From the answers of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey V. Lavrov to the questions from editors and readers of the «Russian newspaper» in the framework of «Business breakfast», Moscow, October 22, 2012

Question: Bashar Assad is still in power thanks to the efforts of Russia and China according to the West opinion. We were proposed this thesis. You have repeatedly said that, in principle, Moscow does not care who will be the president of Syria. The main thing is that this president will be chosen by the Syrian people. But why, in this case, in your opinion, the relations, on the one hand, with Russia and China and, on the other, with the United States and the EU went beyond of the ordinary diplomatic relations – so I can afford the word «beyond a certain diplomatic decency» - when it comes to Syria. Why is such a tense situation now?

Sergey V. Lavrov: Indeed, Syria is on everyone's lips now. And in information space, as well as in practical matters we need to do something to stop the bloodshed there. Unfortunately, these unpretentious slogans that if neither Russia nor China, all settled down there long ago, hammer into the heads of men in the streets and possess a lot of people. You know very well how the media can shape public opinion, and this is happening in the West and in the region countries in relation to the Syrian situation, where there is the spreading of extremely simplified interpretation dictated, as I understand it, the geopolitical interests of those, who describes it.

In fact, the situation is very serious. The entire region is in motion. «Arab Spring» is a sprouting of seeds, which were sown by George W. Bush putting forward the concept of the «Greater Middle East», and the democratization of the space. Now we are reaping the benefits, because this obsession by externally imposed changes on foreign recipes have not been supported by plans, long-term or even medium-term forecasts and estimates. The most important is that these slogans of change and democratization were not agreed with the region countries. In our time we have seen enough revolutions and consistently argue that any changes should be occurred by the evolutionary way and based on the wishes of the peoples themselves. It is natural that the peoples of the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the people of any other part of the world, want to live better, be the respected citizens in their states. So we actively support these aspirations.

When the events of «Arab Spring» happened, we were saying about this. At the same time we urged to ensure that foreign players were guided by the principle of «do no harm», that they were doing everything to create the most favorable environment that would allow all political forces of every Arab or any other country agreeing on how they want to implement these reforms . The same applies to Syria.

Bashar Assad was made ​​the bogey. But in fact, all of these peremptory allegations, that he was to blame, cover a big geopolitical game. There is the process of another reformatting of geopolitical map of the Middle East, where various players are trying to ensure their own geopolitical position. Many of them have in their mind not as much Syria as Iran. They openly say that we should deny Iran of the closest ally, whom Bashar Assad is seen. All this is very sad.

If you look at all what is happening more universally, those, who are interested in the stability of the region for creation of conditions for the prosperity (there are resources to do it ), must be guided not by the logic of isolation used in Iran relation and earlier in Syria relation, but by the logic of involvement. Tragically, our Western partners too often elect the logic of isolation, choose the coercive measures aiming to introduce unilateral sanctions, which are not agreed in the UN Security Council seeking the regime change.

Our approach is that it is counterproductive. Such externally imposed prescriptions will never give long-term sustainable result. Such result can only be achieved through the dialogue. These principles are fully applicable to the situation in Syria.

Bashar Assad represents the guarantee for the security of minorities including Christians, who live in Syria and have lived there for centuries. Even according to the most conservative estimates, which we were expressed in confidential contacts by our West European partners, at least one third of the population continues to support Bashar Assad as the person who must prevent the transformation of Syria in the state, where the minority will not be able to exist.

Applying the principle of involvement from the beginning of the crisis we aggressively reached the termination of all kinds of violence from every side and the beginning of inclusive dialogue between the Government and all opposition groups. That is why last year we supported the initiative of the League of Arab States, which involves the mission start of Arab observers. They began to work in the country with the consent of the Syrian leadership, and we assisted much that the consent was obtained. But as observers prepared the first report, which not included one-sided accusations of government forces in the ongoing violence, and objectively (but incomplete) showed that the armed opposition were doing, unfortunately, the LAS terminated the mission.

After that there was the plan of Kofi Annan, which is also intended to start the dialogue. In order to create the necessary conditions, it was requested to start the mission of the UN observers. Observer candidacies were agreed with Damascus. We once again contributed to this. But after the first results began to appear, when the violence was a little fall, observers increasingly became the targets of armed provocations. Unbearable conditions were created for them, and they were also withdrawn.

It seems that as clearance is going to appear in this situation, someone benefits to prevent its transfer to a more peaceful course and continue the bloody battle in Syria, continue the civil war.

I repeat that Russia is honestly seeking the awareness of the inevitability of the ceasefire and start of negotiations from the Syrian government and all the opposition forces. There was the meeting of «Action Group» on June 30 of this year in Geneva at our suggestion, which coincided with the initiative of Kofi Annan. Consensus document named as the Geneva communique was agreed during this meeting. It says that all, who are fighting against each other, should stop doing it. Also all external players must use their influence on the different sides, which are shooting at each other in Syria, and apply that influence to make them simultaneously announce the ceasefire and begin negotiations allocating special representatives for this.

Communiquй was adopted by consensus reflecting the shared, collectively agreed position of all five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the LAS, Turkey, the EU and the UN. Bashar Assad supported the document and appointed his negotiator. Corresponding call, which we addressed unanimously to the opposition in Geneva, was not heard by this opposition. Opposition forces were not appointed its negotiating team, but also refused to accept the Geneva communique. This is more proof of my conjecture that once a movement is planned, someone benefits to rip it.

Now we have the fact that the situation is deteriorating day by day. With varying success Government forces knock armed opposition groups from the towns and populated localities. But the opposition continues to receive weapons, money and moral support. When we talk to the opposition - and with external opposition in the face of Syrian National Council, and with the internal oppositions, the so-called National coordinating committees - then we tell them that we should stop resorting to violence. Some of them response us that Western partners tell them quite different calling to continue hanging back, shooting, defending of their rights with a weapons in arms - then, they say, the regime will fall. There are the hints that external support of such line will also be provided.

It is especially sad that the opposition is increasingly resorted to the tactic of terrorism. Despite a long-standing steadfast practice our Western partners began to reject to condemn the attacks in the UN Security Council. Our American partners by lips of official representative of Department of State even said that the continuing of Assad stay in power only fueled the extremist sentiment. This is the indirect justification of terrorist attacks! I think that we are dealing with very dangerous position, which may come back by boomerang to those, who start to defend it.

Not only free Syrian army is acting against the government in Syria. It is far from uniform, not united and do not have a single command. In Syria there is «Al Qaeda» and other extremist groups associated with it. Free Syrian army has already expressed its willingness to cooperate with «Al Qaeda» with the purpose to overthrow the regime. Our Western partners should understand what democratization they achieve.

The opposition is fragmented. Earlier in Geneva, Western colleagues promised to unite the opposition on the base of readiness to the dialogue, but this was not done. The inability of those, who have influence on the opposition in the West and in the region, merge them into the integrated system to be able to understand, with whom to talk, is one of the main reasons that we see now, namely, the continuing bloodshed in Syria.

As trite as it may sound, the Geneva communique was built on a simple, but uncontested consensus: stop the violence, negotiate, and agree that we have called «transitional governing body» in this communiquй, the composition of which shall be the subject of a consensus between the government and opposition. This body will prepare the constitution, elections. During the period up to them it will have full executive power.

I repeat that Damascus supported Geneva communique. Now it is up to the opposition. We hope very much that new Joint Special Representative of the United Nations and League of Arab States Lakhdar Brahimi, who are going to come to Moscow in a week for consultations, will try to give a practical dimension to the principles contained in the Geneva communique.

Question: What is actually happening between Russia and the United States? Are the United States our political enemy? What is the situation with BMD? What is the fate of the «reset»?

Sergey V. Lavrov: In general The United States of America are not foreign policy enemy for us. We have no foreign policy enemy, as well as other enemies. And we are not going to create them yourself.

There are countries that form the image of the enemy in order to achieve domestic political goals. I think some politicians in the United States leadership guided by this. They have the desire to strengthen its domestic position to attract voters by such bellicose rhetoric, say, that's what we are strong and uncompromising. Of course, such rhetoric is working on a certain part of the population.

But over the last few years, our relations with the United States have found a very positive dynamics in a number of ways. They appeared backbone factor, I mean the Presidential Commission, the activity of which is coordinated by the foreign affairs agencies. Its composition has 21 joint working groups, there are their regular meetings, specific agreements are produced, and then the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the United States Department of State prepare a consolidated report for the presidents of the two countries. Previously, there was no such backbone mechanism. This time the commission Viktor. S. Chernomyrdin - Al Gore was working. At some stage, it was engaged to the economy. And today's Presidential Commission deals with all issues on the bilateral agenda including the economy, contacts with journalists and contacts related to the civil societies, the relationship between the military and military-technical issues. So this is a transition to a new quality. We believe that the structuring of the relationship is quite useful.

In practical terms including the use of the mechanisms of this Commission, we achieved the number of results: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty was signed, which was welcomed by all, and in fact it is implemented with the support of an appropriate mechanism for controlling its operation (visits of inspection teams, telemetry, etc.). Over these years we have also ratified the Agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which in this field opens the access of Russian services to the United States market and creates opportunities for joint work of Russian and the United States companies on third country markets. Russia and the United States of America signed Visa facilitation agreement. Now businessmen and tourists can get three-year multiple-entry visas and do it faster than ever before. Deadlines were set. They are 10-12 working days.

We recently were able to achieve the entry into force of the Agreement on Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. At first glance this aspect seems at first glance private, but it is perceived very emotionally by our society given the tragic incidents that occurred with adopted children from Russia in American families. We have repeatedly expressed our outrage to the fact, how the American court system applies to the United States citizens, who adopt children from Russia, and then tortured them, raped them. Some incidents were fatal.

It is unacceptable that those, who are responsible for the killings of Russian children and abusing them, get probation or release in the courtroom. The death of a child, statutory rape is much more severe crime than gluing of the hands of the daughter to the wall, as recently was made ​​by one mother in the United States in exchange for 99 years in prison.

There is a blatant double standard. We do not fit any references to the fact that the court system is independent. I constantly have to explain that the offense can not have a national color, when your children need, they say, to protect punishing severely those, who torture them, and children adopted from abroad are like people of another sort.

The court system should receive the comprehensive information from the executive branch, and the executive branch should form in the court system the single relation for any crime, in particular, for crimes against children.

I hope that the Agreement that we signed with the United States will allow changing this situation and controlling, how our children feel themself in foster family. Indeed, prior to the entry into force of this document, we did not even have the right to organize consular access to Russian children and get information on where in the United States adoptions boys and girls from the Russian Federation go. Now, by the Agreement, each U.S. state assigns the appropriate agency to be responsible for the provision of information to the Russian side through the Department of State. Experience in this field we have not still accumulated, but I repeat that the created legal base is quite solid.

So we have a motion on a number of fronts. I'm not talking about that economic and trade relations were as the number one priority at the meeting between Presidents Vladimir V. Putin and Barack Obama in Los Cabos in June of this year in the margins of G-20 summit. Our Heads of State decided to place special emphasis on the promotion of trade and mutual investments. Of course, current amounts are minuscule compared to the potential available in both countries.

Russian President proposed to establish a joint mechanism to address the problems, with which the United States investors in Russia and Russian investors in the United States face. We hope that some kind of answer will be got from the American side after the election campaign. Barack Obama strongly supported this proposal, but we do not have the practical response from the American side. Although it would seem, all should be interested in the fact that the businessmen do not encounter with artificial problems, as it has happened twice recently with our JSC «Severstal», which puts a massive investments in Denver.

Of course, there can't be the situation that any two countries, especially the major powers such as the United States and the Russian Federation do not have problems at all. And, certainly, there are problems. I mentioned the issue of adoption, which for me is one of the most foregrounds taking into consideration its humanitarian sound. But we try to regulate it in legal terms, and now all that remains to execute it in practice.

In a broader, geopolitical context the problem of ballistic missile defense is the main obstacle for building of the strategic partnership between the Russian Federation and the United States, the Russian Federation and NATO. The purpose of building of the strategic partnership between Russia and North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been fixed in the Lisbon Summit Declaration between Russia and NATO in November of 2010. Ballistic missile defense is the essential element of strategic stability. Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States of America was signed in 1972 at the initiative of the United States, which persistently sought the adoption of the thesis that the strategic stability should apply an integrated approach covering strategic defensive and offensive weapons. We recognized this relationship, and since then it had remained the cornerstone of all our contacts with the United States on the problems of nuclear weapons and global parity in the sphere of strategic stability.

So when the U.S. Administration decided to withdraw from the Treaty and began to build a global ballistic missile defense system, President Vladimir V. Putin said that we can't prevent the implementation of such decision, but it would take us back to the old days and undermine the trust between our two countries. Then George W. Bush responded that we are no longer enemies, so you can do what you want, and we will implement own system. But we knew that all of this could create additional and completely unnecessary complexity, and therefore in 2007, President Vladimir V. Putin proposed to develop the ballistic missile defense system jointly. Appropriate proposals were passed «in the margins» of the summit in Heiligendamm in June 2007 and then during the beginning of July 2007 they were passed in Kennebunkport at the informal meeting of the two presidents. These proposals were motivated by the desire to change qualitatively the nature of our relations in the field of nuclear weapons and strategic stability in general. Unfortunately, their disruptive nature was not seen. Maybe these suggestions were not accepted because this nature was seen.

At the same time the then United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the then United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came to Moscow to discuss measures that would allow the Russian Federation do not worry that the ballistic missile defense system would pose risks for our strategic nuclear deterrent force. So we said to them that if measures proposed the United States can be implemented, it would be nice. And measures included permanent round-the-clock presence of Russian officers at BMD bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, and assumed technical measures that physically are not allowed radar to «see» the territory of Russia. This is what was proposed, and in a situation of a lack of agreement on a joint system, it was perceived by us as being the minimum necessary. But then, unfortunately, these ideas were withdrawn.

I thoroughly describe the history to show that the conversation has been long, and the Russian side took the initiative to find a common solution. Americans, as it seems, understood that we need some assurance that the system not being directed against us. But then it was withdrawn again. And there is no discussion on any steps similar to those talked with Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates. We are told that this system is not against you. But our counter offer to fix this thesis in a legally binding form and develop criteria that at every stage of the U.S. ballistic missile defense would allow making sure that it is not against Russia, we are said that, they response, there is no need in this, because we told you that it is not against you. What is the need in any contracts, agreements and some other criteria?

We still continue the dialogue and do not slam the door. We have the time. This moment the system has no any shapes that create a threat to our strategic nuclear deterrent. But our military unequivocally concluded that during the subsequent phases such risks and threats would arise.

In a broader sense, I would say that at the time we offered and continue to consider an important idea of ​​concluding of the European Security Treaty. Long ago in the framework of the OSCE, NATO-Russia Council we declared the political commitment that no country should strengthen its security at the expense of security of others. But this statement, unfortunately, does not work. So we proposed to conclude the treaty to translate this commitment from the political to the legal. Western partners, who are moving away from talking about it, constantly ask us - why do you need this contract? We have adopted the political declaration, take our word for it, and in general can you give us at least an example of a situation where such a legal obligation may be claimed? Yes, there is such situation. It's exactly what we're talking about – ballistic missile defense. Because ballistic missile defense poses risks to our security, but this system is building for the purpose of strengthening of the security of the United States and other NATO members. This is an obvious case, when the declared obligations not to strengthen their security at the expense of others are violated. And there is no legal mechanism to translate our conversation with the U.S. and NATO in the plane of the coherent and practical steps to be able to insist on getting answers.

Moreover, the global U.S. ballistic missile defense system involves the creation of bases in Poland, Romania and the Mediterranean. It's all very close to the borders of the Russian Federation. Bases in Poland and Romania directly violate no legal but the political commitment accepted by NATO members not to place the objects of the military infrastructure on the territory of new members of the alliance. It relates to the talk about why we need a legally binding agreement.

Let us not forget that the European part of ballistic missile defense is only one part of the global U.S. ballistic missile defense. Ballistic missile defense creating no less fast paces (maybe even sooner) in Northeast Asia together with America partners - Japan, Republic of Korea - which will be part of the global system, and locates very close to our borders.

We continue the dialogue not only with the U.S., but also with NATO. Although everyone knows well that NATO ballistic missile defense is the United States ballistic missile defense, for the real control of which no one, besides the United States, will have access. Therefore, the key here is our dialogue with the United States, where we still do not see the advancements. We do not want this situation will «freeze» without moving toward each other.

With regard to the outcome of the upcoming presidential elections in the U.S., we will work with those leaders, who are in power and will be elected by people. There were many examples in history, when the electioneering rhetoric was going wild. But when the winner of the election comes to the workplace, he begins to engage in concrete actions. Only then we can judge the true intentions of any administration. I am sure that no matter what happens and no matter who wins, the U.S. relationship with the outside world will not disappear, so the relations of any U.S. administration with Russia in the context will play the significant role.

October 22, 2012