Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister (Sergey Lavrov) and his answers to questions from the mass media during the press conference summarising the results of the negotiations with the Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hoshyar Zebari, Baghdad, 20th February 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Today there has taken place some very important negotiations with the Iraqi Prime Minister (Nouri al-Maliki) and the Iraqi Foreign Minister (Hoshyar Zebari). We confirmed our mutual willingness in support of interaction in all areas, which would strengthen the co-operation and good ties between our peoples which have lasted for many decades and have rich traditions. We are generally satisfied with the development of our relations.

It is in the West Qurna Field-2, where Lukoil is working, that the first oil discovery ceremony is be held in the near future. Other Russian companies also have specific plans of joint interaction with Iraqi partners. We welcome and support this. We agreed to accelerate the completion of preparations for another session of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Co-operation, in which the state of affairs and plans of development of bilateral interaction will be reviewed.

Our humanitarian ties and our contacts in the domains of culture, science and education have progressed well. Every year Russia awards 340 scholarships for Iraqi students to study in its higher education institutions. We are delighted that Iraqis are eager to study in Russia. We value the interest in the teaching of Russian in Iraq, and today we have discussed prospects for supporting the Russian Language Department in Baghdad University.

The agreements established in the domains of military and technical co-operation during Nouri al-Maliki's visit to Russia, have been fully implemented. Today we have agreed to place a special emphasis on those types of products which our Iraqi colleagues are in urgent need of in their fight against terrorism.

We are truly worried about the threat of terrorism – it is prevalent around the region, and some of it is in connection with the events in Syria. We share the opinion of our Iraqi partners that we need to fight terrorism on the basis of the principles approved by the UN Security Council, namely that terrorism is not specific to any nationality or religion, and that no manifestations of terrorism can be justified.

We have expressed our firm solidarity with the Iraqi people in their fight against terrorism, and we firmly support the intentions of Iraqi leaders to promote measures required for stabilisation in the country, all subject to national consent. To this end, we acknowledge the importance of the forthcoming parliamentary elections.

We also share the opinion that we need to settle the Syrian crisis and the situation around Iran's Nuclear Programme in a way that is peaceful throughout. We welcome the steps that have been made / are being made in these directions. With regard to other problems in the Middle East and North Africa in general, we hope that the people of the countries in the regions in question will determine their fate on their own, according to their constitution, and without external interference or any attempts to impose any recipes.

We are sincerely grateful to the Iraqi authorities for their resolution of technical and legal issues necessary for starting the construction of a new complex of the Russian Embassy in Baghdad. I am convinced that this will allow our diplomats to function more effectively and ensure follow-up of the ties between Russia and Iraq in all domains according to summit agreements.

I thank my colleague and friend Hoshyar Zebari for his hospitality, and hope to see him in Moscow next time.

Question: What are your assessments of the recently completed round of negations between Iran and the P5+1?

Sergey Lavrov (translation from English – and, apparently, back to English in this case): Regarding the round of negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran in Vienna, it seemed to us that the parties were interested in a serious and pragmatic approach. The experience of the implementation of the agreements established in Geneva last November, indicates that they are being fulfilled, and that Iran is working toward co-operation with its partners in a way that is proper.

We have no reasons to believe that there will be any difficulties with another round of negotiations, provided that all the participants act on the basis of principles of good faith, and refer to facts, and show mutual respect, taking into account each other's justified concerns with no political bias.

Question: You discussed the Syrian crisis, which is one of the hottest topics of the international agenda. The UN Security Council has been attempting to adopt a resolution to provide humanitarian aid to those in Syria who have suffered from hunger for a year. Russia stated that it would be against this resolution. If the Syrian Government does not approve of the movement of humanitarian convoys, do you think that it will be possible to reach a compromise on this issue? And what will such a compromise be like?

Sergey Lavrov (translation from English – really? Again, you can't translate from English into English!): The UN Security Council has actually been discussing this topic for about two weeks, not for a year. At the same time, the situation in Syria is a subject of concern for the Security Council. An extended statement of the President of the Security Council was adopted last October; a statement which clearly states the steps to be undertaken by the all parties to help supply humanitarian aid. Our approach to the supply of humanitarian cargo is not dictated by any willingness to please any foreign government, be it the Syrian government or any other. It is based on norms and principles of international humanitarian law. Talking about supplies of humanitarian cargo, which is what the draft resolution is about: we want to see them delivered according to this law, not in violation of it. The statement of last October states clearly that transborder supplies should be delivered according to international humanitarian law. I do not understand why this principle cannot become the basis for the current draft – we have known many examples of weapons and other equipment for militants other than medicaments or food being delivered across the border unauthorised. If it is so important to supply humanitarian aid in this way, people can use already existing routes, which are used for supplying weapons.

Question: How would you comment on the introduction of sanctions against Ukrainian officials by the United States, as well as the EU's request to hold early presidential elections in Ukraine? Doesn't it seem to you that there is an information war going on, and that the mass media are constantly throwing out messages about Russia's involvement in the events going on in Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: If you want to talk about accusations being made against Russia: we have a well-known proverb explaining whom an uneasy conscience betrays. We are most deeply concerned about the events in Ukraine and, in particular, about the way this topic is commented on and addressed by those in the capitals of Western countries. The mass media present information in an extremely perverse way – here they drum into heads easy formulae such as how the West appeals to the Government to leave Maidan alone. At the same time they prefer to avoid talking about what this Maidan is. They provide no comments or explanations to their audience about car arsons, or the throwing of Molotov cocktails at policemen, or murders in the premises of the Party of Regions occupied by extremists. They keep silent about cases of violence against governors in different Ukrainian regions, and facts related to "successful" attempts to get hold of stockpiles of weapons. They appeal to the government (and only the government) to stop violence against "evidently peaceful demonstrators".

The Government and the Ukrainian President showed their good intentions many times; they proposed to establish a compromise; in particular, they agreed about the release of those who were arrested in Maidan in exchange for the liberation of government buildings. The Government has fulfilled its part of the agreement, while the opposition has disrupted it. On-the-spot reports by Western mass media will hardly make any mention of organisations like the Right Sector, members of which stated clearly that they would not co-operate with the Government or the opposition and would act as they want. And they use radical and extremist methods, including the regular use of force.

The opposition either cannot or does not want to edge away from extremists, while our Western partners in Europe and the United States place all the blame on the Ukrainian authorities and do not do a proper job identifying any extremist actions. We are worried about this situation, because it evidences of double standards; instead of them threatening with sanctions (the United States have already introduced them against some representatives of Ukrainian authorities) thus creating additional stimuli for the opposition to remain stubborn, and indirectly (or even directly) stimulating militants to continue outrages. The European Union is also going to discuss the introduction of sanctions against Ukrainian authorities, in parallel to sending another "uninvited" mission to Kiev. How can you expect your services to be in demand if the threat of sanctions makes this operation look like a blackmail?

We are surprised about the comments we have today heard from Washington. In particular, some anonymous source states that Washington is not able to contact Ukrainian security officials. Another disappointment with US representatives is that they allegedly do not understand Russia's position and do not know what Russia is talking about in connection with Ukrainian representatives. Our position is absolutely clear. We announce it publicly and we say nothing contrary to it to our Ukrainian colleagues. We think that the Ukrainians should sort everything out themselves, according to constitutional norms, without obtrusive propositions to accept one or another mission which mostly happens with no invitation. Our position is that all the external players, and the Ukrainian opposition, should decisively and urgently edge away from extremists, other radicals and anti-Semites. This should be done in a non-ambiguous manner and supported by evident actions.

Russia has nothing to hide. But we would probably like to know more about the everyday activities of Western countries in Ukraine, including the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Catherine Ashton, whom I respect. You all recall her visit to Kiev at the end of January, and her meeting with journalists was one where representatives of Russian mass media were allowed to attend it subject to appointment.

Another important thing: it is time to stop using Ukraine as token money in some geopolitical games; we should express different appeals to Ukrainian leaders which include expressions like "with us or against us". You should certainly have heard numerous requests from Western European countries that the Ukrainian people be provided freedom of choice, adding that this choice should be in favour of the European Union. The goal to impose such choice on Ukrainian leaders is evident from their initiatives and requests to hold early parliamentary and presidential elections and form a coalition government. Everybody attempts to decide for Ukraine. There have been statements from Washington today that all the changes must lead to making Ukraine integrate into the world community. This seems strange, because Ukraine is a rightful member of the UN (it even was one of its founders), as well as a participant of the Council of Europe and the OSCE. What other full integration into the world community may be imposed upon this country? Integration in the European Union or NATO? If this is the true world community according to our Western partners, then we cannot agree to this.

We are against dividing lines and never support the promotion of personal interests to the detriment of our partners' interests. We hope that the Ukrainian authorities and the opposition will agree on ways to overcome their crisis according to their constitution and law, and combine their efforts against extremists who are attempting to incite civil war.

Question: Does Russia have any plans to propose a draft resolution to persecute countries supporting terrorism, in the framework of the discussion in the UNSC?

Sergey Lavrov: We submitted our propositions for the draft resolution condemning terrorism in all its manifestations in the context of the Syrian crisis and the work of all kinds of bandits there, to the UN Security Council. And not only in this context, but in general: on problems of the region and terrorism as a threat to world order wherever it may be. We proceed from the assumption that this document is being studied by our partners. Some of them are tempted to justify the terrorist threat in Syria with statements that the regime does not want to disappear. We do not agree with this.

The Security Council has already stated its position that terrorism cannot be justified by anything. Right now, when the resolution of the humanitarian crisis is being discussed, it includes many of our propositions about decisiveness of the Security Council to prevent further spread of the terrorist threat, as well as how the Government and the opposition in Syria must combine their efforts to fight this evil.

Question: Iraq is currently fighting against terrorism. It seems that deliveries of Russian weapons, which could help in this respect, are being delayed. Have you discussed this question today, and what types of weapons can Russia provide to Iraq in its fight against terrorism?

Sergey Lavrov (answers after Hoshyar Zebari): Military supplies are not being delayed. They are made in full compliance with existing contracts. Another thing is that our Iraqi colleagues, taking into account the acuteness of the problem of terrorism, would like to accelerate the reception of several types of products. They have made such a request. We will try to satisfy it.

Question: Washington once sent its troops into Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting against terrorism. Why doesn't it do the same in the Syrian case, why doesn't it fight terrorism in this country? Why does it call Syrian authorities part of the problem rather than part of its solution? Why doesn't the UN Security Council adopt any decisions aimed at fighting terrorism in Syria?

Sergey Lavrov: We have a whole package of mechanisms, within the framework of which we interact in connection with many acute international problems, including the fight against terrorism. Unfortunately, double standards emerge in this interaction sometimes. This happens in the case of Syria as well, because the United States says that it is impossible to defeat terrorism while Bashar al-Assad is in power. Such a position, in fact, means that they encourage extremists, and encourage those who fund them and supply weapons to them; and ultimately this the Syrian crisis worse. At the same time, during our private talks, when nobody is there to hear, our US colleagues admit that terrorism rather than Bashar al-Assad's regime is the main threat for Syria. Such understanding started to emerge last June at the G8 summit in Northern Ireland, when the presiding Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, proposed to include an appeal to the Syrian Government and the opposition that they combine their efforts; the final declaration included that they should expel terrorism from Syrian territory. Now we are attempting to make these decisive words our partners expressed at summit level, match their practical actions.