Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to media questions during a joint news conference with Foreign Minister of Belarus Sergey Aleinik following their talks, Moscow, May 17, 2023
17 May 2023 17:03
943-17-05-2023
Colleagues.
I am happy to welcome Sergey Aleinik to Moscow. He accepted our invitation to pay an official visit to the Russian Federation shortly after his appointment as Foreign Minister of the Republic of Belarus. The visit has been quite a success so far, and has a packed agenda.
Yesterday, Mr Aleinik met with Speaker of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation Valentina Matviyenko and Speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Volodin.
Today, we continued the talks we started yesterday afternoon at the foreign ministry level.
As usual, we reviewed the progress under the Programme for Coordinated Foreign Policy Action in 2022-2023 and the Plan for Foreign Ministry Consultations. All the scheduled initiatives are in progress. We also outlined the agenda for the next annual joint meeting of our foreign ministries' boards, which is scheduled to take place in the fourth quarter of 2023 in Moscow. Apart from discussing and agreeing on the agenda, we will also coordinate a new programme for 2024-2025.
Our commitment to coordinate our foreign policies is one of the main pillars of the Union State's development. This is increasingly emerging as a critical element when it comes to ensuring the national interests of our countries in today's geopolitical environment. We agreed to keep supporting each other as allies and strategic partners in the interests of our countries, our people and the Union State.
We had a detailed discussion on efforts to promote integration processes taking into consideration the outcomes of the Union State's Supreme Council, which took place in Moscow on April 6, 2023. In particular, we exchanged views on the implementation of the Supreme Council's resolution to draft a Security Concept for the Union State. The foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus will proactively support this effort, while the secretariats of our respective security councils oversee this process. We are certain that this strategic document - the Union State Security Concept - will further strengthen our mutual guarantees regarding the union's defence capabilities and strengthen our cooperation in this sphere in general.
We will continue to provide diplomatic support for the activities of sectoral-based agencies for economic integration in the Union State. This remains a priority for us. The results of our cooperation in this area are already reflected in increased mutual trade. Last year, it reached a record high of about $45 billion and continues to grow in 2023.
We agreed to continue consistent efforts to further equalise the rights and opportunities of the citizens of Russia and Belarus in each other's territories, especially in social security, which is a predictable primary concern and interest for our citizens.
Separately, we discussed the further strengthening of the consular presence in each other's territory, which also meets the interests of our citizens. In this context, I would like to thank our Belarusian friends once again for promptly resolving issues with the opening of the Russian Consulate General in Grodno. The opening ceremony took place at the end of December 2022. For our part, we are assisting our Belarusian friends with converting the branch of the Belarusian Embassy in St Petersburg into a consulate general and in creating new regional offices in our country.
It was decided to further strengthen cooperation as part of integration associations in the post-Soviet space, in particular, mindful of the fact that this year, Russia is chairing the EAEU, and Belarus, the CSTO.
I briefed Sergey Aleinik on the results of the meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers held in Goa, India, and on the steps we are taking to help complete the procedures necessary for the Republic of Belarus to become a full member of the organisation as soon as possible.
We exchanged views on the prospects for the expansion of ties between our countries and the Union State with the Global South - I am referring to the states of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. We also discussed the programme for the second Russia-Africa Summit planned in Sochi this summer. We expect our Belarusian friends to take part in a number of events there.
We talked about cooperation at other multilateral platforms. With regard to the United Nations, we noted the important positive and increasingly active role of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, which was established a couple of years ago and includes both Russia and Belarus along with about 20 other countries. We exchanged views on the deplorable situation in the OSCE, which continues to deteriorate due to the NATO members' reluctance to moderate or curb their ambitions to order others around, and to return to a respectful dialogue. This is a dead end. We coordinated approaches to global and regional stability, non-proliferation, and biological and information security. We outlined specific steps and actions in multilateral organisations, including in the context of the upcoming session of the UN Human Rights Council next month.
Following the talks, we signed a joint statement on the common foreign policy priorities of Russia and Belarus. The text of the document will be published on the information resources of both countries' foreign ministries.
We are satisfied with the results of the talks. We will continue our close day-to-day cooperation. A joint meeting of the two ministries' collegiums is scheduled for next autumn.
Question: Russia and Belarus are under pressure from the Western sanctions. They responded by strengthening their union and specifically, cooperation in manufacturing industries. Can you give us a detailed comment on what joint projects are particularly relevant today?
Also, there are plans to create a common economic space from Minsk to Vladivostok next year. How will this work and how can our nations benefit?
Sergey Lavrov: I share these considerations and our determination to develop integration-related processes in order to make them independent from the illegitimate unilateral actions of the US-led collective West. This determination is reflected in the 28 union programmes that we are currently fulfilling. More than half of the measures have been realised and this work continues. The most important goal is to secure our links in the key areas essential for the independent and consistent development of our countries in high technology, financial mechanisms and logistics chains - the critical components for the security of our countries and the Union State in the broadest sense, when it comes to the military, political, economic, technological, cultural and civilisational aspects.
As concerns creating an economic space from Minsk to Vladivostok that was announced as a plan for next year, this is a far-reaching claim. Geographically, it should be from Brest to Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk or Yuzhno-Kurilsk. But the terminology is not that important. For many years, since the signing of the Treaty on the Creation of the Union State, we have been building a common economic space. The 28 union programmes were a qualitative milestone marking serious progress in this work. Our nations will benefit from operating on shared economic principles, shared regulations in social policy and the overall equalisation of our citizens' rights across several areas. Obviously, there has been significant progress in this work.
Question: All wars eventually end in peace. Belarus is making every effort to make this happen. Does Belarus have its own vision for future post-crisis security in the region? Have you discussed these matters with your Russian colleagues? Will the "voice of Minsk" be heard at a new Yalta or a new Potsdam agreement?
Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Sergey Aleinik): Mr Aleinik mentioned our efforts as a team with several other countries from the Euro-Atlantic region within the OSCE to buttress the principle of equal and indivisible security. Notably, this principle was enshrined in the documents on establishing the Russia-NATO Council as well. Equal and indivisible security was declared in the OSCE. It was expressly stated that no single country and no single organisation in the Euro-Atlantic space would strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others or claim dominance in this geographical region. All of that was torn to pieces by our Western colleagues when they set a course for unapologetic NATO expansion. We have tried to translate these solemn "mantras" signed by the leaders of the Western world into practical deeds. As a reminder, since the late 2010s, we have been encouraging our NATO colleagues to codify these principles and assume legal obligations not to make themselves stronger by disadvantaging others. Our attempts have been rejected. They said legally binding security guarantees were available only in NATO. They will not let anyone prevent another country from joining the North Atlantic alliance. No clear answer was provided to the argument that this directly contradicts the text signed by their respective presidents and prime ministers.
We made the last attempt to put these high-flown and pompous promises in the field of indivisibility of security into practice in late 2021 when, acting on President Putin's instructions, we gave the Americans and NATO draft treaties aimed at ensuring security for all in the European countries without exception, including Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. You are aware of the outcome. NATO's arrogant claim to the effect no one can tell them what to do has triggered a major European security crisis which is unfolding before our eyes.
Mr Aleinik mentioned Helsinki-2 and San Francisco. Helsinki-2 invariably conjures up the image of the OSCE and the role of Finland in promoting these positive, constructive processes, if only in the context of political agreements. Even if, unfortunately, we are unable to translate them into legal agreements, even political agreements created a more positive environment.
However, NATO's unapologetic expansion to the east, north and other directions undermines any possibility of ever holding a productive discussion about European security. With Finland and Sweden (the latter will likely become a NATO member soon) joining NATO and Switzerland forgoing its neutral status, the part of Europe that professed military-political neutrality is getting smaller, a fact that was enshrined in the constitutions of the respective states. They created a space trying to find a balance of interests and a trade-off between the NATO-centric part of Europe and the Union State and the CSTO. With NATO taking over almost all neutral states (unfortunately, this process is unfolding right before our eyes), the chances for pursuing constructive policies on the continent are disappearing with the proactive roles taken on by the "neutral countries," which is sad.
I agree that if and when the West comes to its senses and realises that it is unable to stop the objective historical process of forming a multipolar world, we will need to hold a discussion that will not be limited to Europe. The original conference in San Francisco was dedicated to global security. We cannot get around a discussion of fair and equitable global security.
Question: Former Ambassador of China to Russia Li Hui, now China's Special Envoy for Eurasian Affairs, has embarked on a European tour. He is to visit Ukraine, Poland, France and Russia partly to search for solutions to resolve the Ukraine crisis.
President of France Emmanuel Macron said the other day that one cannot take this seriously because Russia maintains vassal-style relations with China. Our European partners often say the same thing about relations between Belarus and China. What do you think about the prospects for this European tour and China's peace initiatives? How will Europe and the United States respond to them when they make such statements with regard to Russia and Belarus?
Sergey Lavrov: The statements by Emmanuel Macron about a vassal and a master are consistent with Sigmund Freud's concepts. People tend to discuss what worries them most. In the past few years, Mr Macron has gained stature for declaring a policy to promote the European Union's strategic autonomy. This is like a cry in the wilderness. Everyone realises that, in reality, the United States will not allow the EU to obtain strategic or any other autonomy. In October 2022, French Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance, Industrial and Digital Sovereignty Bruno le Maire complained loudly that, as compared to US businesses, European businesses had to pay four times more for energy as a result of US actions in the context of the anti-Russia sanctions. This is because the EU was forced to follow obediently in the wake of this illegitimate US policy. This led to the deindustrialisation of Europe, the relocation of businesses from Europe to the United States and many other developments. Long before the special military operation, the United States began implementing a strategic policy to reorient the European Union from inexpensive energy to their own expensive gas from the US. It has achieved this goal.
The article from The Guardian that Sergey Aleinik is referring to is yet further confirmation of the facts that unbiased Western analysts have long admitted. If Emmanuel Macron is offended that all his declarations for EU "strategic autonomy" turn, in practice, into complete subjugation as a US vassal, the explanation lies in his psychology. According to Freud, he is trying to extrapolate his "sores" into the relations between countries that retain self-respect and independence and proceed from the need to promote only equitable cooperation. Such cooperation exists between Russia and the PRC and between Russia and the Republic of Belarus. The EAEU has an intergovernmental agreement with China where everything is stated in clear terms. As distinct from US-EU relations, the said agreement seals fair and mutually beneficial principles for developing relations between countries and relevant agencies.
Now a few words about the plan (as it is referred to) or position of the PRC on settling the crisis in Ukraine. This is an addition to the replies given to the previous question on how to build a security architecture.
An attentive analysis of China's 12-item position shows that it gives priority to systemic global provisions. This is the need to fully respect the principles of the UN Charter as an integral whole and without double standards. It is also the need to assert in practice on a global scale the principle of the indivisibility of security of all states, as we just discussed. China considers unilateral sanctions that are not envisaged by the UN Charter unacceptable. There are many other systemic things that clearly show China's position. It comes down to (as I read it) an understanding that the events in Ukraine basically reflect the crisis phenomena that are piling up in world politics and the economy due to the West's attempts to prevent the objective formation of a new, multipolar world order. Until recently, NATO modestly positioned itself as merely a defensive organisation with only one mission - to ensure the security of the territory of its member-countries. But now NATO has talked for over a year about its global responsibility. It has given itself the goal of preventing crises in the Indo-Pacific Region (as they call the Asia Pacific Region) and openly declares the need to deter the PRC. NATO's aggressive approach reveals itself on a daily basis.
During PRC President Xi Jinping's visit to Moscow, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that China's initiative contains many provisions that we are willing to take as a foundation. They reflect the objective reality, notably, that to prevent crises like the one the West created in Ukraine, it is necessary to agree on principled and systematic approaches. This primarily applies to the UN Charter, the sovereign equality of states where no one will be guided by colonial instincts trying, as before, to exploit everyone else and to live at others' expense. We will see what Li Hui will be told in the capitals he will visit before coming to Moscow.
Sergey Aleinik also mentioned other initiatives, namely those proposed by Brazil and by the President of South Africa. In both instances, we responded to our Latin American and African friends that we were ready to consider any proposals they make with a sincere desire to facilitate global stabilisation. However, unlike our Chinese neighbours, the Brazilians and Africans have not put their proposals on paper. We told them that we are open to contact whenever they show interest in it. It is in our interests to bring the logic that is becoming increasingly clear to independent observers to the attention of as many of our partners on all continents as possible.
We will update the international public on the outcome of the Chinese representative's visit.
As for Europe's attitude to the Chinese peace plan, it has made no secret of it. The attitude in Europe is the same as in Washington, where it was coordinated. It comes down to the following: if Russia says that something can be discussed, it means that it must be rejected. They say openly that Russia doesn't want to hold talks on Zelensky's conditions, that there can be no other basis for talks. The only plan the West will promote is the 10-point plan proposed by Zelensky, which includes the capitulation and a trial of Russia and the payment of reparations to Ukraine and somebody else. Only on these conditions will the leadership of the Kiev regime "graciously" agree to sign a "peace treaty." According to the West, this is the only plan on the table that it will support. Judge for yourself.
Zelensky himself has said that he has nobody to talk to in Moscow. He reaffirmed this the other day. Also, in September 2022, he signed an executive order prohibiting any talks with the Russian Federation.
We hear wailing in Washington, Brussels and London that "Russia has no interest in peace." I'm tired of commenting on this. They have said that they would only accept what suits Zelensky. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog, as has happened in American history before.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
