if carried through to the end, could elevate relations to a qualitatively new level. These are such spheres as energy, space exploration, high technologies, and others.

There are agreements that could be signed to give a more serious impetus to our relations and strengthen their legal basis. My Japanese colleague and I exchanged draft documents that we believe could be prepared for the visit. We agreed that we will study each other's proposals. There are already coinciding proposals on a number of issues. There are proposals that need to be worked on. After studying each other's proposals and exchanging assessments, we will see the contours of the package of documents for President Putin's visit. After that it will be possible to determine the date of the visit that would be acceptable to both sides.

Q: What could you say about relations between Russia and the EU? Is there a need for a more active policy with regard to the EU? What should Russia to, and what should the EU do?

Lavrov: I hope that in the next several months we will be able to implement the accords reached at the Russia-EU summit in The Hague in November of last year. As Dutch Prime Minister Jan Balkenende put it, we can approve and adopt "road maps" in the very near future, covering four spaces between Russia and the European Union. We proceed from the understanding that it is very important to complete this work before the next summit with the European Union in Moscow on May 10, but, I repeat, Prime Minister Balkenende expressed the hope that this could be done sooner. At this point, this is the most realistic goal in our relations with the European Union. As for the more philosophical question as what Russia should do and what the European Union should do in order to promote the development of our partnership, we are interested in the development of such partnership. We find it a separate and important factor in global policies. Perhaps we should approach the creation of those four common spaces on equitable terms. I would draw an analogy with how we develop cooperation within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council where there are no blocs, and there are just countries that act in their own capacity. Work within the Russia-NATO Council aims to single out common issues on which all countries are interested to cooperate. Work is based on joint analysis of problems and joint elaboration of mechanisms for their resolution. We would like to deal with the European Union the same way, even though sometimes our European colleagues want to approve something among themselves, and then invite Russia to join it on the terms they have agreed to inside the European Union. This hardly meets present-day requirements. We want to develop our relations on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. We hope that the "road maps" will be formulated and our cooperation in the medium term will develop this way.

Q: The 60th anniversary of the Victory will be celebrated on May 9th. You and your government have invited many leaders, including the North and South Korean leaders, to attend the celebrations. It became known last Sunday that our President, Noh Muh Young, plans to attend. Have you received a reply from North Korea? Is it possible that the leaders of North and South Korea will meet in Moscow? Another question is about six-party negotiations. How do you assess them and what is the prospect?

Lavrov: The leaders of many countries that took part in World War II have been invited to come to Moscow to mark the 60th anniversary of the Victory on May 9th. Most of them have accepted the invitation. We are expecting to get replies from other leaders in the near future so that we could prepare everything properly.

As for possible contacts between our guests in Moscow on May 9th, if you mean contacts without Russian participation, then you should rather address your question to the leaders who will be able to meet here.

On the six-party negotiations, we expect that it will be possible to resume them in the near future. Efforts have been made for that. All countries participating in the negotiations maintain contact with each other, and I hope that the talks will resume in the near future.

Q: What is Russia's position on the recent developments in Republika Srpska? And what is the role of the international community in attempts to disrupt the Dayton accords?

Lavrov: We are convinced that the Dayton accords should remain the basis for Bosnian settlement primarily in what concerns equal treatment of all three entities. Naturally, the Dayton accords may be perfected, and they cannot remain rigid. But the basic principle that a balance must be kept between the three ethnic groups must be inviolable. Following these decisions, we contacted the High Representative to explain to him our position that is firmly based on inadmissibility of wrecking the balance. He accepted our suggestions. We expect that our dialogue with him will continue. At least he confirmed his interest in this, and we agreed that we will need to have more consultations in the future with all those who was at the outset of the Dayton process, including the UN Security Council that approved it. So, we proceed from the assumption that Dayton will not be undermined.

Q: A question about Iran's recent accords with three countries -- Germany, France and Britain -- on nuclear technologies. Could you explain Russia's position in the Iranian energy market because the Iranian ambassador to Russia said recently that cooperation between Russia and Iran depends on Russia's position and its openness. My second question is about terrorism. All CIS member states have backed Russia's initiative on combating terrorism. But in some of them the struggle against terrorism is just a struggle against political opponents. As the leader of the CIS, is Russia responsible for those moves in any way?

Lavrov: Russia is engaged in energy cooperation with Iran along with other forms of economic interaction. We cooperate with Iran in the sphere of nuclear energy under a project that envisages the construction of a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. The project is absolutely transparent and fully under IAEA control. We are interested in developing such cooperation with Iran in the future. We have corresponding plans in response to the wishes of the Iranian side. We have been in close contact with the European countries you mentioned as you spoke about their negotiations with Iran. We have also maintained contact with the Iranian leadership. Our European partners would like us to coordinate our actions in developing cooperation with Iran. In any case, I can say that we will not tolerate attempts to use developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear program in order to undermine Russia's positions in the Iranian energy market by non-market and wrongful methods. We have grounds to fear such attempts. I repeat, we are conducting these conversations in a businesslike and open manner and we are ready to compete, but to compete honestly without attempts to use political negotiations in order to undermine each other's commercial positions.

On your second question, I don't know what concrete measures in the CIS you are referring to. The Central Asian Cooperation Organization has reached an agreement to draw up lists of persons and organizations involved in terrorist activities. This work is being done on a collective basis, and it does not consist in a mere mechanical combination of national lists. So, I repeat, the fight against terrorism within the CIS is based on exposing organizations and persons involved in terrorist activities.

Q: Do you see any possible signs of a thaw in the relations between Estonia and Russia in the light of the consultations between the foreign ministers, in which Russia reaffirmed its readiness to sign a border treaty as well as your readiness to visit that country? And when could that visit take place?

Lavrov: I have already said what proposals the Russian leadership has submitted to the leaders of Latvia and Estonia. These are border treaties and declarations on the basic principles of relations. These proposals are under consideration. And we expect to get a reaction from our Estonian colleagues in the foreseeable future. Depending on the reply, and if additional work is required, in particular on the Declaration on the Basic Principles of Relations, we then can discuss when, where and at what level this work can be done. I would be ready to visit the capital of Estonia for this purpose and to hold yet another meeting with my counterpart. As for the date, I don't know because we are expecting a reply to our proposals.

Q: Mr. Minister, what is the significance of Russia's participation in the celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Oswiecim? And in addition to the participation of President Vladimir Putin in these celebrations, are there are plans to hold talks on Polish-Russian relations?

Lavrov: Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated by the Red Army. Millions of people who had been abducted from the Soviet Union were tortured to death in that camp. It's a memory that is sacred, it's our common sorrow. It is our common task to prevent new Holocausts. President Putin had this in mind when he accepted the invitation from President Kwasniewski. In fact, our two presidents decided together to hold this event. But I assume that during his stay in Poland, President Putin of course will have contacts with President Kwasniewski, and they will be able to discuss the issues that they see fit to discuss.

Q: Esteemed Sergei Viktorovich, I would like to hear your assessment of the development of the Russian-Italian dialogue last year and perhaps you could dwell on some new initiatives on a bilateral and global scale that one can expect in the future.

Lavrov: I repeatedly gave high assessments of Russian-Italian partnership throughout last year. It is indeed a country with which we have close, one might even say, privileged relations. That applies to our bilateral relations and our interaction in the international arena and in the United Nations. In the context of our relations with NATO, Italy initiated the creation of the Russia-NATO Council, which is working successfully and is increasingly proving its relevance. And it also applies to our relations within the framework of Russia's dialogue with the European Union. Italy, together with France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, and other countries is actively contributing to steering this dialogue along the right course. In our bilateral relations, the investment component is growing bigger, which we welcome. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi made two visits, one working and one official, to Russia. Both, just like ministerial contacts, produced concrete results. We have impressive plans for next year. I am confident that our leaders will meet more than once this year and take our relations to a still higher level. We are interested in this. We feel that Italy is a reliable partner. We share views on many things happening in the world and we share views on the development of our cooperation in the economic and energy sectors, in the sphere of culture and arts. The "Russia-Italy: Down the Centuries" exhibition that opened in Rome last fall will move to the Pushkin Museum in Moscow and open on February 7th. It will be a significant milestone in the cultural life of Russia and in the cultural ties between Russia and Italy.

Q: What is Russia's role in the Middle East, including Iraq, since Russia is a cosponsor of the Middle East peace process and a member of the quartet of international mediators? What role can the upcoming visit of President al-Assad of Syria play?

Lavrov: Russia is indeed a member of quartet that deals with the Middle East settlement. We took part in the quartet's latest ministerial meeting in Sharm-el-Sheikh that worked out good agreements on how to proceed in the Middle East, above all, on the issue of Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Russia will actively seek to ensure compliance with these agreements. These were the topics of the visits by the Minister and his deputies to the Middle East, and of the negotiations with the Israeli and Palestinian leadership over the past weeks and months. We believe that there is no alternative to the "road map" adopted by the quartet and then approved by the UN Security Council, for it aims to reach a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. It is extremely important in this context that it is not limited to Palestinian-Israeli settlement only and that the Syrian and Lebanese tracks remain an inalienable part of a general settlement in the Middle East. All of the UN Security Council decisions are aimed at this. So, while hailing Israel's planned pullout from Gaza, we, like other members of the quartet, expect this to be the start of real movement by the "road map". We have grounds to believe that the Palestinian and Israeli leadership are ready to ensure that this is the case and resume direct talks between Palestinians and Israelis in the near future. Naturally, to make this possible, it is necessary to put an end to violence, and we are taking the necessary steps in our contacts with the parties and coordinating them with our partners in the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations.

I have already spoken about Iraq and the Syrian President's visit, so I will not repeat myself.

Q: Sergei Viktorovich, you have mentioned it, and we all know that the US administration has criticized Russia on a whole range of issues in the past months: Yukos, Ukraine, domestic political reforms and others. But is Russia satisfied with all aspects of the US administration's activities? If not, what has failed to satisfy it?

Lavrov: I think it would be wrong for us to start trying to find some things in each other's behavior that do not satisfy us and discuss this at press conferences. This would just give an impetus to those processes. It is not that we have some secrets. It is just not the right format for discussing mutual concerns. I have already mentioned that presidents Putin and Bush have reached a sufficient level of trust and confidence to be able to ask each other any questions during their meetings and give open answers to those questions and treat those answers with understanding and respect. So, I think those problems will be discussed in this mode in the future.

Q: Sergei Viktorovich, what is your view of the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe? In what way would Russia like to reform this organization?

Lavrov: This is not a new topic. We would like to reform it in such a way that would take it back to its origin and become what it used to be when it was established: an organization uniting all of its members, acting on the basis of equality, mutual respect and mutual account of interests, on the basis of consensus, and promoting balanced and mutually beneficial cooperation in the sphere of security and economy, and humanitarian sphere. In the past years there has been a clear slant in the OSCE activities. Security and economic issues have virtually been forgotten. The humanitarian sphere has been seen by many OSCE members as a sphere allowing them, while not discussing problems of interest to others, focus on control over the development of democracy and the state of human rights in the former Soviet Union. This is clearly not the approach that is outlined in the Helsinki Act when the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe was formed, and this is not the approach that was stated when the Conference was transformed into the Organization. We want to add more clarity to the way the organization functions, the way the organization approaches, for example, the monitoring of elections in various countries. The OSCE has long had on its table proposals from Russia and a number of other countries as to how to work out common approaches and concrete criteria for monitoring elections and evaluating their results so that these evaluations were clear and we could avoid a situation where a small group of observers, two dozen individuals, immediately passes a positive verdict, while being unable to see the overall situation. In other cases similar small groups make negative verdicts, while the list of potential violations may be the same. It is necessary to ensure that there is no subjectivity and we have objective criteria clear to all members of the Organization. The analysis of election practices in the OSCE member countries would be quite interesting, It would make it possible to avoid situations where a country says: "Your election practice is different from mine. Therefore, I am a democratic country, and you are not." Such analysis would not be useless. But for some reason our partners have avoided dialogue on those issues, jsu as they have avoided our proposal to work out the rules of procedure for the OSCE. The Organization works without any rules of procedure, without any budget approved on a permanent basis. The OSCE has a one-time budget. It was formed several years ago on an ad hoc basis, and it has been approved on this basis every year even since. Perhaps, this is not right if we want it to be a real organization, rather than some vague forum. We would like the OSCE, which once played a very important role in ensuring European security, to return to this function. We have proposed that the OSCE should carry out comparative analysis of the military doctrines of its member countries. More than ten years have passed since such analysis was last carried out in the OSCE. It would be quite useful now that NATO has enlarged and the Untied States has been reviewing the configuration of its military presence overseas. Perhaps, this analysis of military doctrines would be quite useful in terms of confidence-building measures in this important sphere. So, our position concerning the OSCE is that we are willing to strengthen it on the foundations it was formed on.

Q: The Russian Foreign Ministry has recently commented on developments in the south of Serbia and said that the situation in Kosovo was complex. Is Russia ready to press more vigorously for compliance with the requirements by the Kosovo authorities? Could you comment on yet another demand that Belgrade should extradite generals charged in The Hague?

Lavrov: It is necessary to understand what you mean when you are saying about whether or not Russia is ready to press more vigorously for compliance with the international community's requirements concerning settlement in Kosovo. If you mean that we should make some statements and demand that those decisions should be observed, we have made such statements. As for me, I believe it important not to raise questions but to ensure that the decisions made by the United Nations and its Security Council on Kosovo settlement are observed. This is huge responsibility because things have not gone in Kosovo the way the UN Security Council demanded. There is virtually no security for ethnic minorities. Serbs and other minorities have only returned there in very small numbers. Provisional government bodies in Kosovo have virtually openly moved towards laying the ground for independence. Statements by some members of the international community about the need to review compliance with standards increasingly remind one of attempts to speed up the resolution of the Kosovo status problem before those standards are really implemented. We are worried about that. We have repeatedly pointed out the risks inherent in undue haste, let alone an attempt to anticipate the process of determination of the status of Kosovo. Obviously, among other things, a dialogue is needed between the provisional self-government bodies in Kosovo and the minorities. And of course a dialogue is needed with Belgrade. Without that long-term and lasting decisions can hardly be worked out. We will consistently seek compliance with the Security Council resolution on how to go about the problem of Kosovo and what preliminary conditions should be created for that purpose.

Regarding cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Russia believes such cooperation is necessary. This is mandatory under the Security Council resolutions, and this is our position. At the same time we believe that it is probably not right to link prospects for the development of cooperation between Europe and Serbia entirely to the question of the hunt for and arrest of this general or that.

Q: Sergei Viktorovich, your visit to Armenia is scheduled for mid-February. What are the main issues that will be discussed during your visit? And the second question. For 14 years, more than 14 years, there has been no rail link between Russia and its main strategic partner in the Caucasus, Armenia. How can this issue be resolved?

Lavrov: Generally, the visit will be devoted to the obvious issues in the development of our bilateral relations, which are many-sided indeed. There is a large Armenian diaspora living and working in Russia. There is the Congress of Armenians in Russia, just like a Congress of Azeris living in Russia, for example. The whole range of bilateral relations will be reviewed during my trip to Yerevan. Needless to say, the participation of our states in the CIS, the CSTO, all the issues of the reform of the Commonwealth of Independent States will be considered as a follow-up to the consultations that Foreign Ministry representatives have already had in Yerevan with the Armenian leadership. The Karabakh settlement will obviously be discussed in the same vein as I have mentioned when answering the question about my trip to Azerbaijan. Russia as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group is interested in finding mutually acceptable solutions, in having the parties find mutually acceptable solutions that would close this issue and remove that irritant from our agenda.

Regarding the railway link, as you know, it depends not so much on Russia as on some of our neighbours. We expect that in the context of general progress in our dialogue with Georgia we will be able to solve the issue of restoring railway transportation between Sochi and Tbilisi, which will help remove that long-standing and legitimate concern of Armenia.

Q: Of late we have been hearing reports about terrorist acts in Saudi Arabia and, more recently, in Kuwait. Do you have concrete agreements or protocols with Arab countries on fighting terrorism? And what do you think of the measures taken by Arab nations to combat terrorism?

Lavrov: Indeed, we have documents on or programs of counter-terrorist actions with a number of countries. We are aware of the interest of some Arab nations, including Gulf states, in developing cooperation with us in this sphere. We are engaged in a dialogue on this topic with practically all the countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia. The dialogue covers the problem of security as a whole, including the fight against terrorism. We feel that our partners in the region, in the Arab world as a whole and in the Persian Gulf, are taking steps to fight terrorism and to prevent the use of their territories to raise funds that eventually go to finance terrorist activities. Such measures are being taken, we take note of them and expect them to continue.