Speech and answers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V. Lavrov to the questions of the Russian Mass Media on the results of the meeting of the U.S. Secretary of State H. Clinton in St. Petersburg, on 29 June 2012

Dear Colleagues,

I am very pleased that the negotiations with H. Clinton were truly partner. The experience that we gained over the past few years helps us to find understanding in today's uneasy atmosphere on the international arena.

First of all, we recorded a significant understanding between our countries in terms of bilateral relations. Both sides are pleased with the meeting held on June 18 in Los Cabos, between the President of Russia V. Putin and the President of U.S. B. Obama. The meeting was quite long was and it touched almost all aspects of the bilateral agenda and key international issues. Hillary Clinton and I are excited that the Heads of State endorsed the work of the Presidential Commission, coordinated by the U.S. Secretary of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia. In the period after the Los Cabos an agreement on the establishment of the 21st working group within the Commission came in force. This group will be engaged in military-technical cooperation. We made a qualitative step forward - a couple of years ago; it was hard to imagine that Russia and the United States will jointly develop a military-technical subject. Now, this agreement came into force. We will use it to build the potential of our interaction.

Today we have talked about how to perform a presidents' mission to strengthen economic cooperation, the volume of which, of course, negligible in comparison with the economic potential of Russia and the United States. We agreed to work on the idea of ​​establishing a mechanism for joint assessment of the investment climate in the U.S. and Russia for investors of both countries as suggested in the Los Cabos by the President V.V. Putin.

Now I would like to talk about humanitarian cooperation. Next month marks the 200th anniversary of the founding of the Fort Ross by Russian immigrants in California. Large-scale events are planned with the participation of public, political figures, cultural figures of Russia and the USA, dedicated to this event. Viewing a visible link between us and the Americans through the Russian Far East - I invite all members of media present here to pay close attention to this colorful upcoming event.

There are always some difficulties in any bilateral relationship - the U.S. and Russia also have some problems. It concerns the treatment of adoptive children from Russia by American families. I will not dwell on this topic, because it is well-known. Clinton and I discussed a number of specific cases in detail. We understand the need to build a legal basis for bilateral relations in this area as soon as possible, because now there are no international agreements that allow us to monitor the status of adopted Russian children by American families at any time. The agreement that we signed last year, which is located on the ratification in the Duma, would establish such a process. I hope that it will happen that way, and we stand for it.

We talked about the need to solve the problems of the Russians, who for one reason or another have been in custody in the United States, as well as the problems of our citizens who do not have the opportunity to visit the United States without an apparent reason for explanation. And, of course, we discussed the impending entry of Russia into the WTO, the prospect of cancellation of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, and the draft "Law of S. Magnitskiy." All these factors will certainly create irritants in our relations. We approach them with the realities that exist in Russia and the United States. There is the position of the U.S. Congress, there is the position of the Administration. But no matter what, we are convinced that the presidential powers should be applied to the benefit of bilateral cooperation, which we would like to make strategic and should not be used to solve the problems between the legislative and executive branches of government in the United States at the expense and to the detriment of the Russian Federation.

In the context of international affairs, of course, Syria dominated. I felt a change in the position of my colleague Hillary Clinton in the sense that there were no ultimatums. Nothing was said about the document that was discussed in Geneva, that it was absolutely untouchable - and such estimates were given by representatives of the State Department and White House literally these days. Hillary Clinton is a very experienced diplomat and experienced politician. She said that she understands our position. We reciprocated and decided to seek an agreement that would be bringing us together based on a clear understanding - as set out in terms of Kofi Annan - regarding the Syrian side to be stimulated to a national dialogue, but only Syrians can decide what would be the Syrian government and who can take posts and positions.

This thesis is enshrined in the Joint Statement of Presidents Vladimir Putin and Obama accepted in Los Cabos on June 18. It is posted on their websites – I encourage everyone to become familiar with a part related to Syria. It clearly stipulates that Syrians themselves should decide the fate of their country - the government and all opposition groups.

Today, we also exchanged views on the state of Middle East regulation. American colleagues have expressed their gratitude for the information about the talks in Israel, Palestine and Jordan, held during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin in these states. Also, the situation around the Iranian nuclear program, the situation in Afghanistan and our engagement in the UN and other international organizations in general was discussed.

I think that it was one of the most productive negotiations. I do not anticipate the fact that we will be able to agree on everything tomorrow in Geneva. Based on the results of today's talk, which many of our European and Arab friends and colleagues hoped for, I can say with confidence that we have a very good chance to find a common denominator of the Geneva meeting, to outline the way forward for the mobilization of all external players to create necessary conditions for the implementation of the plan by Kofi Annan by the Syrian parties.

Question: Did Russia really make suggestions in the new draft of the plan of Kofi Annan, regarding the fate of al-Assad? Could this issue be the cause of failure of the upcoming conference? Will the future of UN observers in Syria be discussed and what is the position of Russia on this matter?

S.V. Lavrov: We are talking based on what Russian President Vladimir Putin said and what was repeatedly passed on to our colleagues at the Ministers of Foreign Affairs level. The Russian position is that the role of external players cannot go beyond the task of creating an enabling environment to ensure that the Syrian side will start negotiating after stopping the violence.

We believe that the agreement, executed by specific schemes, circumspect by military and civilian experts of the UN Observer Mission in Syria, in order to ensure synchronized output of the towns and other settlements as the armed forces and security forces of Syria, and armed groups opposition should be the first step. The next immediate step after that should be the actions of all, without exception, external players to convince the Syrian sides to come to the negotiating table. And then they need to be left alone in regard to the development of substantive agreements. For example, what the transition period and its mechanisms would be, how soon the general elections would be held and whether the constitution should be changed or not, etc. Syrians should negotiate this by themselves. However, they cannot be left alone with the fact that every outside player will continue to affect various Syrian sides.

After having Syrians at the negotiating table, foreign players should encourage them daily and hourly not to give up a dialogue and to reach compromises. We do not have the right to prejudge the substance of their agreements. It would be counterproductive. And such a fine line must be fully taken into account during the discussions held in Geneva.

Regarding the UN Mission I would like to say the following. Of course, if we say (and we are convinced) that the agreement on the synchronized output of the cities and towns of the Syrian government forces and armed opposition groups should be the first step, then someone needs to keep track of it. We call for observers to have the support and additional reinforcement in the quantitative sense.

Question: You said that Moscow and Washington have difference views over the bilateral relations and international agenda. Did you discuss today, the prospect of bilateral relations after the U.S. presidential election?

S.V.Larov: This topic was not discussed and I do not think that at this stage it is on the agenda. The American people will elect their president, as the Russians have already done.

Despite the fact that we have not touched upon this issue today, I am convinced that the fundamental national interests of Russia and the U.S. will make any leader elected from our two countries maintain continuity of leadership and increase the interaction, which - with all the respect to other states - play an important role in determining the global agenda, the parameters of stability in the world and providing strategic parity.