Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 8, 2015
8 October 201519:15
1916-08-10-2015
On the talks between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier
OSCE Secretary General Lamberto Zannier will come to Moscow on a working visit on October 12. His plans include consultations with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and traditional meetings with the CSTO leaders.
Sergey Lavrov and Lamberto Zannier will discuss the OSCE's role in resolving the Ukraine conflict, including the activities of the Special Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office in the Contact Group, and the work of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission.
The sides plan to exchange views on preparing for the OSCE Ministerial Council, to be held in Belgrade on December 3-4, to focus on European security, regional issues, the migration crisis and the refugee crisis in Southern and Western Europe. Mr Lavrov and Mr Zannier will evaluate the work of the OSCE executive bodies, including its specialised institutions and field missions.
On the visit to the Russian Federation of Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Rwanda Louise Mushikiwabo
At the invitation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Rwanda will come to Moscow on a working visit on October 12-14.
Russia and Rwanda enjoy traditionally friendly relations. The countries maintain a focused political dialogue and practical cooperation in the UN. There are good prospects for promoting trade and economic cooperation, including in agriculture, supplies of Russian aviation and automotive equipment and tourism. The ministers will look into the possibility of establishing direct contacts between the respective industrialists’ associations, the chambers of commerce and region-to-region cooperation.
During the talks on October 13 Sergey Lavrov and Louise Mushikiwabo will discuss a wide range of issues of Russian-Rwandan relations in political, humanitarian and other arenas. The sides will have an in-depth exchange of opinions on key issues of the global and African agenda with a particular focus on easing crisis situations in Africa.
We express our confidence that the visit by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Rwanda will boost our bilateral relations in their entirety, and promote our partnership on the international arena.
On Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the 15th ministerial session of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council
On October 14, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will visit Oulu, Finland, to attend the 15th ministerial session of the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC).
The meeting participants are expected to sum up the results of the two years of the Finnish BEAC presidency, and to discuss ways for further strengthening regional cooperation within the council with a focus on project activities. The council presidency will go to Russia after the meeting.
The session is planned to conclude with an adoption of a joint communiqué, which will outline key areas of BEAC activities in economic cooperation, transport and logistics, energy efficiency, environmental protection, social development, culture and tourism, and serve to promote coordination between northern regional councils. A number of bilateral meetings will take place on the sidelines of the session.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to take part in the CIS Foreign Ministers Council
On October 15, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in a regular meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers in Astana, Kazakhstan.
The foreign ministers will discuss various aspects of promoting multifaceted cooperation and deepening foreign policy coordination within the CIS, and will exchange views on important regional and global issues.
Key issues of the agenda include approving draft resolutions on adopting statements by the heads of CIS member states on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the UN and on countering international terrorism, as well as a draft address by the heads of CIS member states in connection with the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident in 2016. The participants will discuss the Plan of Activities dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Commonwealth, which will be marked next year.
As planned, the ministers will focus particularly on humanitarian cooperation aimed at promoting education and culture in the CIS countries. They will also discuss ways to strengthen ties between law enforcement and defence agencies.
The documents approved by the meeting participants will be submitted for further approval by the CIS Council of Heads of State.
On Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s participation in the Government Hour meeting
The State Duma of the Federal Assembly will hold the Government Hour with the participation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at its plenary session on October 14. The discussion will focus on major international issues, primarily the situation in Ukraine and Syria and various aspects of cooperation with Russian lawmakers in pursuing Russia’s uniform foreign policy at international and other venues.
The Foreign Minister’s annual meetings with MPs make it possible to enhance cooperation between executive and legislative government bodies and exchange opinions on the international situation with a view to promoting the efficiency of Russia’s foreign policy.
On another decision by the Moldovan authorities to restrict the entry of Russian journalists
Yesterday, the Moldovan authorities again crudely violated their international commitments on ensuring freedom of expression and media activities. Under an absolutely far-fetched pretext, Chisinau denied two Russian journalists from the Rossiya-24 television channel entry into the country to cover the 2016 European Championship qualifying match between the Russian and Moldovan national teams. This is perplexing as the journalists were to cover a sports event. Such acts are inadmissible altogether. What could be political or criminal in covering sports?
We would like to recall that this is not the first time Russian journalists have been harassed in Moldova. Many likely remember that two groups of NTV TV journalists were denied entry into Moldova on October 4. Earlier, in the beginning of September, a LifeNews TV crew and a Russia Today TV producer were deported from Chisinau. It seems that the Moldovan authorities are cracking down on Russian journalists. These are not lone or accidental acts. They seemingly testify to Chisinau’s coordinated policy as regards the Russian media.
We know that the Moldovan authorities regularly stress their commitment to European standards. However, despite their verbal statements, they simply ignore all direct recommendations issued to them by the experts of the Council of Europe and the OSCE who are adamantly against bans on the freedom of speech for political reasons.
We would like to recall that Chisinau’s previous bans have already been denounced by the professional community and OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media Dunja Mijatović, who has urged Moldova to honour its commitments to journalists as an OSCE country.
I would like to quote what Ms Mijatović told Izvestia less than a month ago: “The media play a major role during a crisis. They might play a positive role by disseminating information, improving the understanding of the situation between nations and preventing the further escalation of tensions. By flippantly refusing entry to journalists, governments are preventing media freedom and information exchange.”
Let me emphasise that this statement was made not by Russian officials but by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media. Naturally, considering the sad experience of Chisinau’s treatment of Russian journalists, I am eager to see how Ms Mijatović will react to yet another case of Moldova’s neglect of the high standards of freedom of speech. I think she should realise that Chisinau is ignoring her appeal to fulfil OSCE commitments and refrain from any steps restricting the free flow of information.
This leads to a broader question — how effective are the programmes of the Council of Europe and OSCE on assistance in the human rights sphere if their recommendations are so easily ignored?
Today, the charge d’affaires of the Republic of Moldova in the Russian Federation was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where the Russian side expressed its discontent with the unfriendly step towards Russian journalists. It was emphasised that such actions call into doubt Chisinau’s assurances of its desire to develop constructive bilateral relations.
I can assure you that we are continuously monitoring the observance of the rights and freedoms of Russian journalists in different parts of the world regardless of the country in question. We use all mechanisms at our disposal – both bilateral and international – for this purpose. We will continue monitoring such cases and taking the necessary measures.
On the situation in southeastern Ukraine
On October 6, the Contact Group and its special working sub-groups held regular meetings in Minsk. Work continued on searching for solutions to practical issues of settling the Ukraine crisis, incorporating the outcome of the Normandy Four meeting on October 2 in Paris.
A crucial element was the announcement by the Donetsk and Lugansk representatives on shifting the Donbas local election date to February 2016.
We expect that such a move will create a favourable atmosphere for continuing discussions on key issues of the political settlement and ultimately allow the parties of the conflict to find a common language and bring their positions closer, and to find mutually acceptable variants of the solution to existing problems.
On reports of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine
We closely follow the activities of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine. After signing the Addendum to the Set of Measures on the withdrawal of tanks and mortars up to 120 mm and artillery up to 100 mm from the contact line, the OSCE monitors will be verifying the process. We stand for increasing the number of SMM monitors to the entitled number of 1,000 persons, whereas currently there are below 600. We have repeatedly stated our stance.
We note the topical report of the SMM on the situation with drinking water in Donbass, which the monitors identified as a violation by Kiev of international humanitarian law. We consider it necessary to develop another topical report, one of the humanitarian consequences of the so-called anti-terrorist operation pursued by Kiev’s law enforcement agencies.
We regret to state the lingering drawbacks in the mission’s activities. They primarily refer to the credibility of presented reports. We draw attention to the unacceptability of the selected recording of facts related not only to the weapons count, but also to the conditions that residents of Donbass and Ukraine as a whole are in. The mission’s reports do not always cover events connected with human rights violations, people’s protests against Kiev’s policies, bans related to media, or military drills with NATO member-states’ participation. We would like to stress that the SMM mandate is to assist the national dialogue in Ukraine. We call on the mission’s leadership to correct the drawbacks that I have listed. I will repeat that a comprehensive, full-format national dialogue should become the major priority and the primary result of the mission’s activities.
On the situation in Syria
A separate briefing was devoted to this issue. I can say that what we discussed did not go unnoticed. We are seeing a trend towards greater objectivity regarding what is going on in this country. However, to date, certain international and regional media outlets are continuing to make perverse attempts to distort the Russian goals and tasks in Syria. The general drift is calling into question Russia’s commitment to the priority task of eradicating the seat of international terrorism and extremism.
In this connection, I would like to reiterate that the measures that Russia is taking with regard to Syria are motivated by the main goal of facilitating a political settlement in this country. Without this, it is impossible to restore unity and sovereignty across its entire territory or ensure the stability and harmonious co-existence of all ethnic and religious groups. In keeping with this primary goal, it is necessary to eliminate the causes that brought about the systemic internal crisis and led to a power vacuum, the rise in extremist sentiments and the influx of international terrorists.
Regarding the Russian priorities, they could be formulated as follows: strengthening Syrian state institutions and organising a joint fight against terrorists with a united front with antiterrorist forces in Syria and all those who are sincerely – let me stress, without double standards – committed to eliminating this threat, which has far-reaching implications.
We have clearly and unambiguously informed all our international and regional partners that the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces in Syria are being used solely to fight against organised groups of international terrorists (this applies to the Islamic State and other terrorist groups).
As is known, one of the widespread myths that is currently being disseminated is that Russia is allegedly hitting not ISIS targets, but positions where there are no ISIS forces and that instead of ISIS, Russia is attacking and killing civilians, the so-called moderate opposition. All of these reports are attributed to unnamed sources in government agencies in a number of countries.
It may be recalled that the Russian Ministry of Defence regularly provides comprehensive information about the course of its military operations and the targets that are hit. It is important to understand that this is not about what terrorists called themselves yesterday or what they will call themselves tomorrow. We have to deal with extremist and terrorist groups that, on an ideological and practical level, use terrorist methods of warfare. If they do not act in an organised manner, they are ideologically interconnected all the same; they interact and sometimes even blend smoothly with one another, and then they can hive off, form independent organisations and even fight one another. Speaking figuratively, they represent a “unified source of manpower” for the Islamic State, continuously providing fodder to large terrorist organisations.
Recent reports claimed that 41 armed groups of the purportedly moderate opposition adopted a manifesto declaring war on “Russian invaders.” Frankly, I, as well as many other people, was surprised to learn that some of our colleagues read this as an expression of “rightful wrath” about the “Russian intervention.” This begs the question: Did those who see some logical basis in this “rightful wrath” have no problem with the fact that the Front for the People of the Levant, an organisation better known as Jabhat al Nusra, was among the first signatories of this manifesto? Was no one disturbed by the fact that the manifesto, which is cited as evidence that some countries and representatives from the region protest against Russian actions, was signed by terrorists? The proof of the fact that this is a terrorist organisation, and that its representatives are terrorists, not “moderate” but real terrorists, is that they are on the UN list of terrorist organisations. This kind of manipulation goes only so far. Manifestoes like this one are publicised without going into detail; they are quoted and cited as evidence. In reality, it is enough just to look at those who have signed it, and then everything will become clear.
I’d like once again to recall Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York: “If someone looks like a terrorist, behaves like a terrorist and fights like a terrorist, he is a terrorist, right?” I’d like this question not be rhetorical but to hear concrete answers to it.
To reiterate, the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces in Syria are only fighting international terrorists, members of international terrorist organisations and those who are aiding and abetting them. As for those who are not terrorists, who do not collaborate or coordinate their actions with terrorist organisations, they have nothing to fear. On the contrary, Russia – and we’ve repeatedly said this via various agencies and on different levels – invites all of them to work together. The aim of this joint effort is obvious. We’ve never concealed but, on the contrary, have only emphasised that the purpose of this is to rebuff terrorists and facilitate the political process as provided for by the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012.
Another myth that persists despite all our efforts concerns ongoing plans for a Russian ground operation in Syria. I’d specifically like to address media agencies such as CNN and The New York Times. If you make such claims and continue to cite certain unidentified sources then be so kind, by right of response, as to also run our commentary stating that such operations are not being considered or planned, and also give direct quotes from the Russian leadership to this effect. In my opinion, stories that cite unnamed Pentagon sources should include quotes from named sources in Moscow.
On the Russian draft UN Security Council resolution on combating terrorism in the Middle East
There’s another widespread myth about the Russian military operation to combat international terrorism, which is conducted upon the request of Damascus. Allegedly, Russia pursues exclusively its own interests in the region, refuses to interact with other players, or share information with others, acting by itself and behind the scenes. I will remind you of some facts because there’s stove-piping and unnamed sources, and there are facts. The fact is that, on September 28, during his speech at the UN General Assembly, President Putin suggested discussing the possibility of approving a UN Security Council resolution on coordinating efforts of all forces that oppose the Islamic State and other terrorist organisations.
As a follow-up to this initiative, on September 30, during the UNSC Ministerial Meeting under Russia’s presidency on the subject, “Maintaining International Peace and Security: Conflict Settlement in the Middle East and North Africa and Fighting the Terrorist Threat,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov presented a corresponding draft resolution prepared by the Russian side. It builds on previously adopted UNSC documents with a focus on coherent counter-terrorism actions based on international law norms and principles, the UN Charter and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the states in the region.
When we read in the media that Russia is pursuing its own policy regarding fighting terrorism in Syria and in the region, which is not coordinated with anyone, please remember that the UN Security Council has on its table a document submitted by the Russian Federation, which calls on global and regional countries to join their efforts to ensure that all of their actions are coordinated, so that the world can oppose this threat as a united front. The document is on the table, and Russian diplomats are now working with their colleagues. We hope not only for dialogue, but for constructive work. We hope that our colleagues — other UNSC members – adopt a non-ideology-driven approach towards drafting this document, particularly taking into account the acuteness and magnitude of the terrorist threat faced by that region.
This is the third time I’m saying this, but whenever you read about our steps and actions allegedly not being coordinated with anyone, and that we act solely in pursuit of our own interests, remember that it was Russia who submitted to the UNSC a draft document that was supposed to be developed in a dialogue with all of our UNSC colleagues with the understanding that we must act jointly. How can anyone say that we are not acting collectively, in circumvention or behind someone’s back, when we initiate the adoption of the corresponding international legal instruments.
Answers to questions:
Question: The Moldovan charge d’affaires ad interim refused to comment on this issue today, although we made two attempts. Did he provide an official explanation during the meeting at the Foreign Ministry of the reasons behind Moldova’s refusal to let our colleagues work in Chisinau?
Maria Zakharova: As I said, the meeting has barely ended, and so I could only tell you about our attitude to the issue and our concerns, which we planned to air at the meeting. I’ll inquire about the meeting’s outcome and Moldova’s explanation of the incident.
In my opinion, it’s not explanations that matter but steps that Chisinau and international organisations should take. You can explain everything or almost everything. The important thing is to prevent a repeat of such incidents. But if they happen again and again or, worse still, become routine, we must provide our assessment of them based on international law. Then we’ll know what we are dealing with, and we’ll know that much of what is happening in that country is non-transparent because of the lop-sided coverage and that the reason is that foreign journalists are denied entry for political reasons.
I’ll inquire about Moldova’s explanations and statements made at the meeting. I suggest that you don’t give up sending your questions to the Moldovan Embassy in Moscow. I think they’ll eventually explain their position.
Question: Can you comment on reports about the deployment of British military personnel in the Baltics?
Maria Zakharova: We said time and again that the redeployment of armed forces and military equipment in Europe should help maintain or enhance common security and stability in Europe. It’s a big question if the recent [British] steps will strengthen stability in Europe. Another question concerns the objective of these steps. As I said, such steps should only be taken for the sole purpose of strengthening – not weakening – stability in Europe.
Question: Have Moldovan colleagues commented on the fact that the TV crew, which was denied entry, was not sent to cover political events but a sports competition?
Maria Zakharova: I’ve just said that I can’t comment on what the Moldovan official said, because the meeting had barely ended before this briefing started. As I said, the Russian side pointed out that the incident was about a sports and not a political event. In case of political events, according to Dunya Miyatovich, all the more so foreign journalists must be allowed to cover them to provide an objective picture, because otherwise it’s not journalism but propaganda.
Question: Will NATO’s decision to double its Response Force enhance stability in Europe?
Maria Zakharova: I think I’ve answered this question in full. The question in this case is the goal of these actions. We should turn to those who take steps to build up, redeploy or move troops around Europe. What are their motives? We must start by trying to understand the position of those who take these decisions. Let them tell us about their goals and tasks, and we’ll provide our comments. So far, their recent actions have not strengthened stability in the region but have endangered it.
As I said, we need to listen and try to understand their motives.
Question: Can you comment on Turkey’s sharp statements to the effect that Russia’s actions in Syria could have negative consequences for bilateral relations and joint projects, primarily in the economy?
Maria Zakharova: I see no reason why Russian-Turkish relations should be put to the test or negatively affected, in particular economic relations. There are no prerequisites for this.
As for our interaction with Turkey on the Syrian issue, we maintain it and quite actively.
I’d like to remind you that the Russian Defence Ministry posts exhaustive information online and makes it public during briefings, and to draw your attention to a meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu yesterday, during which they talked, in part, about our interaction with foreign partners to promote a settlement in Syria. Turkey was mentioned in this connection.
So I see no reasons for the situation in Syria to have a negative effect on bilateral relations. Even if there are some questions, and there certainly are some, they can be dealt with through our dialogue with Turkey, including on Syria. The Russian Defence Ministry regularly reports on this.
Question: NATO allegedly intends to ratchet up its presence in Turkey. According to some reports, one of the key issues on the alliance’s agenda is to respond to Russia stepping up its military presence in Syria. How does Russia view NATO’s countermeasures with respect to the military operation in Syria?
Maria Zakharova: I’d refer this question to our military experts. Honestly, I don’t think I understand what you mean when speaking about NATO’s role in the Syrian settlement. I think that the key word in your question is “allegedly.”
Question: Could you comment on the statement by the International Criminal Court on its intention to launch an investigation into the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia? Specifically, it is said that the court could pursue war crime charges.
Maria Zakharova: I haven’t seen this statement yet. We will share details on this issue at a later time.
Question: NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has confirmed that the US is in contact with Russia to prevent any encounters or mistakes during the military operation in Syria. Have the contracts between Russia and the US and their allies actually improved? Where is this dialogue headed? Are any specific issues on the table to prevent mishaps during hostilities on both sides?
Maria Zakharova: It is hard to tell where the dialogue is headed, since just three or four weeks ago there were no such contacts with our US colleagues. As for coordination among military experts, these contacts resumed a couple of weeks ago and are managed by the Defence Ministry. As for diplomatic agencies, the contacts were not suspended.
Compared to the situation when there were no contacts of this kind, the trend is very positive, and we can’t but welcome it. Russia has always been clear and straightforward when saying that closing communication channels, especially when it comes to settling a crisis, would be detrimental. In fact, the purpose of creating communication channels of this kind, not just with our US colleagues, was not to exchange New Year’s greetings. They were intended to find ways out of the most complex situations, especially during crises. We have always said that we do not understand the reasons for suspending these communications during a crisis. It defies all logic and is a strange thing to do, to say the least.
For Russia, the resumption of contacts is more than a positive development. It is our strong belief that using all opportunities to coordinate our actions is the only way to go. We should not allow the contacts to be suspended once again under any circumstances, especially in a situation where the world has a real chance to overcome ISIS or at least halt its spread and diminish its influence, as well as ease its grip on the territories under its control.
We have this opportunity now that everyone understands the level of danger ISIS presents. Why were these prerequisites not in place one or two years ago? Back then, not everyone understood what ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups are all about. Many continued to believe that Syria is engulfed in a domestic conflict in which Damascus is fighting against the opposition. There are many who have lived under this illusion for several years. Russia has said that this is not the way it is, provided evidence, and was ready to analyse this issue in more detail and share the results with our partners. However, others either didn’t trust us, or preferred to rely on assessments of their own. Everyone saw the daylight only recently. The situation we are currently facing results from the analysis by our partners. Unfortunately, they had an opportunity to implement their vision. Building on the newly acquired awareness within the coalition, there is a possibility to move forward with collective and truly efficient measures. We are open to initiatives of this nature. There are no barriers for us when it comes to joint action, which naturally should be in full compliance with international law.
We are glad that the contacts have resumed. This creates prerequisites for combating ISIS and reaching a real political settlement in Syria. Russia is open to all initiatives to this effect, and is ready to engage in bilateral and multilateral dialogue. The recent telephone talks and personal contacts between heads of state and foreign ministers we initiated were intended to address these issues. It is not our objective to point fingers at who is right and who is wrong. Make no mistake, this will have to be done at a certain point, but for now the primary objective is to work together in fighting international terrorism that has spread across Syria and the region.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
