Briefing by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, October 22, 2015
22 October 201519:50
2034-22-10-2015
By tradition, I’d like to open this briefing with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s schedule.
Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei’s visit to Russia and his participation in a joint ministerial collegium meeting
On October 26-27, 2015, Belarusian Foreign Minister Vladimir Makei will come on a working visit to Moscow to attend a regular joint session of the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministry collegiums.
During a scheduled bilateral meeting between Sergey Lavrov and Vladimir Makei on the sidelines of the session, the officials will address a broad range of issues related to bilateral and international cooperation and the development of the Union State. The collegium session is planned to include the following: to review the implementation of the Foreign Policy Coordinated Action Programme of the Member States of the Treaty on the Creation of the Union State 2014–2015 and a draft programme for 2016–2017; assess the utilisation of the UN’s capability in upholding our countries’ foreign policy interests in light of the organisation’s 70th anniversary and interaction between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in coordinating integration processes in Europe; exchange opinions on ways to further develop interregional and cross-border cooperation; and sign a plan of consultations between the Russian and Belarusian foreign ministries for 2016 and a resolution of the joint session of the collegiums.
Russia and Belarus are key strategic allies, which is evident from the intensity of political dialogue at the top and high levels. Since the beginning of this year, there have been nine meetings between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko as part of various events, and five meetings between Russian and Belarusian Prime Ministers Dmitry Medvedev and Andrei Kobyakov. There are regular meetings of the High Level Group of the Union State Council of Ministers, meetings between the countries’ deputy prime ministers, and dialogue is developing actively between the countries’ ministries and government agencies on current cooperation issues.
Interregional cooperation plays a significant role in Russian-Belarusian relations. Over 80 Russian regions have trade and economic ties with Belarus. The Krasnodar Territory, Dagestan, the Nizhny Novgorod Region and Moscow have missions in the republic. This year, the heads of ten Russian regions visited Minsk, while Belarusian deputy prime ministers visited the Voronezh and Rostov regions. In September, the Second Forum of Russian and Belarusian Regions was successfully held in Sochi with the participation of the two countries’ presidents and was devoted to industrial policy issues. In the course of the forum, the countries’ representatives signed over 20 cooperation agreements and a number of major commercial contracts.
Russian-Belarusian defence, security, antiterrorism and crime control cooperation is strengthening. Important work is underway to ensure the equal rights of the two countries’ citizens in the social sphere. There are intensive cultural ties: bilateral years of culture, a variety of festivals and other events. The most important events this year were those as part of the programme to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Belarus’s liberation from Nazi occupation and the 70th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.
UN High Representative for the Alliance of Civilisations Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser’s visit to Russia
On October 26-30, UN High Representative for the Alliance of Civilisations Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser will visit Moscow. He is due to meet with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavov and Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov.
A broad range of issues will be addressed, related to the promotion of intercultural and interfaith dialogue on the international arena and the role of the Alliance of Civilisations, which operates under the auspices of the UN, in these processes. The parties will hold an in-depth exchange of opinions on the Alliance’s principal areas of activity.
Special attention will be paid to the participation of Russia, its nongovernmental organisations and the expert community in this international organisation’s programmes, including in light of the upcoming Seventh Global Forum of the Alliance of Civilisations in Baku (Azerbaijan) in April 2016.
The parties will also address the further expansion of Russia’s cooperation with the Alliance of Civilisations as part of the Russian National Plan for the Development of Relations with the Alliance of Civilisations, which was approved by the Russian President in 2009, and the implementation of proposals to invigorate this cooperation made by a number of Russian NGOs.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend BRICS Global University Summit
On October 27, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will attend the opening of the BRICS Global University Summit at MGIMO.
The Minister’s participation in the opening ceremony is indicative of the importance that Russia, during its BRICS presidency, attaches to the contribution by the academic and university communities to identifying ways to promote unifying principles in international relations, and to developing new ideas aimed at increasing the role of BRICS in these combined efforts.
BRICS is the embodiment of objective processes of redistribution of power and influence in a multi-polar world, namely, the emergence and consolidation of new economic and political centres of power. Of key importance is the fact that BRICS members are brought together by a positive agenda aimed at facilitating each country's respective internal development. Cooperation in BRICS is based on the democratic principles of equality, openness, solidarity and the culture of building consensus that underlies our joint work.
The upcoming forum is one of the central events of the non-governmental segment of Russia’s BRICS presidency in 2015-2016. Over 300 heads and employees of Russian and foreign universities, researchers and experts are expected to participate in the summit, representing 69 Russian, 18 Brazilian, 17 Indian, 13 Chinese and eight South African universities. Representatives of the academic communities of Argentina, Afghanistan, Great Britain, Canada, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, Poland and the United States will also attend the event.
The agenda of this global forum aims at supporting the university and the academic communities to uphold the priorities of the Russian BRICS presidency in such areas as global governance, international peace and security, combatting terrorism, sustainable development and reforming the international monetary and financial system. The summit aims to encourage university-to-university cooperation within the BRICS countries, further develop national education systems and establish contacts between students. Finally, we expect the summit participants to come up with innovative and outside-the-box ideas to strengthen the role of BRICS in the modern world.
Importantly, the expansion of cooperation in the BRICS format in the sphere of research and education reflects the overall trend toward deepening our partnership. Within a short period of time, we have managed to make significant progress along this track. BRICS academic forums are held annually. The Council of BRICS Expert Centres was established in 2012. Its effective work helps form a solid research foundation in BRICS. Meetings of ministers and experts from BRICS countries on education and science are held regularly. Finally, the work to establish the BRICS Network University is nearing completion.
Please note that media accreditation is carried out by MGIMO.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to chair the 26th meeting of the Council of Heads of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation at the Foreign Ministry
The 26th meeting of the Council of Heads of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation at the Foreign Ministry will take place on October 28, and will be chaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
Taking into account the views of the heads of Russian regions, members of the Council, the agenda includes region-to-region cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The participants plan to discuss a wide range of issues related to strengthening trade, and economic, cultural and humanitarian ties between the Russian regions and their partners from the SCO countries. The governors of the Perm and the Khabarovsk territories, and the Novosibirsk and the Chelyabinsk regions will speak.
Following the meeting, recommendations will be made to the Russian regions, as well as federal ministries and departments, on ways to step up and expand region-to-region cooperation, increase the effectiveness of existing agreements and promote the effective use of existing and future bilateral and multilateral formats of cooperation.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with Director-General of the OPCW Technical Secretariat Ahmet Üzümcü
On October 29, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will receive Director-General of the Technical Secretariat of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Ahmet Üzümcü, who is arriving in Russia to participate in the ceremony for the closing of one of Russia’s last chemical weapons destruction facilities.
The meeting participants will discuss the implementation by Russia of its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the universalisation of this multilateral treaty, the OPCW non-proliferation activities, in particular, preventing chemical weapons or their components from falling into the hands of terrorists, and growth prospects for this prestigious organisation, which won the international Nobel Peace Prize in 2013.
Russian delegation led by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov takes part in Vienna talks
Several rounds of talks with the participation of Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will be held in Vienna on October 23. The first two sessions will focus on the Syrian settlement. In the morning, the Minister will meet with US Secretary of State John Kerry. Next, a meeting will be held with the participation of foreign ministers of Russia, the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
In addition, the Russian initiative to hold a meeting of the Middle East quartet of international mediators on the Middle Eastern settlement was supported. Regular updates on the progress of the discussions will be provided.
Current developments in Syria
In conditions of the continued strikes by the Russian Aerospace Forces at the terrorist infrastructure in Syria, the Syrian army has launched an offensive against the militants in the suburbs of Damascus, Aleppo and a number of districts in the provinces of Deir ez-Zor, Quneitra, Homs, Hama, Idlib and Latakia. I’d advise you to address the Defence Ministry for a more detailed comment on this.
I’d like to emphasise that Russia’s participation in suppressing the hotbed of terrorists in Syria is primarily aimed at preserving the country's civilian institutions and protecting its civilian population, including ethnic and religious minorities.
I understand that I'm probably abusing your attention by speaking about the goals of Russia’s military campaign in Syria on a daily basis. But this is intentional, because every day we hear confident statements alleging that Russia is pursuing completely different goals in the Syrian settlement. This is not true. We’ll insist at every opportunity that the goals of the military component of our actions and of the political settlement have been announced and remain unchanged.
Cases of desertion in extremists groups have become more frequent. In parallel, there is a dangerous trend of forced mobilisation of civilians by illegal armed groups. This is being done by the Army of Islam in Eastern Guta near Damascus and terrorist groups in Homs. It is not ruled out that these forced recruits will be used as a human shield. This is a very dangerous trend. Now the terrorists are resorting to new tactics – they are deliberately disabling life support facilities, such as electric transmission lines and water supply systems, demonstrating once again the extent of their contempt for the needs of civilians.
There are also reports that terrorist groups continue receiving manpower and equipment from abroad. Such facts again raise the question as to what extent these or other parties of the Syrian conflict are interested in a peaceful settlement, and how this aim tallies with the financial and technical support of anti-government armed formations, including those that are directly collaborating with terrorists. After all it is obvious that without putting an end to the outside support, the terrorist infiltration channels and trade in smuggled Syrian hydrocarbons and cultural values, the task of liquidating the bulwark of the terrorist international in Syria will become much more difficult.
The Russian Federation continues helping the suffering Syrian population. On October 16 an aircraft of the Russian Emergencies Ministry delivered another consignment of humanitarian cargo (over 20 tonnes) to Latakia.
Illicit oil trade by terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq
Considering that certain terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, primarily, the Islamic State (ISIS) and Jabhat al-Nusra, have substantially increased their revenues from the illicit trade of oil, Russia launched active work in the UN Security Council on this issue in July 2014. Prior to that, a draft statement by the UN Security Council President on the terrorist aspects of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq was submitted to the UN Security Council. At that time our Western colleagues rejected the Russian idea out of ideological motives. Apparently, they did not want to be sidetracked from the struggle against the Syrian government.
Nevertheless, things started moving against the backdrop of the world community’s increasing concern over the mounting proceeds of terrorists from trading in oil and persistent occupation of large areas in Syria and Iraq.
On July 28, 2014 a statement by the UN Security Council President on oil revenues of terrorists was eventually adopted, at the Russian initiative. We went further, and initiated a resolution of the UN Security Council aimed at putting an end to the financial flows to terrorists operating in Syria, Iraq and other countries of the Middle East with emphasis on the illicit oil trade. The document also listed other sources of their funding: trade in stolen cultural values, and the abduction of hostages for ransom. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2199 on February 12, 2015. The document emphasises the need to put a decisive end to such deals.
Importantly, the unanimous adoption of a resolution on such an urgent issue demonstrated the possibility of collective efforts by the key international players, which are so much in demand today. At the same time, it is clear that the prospects of undermining the financial foundations of terrorist activities in the Middle East will depend on the extent of cooperation and the good faith of several countries.
UN Security Council Resolution 2199 established a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of its provisions. This mechanism is not yet working in full swing, and this is a source of serious concern, because the issue remains pressing.
Nevertheless, Russia continues to insist that all UN member-countries submit to the Security Council their reports and countermeasures on the illicit oil trade by terrorists.
I raised this issue because recently various media in different countries have published many materials describing how the ISIS profits from oil, how much it makes and showing routes and patterns of this illicit oil trade. These are the blood vessels that are feeding the terrorist tumour in the region. All international legal mechanisms for the struggle against this evil have been established at our initiative. We suggest that the world community use them more actively and focus their efforts on this issue.
“False Story the Day”
We are now moving on to a no less important rubric, which I’d describe as “False Story of the Day.” We even have a winner – the media outlets that reported about the alleged bombing by the Russian Aerospace Forces of a hospital in Idlib in north-western Syria, in which 13 people have died, according to these “media outlets.”
I can’t describe those who wrote this as journalists, but their inventiveness is truly amazing. I’d like to say that this false story has been planted with a link to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is based in London. It must be very convenient to monitor and report on Syrian developments without leaving London to collect information on the ground. I’m going to disavow this information. Please note that the Russian Defence Ministry holds regular briefings, during which it informs the public about the targets of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria, that is, the ISIS targets.
Also, I’d like to remind you that this is not the first time we have drawn your attention to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. You will find commentary about it that was posted on the Foreign Ministry’s website back in 2012. We are sorry that many Western media outlets regard the Syrian Observatory as a trusted and reliable source of information, although several of its reports have been recently disavowed. Despite this, the media have not published refutations, and the Syrian Observatory has not apologised or said it was sorry.
We wrote in 2012 that according to our information, the Syrian Observatory only had two employees, the director and a secretary/translator. At that time, it was chaired by a Syrian-born citizen of Britain who had no journalistic or legal training. Moreover, he didn’t even finish high school. He told the media that he lived in London permanently and was a businessman, or more precisely, owned a snack bar. Don’t look so surprised – it’s a fact. And that person established an agency which serious media outlets cite today. How long can this last? Don’t ask me. In principle, it’s like publishing “reliable” information and linking it to a pizza restaurant waiter or owner. What is there to talk about if the owner of a snack bar influences the international information space? Please take note of this. Maybe the Syrian Observatory has more employees now, maybe it has three?
As of 2012, the chief of the Syrian Observatory had not been to Syria for 20 years, yet he had the daring to name his agency the Syrian Observatory.
We will scrutinise all false information and discuss it at the briefings and roundtable discussions to which the press is invited. After all, it’s interesting to trace how false information is planted and how it moves around and changes. In principle, it’s a subject for scientific research.
Middle East settlement
A few words about progress in the Middle East settlement.
Unfortunately, Israeli-Palestinian tensions have grown over the past few days. Tensions are running especially high in East Jerusalem. Hebron, which has both Judaic and Muslim holy places, has become the site of constant bloodshed. Acts of violence have been committed on the West Bank, in the towns of Bethlehem, Ramallah, Nablus and Jenin. The situation is also unstable in Israel. On October 18, a terrorist opened fire at the Beersheba central bus station, killing one and wounding eight people. According to the media, over 40 Palestinians and nine Israelis have been killed in acts of violence since October 1.
Moscow is concerned about the developments in Palestine and Israel. We reaffirm our firm condemnation of any acts of terrorism and urge both sides to make strenuous efforts to put an end to the spiralling tension and to restore mutual trust.
We are willing to cooperate with all concerned parties to find a way out of the dangerous deadlock in the Middle East settlement process. In light of this, we have proposed that the Middle East quartet of international intermediaries meet tomorrow. We hope this meeting will be productive.
The situation in Afghanistan
We note the persisting difficult security situation in Afghanistan. An indication of this, among other things, is President Obama’s October 15 statement on suspending the US military pullout from Afghanistan.
The situation is still tense in northern Afghanistan, where militants of the Taliban Movement (NV) launched a number of attacks last week in the Faryab and Badhis provinces near the Afghan-Turkmen border. Taliban combat activity is spreading to other areas. The other day, the extremists made an attempt to seize the administrative centre in Helmand Province in the south of the IRA.
The Islamic State becomes more active in Afghanistan and Pakistan
We note the growing influence in Afghanistan of the Islamic State (ISIS), a terrorist group that has established bases in 25 out of 34 Afghan provinces. We are concerned about the continuing concentration of ISIS militants in the country’s northern regions, near the border with Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Considering the dramatic increase in the Taliban’s military activity in summer and autumn of this year, we are particularly alarmed by the combat operations that ISIS has begun against the Afghan National Security Forces in Nangarhar Province.
Simultaneously, the Islamic State is attempting to entrench itself in neighbouring Pakistan, where ISIS emissaries have been spotted engaging in propaganda and recruitment and establishing contacts with other terrorist groups.
We hope that our Afghan and Pakistani partners will continue to take all necessary measures to neutralise the ISIS threat.
Afghanistan, to our profound regret, remains one of the main sources of the global terrorist threat. But it is not ISIS that continues to be the main cause of this. Afghanistan, or more precisely the so-called AfPak area (Afghanistan and Pakistan), is where some other international terrorist groups are active. As distinct from ISIS, they have been in the limelight for a rather long time, working consistently to subvert the legitimate Afghan government and derail the national reconciliation process. All of this is further compounded by a close interrelation of terrorism in Afghanistan and the truly global Afghan drug problem.
With about 65,000 militants under its control, the Taliban movement remains the biggest of these groups. The Taliban leadership continues coordinating its moves with Al-Qaeda which some people today are nearly attempting to “strike off the balance sheet,” which is totally at variance with the current realities and the real danger posed by this terrorist group. The Taliban are strengthening their tactical and military ties with the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), its breakaway organisation. Some other large terrorist organisations operating in the country are Hezbi Islami (Afghanistan) led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), the Haqqani network and Jamaat al-Ansarullah (JAA). This list could be continued.
We also know their main slogan – arrogant, but so far, thank God, quite ephemeral. They want to establish an “Islamic State of Khorasan” on the territory of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Central Asian republics.
Thus far, ISIS has focused on establishing positions in northern Afghanistan (Badakhshan, Kunduz, Faryab, Balkh and Takhar provinces), as well as in the west and south. In June of this year, ISIS loyalists became more active in eastern Afghanistan (Nangarhar, Kunar and Nuristan provinces). It is estimated that ISIS militants number about 3,000 there. Training camps are being created.
Another development, aside from an inflow of ISIS terrorists to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is that certain field commanders of terrorist groups operating in the AfPak area are either supportive of ISIS or have pledged allegiance to its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In March 2015, for example, the IMU leader, Usman Ghazi, took an oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr; the Hizb ut-Tahrir leadership seems to have pledged the same.
The same processes are taking place in Pakistan. It has been reported that over 1,500 militants controlled by the Pakistan Taliban Movement (PTM) and another radical group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, are operating in the interests of ISIS. We believe that this is done, among other things, in order to show off their belonging to a more “fashionable” terrorist brand.
What is worse is that under these circumstances the terrorist groups may try to translate their confrontation into a contest of cruelty and violence, and this will pose yet another threat to the Afghan people and state, as it will to Pakistan.
The most effective tool available to the international community as a whole and to each nation separately is to oppose terrorism in all its forms and manifestations within the framework of an active and truly partner-like international cooperation on the basis of international law and without double standards.
This is Russia’s consistent and principled position, and our actions corroborate this visibly, both with regard of terrorist threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan and, for example, in Syria.
Russia’s position on the MH17 crash investigation
We have noted that numerous assessments and interpretations have appeared after the publication of a report on the technical investigation of the MH17 Malaysia airliner crash in Ukraine in the summer of 2014. Completely unsubstantiated independent findings about Russia’s alleged complicity in the crash are coming out again. We could not help noticing and bringing up now a statement made by Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko in an interview with leading Ukrainian television channels. He voiced his profound conviction about Russia’s direct complicity in the tragedy. He said so on the basis of the relevant report. Russia’s “complete lies” and the “groundless” Russian theory were also mentioned, and the report itself is being actively quoted.
I would like to say that our briefings and the press services of other Russian ministries, departments and agencies have repeatedly noted our attitude towards the Dutch side’s investigation of the MH17 crash in the skies over Ukraine. Now that Dutch experts have summed up their findings, we have no alternative but to repeat once again that the investigation was biased and non-objective. We are voicing our disappointment with the fact that Russian findings, arguments, expert assessments and the results of tests and analyses have been disregarded completely.
In this connection, we would like to focus in the greatest possible detail on some aspects which, in our opinion, contain obvious discrepancies and where, quite possibly, the investigation would have produced different findings had the Russian side’s facts been taken into account.
While proceeding from a theory that the plane was hit by a Buk-type surface-to-air missile, it would be incorrect to say, as some media outlets claim (incorrectly interpreting the concluding report and the Russian side’s findings), that the missile was Russian. It could have only been a Soviet-made missile. The Almaz-Antey Concern has proved that, if the plane had been downed by a Buk missile, it could only have been a 9M38 missile, and Russia has no such missiles. The Russian army stopped receiving 9M38 missiles in 1986. The service life of the last such missile expired in 2011, and the use of obsolete weapons is a criminal offence in Russia. During the Soviet period, all 9M38 missiles were deployed only in Ukraine and some other former Soviet republics. After the breakup of the Soviet Union and the division of military property, most weapons were retained by post-Soviet republics. At the same time, there is well-documented evidence that, in 2005, Ukraine had 502 such missiles.
Russia only supports the concluding report’s findings that Ukraine is completely responsible for failing to close its airspace to civil aircraft. The Russian side believes that the disaster was mostly caused by the fact that Ukrainian authorities had failed to close national airspace, to say the least, while using military aircraft and heavy weaponry in the eastern Ukrainian conflict zone and deploying various air-defence systems in that zone. Therefore, they failed to comply with the provisions of Article 9 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation stating expressly that “each contracting State reserves also the right, in exceptional circumstances or during a period of emergency, in the interest of public safety, and with immediate effect, to restrict or prohibit flying over the whole or any part of its territory.” Otherwise, Russia categorically disagrees with the commission’s findings, which are absolutely incorrect. The concluding report contains no facts confirming the validity of the latest investigation. The quality of the investigation is extremely unsatisfactory, and the investigation has violated ICAO standards stipulating open, comprehensive and complete cooperation between all commission members. We have repeatedly noted during the investigation that there has never been any such open and complete cooperation.
The Dutch commission’s entire investigation was only based on several missile-warhead fragments, reportedly found at the crash site, provided that the missile’s warhead contained over 1,500 such fragments shaped like I-beams. At the same time, despite the Russian side’s numerous requests for any documentary evidence as to where and how these fragments were found, no such information has ever been submitted. The Russian representative has failed to receive any coherent information on this issue.
During the entire investigation, the Netherlands have stubbornly ignored information submitted by the Russian side. For example, investigators overlooked such important data as the results of experiments and research done by the Almaz-Antey Concern, which developed Buk-type missiles. Moreover, the Dutch side incorrectly interpreted the Concern’s data. The concluding report used Almaz-Antey calculations regarding the missile-launch site out of context. In May 2015, Almaz-Antey submitted the results of its first findings to the commission and convincingly confirmed them during a large-scale experiment in October 2015. The results of this experiment and findings boil down to the following: If the plane was downed by a Buk missile, then this could only have been a 9M38 missile with a 9N314 warhead filled with rectangular fragments, and this missile could only have been launched near the village of Zaroshchenskoye.
From answers to media questions:
Question: According to European think tanks, Armenia has accepted the third largest number of refugees from Syria – ethnic Armenians – in the OSCE area. Armenia is not receiving any compensation for this from any agencies, whereas a number of European states, in particular the Baltic countries, where 2,000 to 3,000 Syrian refugees are supposed to be sent, are demanding compensation and are talking about a threat to national security. Is it possible to create a mechanism to address this issue? Even if they return to their historical motherland, these 16,000 people, who arrive with nothing, fleeing the second genocide in the past 100 years, represent a significant burden on a country that has fallen on hard social and economic times.
Maria Zakharova: This is not a question for me, really. I understand that this refers to the ongoing processes in the EU area. I know that Armenia is not an EU member, but you are referring to processes in these countries regarding the redistribution of refugees and the setting of quotas.
Question: What I mean is, Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and nobody is bringing up this issue within this association. Europe does have a mechanism for dealing with such problems.
Maria Zakharova: I’d like to say that if there is such a need this issue should in some way or other be raised by Armenia. Another reason why this question should not really be put to us is that we are receiving a large number of people from Syria. The Russian Federal Migration Service has the exact figures, but I made some inquiries yesterday. As of September, there were about 8,000 such people on Russian territory. We are not only receiving people from the Syrian Arab Republic, but are also fulfilling all obligations to them, granting them an appropriate status. Some of them remain on our territory, while others move to other countries. Statements to the effect that “our conscience is clear” are hardly appropriate here, but we are honouring our obligations.
I believe that we could share our experience, since we are acting on the basis of Russian law. I’d like to point to an important trend, that despite the exacerbation of the Syrian crisis, and despite the fact that we have accommodated a huge number of people (hundreds of thousands) from Ukraine, Russian law has not been adjusted in any way to the changes that have taken place. In other words, despite the fact that the situation has evolved rapidly, sometimes chaotically, and nobody was ready to receive such a number of people, Russian law was not changed for our convenience to deal with this situation. We are seeing a different situation in Europe now, which proved unprepared for such a number of refugees, and there is an active debate about the need to change the legal framework.
To reiterate, despite the influx of people from Syria and what is in effect an exodus from Ukraine, we have not amended our laws and we are strictly adhering to the relevant provisions of Russian laws. To repeat, in this case, your question should be addressed to the Armenian side. If they are concerned about this they should speak out on the issue.
Question: What results does the Russian Foreign Ministry expect from the forthcoming Vienna meeting, particularly in view of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow?
Maria Zakharova: Excuse me, may I respond with another question for you, as a Reuters correspondent? Has you agency circulated a denial concerning the alleged death of three Russians in Syria?
Question: No, it has not.
Maria Zakharova: Why?
Question: This question should be addressed to my colleagues in Lebanon who released the story. The absence of a denial means, I suppose, that they still regard the information as true.
Maria Zakharova: Assuming that Reuters, unlike the USSR, is not falling into independent parts but is a unified organisation, we expect the denial to appear.
Concerning the expectations for tomorrow’s meeting, I would like to remind you that it is being held on the American initiative, which we accepted. We are open to dialogue. We regard this as another opportunity to discuss the Syrian conflict, taking into account the new issues that have emerged recently. I am referring to the progress made by Syrian armed forces on the ground, which I mentioned earlier. I suppose that the parties will find it interesting to hear the Russian delegation’s firsthand account of the steps we are taking in our struggle against ISIS in Syria. By all means, a political process must be put on the agenda. As you know, we regularly provide information on this subject. We maintain contact both with the Syrian opposition and with Damascus.
Our expectations are for a full-scale and, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov put it today, an honest and objective exchange of views on the situation, allowing us to trace the ways of applying our efforts to a thorough political settlement of the conflict in that country.
Question: Will Bashar al-Assad’s visit to Moscow give new impetus to the political process?
Maria Zakharova: All that can be said on the subject has been voiced by the Presidential Executive Office.
Question: Could you please comment on a report that former US President Jimmy Carter has provided the Russian embassy in Washington with maps showing ISIS positions in Syria? Did the Foreign Ministry receive these maps?
Maria Zakharova: I can confirm that this information is correct. President Carter contacted the Russian side and suggested providing us with his centre’s maps showing the current positions of belligerents in Syria, including the positions of government forces, ISIS and other groups.
These geographical materials are not classified, and most of them are posted on the website (CarterCenter.org) of the Carter Centre, which is headed and represented by President Carter. At the same time, we were extremely grateful for this gesture by President Carter who, obviously, sincerely advocates joint efforts in the fight against terrorism and who is concerned about the future of the Syrian people.
Of course, in our opinion, it would be much more logical and effective if those officials in Washington who currently possess exhaustive information in this area and who are authorised to make political decisions displayed the same constructive approach. I believe that it would be logical, considering the fact that we have submitted a relative request to the US side, to expect similar maps from Mr Ashton Carter, the incumbent Secretary of Defence. Unfortunately, the Pentagon is still shying away from the data exchanges on ISIS facilities in Syria we are proposing and from humanitarian cooperation. This would involve search-and-rescue missions to locate the crews of warplanes, and could also concern downed US pilots. As you know, the US side has rejected our proposal.
Question: Could you comment on a recent incident in St Petersburg where a Tajik family was detained for violation of migration legislation and their young child then died?
Maria Zakharova: First of all, I would like to offer my deep condolences to the child’s bereaved parents on behalf of the Foreign Ministry and all our employees. As soon as this information was received, the Foreign Ministry contacted all competent agencies and urged them to clarify the incident’s circumstances as quickly as possible. On October 20, 2015, the Nevsky District Investigation Department of the Russian Investigative Committee’s Main Investigation Directorate for St Petersburg opened criminal case No. 387641 in line with Article 109 part 2 of the Russian Criminal Code. This is for infliction of death by negligence due to misconduct by a professional person. The St Petersburg City Prosecutor’s Office is monitoring the pace of the investigation and its results. Senior officials of the Federal Migration Service and the Interior and Healthcare ministries are also conducting a detailed internal review of their officials’ actions. For our part, we are maintaining permanent contacts with all agencies involved in this tragedy. I would like to assure you that the investigation and the appropriate checks will be conducted in the promptest, most open and meticulous manner. We are talking about a great tragedy and the death of a child.
Question: The Baltic states are not the Middle East, but NATO is growing ever more active there. How would you comment on this issue? Why is this happening?
Maria Zakharova: I think the question of why NATO is growing more active should be addressed to the North Atlantic Alliance – for example, its office in Moscow.
How would this affect strategic stability in our common space? We do not know. We are deeply alarmed by this, bring this up and discuss this with our partners during our talks. But most importantly, it seems that behind all of this fuss, NATO countries – maybe not so much the member-countries, but its leadership – fails to see or remember the main point: now we can miss our chance to cooperate on the most serious global issue, namely, to jointly fight international terrorism. That is, you see, these efforts are for some reason being dynamically enhanced in an area that does not even warrant such exertions. At the same time, in another region that really requires a collective approach, demands courage and determination, calls for setting aside any political ambitions or ideas about who is in charge, who is first, who is the leader, in favour of synergy – there is no sign of such cooperative action. That’s very sad.
Today, I have cited some important examples (not just because it is important for us, as the threat comes from countries that are close to Russia) of international terrorism growing in Afghanistan. I would like to remind you that we used to have appropriate communication channels with NATO to address this issue among many others. Now they are all shut down, frozen.
You rightly said that the activity is growing in Europe. At the same time, this dialogue on international terrorism – a most important issue today – has been closed or blocked alongside other crucial issues. We said earlier that we’d leave this on NATO’s conscience. The fact is that such actions by NATO’s leadership, unfortunately, jeopardise future generations in those countries because terrorism is gaining traction by leaps and bounds. So while today some can still delude themselves that these terrorist groups are far away, well, if we look at how they progress, we can see that even today's young generation can be directly affected by the terrorist threat if we do not begin to fight it collectively. Terrorism can only be countered collectively.
I would like to repeat what I said yesterday: we need to stop talking of terrorism as “our problem” or “someone else’s problem”. It is a common problem. What else needs to happen to this world to make our Western colleagues understand that this is our common problem?
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
