Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 29, 2015
Multilateral meeting on Syria in Vienna
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will go to Vienna today for a multilateral meeting on the Syrian settlement, which will be held on Friday, October 30.
The main objective of the meeting is to assist an early launch of a political process through an inter-Syrian dialogue, as stipulated in the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012. We are pleased to note that, in addition to Turkey, the meeting will be also attended by Syria’s Arab neighbours and other influential countries in the region including Egypt and Iran. I’d like to say that Russia has always urged effective external support for the negotiating process conducted by Syrians to settle the crisis. We have urged using the entire potential of the leading regional and international parties and all other involved sides that can make a positive and constructive contribution to this process. We are convinced that it is this approach, rather than any unilateral formats such as the Friends of Syria Group, that can bring peace and tranquillity for a new, united, secular and democratic Syria, which is what we want it to be.
Sergey Lavrov will hold separate meetings with the attending foreign ministers in Vienna on the sidelines of the conference. Some of these meetings have been pre-planned and others will be organised in due course.
They will discuss bilateral relations and current regional and international issues. As I said, we will inform you about them almost in real time.
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Fifth World Congress of Compatriots
The opening ceremony of the Fifth World Congress of Compatriots on November 5 will be chaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. We have said more than once that strengthening ties with the multi-religious Russian diaspora and protecting the rights and legitimate interests of Russian compatriots living abroad are key priorities in Russia’s foreign policy.
The fifth congress, which will be held in the year of the 70th anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War, will focus on protecting historical memory and truth about the Soviet peoples’ contribution to victory over Fascismand on combatting the glorification of Nazism. The forum participants will discuss a broad range of issues pertaining to the implementation of decisions of the Fourth World Congress of Compatriots, which was held in St Petersburg in October 2012, and will analyse the implementation of Russian programmes on support for compatriots, including the Russian Language federal targeted programme and the State Programme to Assist Voluntary Resettlement of Compatriots Living Abroad to the Russian Federation.
In addition to plenary sessions, the congress participants will hold themed discussions on the forms and methods of consolidating compatriots’ associations, efforts to promote the Russian language, culture and education abroad, and the role of Russian regions in working with compatriots, including economic cooperation. The agenda of the congress includes a roundtable discussion on assisting the development of compatriots’ media outlets.
Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with UN Under-Secretary-General Stephen O’Brien
On November 5, Sergey Lavrov will meet with Stephen O’Brien, UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. They will discuss the humanitarian situation in Ukraine, Syria and Yemen and preparations for the World Humanitarian Summit, which will be held in Istanbul, Turkey next year at the initiative of the UN Secretary-General.
Mr O’Brien is also expected to meet with the heads of other Russian ministries and agencies.
Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the 38th UNESCO General Conference
On November 3, the 38th session of the General Conference of UNESCO will open in Paris. The session will be held in the year of UNESCO’s 70th anniversary. Session participants will approve the organisation’s programme and budget and discuss its contribution to settling current issues, including the implementation of the post-2015 sustainable development agendas. On November 6, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who chairs the Russian Commission for UNESCO, will attend the session’s general policy debate.
Russia takes part in all UNESCO programmes in education, natural sciences, social and human sciences, culture, communication and information. But we mostly focus on inclusive education, fundamental research, hydrology and ocean studies, on increasing the number of biosphere reserves, combating the use of performance enhancing substances in sports, preventing the theft, pillage and illicit trafficking in cultural property, protecting the world cultural and natural heritage, promoting intercultural dialogue, multilingualism and the safety of journalists, managing the internet, and several other subjects.
The internal political situation in Ukraine
I would like to comment on the local elections held in Ukraine on October 25, 2015,. As you know, the final results will become clear later, after the second round of voting is held in some areas. Its results will be used to determine the newly elected mayors, including the mayor of Kiev.
However, it is possible to make some conclusions right now. Unfortunately, the present campaign, like last year’s presidential and parliamentary elections, has not contributed to defusing the existing split in the Ukrainian society and the partition of the country. Moreover, despite the optimistic claims made by Kiev officials and some of their Western partners, this trend has become even stronger due to the population’s growing disappointment with the current political situation, the ongoing economic crisis, overrunning corruption which paralyses the country, and absence of global changes for the better.
The backstage and rash adoption of the new law on local elections, which was submitted just four months before the voting date, has also had a negative impact on the election procedures in Ukraine. The law turned out to be a fragmented piece with a number of deficiencies and ambiguities, which made it difficult to be interpreted by both the electors and the organisers of the elections. Moreover, the law does not comply with some Kiev’s obligations outlined by the OSCE, as concluded by observers of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) working in Ukraine. Incidentally, they also noticed problems with registering the candidates, especially the restrictions for the nomination of independent candidates. Thus, given the flow of messages from various Ukrainian regions concerning numerous violations before and during voting, it can be assumed that the elections were far from the recognised standards of integrity and objectivity and hence can hardly serve as a model of democracy.
We hope that Kiev’s officials will draw relevant conclusions based on these critical remarks and will implement them when drafting a separate law of Ukraine in coordination with representatives of Donbass on modalities for holding local elections in the southeast of the country, which is an indispensable part of the Package of Measures of February 12, 2015.
This and other issues of Ukrainian settlement became the matter of debate at the October 27 meetings of the Contact Group and its working subgroups in Minsk. The participants also discussed the withdrawal of tanks and small-calibre artillery from the demarcation line, including its subsequent verification procedure, as well as mine clearing in the conflict area. The parties continued to discuss ways out of the relevant economic problems and the current humanitarian situation in the region.
The coordination of the issues related to the implementation of the planned exchange of prisoners was a positive point for the parties. The relevant procedure involving representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is scheduled for October 29, 2015. Eleven Ukrainian prisoners of war and nine Donbass self-defence fighters are expected to return home.
The initiatives seeking practical solutions to settle the Ukrainian crisis, including the agreements reached at the October 2 Normandy Four summit in Paris, will be continued. The possibility of holding a Normandy format meeting of foreign ministers next week is currently being addressed.
UN Secretary-General’s report on the humanitarian situation in Syria
Now let us switch over to the Syrian narrative. I have already started speaking about it: in the next few days the main news will be coming from the Vienna venue. I hope that we will have things to share with you and that the meeting scheduled for tomorrow will be constructive, objective, trust-based, honest and open. Yet there are a number of aspects to the Syrian issue that I would like to dwell on in greater detail.
We condemn the circulation of false materials about alleged civilian casualties in Syria due to the operation by the Russian Aerospace Force which were spread by some media and later appeared in the recently published report by the United Nations Secretary-General with reference to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I emphasise that such insinuations, whatever their origin, and whoever circulates them, have nothing to do with reality. We consider them as part of a propaganda campaign waged against our nation, which we repeatedly spoke about. We believe the campaign’s aim is to distort the success of the counter-terrorist operation of the Russian aviation as compared to the failures, let’s be honest, of the activities or even passivity lasting for over a year of the US-led anti-ISIS coalition headed by the United States.
Under such conditions it is important not to be dragged into specially set information traps, as was the case with a photograph of a Syrian girl on the Internet who was allegedly a victim of the Russian air raids. The truth was found out later, as you know. All that stovepiping has its origin, beginning and end. Such cases are easily exposed, and this is why we are going to speak about all these matters. It was established that the photo was taken on September 25, which means before the start of the Russian Aerospace Force operation in Syria. Yet many media outlets were not interested in this fact: the image was found and it was widely circulated. We would like again to urge the media community to pay more attention and to regularly refer to the press briefings of the Russian Defence Ministry, where numerous photos and videos are demonstrated illustrating the course of the Russian Aerospace Force operation. These materials can and should be analysed and compared with the fake information, so as to come to respective conclusions. After an unbiased look at the materials, any non-prejudicial observer will have no doubts about the true targets of the Russian air strikes. They are exclusively terrorist groups and their deployment sites, whereas civil infrastructure facilities are in no way a target of the Russian Aerospace Force operation.
We sincerely hope that in the future the UN Secretariat will use only reliable and cross-checked information sources and will not tend towards impersonalised information “on the ground” (we are constantly reminded about the availability of information “on the ground”) or from some western capitals citing anonymous telephone calls and statements “by some non-government organisation.” The information should be carefully cross-checked and must come from sources that could also be checked since it is highly sensitive and concerns such a serious and global matter. We hope that the UN Secretariat and its offices will display professional, critical and balanced attitude towards information at their disposal and will avoid lopsided and imbalanced conclusions.
Unfortunately, all those are links of the same chain. Many people ask why such a media campaign is underway. We have repeatedly said that on the one hand, its objective is to shape pubic opinion so as to account for their own actions and to justify constant pressure on Russia. On the other hand, and we have also stressed this many times, particularly momentous, sensational media stories often find their way into the reports by international organisations. This is exactly the case here.
Statements made by German Foreign Ministry spokesperson Martin Schaefer
On October 21, during a press briefing in Berlin, the German Foreign Ministry spokesperson laid out his vision of the talks in Moscow between Russian President Vladimir Putin and President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar Assad. In particular, the spokesperson expressed hope that during the meetings in the Russian capital the discussion topics also included methods of war waged by the Syrian army with approval from the President of Syria which contradict international law, including UN resolutions. The spokesperson’s remarks implied that those who act jointly both politically and militarily should be aware of what exactly they are doing.
Such statements coming from a German official are aimed at accusing Russia, among others, of violating the UNSC Resolution 2139 of February 22, 2014. In particular, its clauses 3 and 6. Clause 3 demands immediate cessation of any attacks against civilians and civilian facilities, whereas Clause 6 demands that all the sides of the conflict allow a safe and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid).
Generalisations similar to those that were voiced in Berlin testify to a selective reading of the document by German experts and officials as the resolution calls for de-escalation are addressed to all the parties of the conflict, not just the government forces. The same is true of humanitarian aid access which does not depend solely on official Damascus.
We consider such statements and the way they are made improper and counter-productive to solving the tasks on fighting international terrorism, to arranging an inclusive inter-Syrian dialogue in the context of large-scale efforts to reach political settlement in Syria.
US Embassy in Moscow steps up anti-Russian propaganda
I was a few minutes late, also because we have only just found out - I will even quote it from my mobile right now – that the US Embassy in Moscow today disseminated and circulated to the media some detailed information about "Russia’s action in Syria hitting representatives of the opposition, including civilian targets, rather than terrorists." This US-produced press release reached just about everyone. You won’t believe the agency it includes a reference to is that same "British" observatory that monitors human rights in Syria, the one we have repeatedly discussed. This is a very detailed material that directly accuses Russia of civilian deaths.
First, this is happening in the context of the forthcoming meeting in Vienna, for which we all are preparing, the telephone calls from Washington, from the Department of State which asked the Russian Foreign Ministry to discuss a potential Syrian settlement. Why do this just before the planned multilateral meetings, the foreign ministers’ personal contacts in Vienna? Why refer to some "unnamed sources" that in no way can be called reliable? Let me remind you that the other day the Russian Defence Ministry invited military attaches to ask them direct questions about the sources they draw their news from – the information about Russia allegedly hitting the wrong targets eventually killing civilians. No information was officially handed over to us. At the same time, these types of propaganda props – which is what they are – are sent out slyly right before important events.
I have serious doubts that the top officials of the US Department of State even know what their representatives are doing in embassies abroad. We have repeatedly informed our American colleagues during negotiations about cases where representatives of embassies in host countries send out materials or distort or denigrate Russia’s actions, and it's not just about the US Embassy in Moscow but also in other countries. They urge the local public to avoid cooperating with our country. We have been told repeatedly that this is not the State Department’s policy and that it does not reflect their approach to our foreign ministry or to our country in general.
So was that an unauthorised initiative of the US Embassy in Moscow or a planned campaign? I repeat that these materials were sent by the US diplomatic mission to the media working in Moscow. What was the point? The question remains. When we ask these questions to US diplomats working in Moscow, they never give us any answers. Neither do they answer the questions of their colleagues from the Russian Defence Ministry. And all the while, let me repeat, these materials keep popping up.
US “plans” for conducting a ground operation in Syria
We constantly hear accusations that Russia has allegedly interfered in the coalition’s plans and prevented the coalition from implementing certain anti-ISIS operations in Syria.
I would like to recall that, speaking in Washington on Tuesday, the US Secretary of Defence very clearly voiced the department’s intention to launch a ground operation in Syria.
That same day, White House official representative Eric Schultz said at a briefing that the United States wanted to refrain from ground operations. Therefore two opposite and mutually exclusive statements were made on the same day. First, a ground operation was mentioned, and then it was later noted that there were no such plans, and that they are out of the question. In this connection, one would like to ask: What plans did Russia’s actions interfere with, if these plans, as follows from the statements of official US representatives, contradict each other? It would be good to receive an answer to this question.
Western experts’ statements on the Syrian issue
We have heard various statements, read articles and publications on this issue by officials in Washington, at the State Department and the Defence Department. It is common knowledge that many of them are mentioned in the reports of international organisations. I was somewhat surprised to watch an online video on Youtube featuring excerpts from a 2007 speech by retired General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe whom we know very well.
“I went through the Pentagon ten days after 9/11… I went back there to see Don Rumsfeld… I went downstairs, I was leaving the Pentagon, and an officer from the Joint Chiefs of Staff called me into his office and said: ‘I want you to know, Sir, we are going to attack Iraq.’ And I said ‘Why?’ He said: ‘We don’t know.’ I asked whether they had tied Saddam to 9/11. He said: ‘No, but I guess they don’t know what to do about terrorism, and so, they think they can attack states, and they want to look strong, I guess they think that, if they can take down a state, this will intimidate the terrorists in it.’ It’s like the old saying: If the only tool you have is a hammer then every problem has to be a nail…
“And then we attacked Afghanistan… I came back to the Pentagon about six weeks later and saw the same officer and asked, why haven’t we attacked Iraq, are we still going to attack Iraq? He said: ‘Oh, Sir, it’s worse than that.’ He pulled up a piece of paper off his desk and said: ‘I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defence’s office, it says we are going to attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then we’re going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, the Sudan and Iran.’”
I won’t read the full transcript of General Clark’s speech because you can find all this online. I simply want media people to quote their sources and people directly linked with this decision-making process, while using materials that quote anonymous sources at the Pentagon and other law enforcement agencies.
As we are talking about media quotations and publications on the Syrian issue, here is one more story that I’d like to quote. On October 21, 2015, The Guardian carried an article by Julian Lewis, a Conservative Party member and Chairman of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, and Peter Ford, a Labour Party member who served as ambassador to Syria between 2003 and 2006. Here is what they write: “The government does not accept that… a jihadi victory would be the only outcome if Assad were overthrown – with all the biblical-scale horrors which would flow from that for the Christians, Alawites, Shia and other minorities, as well as secular Sunnis.” Here’s another quote from their article: “The Russians are criticised for concentrating their fire on the non-ISIS rebels, even though this category includes groups like the powerful al-Nusra Front, an affiliate of al-Qaida. With the removal of Assad, groups like this would be like vultures at a feast. No serious analyst argues that the handful of ‘moderates’ would be a match for the jihadis.”
If you aren’t listening to us, you should be listening to your own experts who worked in the Middle East.
EU plans to resolve the refugee problem
Now, to move on to the European continent, unfortunately, again in the Syrian context. Let’s talk about the refugee situation.
We are concerned by the continuing migration crisis in the European Union and the Balkans. In this connection we have noted the outcome of the top level meeting with the participation of Austria, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Greece, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia on the issue of the so-called Western Balkan migration route, which took place on the European Commission’s initiative on October 25 in Brussels.
We hope that the measures coordinated during this meeting to prevent the uncontrolled movement of people and to counter organised crime, which is engaged in trafficking and illegal human trade, will contribute to the formulation of an effective EU migration policy, based on a systemic and comprehensive foundation.
We operate on the assumption that in implementing measures to regulate migration movement, the European countries will faithfully comply with the relevant international obligations regarding migrant and refugee rights and will continue the search for coordinated practical measures to resolve their problems. It is also important to avoid a surge in intolerance, xenophobia and social tension, instances of which are regularly reported in various EU media outlets.
At the same time, we urge the EU to join the efforts to eliminate the root causes of the current migration crisis, which, as you know, has resulted from irresponsible outside interference in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern and North African states. This is only possible through peaceful settlement in Syria and Libya, as well as by providing assistance to the countries of origin of refugees in their economic and state development; in other words, it should be a comprehensive solution. In this context, we would like to reiterate the Russian proposal to focus on building a broad international antiterrorist coalition based on international law with the participation and the consent of all states that are in some way or other targets of terrorist threats. We are ready to participate in suppressing these threats and risks. We firmly believe in national conciliation and the political process in Syria and are open to dialogue with all possible participants.
Continuing acts of vandalism against Soviet-era monuments in Poland
Unfortunately, we have to say again that the Polish authorities are continuing to ignore Russia’s calls to end the war on monuments. On October 23, an inscription was removed from an obelisk in memory of the local partisan movement in the village of Stempoczice in Świętokrzyskie Province. It read: “Glory to Polish and Soviet partisans who fought Hitler’s invaders in 1941-1945 for our freedom!” Other elements of this monument were also removed.
The decision was made on the initiative of the Polish Institute of National Remembrance, which, following the dismantling of the monument to Ivan Chernyakhovsky, Twice Hero of the Soviet Union, in the town of Pieniezno, urged the local authorities to actively remove Soviet monuments. Unfortunately, these recommendations are being followed up in practice.
In this context, our position of principle on the issue remains immutable. We act on the premise that the Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Polish Republic on Burial Sites and Memorials of Victims of Wars and Reprisals of February 22, 1994, the effects of which apply both to war cemeteries and to standalone monuments, must be undeviatingly observed by the Polish side.
It is reassuring that not all but only individual representatives of Polish society engage in such practices. We are also seeing a reverse trend. We would like to express gratitude and recognition to Polish public organisations, in particular Kursk and Little Russia, that recently restored a monument at the tomb of Soviet soldiers in the town of Dzialdowo in Warminsko-Mazurskie Province. Thank you very much.
Unveiling a monument to Soviet soldiers in Norway
On October 24, a monument was unveiled in the town of Berlevåg in northern Norway to five Soviet soldiers who were executed by the Nazis as they attempted to escape from a nearby POW camp. The monument was established with funding provided by the local community.
I’d like to point out that all memorials in Norway dedicated to the soldiers who liberated the country from Nazism are maintained in an appropriate condition. We are sincerely grateful to the Norwegian authorities and people.
Latvia’s refusal to register Rossiya Segodnya’s representative office
We cannot help but comment on the decision by the Latvian Register of Enterprises, which again denied registration to Rossiya Segodnya’s representative office, citing, and I quote, “a threat to Latvia’s national security.” What are you Rossiya Segodnya’s reporters doing to Latvia?
The rejection of Rossiya Segodnya’s appeal under a clearly politicised and contrived pretext is in effect a logical continuation of official Riga’s line towards the eradication of dissent and the establishment of full control over the media in the country.
It is our position that this approach, which has nothing to do with the commitment to the principles of freedom of expression that are continuously declared by the Latvian authorities, should receive an appropriate reaction from the relevant international agencies, primarily the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media.
From answers to media questions
Question: As a result of recent parliamentary elections in Poland, the opposition will come to power. How, in your opinion, will this impact the development of future relations between our countries?
Maria Zakharova: In the Polish parliamentary elections that took place on October 25, the opposition Law and Justice party, led by prominent Polish politician Lech Kaczyński, won the overall majority. According to the State Electoral Commission, it will have 235 of 460 seats in the new Sejm (the lower house of parliament), which allows the party to form a new government, which is expected to be led by Beata Szydlo who is a party deputy chair.
For our part, we are ready to cooperate with Poland’s new authorities to ensure the steady development of Russian-Polish relations, of course, provided our partners are also ready for cooperation based on mutual respect for national and state interests.
Question: One stumbling block in the talks on the peace settlement in Syria is who should be regarded as terrorists. Sergey Lavrov and you have stated repeatedly that the concepts of “terrorism” and “terrorist organisation” are not defined in international law. Is Russia working at the UN or other international agencies to formulate criteria to define this concept [in international law]?
Maria Zakharova: Your question has two parts. I’ll start with the theoretical part, which is related to the definition of a universal term, its interpretation and codification in international law. Indeed, the formulation of a universal concept of terrorism is on the agenda, primarily at the UN, in the context of efforts to draft a comprehensive convention on international terrorism.
The work on the document, which was at one time initiated by India, has been ongoing for a long time and, unfortunately, it even stalled at some point, primarily due to disagreements about the scope of the future convention (whether it should apply to actions by government agencies and resistance to occupation).
Russia is continuing to work with its many partners towards reaching a consensus on the document. Unfortunately, so far, the chances that these efforts will be a success are not very good.
At the same time, I’d like to stress that although a universally recognised definition of terrorism would strengthen the legal framework of antiterrorist cooperation it would not be a panacea.
The fight against terrorist threats depends not on legal formulas (many similar formulas have been worked out at the UN) but on the unwillingness of a number of states to put the interests of fighting this evil above their own political and geopolitical ambitions. Unfortunately, we still see notorious double standards and the division of terrorists into good and bad, which undermines collective efforts and makes them less effective. This is regarding the theoretical part of the question.
Let’s take Syria as a specific example. When we are told that we attack the wrong targets or when we are accused of attacking such targets, that they aren’t ISIS or terrorist targets and that we purportedly torpedo the efforts of the anti-terror coalition, a counter question arises. Each of these (coalition) states has its own interpretation of terrorism, its own vision of who should be regarded as terrorists. This arouses concern and misgivings about the effectiveness of this fight. If there is no agreement, no unified definition of terrorism even within one coalition, which declares the unity of goals and methods of action, this in fact shows how the effective fight against this threat, among others, is being impaired. To reiterate, this is not simply about countries that have their own interests or believe that they are involved in the Syrian settlement, but countries that are united by the same goals as part of a certain coalition. It would seem there should be no disagreements as to who should be regarded as a terrorist. In reality, however, we are seeing serious disagreements that are related not to theoretical or semantic specifics; this is about a concrete approach by a particular country towards a particular group. For example, one part of the coalition considers a given group terrorist, while another does not. In this context, we have this question: How is it possible to effectively fight terrorism if there is no uniform understanding of who is and who is not a terrorist in Syria now?
Question: What do you think Poland and Russia could do to improve their relations? Many Poles say that the return of the fragments of President Lech Kaczyński’s aircraft to Poland would be a gesture of goodwill.
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the aircraft’s fragments, it is important to understand that they are not symbolic, nor are they a souvenir or relic that can be freely transferred as a gesture of goodwill. These fragments are material evidence. Every country has its own procedures. You should understand that material evidence cannot be handed over as easily as you say. This is a matter of the domestic legislation of every state. I think this issue should be viewed from this angle.
As for our bilateral relations, I can assure you that we (I’m talking not only on behalf of the Foreign Ministry but also our country in general, its government agencies and its people) do not see any insurmountable difficulties that would prevent us from establishing good neighbourly, friendly relations with Poland. We have experience of developing such relations. You are asking what should be done? First, these relations should be developed at all levels – government agencies as well as public and youth organisations. Second, and I think this is a very important moment – they should be approached without looking back. I once said that we have a good proverb in Russia: “Dwell on the past and you may lose an eye; forget the past and you will lose both.” What does it mean? It means that we should never forget our history. Polish history is an asset and treasure of the Polish people. Likewise, Russian history is an asset and treasure of the Russian people. We should not forget this; we don’t have the right to forget this. But we should use this history and draw lessons from it rather than continuously repeating past mistakes.
We must realise that history is history. It abounds in good and bad episodes and mistakes. There was mutual sacrifice and times when these relations reached a very high level. We must realise where we want to proceed from. We know what we want. We want to develop full-scale, normal, good and stable relations with Poland. We want to create the conditions for normal relations between our people, and, most important, between our younger generations. This is not a big secret. The most important point is that we have excellent experience of cooperating with Poland both in the bilateral and multilateral formats. We have all this at our disposal and all we have to do is to use it. Let me repeat that given all the understanding and our historical memory, we should move forward.
Question: Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy read a lecture in the Moscow MGIMO University and suggested that the two coalitions be united in the sky over Syria. What does the Russian Foreign Ministry make of this? Are you going to call a Moscow-3 meeting to promote the dialogue on Syria?
Maria Zakharova: Undoubtedly, the analysts and politicians, those still holding their posts and those who have left them but continue active political work, have the right to make their own statements for a reason. I think we should listen to them and take them into account. I can’t see anything contradictory in Sarkozy’s statements because we are open to cooperation with all countries that pursue the same goal – to fight terror in the region.
As you know, we have set up an information centre in Baghdad for exchanging information and coordinating efforts. Is it closed? Conversely, we are ready to welcome anyone. As far as the Russian Defence Ministry is concerned, we are not only sending political signals but are also maintaining an active dialogue with all countries, making enquiries and we are willing to share information. The problem is that our efforts are not reciprocal. We are ready and open to cooperation to achieve the goal we already mentioned – fight ISIS.
As for the steps that Moscow could take to launch a political settlement of the Syrian crisis, or, as you said, to call a Moscow-3 conference, we have been trying to do this for several years since the Geneva Communique was signed, and we haven’t stopped for a month. Two meetings between the opposition and official Damascus took place in Moscow. We have also been working on this overseas through our embassies. I mean our ambassadors and other official representatives are making contacts to facilitate a search for common points that could bring about an agreement between the Syrian opposition, both at home and abroad, and official Damascus. Once conditions are ripe for us to hold an additional meeting in Moscow (or elsewhere), we will do our best to make it happen.
Question: What is Moscow’s stance on the recent statements by the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, who said during a joint press conference with his British counterpart in Riyadh yesterday, the day before the Vienna talks, that Assad must go and that other possibilities will have to be sought if the talks prove unsuccessful?
Maria Zakharova: Our position remains unchanged. We insist on the primacy of the Geneva Communique over all ideas like this. So far, none of the countries has questioned its validity. Let me remind you that this document has been approved by the UN Security Council. It clearly states who should manage the political process in Syria and how. Therefore, it seems to me there is no point in talking about this any further.
It is absolutely unproductive to give up on or question the meeting, which has only just been agreed on; let's give it a chance. Why prophesy a failure when everyone is now working to make it productive and constructive? I think we should not get ahead of ourselves, not anticipate or make up scenarios for the future, but should focus on efforts towards its success.
Question: Could you tell us more about the schedule of the Vienna meeting, the talks slated for today and tomorrow – when they will begin and who will participate, specifically?
Maria Zakharova: At the beginning of the briefing, I said that the schedule is still in the works and is subject to change. As you know, it was the United States that distributed the invitations to the meeting. Accordingly, the list of participants was certainly not up to us. Right now we are working on a schedule of possible meetings. I think that in a few hours I will be able to provide you with the details of the planned contacts. I do not want to do this prematurely because I prefer to give you accurate information.
Question: Could you please comment on America’s "fears" that Russia might strip the world of the Internet?
Maria Zakharova: I have already commented somewhat sarcastically on my Facebook page, and I have nothing to add. Firstly, it is wrong to focus on one’s phobias – it is a road that leads nowhere. Secondly, when we talk about serious organisations (as far as I remember, it was high-ranking US officials that went through the fears and anxieties), statements should be based on facts, and there are none, except what you have correctly referred to as fears and anxieties, and, as I said, phobias. I do not think that this is getting us anywhere at all, or if anywhere, it is leading us to a very sad place. I believe that this is part of an information campaign aimed at exaggerating the situation and portraying Russia as some “universal evil,” an enemy to all. Who is the target audience? Any military expert would laugh at this information. But for an average Internet user who has no military expertise or intelligence, it is a threat to their daily habits, their connection to the world. A threat posed by what? Ostensibly by Russia’s actions. This is similar to the dissemination of fake materials I have already mentioned, as both actions have one goal: to demonise Russia in all areas.
Question: The Polish government claims that Nord Stream-2 is spearheaded against Poland, against its interests. What do you say to this?
Syrian refugees have been living in the transit zone at Sheremetyevo Airport for at least five weeks. What are you going to do about this?
Maria Zakharova: I’d like to say that they are not Syrian nationals. There is a desire, including in the media, to present them as Syrian citizens and, I think, to show their mistreatment at Sheremetyevo Airport compared to the welcome that has been given to Syrian refugees in Europe. Please look up information on the website of Russia’s Federal Migration Service, which provides complete information about the number of Syrian refugees whom Russia has accepted. As of early September, there were 7,500 or 8,000 of them. You know that the route by which Syrian citizens – migrants and refugees – reach Russia differs from the routes they take to enter Europe. In Russia, they arrive by plane.
I think you may be referring to the family who used false documents to enter Russia. They claimed to be Syrian citizens. When it was established that they had false documents, it took us time to establish their true identity. It turned out that they were not citizens of Syria, so an approved process has been applied to them in accordance with Russian law. It’s sad that these people had to use false papers to cross the border. They probably had reasons for doing this, but their action violated Russian law, which is why measures have been taken against them. That’s all I can say on this issue. I’m asking you not to present our actions as a negligent or inhuman attitude towards Syrian refugees. The issue concerns false papers and entering the country illegally. As I said, you should request information from our law enforcement agencies. It’s not a political issue. It’s an issue of people entering Russia with false identities.
As for Syrian refugees, you’ll find detailed information and statistics on the website of the Federal Migration Service. If you have any other questions, you can contact the service, which will promptly provide the information you request.
As for the alleged intrigues against Poland, I can tell you that Russia has not taken any steps against Poland or any other country. I can assure you of this. If you have a concrete question on energy or economic cooperation, please ask and I will try to answer it. As it is, the allegation that some of our actions are being used against Poland is not true.
Question: The Polish authorities are concerned about the Nord Stream-2 pipeline.
Maria Zakharova: Regarding these concerns, I think it’s impossible to live with concerns and phobias. There’s such a thing as constructive cooperation, so let’s cooperate.
Question: Whose reports on truce violations on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border – Azerbaijan or Armenia – does the Russian Foreign Minister view as reason for making statements and urging peace? Have you held consultations with the Armenian Foreign Ministry on a common stance on Syria?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding a common stance on Syria, we hold relevant consultations with foreign ministries of many countries not to elaborate a common stance that precludes any difference of opinions, but to compare notes and to learn the opinion of our colleagues. We cooperate with our Armenian colleagues on all issues, including Syria.
Personally, I think your first question contained an unwanted element of provocation. If you have a specific question, I’ll answer it. As for choosing between information provided by different sides, I don’t think this is an acceptable way to formulate a question.
Question: The ceasefire is breached on the border occasionally. Russia often calls the sides to restore peace, but doesn’t specify who’s the culprit.
Maria Zakharova: The situations are different, and in each particular case we provide an appropriate response. We do our best to provide an objective response, for which we use the input provided by all sides to draw our conclusions. Once again, the objectivity of assessments is our main goal.
Question: Today, Turkey is celebrating Republic Day. What would you wish for the Turkish people?
The other day, President Poroshenko issued an executive order to create the Centre for Russian Studies. Can such a step help resolve the situation?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding Turkey, I’m not sure I’m in a position to wish anything to Turkey as a state. I can only wish all the people who live in that country (I have many friends and colleagues in Turkey) well-being, prosperity and peace — this is the most important thing everyone needs. I hope Russian-Turkish relations will prosper as well.
Regarding the Centre for Russian Studies in Ukraine, this is the first time I hear about it. I believe that Ukraine, as a sovereign state, can create and establish any centre it likes. Most importantly, this centre should work for the benefit of our bilateral relations. I hope that this is the way it will be.
Question: The other day, US Department of State Spokesman John Kirby said the United States plans to focus on the transitional government in Syria at the Vienna talks. Will Russia participate in this discussion and what is Russia’s position on this issue?
Maria Zakharova: These are the US plans. As a sovereign state, it can discuss whatever it wants. We're not into discussing issues such as forming or changing governments. We have a different task at hand, which is to ensure the political process in Syria based on existing international legal documents. I believe that Vienna talks should focus on the best way to implement the Geneva Communiqué. Only then will the meeting be constructive and effective. It's hard for me to say what Mr Kirby had in mind when he said this.
Question: What would be your advice to small Eastern European countries as they face an influx of refugees from Syria and other countries?
What do you think about the investigation into the Malaysian MH-17 flight crash? Is Russia satisfied with its results?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the investigation, I will not take much of your time. We covered this issue in detail at our previous briefing. I can provide you with all the comments we made back then. We specified in our report — point by point — what we disagree with.
Regarding my advice, as you put it, to “small states,” I believe that I have no right to divide states into small or large, all the more so, to provide any advice to them. I just mentioned our concerns regarding refugees. The refugee problem can be resolved, first, if the European countries, which bear the brunt of the refugee flow, act in accordance with international law and within the existing international legal framework. Second, they need to understand that this is a complex issue, and resolving it directly depends on the political settlement in Syria. You can’t treat this disease, or try to get rid of the problem locally, because, in this case, this problem will never be overcome.
There’s another important point. Perhaps, it's not something to be discussed at a foreign policy briefing, but it’s important to be compassionate. Whatever hardships may a particular nation have to face, it is important to understand that the people who come to you, or to us, are also human beings, and that they are fleeing misfortunes and despair. The law and the international situation are important, no question about it, but it is also important to show compassion in such situations, and just lend a helping hand.
Question: Could you comment on today's statement by Mikhail Ulyanov, the director of the Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, about the use of chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq by ISIS?
Maria Zakharova: I’m not in a position to comment on what Mr Ulyanov said, as he has in-depth knowledge of the subject, and is a true expert and professional in this area. I can only direct you to his interview with the TASS news agency, in which he said, in particular, that, according to the available data, the ISIS group has gained access to chemical weapons production processes, technical documentation, and production facilities. Several instances of ISIS using chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq have been recorded. He also expressed regret that the UN Security Council has not yet responded properly to these facts, primarily due to the position adopted by our Western partners. He noted that the Russian side has repeatedly and insistently spoken about the need for such a reaction. So, the issue of extending the mandate of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism to investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria and Iraq remains on the agenda. There’s no resolution on this matter yet, but we have put such a draft resolution together, and, as Mr Ulyanov said, made it available to the Security Council several weeks ago.
I would like to add that this is an extremely important matter, as it’s related to an immediate threat to the country and the people of the region, and it should not be politicised under any circumstances. We’ve seen it over several years, when official Damascus was accused of using chemical weapons, while the same people were turning a blind eye to the actual use of chemical weapons by armed terrorists operating in Syria. There must be a single standard. This matter cannot be politicised. It can’t be approached as part of a political situation. Each instance must be investigated thoroughly, and appropriate decisions must be taken, based not on someone’s interests but rather on the objective picture backed by the facts.
Question: Do you have a roadmap for the implementation of the Geneva agreements, which Sergey Lavrov will take to Vienna? What will Russia propose?
And please, who are those people at Sheremetyevo Airport?
Maria Zakharova: According to information that is available to me, which I suggest you check at the concerned Russian agencies, they are citizens of Iraq. But this needs to be verified.
As for a roadmap, I think all sides are going to Vienna to find common ground. All of them can bring their own roadmaps. The goal is to bring together the opinions of the countries that differ on some aspect but hold similar views on other aspects of a political settlement in Syria and the Syrian crisis as a whole. I think the main goal is to find common ground.
Question: Can you confirm the Iraqi media information that Iraq has allegedly asked Russia to take part in the anti-terrorist operation. What does Russia think about uniting the armies of Iraq and Syria against ISIS?
Maria Zakharova: Regarding the supposed Iraqi request for Russian Aerospace Force participation in operations in Iraq, we have not received any official statements to this effect, as we said before. It’s true that we are monitoring everything that is being said on this issue, including statements made by public figures and politicians, and we’ve been watching with interest as the United States tries to influence Baghdad.
We take note of all of this, but as I said, we have not received any official requests regarding this.
I must say it’s surprising that Washington makes many statements on what should be the independent decision of a sovereign country.