Transcript of Remarks by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the MGIMO University of the MFA of Russia, September 1, 2010

Dear Anatoly Vasilyevich and Aleksandr Nikolayevich,

Dear colleagues and friends,

I join the congratulations that have been voiced here on the occasion of the start of the new academic year. Congratulations to those who have enrolled this year and are present in this hall.

To many of us, this University gave a start in life, and armed us with priceless knowledge. There are lots of examples of a success achieved by many of the graduates of our University. You have somebody to emulate and from whose experience to learn.

The research and teaching staff of the University have always met the highest requirements made for present-day higher education. Its training programs reflect the most important processes occurring in the sociopolitical and economic life of the country and in the world in general. It is this alloy – a highly qualified faculty, a creative administration, discipline and constant focus on the use of innovative forms of teaching – that enables MGIMO to train promising cadres for government agencies, scientific and business entities and many other areas in which people can show their worth.

However MGIMO is by no means inclined to rest on its laurels. It continues to develop rapidly, firmly holds its place in a cohort of the country's leading schools of higher education, enjoys high international credibility, and effectively adapts to changes in the socioeconomic situation, as was the case in those years when we were experiencing the effects of the global economic crisis.

There will be no secret to say that the Institute continues to be the main provider of personnel for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. MGIMO graduates make up nearly two-thirds of those admitted this year to the diplomatic service.

September opens not only an academic, but also a political year. For us, the current political year means, above all, a maximally faithful and efficient implementation of the tasks set at the July Meeting of Russian Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives by President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev. The Meeting resulted in a specific conversation, directly relevant, inter alia, to the teaching process and research activities of MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy. The discussion revolved around practical matters in the light of the changes that originate in the international situation, and most importantly – in the light of the demands that life presents to our internal development.

On behalf of the President, work has been launched to make use of external sources of modernization. All of our foreign policy activities are now subordinated to this task. The criteria are in place enabling us to reasonably judge the impact of the measures taken in our diplomatic work. Decisions are being readied to further strengthen the coordinating role of the MFA.

The analysis of international developments set out by the President at the Meeting serves as a powerful signal about the positive, modernization thrust of Russian foreign policy. This reinforces the positions of our partners, associates and those interested in a speedy overcoming of the Cold War legacy, both at the level of ideas and in practical affairs.

When we talk about a modernization reconfiguring of our diplomacy, we do not abandon the basic principles of our foreign policy philosophy: pragmatism, openness, a multi-thronged approach, and non-confrontational advancement of national interests. On the contrary, it is precisely about the maximum use of these principles in relation to today's imperatives of national development. The President especially accentuated this.

Today the whole world is at a critical stage in its evolution. Liberal capitalism has gone in a circle over the past 300 years and run into the same constraints, especially of an ethical and motivational nature, that were part of its "labor pains." To a large extent, this equalizes all in the face of a common challenge of modernization. The new realities dictate a uniting agenda in international relations, because to counteract the common challenges is possible only through collective efforts, in a spirit of shared responsibility.

The crisis has dramatically changed the terms of debate on key issues of global development, highlighting who and how calls the shots in the international financial architecture, what stands for the "common values," which, once they are "common," ought to be also formulated collectively, and what the optimal socioeconomic development models should be.

Indicative of the real agenda in the Euro-Atlantic area, for example, is the debate over the so-called end of progress, that is, on issues such as finding ways to maintain the standard of living achieved in Europe, bringing the needs of mankind in line with the capabilities of the resource base of the planet, and pairing national development strategies with the need for development on a global scale. In fact, there is redefining the very notion of progress.

This is directly connected with such a theme of international debate as "reformatting" the state's role in national and global economy. The complex of these issues is on the agenda of the Yaroslavl Political Forum, the second meeting of which will be held next week involving the President of Russia, leaders of several other states, prominent political figures, scholars and practitioners.

In light of the extensive historical experience and insight brought by the crisis, an understanding also emerges that the first responsibility of every member of the international community is to put one's own house in order. This is consistent with a profound Christian truth about our daily bread. It does not mean that there must be no plans for the future, but they must be a collective project.

Russia's status, as of any country, in the modern world will depend on the ability for comprehensive modernization – modernization which will cover not only socioeconomic policies, including stabilization of the financial sector and the restructuring of the economy, but also all other aspects of societal life, among them education, lifestyle, and social consciousness, including the philosophy of political elites. This also implies the need to conduct a foreign policy based on clearly defined national interests, pragmatically, creatively discarding the ideological and other biases.

A qualitatively new situation poses the problem of harmonization of our relations with all partners who can be external sources of our modernization. They, in turn, need the possibilities of Russia, its potential for development and economic growth, its market, its financial and intellectual resources. This mutual self-interest dictates the logic of mutual penetration of economies and cultures, including corporate and political practices and ethics.

Furthermore, this is not about a rejection of our history, of our moral and spiritual values and of all the best that the historical development of our country over many centuries has given to us and the world. It's about the very nationalization of foreign policy – to use Chancellor Gorchakov's language – that always follows another period of turmoil, which the 90's of the last century was for Russia.

All critics of the reforms of Peter I carefully avoid the question of what would have happened to Russia if it had not taken the path he charted. It was very hard to decide – modernization and participation in European affairs as an equal, or the country's transformation into material for the territorial and political rearrangement of the eastern part of Europe. I'm not afraid to say that with all the differences between our time and that era, today the question is no less relevant.

Russia needs modernization alliances with key states such as Germany, France, Italy and the European Union as a whole. Earlier, the complementarity of our economies was understood as the exchange of raw materials for industrial products. Today requires a qualitatively different approach aimed at the creation of a common economic, trade, investment, technological and humanitarian space. Of transformational significance for the entire European and Euro-Atlantic policies and practices would be the mutual abolition of the visa regime between Russia and the EU. Its preservation may cause problems for the realization of our shared plans. At the summit in Rostov three months ago, we handed over the draft of the appropriate agreement to the partners and look forward to their constructive response.

A Partnership for Modernization course was taken at the Rostov Russia-EU summit. It presupposes the joint development of major projects enabling maximum use of the comparative advantages of the parties along with ensuring the sustainability of our economies to a possible new wave of the global crisis.

The recent visit to the US by President Medvedev has shown that innovative collaboration also creates a positive agenda in our relations with America. Major world powers will never agree on everything. But the urge to hear a partner and reach a common understanding of the current phase of global development – that is, in what world we live and in what direction it evolves – likewise creates conditions for greater agreement at the level of practical politics and approaches to specific international issues.

We cannot agree with everything, for example, with the content of the United States' National Security Strategy promulgated in May. It contains many traditional elements of the foreign policy philosophy which are simply outdated. But another thing is important, and that's just what unites us: understanding that sustained and sustainable internal development forms the basis of national security. Also coinciding with our stance is the US comprehensive approach to security, proceeding from the recognition of the limitations of what can be done by relying on military force. We also welcome the turn towards multilateral diplomacy and collective efforts to tackle common challenges for all states. All of this, I repeat, is present in the US National Security Strategy.

In this regard, I'll note the book by Peter Beynart, ‘The Icarus Syndrome,' which was published under the aegis of the New York Council on Foreign Relations and contains a highly critical analysis of the US foreign policy philosophy that defined the role of America in the world history of the last century, in its triumphs and tragedies. The position of the author and his candor cannot leave one indifferent. I think this is a high standard of intellectual honesty. This confirms that under the present administration the changes in America can become a reality, thus strengthening the basis for a common pragmatic denominator in foreign policy between Russia, the US and Europe, for the development of a culture of collective leadership in world affairs together with other major powers.

A feature of the 20th century was overideologization, which had catastrophic consequences for Europe and the world, including two world wars and the Cold War. Now we understand what mindless waste of human lives and material resources was the struggle between the conflicting ideologies that promoted confrontational, sometimes utopian projects. This struggle would distract from the real, truly existential problems of humanity, including global poverty, environmental degradation, climate change, and natural and manmade disasters.

For the current security threats there can be no easy solutions in the spirit of the Maginot Line or unilateral projects for global missile defense. They cannot serve as an alternative to finding negotiated solutions to existing problems. Too high stakes leave no room for rational analysis and thoughtful, realistic solutions. In place of this narrow approach must come a really broad, but at the same time down-to-earth, based on real facts, view of things. This is also relevant for solving such a task as the modernization of the regimes of control over conventional arms, and building confidence and security in the military sphere.

We have every reason to speak about the prevalence of the tendency for convergence at the level of ideas and policies. But not in the sense of unification, as they once talked about in the middle of the last century, but in terms of ensuring a cultural and civilizational compatibility of the world. All this dictates, as President Medvedev said at the meeting of ambassadors, a paradigm shift in international relations on the basis of a balance of interests, not a balance of power.

Our initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty is oriented towards completing the transition in Euro-Atlantic politics from the old to a new agenda, and laying a solid legal foundation for the principles declared in the 90's of equal security for all in the Euro-Atlantic area. Without a break with the past, the urgent, vital interests of the countries in the OSCE region will long remain a hostage to previous instincts and prejudices, the intellectual and political inertia of the Cold War era. Therefore, the success of the OSCE summit at the end of this year will depend on the availability of the political will among all states to make such a collective breakthrough into the future, bringing an end to the uncertainty of the last twenty years.

All the peoples of the Euro-Atlantic family deserve clarity in our common affairs. Opportunities for such collective brainstorming are provided by various discussion platforms, including the Munich Security Conference to be held outside headquarters in October in Moscow.

We expect greater intelligibility from our partners in NATO. The dual existence of the alliance – between the past and the future – has become protracted too long. Unfortunately, the discussions about the preparation of a new strategic concept of NATO are evidence of this. I cannot but agree with Wolfgang Ischinger and Urlich Weisser, who believe that the report of the Wise Men's group prepared in terms of a contribution to a new strategic concept of NATO could hardly serve as a strategic response to the Russian initiatives on European security and that a sustainable security architecture in Europe will appear only if NATO succeeds in correctly building its relations with Russia.

We would like to see the alliance complete its political transformation into a modern organization in the field of security and stand ready to participate in equal network cooperation with other players, including Russia and the CSTO, with absolute respect for the norms of international law, primarily the Charter of the United Nations.

The most important moment in our practical relations with NATO is the necessity to achieve real progress in combating the Afghan drug traffic, which is directly connected with the financing of extremism and terrorism and creates a threat to international peace, which already starts manifesting in Russia and many other countries.

Eighteen months ago, we drew a conclusion about the trend towards the strengthening in world politics of the regional level of governance in the conditions of a temporary "deglobalization," associated not only with the financial crisis, but also with the crisis of the entire international system. It is about an intensification of the processes of regional and sub-regional cooperation and integration. Regional structures tend to assume more responsibility for the state of affairs in their regions, as stipulated in the UN Charter. Such decentralization should lay a solid foundation for a new round of globalization, the benefits of which will be more evenly distributed across countries and regions.

Regionalization of global politics has a direct relationship to the CIS as well. The development of the integration processes in the region is based not only on our common historical resource, which is huge, but also on the generality of the imperatives of development. The objectives of modernization are relevant to all. Of particular importance is the creation of conditions for the functioning within the CIS of an innovative interstate space that is compatible with the pan-European scientific and technological space. This is the aim of the Interstate Target Program for Innovative Cooperation among the CIS Member States to 2020 now being developed.

It is important – both for the Commonwealth countries themselves and for the other states showing interest in our region – to focus precisely on the pressing problems of development, rather than trying to get a geopolitical advantage in the spirit of "zero-sum games." What such "games" lead to, we all saw in August 2008.

As in international affairs, stability within states is an absolute value, a mandatory prerequisite for solving existing problems. Events in the CIS in recent years show convincingly that no positive processes – either sociopolitical or socioeconomic – can develop in conditions of destabilization. A striking example is Kyrgyzstan, which has undergone a second "revolution" over the past five years. We are trying to help calm down the situation, bilaterally and through the CSTO and SCO. We stand ready for additional joint efforts with other partners to promote normalcy there.

The role of the Asia-Pacific Region continues to increase in world politics and global economy. Today, a new, more sophisticated architecture of security and cooperation is beginning to take shape there. Russia contributes to this process. At a meeting in Khabarovsk in June, the President set the task of achieving full integration of the eastern regions of Russia into the AP region. We see this as an important resource in efforts to ensure innovative and overall socioeconomic development of Siberia and our Far East. There is much work to implement the cooperation plans that we have with our key partners in the AP region – China and India – and with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, Singapore and other ASEAN countries.

A lot of fairly good stepping stones exist in the Latin American sector. In recent years, political relations between Russia and the countries of this region rapidly gaining clout have reached a qualitatively new level. Today we need to transfer this political capital into mutually beneficial joint projects in advanced fields.

Our ties with Africa have substantially livened up. As the difficult problems of the continent get solved, its enormous resource potential will become a key factor in world development. We stand ready to assist our African partners, developing and strengthening the long-standing solidarity of our country with their just expectations.

Multi-vector network diplomacy is a response to the new reality, including the "dispersal of global power" – politico-military, economic, financial, "soft" and any other. This reality requires flexible forms of interaction between different groups of states to ensure the overlapping interests – as is done in the Group of Twenty, in the G8 and within the BRIC. It is important to figure out the possible development variants of these processes and to determine the optimal configuration for tackling specific tasks.

I would like to dwell separately on the situation around Iran. Not just because its nuclear program evokes concern in the world and not because this theme even goes beyond the problem of the nonproliferation of WMD, but also because it acquires significance as one of the most pressing issues in global politics.

Of course, the Iranian side – we have repeatedly told our Iranian partners bluntly about this – must provide the required level of openness and cooperation with the IAEA, which operates on behalf of the international community and with the support of the UN Security Council. Clearing up all the questions still outstanding is not only necessary, but would serve primarily the interests of Iran itself.

However, a great responsibility also rests with all on whom the search for a mutually acceptable solution depends. I mean, first of all, the participants of the so called Group of Six, which is also sometimes called "five plus one" or "three plus three." Russia, the US, China and the EU are working in it. The group is sufficiently representative and on its recommendations is based the whole policy of the international community on the Iranian issue. Here, we proceed, above all, from the fundamental truth that no problems of the modern world have military solutions.

At the Ambassadors' Meeting, the President outlined our vision for a comprehensive settlement in the regional context as the objectively only possible one; that is, with due consideration for all the factors in this big and very volatile region. The problem of Iran's nuclear program has a systemic nature relating, inter alia, to – let us not hide – the imperfections of the existing nuclear nonproliferation regime. Consequently, the approach to its solution must also be systemic and necessarily based on international law. As in court, justice should not only be administered, but it should be obvious for all that it is justice that is being administered, in the full sense of the word.

We have repeatedly noted that sanctions generally fail to produce the desired results. Their role is to give a signal, to stimulate the negotiation process. Not to mention the fact that it is impossible to isolate a country like Iran, without grave consequences for the region and the world at large.

We must soberly and honestly examine all possible strategies of the international community before taking any action that would make us hostages of an uncontrolled development of events. Whatever the difficulties standing in our way, and they will be many, we will have to negotiate in any case, and the sooner we start negotiating in earnest, the better.

In this regard, I can only welcome the recent confirmation by US President Barack Obama of his line on normalizing relations with Iran. Washington seems to understand that concerted efforts to engage Iran in negotiations, particularly in dealing with regional problems, will help to positively influence the calculations and intentions of the Iranian side.

You can start with the implementation of confidence-building measures, such as the supply of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (we appreciated the relevant initiatives of Brazil and Turkey), and with synergies to stabilize Afghanistan. Iran can actually play a very positive role here.

A fundamental point: all members of the international community must act in solidarity, on the basis of mutual responsibility. We cannot accept it when in parallel with collective efforts in the UN Security Council partners take unilateral decisions on sanctions, including extraterritorial, which undermine the very basis for further joint action.

The Near and Middle East region is overloaded with crises. Suffice it to mention the Arab-Israeli conflict. There can no longer be any justification for its continued unsettledness, the more so now, when the bloc confrontation is gone. The parties must abandon their medieval, even Old Testament, perceptions about each other and begin to negotiate. The renewal, right tomorrow, I hope, of direct Palestinian-Israeli negotiations gives a chance for this. The basis for agreement exists in the UN resolutions and in the Arab peace initiative and in the documents of the Quartet.

More broadly, a comprehensive strategy to address all the key interrelated issues of the Near and Middle East region is needed, which implies not least the prevention of a nuclear arms race there. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. Nuclear weapons do not provide security. Therefore, we actively facilitated at the Review Conference of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in the spring of this year, the adoption of a decision to hold, in 2012, an international conference on the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of nuclear and other types of WMD and their means of delivery.

This region has already been the object of destabilization from outside for its "rearrangement" to suit other people's interests, according to other people's templates. Nobody stands to gain from unleashing a new large-scale confrontation here. All will be losers.

As we know politics is primarily the ability to choose. My wish is that everybody will opt for a responsible collective strategy which would give a solution to problems rather than create new ones.

Tomorrow is September 2, the 65th anniversary of the Victory in the Far East, the day of the end of the Second World War. I am convinced that the memory of the Victory of the peoples of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War will always be a source of our faith in ourselves and of our faith in the future of Russia. The Soviet Union broke the backbone of the hordes of the Third Reich – in spite of Stalinism, despite its crimes, which only increased the burden of the cross of our grandfathers and fathers, of the entire war generation. The chief factor of the Victory was the people's ability for self-sacrifice. No wonder that this theme is completely ignored by those engaged in falsifying the history of that war, by those who see no place for morality in international relations. A fitting response to such falsifiers was the parade in Moscow on May 9 this year, when units of the armed forces of the CIS countries, Britain, Poland, France and the United States solemnly marched across Red Square.

At all stages of the very complex historical path of our country – rich in tragic events and in unequaled achievements – it was impossible to imagine Russia isolated, outside the surrounding context. It is equally impossible to imagine European and world history – with all its catastrophes and triumphs of the human mind and of the human spirit – without Russia, without its contribution: economic, financial, cultural and civilizational, without the contribution made through blood and sweat, sacrifice and destruction.

Now, following another round of globalization, it is difficult to imagine the future of Russia in isolation from the outside world, as well as the future of the rest of the world in isolation from the future of our country.

The policy for modernization gives our diplomacy intelligible objectives that are understandable within the country and abroad. It takes us into a broad strategic space in international affairs, pushing the foreign policy horizon in all directions, and helps to back with action our line on promoting a positive international agenda.

Modernization involves the further development of democratic institutions, civil society, the establishment of present-day constructive mechanisms for communication with them, and interaction between cultures and religions. The role of the Foreign Ministry in this process should include, on the one hand, sharing experiences with partners, and facilitating introduction of advanced ideas and suggestions as they relate to our plans, and on the other the protection of the rights and interests of Russians abroad, and active participation in improving the international standards in the humanitarian sphere and, of course, in monitoring their observance.

A significant resource is greater involvement in the foreign policy process, of parliamentary diplomacy, Russian political parties, nongovernmental organizations, the expert community and business circles. For these purposes the Russian Council on International Affairs and the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund are created. Collaboration with religious organizations, which we engage, is important for inter-civilizational and interfaith dialogue, for helping to strengthen ethnic harmony and for advancing the peacemaking processes.

We should also make fuller use of the intellectual and professional potential of our overseas compatriots, their ideas and proposals that take into account both their knowledge of Russia and their experience in the country of residence.

As stressed at the Ambassadors' Meeting by President Medvedev, modern diplomacy must be maneuverable, flexible, quick off the mark, capable of meeting the full range of tasks facing Russia as an integral part of the global world. It is crucial to constantly enhance and update the foreign policy tools.

Today, diplomacy, as the saying goes, has entered "into the field," into "hot spots" and interacts with military and civilian specialists and with businesses. The institution for international election observation has become a sharp foreign policy instrument.

All this requires impeccable knowledge of modern methods of foreign policy work, the ability to quickly concentrate resources on strategic directions. The importance of working with the media, whose members I warmly welcome here, has increased as never before. It is necessary to explain quickly, accurately, in an understandable, "not oversoaped" language, the steps being taken, the country's position on international issues.

Those of you who will choose a diplomatic career are to master this art at the MFA, in our foreign offices, based on the knowledge and skills received at MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy.

By the way, it is no exaggeration to say that MGIMO in and of itself is one of the real tools of our diplomacy. This is a major educational and research center of the international caliber. Today there are more than 700 students enrolled here from more than 50 states. Many MGIMO graduates of past years have achieved in their countries success both in big politics and in diplomacy, in other areas of the public service, in journalism, in the corporate sector; many are working in international organizations. The network of friendly contacts that MGIMO alumni maintain among themselves everywhere in the world strengthens the human factor so much needed in international relations today.

As a matter of fact this is what is called "soft power." This role of MGIMO actually facilitates the development of the world's intellectual, scientific and cultural potential, and contributes to the objective perception of Russia abroad.

Once again I congratulate you all and wish the administration, faculty and students still further success.

September 1, 2010