Interview by Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov with Rossiya Segodnya, Moscow, February 2, 2015

Question: How are you planning to celebrate Diplomatic Worker's Day?

Gennady Gatilov: Of course, we celebrate it, but in a working atmosphere, as usual. We have certain traditions. First of all, we lay wreaths at the tombs of outstanding Soviet and Russian diplomats such as Andrey Gromyko, Georgy Chicherin, Alexandra Kollontay, Vyacheslav Molotov and others. This tradition has been venerated by our diplomats for many years.

As for other events, there will be a ceremonial gathering in the Ministry's building, and the Minister will deliver an opening speech. Of course, there will be a ceremony to award the diplomats who have distinguished themselves. Well, and, of course, there will be a festive buffet.

But there will be no interruptions in our work, for the Ministry must quickly react to inquiries coming from our missions abroad, which must be processed within a fairly short time frame. Most of the requests must be dealt with promptly. So we will keep on working.

Question: What do you think is a diplomat's main weapon?

Gennady Gatilov: Our main weapon is our professional and personal qualities. There are many of them, but I would like to single out as one of the most important the ability to compose, out of the numerous events that take place in the world, a broad picture, and to put emphasis and set priorities correctly in our activities.

As for personal qualities, these are, above all, the ability to establish contacts, the ability to listen, to understand others' arguments and to spell out our positions correctly. Without that, it's hard to expect diplomatic work to be productive. This is especially important for multilateral diplomacy: to understand the culture of your vis-à-vis, the history of his country and all the nuances that shape his stance.

Question: The US opposes Palestine's intention to join the International Criminal Court (ICC). What is Russia's position on this issue?

Gennady Gatilov: This issue has a back story. On December 30 of last year, the UN Security Council considered the Arab draft resolution on the Middle East. It was submitted by Jordan at the request of the Palestinians, but, unfortunately, it did not pass, failing to garner sufficient votes.
Following that, the Palestinians took certain steps to apply for accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). They had been talking about it for a long time, so the move did not come as a surprise. We should realise that the Palestinians have been disappointed with the state of the Middle East peace process and the fact that the negotiations with the Israelis have been deadlocked.

However, according to the Palestinians, the ICC accession is leverage for the future, rather than a tool for immediate use. As of now, the issue has been postponed until April 1, in the hope that additional efforts will be made to overcome the stalemate in the negotiation process.
With regard to any new draft resolutions on this issue, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas did mention the possibility of resubmitting a draft resolution to the UN Security Council. In this difficult situation, we believe that it is necessary to make the most of any opportunity to resume the peace process and unblock the impasse it has been in.
We believe that the pause has been unreasonably delayed. The situation in the region is deteriorating and mutual attacks are continuing, while the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories has become significantly aggravated. All of this points to the importance of further efforts by the international community.
Just last week, special representatives of the international Quartet on the Middle East (EU, UN, Russia, and the United States) met in Brussels to discuss what additional measures should be taken to give a new impetus to the process of Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
We believe that it would be appropriate and justified to include in these efforts the Arab League and Egypt as one of the key countries in the Middle East, which can play a constructive role in this process. And, of course, it would be very helpful if the Quartet could meet in the near future at the ministerial level.

Question: Can this be done in the near future?

Gennady Gatilov: Yes, we are currently discussing this.

Question: In other words, the Quartet ministers could meet at the Munich Security Conference on February 6-8?

Gennady Gatilov: Yes they could, if they agree to do so. For our part, we are ready for this.

Question: As for the resolution on Palestine, is there a chance that it will be submitted soon, by the end of this month?

Gennady Gatilov: There is no evidence in New York that this can happen within the next few days, although there is a possibility of this happening.

The format of the UN Security Council changed on January 1. It now has new non-permanent members, for example, Malaysia, Venezuela and Angola, who respect Palestinians' interests. Of course, Ramallah takes these factors into account when planning its diplomacy.

Question: Is the new UNSC format positive for addressing other issues?

Gennady Gatilov: In principle, these new non-permanent members have independent views on many issues, and so the UN Security Council's configuration has changed and it can be expected not to vote obediently or move in the wake of US policy on all issues on the council agenda.

Question: Should the issues of the glorification of Nazism and falsification of history be put on the UN Security Council agenda, considering the recenthigh-profile events, including Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's statement on WWII, Berlin's reaction and the Polish Foreign Minister's statements on the liberation of Auschwitz? We remember that Russia has tried doing this at the General Assembly.

Gennady Gatilov: We believe that each UN agency should do what it was established to do. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, which implies a focus on regional conflicts.

The glorification of Nazism, which is a priority issue for us, has been discussed at our initiative at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. It should be remembered that even if we had moved the issue for consideration by the Security Council, it would have come up against the resistance of our Western partners, who would have blocked any decisions on this issue. We are fully aware of their stance from their conduct and voting at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. Therefore, we will focus on working at the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, especially in this year of the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII.

I'd like to stress that the glorification of Nazism is an important issue for us, for obvious reasons. The developments in the Baltics and the recent events in Ukraine have shown that, unfortunately, Nazism is becoming stronger and that certain forces are using it as a means towards their political ends. We will resist this trend and will try to win over as many supporters as possible.

World War II will be a recurring issue at the UN throughout this year. We have proposed a special issue for the current General Assembly agenda and initiated the coordination of a relevant resolution. The UN General Assembly will convene for a special meeting and a number of related events will be held on the UN sidelines not only in New York but also at the UN venues in Geneva and Vienna. In short, we will work actively to attract attention to this issue. We hope that the majority of the UN member states will support us.

Question: Russia has repeatedly requested that the UN Security Council investigate the tragedy at the Trade Union House in Odessa, the use of cluster munition and the evidence of mass burials. Is there any progress on these issues? Does Russia receive any information on the inquiry?

Gennady Gatilov: Unfortunately, the investigation is stalled even though we indeed raised those issues at many UN Security Council meetings. The most recent meeting took place last week. It has to be noted that our western counterparts are trying to stonewall and ignore the issues. We can't but call it double standards in assessing the events and approaching obvious problems. Even so, we will keep raising these issues at the Security Council.

Question: This week, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada called Russia an aggressor. Will this have any international consequences? Only the UN Security Council can qualify a country.

Gennady Gatilov: It is true but, as you understand, the UN Security Council is unlikely to allow that. Thankfully, Russia is a permanent member and, according to the UN Charter, has certain prerogatives as a permanent member. I believe everybody understands that no one will raise such a ludicrous question within the UN Security Council.

In fact, even raising the issue is counterproductive. Of course, we deny all these precarious statements without any proof. This is not what we need to discuss right now. We need to be talking about beginning negotiations on settling the conflict in Ukraine. Russia is not a party in this conflict, and we have always insisted on that. We must work to stop the bloodshed in the southeast of Ukraine and begin a constitutional process rather than resort to blaming Russia. These attempts have no prospects at all.

Question: Last week in Minsk, the first round of talks between Moscow and Kiev took place in relation to Ukraine's accusations regarding Russia's breaching the 1999 Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. What are the results of these talks?

Gennady Gatilov: Russian and Ukrainian experts established contacts but it is only the beginning. It is too soon to discuss the problem.

Question: How realistic are the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's recent appeals that the conflict in Syria be ended in 2015? Are there any signs that it is possible at all?

Gennady Gatilov: The appeals are reasonable, of course. I truly wish they are fulfilled but, unfortunately, if we look at the situation realistically we must admit that we are nowhere close to that.

The bloodshed, the clashes, the deaths of civilians and destruction of the infrastructure continue. It has been over four years since the conflict began. You know that Russia has done everything possible to stop the conflict, but so far, our efforts have not been successful. Moreover, the scale and the nature of the conflict have changed. Now the Islamic State is active in Syria and is spreading its influence to Iraq and, according to the latest data, to north Afghanistan.

At the same time, radical extremist groups keep receiving constant support for their terrorist activity, mainly funding and weapons. It takes the entire international community to eliminate this phenomenon.

Question: What is your assessment of the recent Russian-Syrian consultations in Moscow? Do you believe that the National Coalition refused to attend the event under pressure from some other forces?

Gennady Gatilov: It's been a year since the January 22, 2014 meeting in Montreux, which was followed by two rounds of intra-Syrian talks, and then all contact broke off. So in that situation, we thought it expedient to do something to re-launch the dialogue. We invited representatives of the opposition to the Moscow meeting, a wide range of them including the National Coalition. They were all invited on a personal basis, so as to create the right atmosphere for an open dialogue. The meeting agenda was open as well, to allow the participants to discuss any relevant issues and try to find common ground. It is important that a representative government delegation also attended. As for the National Coalition, its decision to forego the Moscow consultations was obviously prompted by some far-fetched reasons. One of the excuses was that the government was not represented appropriately. Yet, many other representatives of the opposition did attend, and the resulting dialogue was quite productive. The very fact that the dialogue did begin is very important, from our perspective, because it created the groundwork for further contacts and more advanced negotiating formats. This means the goal of the Moscow meeting was actually accomplished.

Question: Does this also include the 10 proposals to stop bloodshed – the list the Syrian opposition handed to the government in Moscow?

Gennady Gatilov: We believe that any proposals on the table have to be considered, as they provide the required material for the talks.

Question: Does the Geneva communique still underlie the Syrian peace process, or can the document from two years ago no longer serve as an effective roadmap? Is it time to adopt a new one, say, Geneva-3?

Gennady Gatilov: Let's just see where they go from here. Maybe a need for a Geneva-3 will arise in the future. It is important that all the parties involved have the political will and interest to continue the negotiations and search for new ways out of the crisis. We believe that there is still a solid basis for this process, which is the Geneva communique.

Incidentally, we have discovered that all those who attended the Moscow meeting support this document and are still willing to use it as the basis for further work. Therefore, they have everything they need to restart the negotiations. We support the effort made by UN special envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura. His attempts to de-escalate the violence through local truces in various places in Syria such as Aleppo have been quite useful. This could become an important humanitarian effort. If the initiative is successful, the practice could be extended to other Syrian cities and regions. This could create a favourable environment for political contacts.

Question: Are there any specific plans, or steps that have already been made in that direction?

Gennady Gatilov: It is still too soon to make conclusions as we have yet to analyse the results of the Moscow consultations. I would also add that many countries have assessed our initiative very positively, and we have a general understanding of where we need to go from here.

Question: Have you discussed with Mr Mistura the results of the inter-Syrian consultations? If so, what did he say?

Gennady Gatilov: We haven't yet. The consultations only just ended today. But we will certainly report the results to him and will keep in touch on this.

Question: That is, you do not rule out that Sergey Lavrov will meet with Mr Mistura during the Munich Security Conference?

Gennady Gatilov: No, I don't. They will meet if the circumstances are right. We at least are ready for it.

Question: What progress has been made at the UN to stop the sale of oil from Syria and Iraq by terrorist groups? Russia has long been advocating for this proposal. Are other UN Security Council members willing to work toward this end?

Gennady Gatilov: Over the past year, the Security Council has made several decisions to block the activity of ISIS, introducing some sanctions. This includes, in particular, the freezing of assets, a travel ban and an embargo on arms supplies, sales and transfers. Unfortunately, none of this has been effective enough yet to say that the activity of terrorist groups is visibly declining.

Another important aspect is that ISIS has seized oil-rich areas in Iraq and Syria and is using illegal oil sales to finance its activity.

According to some estimates, they make between $3 million and $5 million a day by selling oil through intermediaries, and these funds are being funneled into expanding terrorist activity.

In this context Russia has taken proactive steps and has submitted a draft resolution banning any activity related to illegal oil transactions. This document is currently under review at the UN Security Council. Our partners generally support us here, making proposals to finalise the text, and I hope that it will soon be put to a vote at the UN Security Council. We expect this to be yet another important step by the international community to curb the activity of ISIS.

There can be no foot-dragging here, as everyone understands the importance of this problem.

Question: The United States and members of the US-led coalition to fight ISIS have for almost half a year been delivering pinpoint strikes on the positions of radical forces in Iraq and Syria, while in the latter case they have been doing this without the consent of the country's legitimate government. Do you think that this method of combatting terrorists is effective? Or does it only escalate the situation?

Gennady Gatilov: Unfortunately, in recent months, this activity has not produced any particular results, despite the fact that according to the latest reports, around 1,700 sorties have been flown to attack ISIS targets. Admittedly, this is not a very effective method of fighting ISIS. Its units are adjusting to it, changing positions, and dispersing, which enables them to survive. According to some estimates, over $1 billion has already been spent. So the situation is not drastically changing, especially with regard to Iraq, where the coalition is collaborating with the government, but in Syria there is no such collaboration. We regard this as a major flaw. After all, the Syrian authorities have expressed their willingness to do this, and if the Americans agreed, the effectiveness of the fight against terrorists would be much higher. However, they are reluctant to do this because they consider the Assad regime to be illegitimate. All of this is regrettable, as such cooperation in the fight against ISIS could yield far better results.

Question: Another important issue related to Syria is chemical arms disarmament. US Undersecretary of State Rose Gottemoeller previously said the US is concerned about the level of OPCW expertise. Her remarks came on the same day the OPCW reported the complete destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, while Syria's permanent representative to the UN said Syria's [chemical weapons] programme no longer exists. Could this be a simple coincidence?

Gennady Gatilov: The US is trying to use the "chlorine" issue to continue exerting pressure on Damascus. For our part, we believe that chemical disarmament is complete, everything has been destroyed, the programme has been fulfilled, the goal has been achieved and no serious questions are left. The chlorine issue does not directly relate to Syria's chemical disarmament

Question: Last January, Russia returned to the OHCHR. Judging by the first year of work, has Russia been in a position to uphold its interests?

Gennady Gatilov: We returned to the OHCHR with good results. The majority of states voted for us. We will continue to pursue our position of principle within this body. Unlike Western countries, we are not attempting to use human rights rhetoric as a tool of political pressure on other countries. By contrast, they use any country-specific situation in their geopolitical interests. This applies, in particular, to Syria and North Korea. We have always been against the OHCHR dealing with country-specific issues, prioritising instead the resolution of human rights problems through a thematic approach. We regard this body as an instrument to help and assist states in enhancing the effectiveness of their human rights activity, but from a constructive position, not to exert pressure on anybody. We actively fight against racism, race discrimination, xenophobia, intolerance and the glorification of Nazism. From this perspective, the work at the OHCHR is important for us.

We are equally concerned about the issue of arbitrary deprivation of citizenship, which is happening in some Baltic states. We are actively promoting this issue at the OHCHR. We have put forward an initiative on the rights of the Romani people. We believe that we are well positioned to uphold our initiatives and interests in this body. The next session on human rights issues will take place in March. We will actively work on them there.

Question: In closing, could you recall some funny episode from your diplomatic practice?

Gennady Gatilov: In general, the UN is an organisation that lives according to its own rules, standing orders and procedure. Naturally, various situations arise in the working process, related to particular political events. Despite the seriousness of political issues considered by this organisation, some things happen that cannot but evoke an emotional reaction.

For example, last year, when an acute political conflict was being discussed, the representative of one delegation emotionally referred to the representative of another country using an expression that wasn't exactly standard literary language. A verbal altercation ensued, as a result of which both were fined quite heavily by the then standards. No one can remember whether they have paid those fines, but word has it that since then discussions at this worldwide organisation have always been politically correct. Those were the days.