Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 21, 2016
21 January 201621:56
90-21-01-2016
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s forthcoming visit to Turkmenistan
On January 27-28, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will pay a working visit to Turkmenistan.
He plans to conduct talks on topical bilateral issues, including trade, economic and humanitarian aspects.
The sides expect to hold a detailed exchange of opinions on major international issues and bilateral cooperation in the United Nations, Caspian Five and CIS. They will pay primary attention to the situation in Central Asia, taking due account of the events in Afghanistan. They will also discuss the struggle against international terrorism in the Middle East and the crisis in Ukraine.
During Mr Lavrov’s visit to Turkmenistan, the sides plan to sign a regular programme of cooperation between their foreign ministries for the current year. Mr Lavrov will take part in the ceremony marking the opening of new buildings of the Russian Embassy in Turkmenistan.
Russia appreciates cooperation with Ashgabat in various spheres and considers friendly and neutral Turkmenistan its strategic partner. We hope that the visit will further consolidate our strategic partnership.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to take part in Munich Conference
Our German colleagues reported that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Munich Security Conference as the head of the Russian delegation.
By tradition the Foreign Minister takes part in this forum every year: delivers a speech, replies to questions and takes part in discussions. This event is on his schedule this year and preparations for it are underway. As for appointing the head of the Russian delegation, this decision will be made by the Russian leadership.
Situation in southeastern Ukraine
The situation in southeastern Ukraine remains complicated. Shelling from different arms is often registered, including weapons that are supposed to have been withdrawn. This leads to civilian casualties and the destruction of housing.
This is always tragic and does enormous damage to the civilian population, but this is doubly so in winter. Regrettably, the yet another appeal for a ceasefire made by the Contact Group on January 13 has not been carried out in full. All of this contributes to the growth of tensions and complicates progress in other areas of the settlement.
Unconditional ceasefire by all weapons on both sides of the contact line and strict observance of the agreements on arms withdrawal are major tasks of the current period.
Russia and its foreign partners continue their active dialogue on a search for ways to settle the crisis in Ukraine on the basis of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015. They are paying special attention to the issues of political settlement.
On January 15, Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov met with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in Kaliningrad. Yesterday Foreign Minister Lavrov met with his US colleague, State Secretary John Kerry in Zurich. They discussed in detail various aspects of Ukraine’s domestic settlement. Mr Lavrov told journalists about the details of these talks at a news conference. Relevant information is published on the Foreign Ministry’s website.
Regular meetings of the Contact Groups and its expert profile sub-groups were held in Minsk on January 20. They continue the search for solutions to practical issues of the settlement in Ukraine.
Situation around Syria
The focus of the international community is on this region. It has become clear over the past few days, acting ahead of the upcoming intra-Syrian talks in Geneva, that terrorist groups have intensified their actions in order to turn the tide in the war theatre in their own favour. Terrorists from the Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar ash-Sham groups, which received major reinforcements from Turkey, launched counterattacks on government forces in the Aleppo Province and in Jabal Al-Turkmen (Turkmen Mountains) in the Latakia Province. Tensions have grown in the Damascus suburbs and in the provinces of Idlib and Homs. The most violent and bloody clashes between the government army and ISIS have been reported in the area of Deir ez-Zor, a city that has been blockaded by terrorists, which receive inadequate coverage by the international media. ISIS terrorists have committed another of their hideous crimes there, killing about 300 supporters of the legitimate Syrian government, most of them civilians, and taking hundreds of people prisoner.
On January 17, the Syrian government sent two identical letters to the UN Secretary-General and the UN Security Council President citing facts of the gross violation of Syria’s sovereignty by Turkey. According to these letters, Turkey deployed its military and armoured vehicles in the Syrian border regions, where they started building concrete walls and other fortifications and digging trenches, as well as performed other actions to support the armed groups under Turkey’s influence. It is possible that these fortifications on the Syrian-Turkish border are designed for use by illegal armed groups.
It should be noted that now that all concerned parties link their hopes with the launch of a substantive inclusive dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition, some external forces continue to supply weapons and munitions to fighters in Syria, including terrorist groups. This lays bare public statements on alleged commitments to the peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis and runs counter to the efforts to facilitate the peace process based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254.
We’ve noticed new instances of mounting pressure on Damascus aimed at placing the blame for the deteriorating humanitarian situation on the government. As you know, Russia has always protested against the politicisation of these important, priority issues. The solution calls for an objective and comprehensive approach, one which will contribute to the intra-Syrian dialogue and the settlement of the internal crisis, as well as serve to consolidate efforts in the interests of the complete and unconditional routing of the terrorists.
Russian humanitarian assistance to Syria
I consider it necessary to say a few words about Russia’s humanitarian assistance to Syria in light of the recent statements by a representative of the Press Office of the US Department of State, who said they don’t see Russia’s efforts to provide humanitarian aid to Syria.
This is all the more strange since the US State Department clearly sees many other things, such as Russian tanks that were allegedly moved or airlifted into other countries. But they don’t see our humanitarian assistance. Our experts have prepared a brief survey on the humanitarian assistance that has been delivered to Syria by official Russian agencies and NGOs over the past few years.
We are operating in this regard jointly with Syrians and other concerned regional parties, as well as through donations to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Refugee Agency, the UN Development Programme and other authorised international agencies. Acting under instructions from President Vladimir Putin, the Russian Emergencies Ministry has made over 30 flights to Syria and neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan since January 2013, delivering over 600 tonnes of humanitarian cargo for the Syrian victims of the ongoing conflict and confrontation in light of the fight against international terrorism.
Of course, the Emergencies Ministry, acting at its discretion, regularly informs the public and media on humanitarian deliveries.
I’m speaking about this today in addition to the information published by our colleagues, in order to attract the attention of the US Department of State, which doesn’t know about our humanitarian assistance to Syria. We will continue this practice.
In response to requests from the Syrian government, we completed the delivery of 100,000 tonnes of milling wheat in September 2015.
Humanitarian assistance is also sent to Syria by Russian NGOs. I will speak about this specifically.
I’d like to remind you that Russia is not just concerned with delivering humanitarian assistance (foodstuffs, humanitarian cargo and the like), but also has evacuated people from the regions considered too dangerous. This concerns not only Russians but also the citizens of other countries. We’d like our colleagues to remember this.
Russian NGOs provide humanitarian relief aid to Syria
Since 2012, Russian non-government organisations, including the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, the All-Russian Organisation of Veterans ‘Combat Fraternity,’ the Russian Committee of Solidarity with the Peoples of Libya and Syria and St. Andrew’s Foundation, have all been providing humanitarian relief aid to the people of Syria, at a time when tragedy has been unfolding for all Syrians for several years.
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia has supported the initiative of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and the Russian Committee of Solidarity with the Peoples of Libya and Syria. This initiative has also enjoyed wide acclaim among Russian citizens.
In March 2013, the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, assisted by the Committee of Solidarity with the Peoples of Libya and Syria, announced a nationwide campaign to collect humanitarian relief aid and raise funds for the people of war-torn Syria. In 2013-2014, over 100 tonnes of humanitarian relief aid, including medications, hemostatic drugs and disinfectants, food, blankets, essentials, textbooks and stationery were delivered to Damascus and Latakia. During the same period, relief funds raised by Russian citizens were spent on procuring modern medical equipment, which was delivered to a central children’s hospital in Damascus in August 2013.
John X of Antioch, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, and the Supreme Mufti of Syria Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun also received aid for the further distribution to all those in need, regardless of their religious affiliation.
The Russian Orthodox Church also provided substantial aid to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East. Monasteries and churches of the Russian Orthodox Church across Russia joined this effort and started collecting humanitarian relief aid for Syria. Moscow’s stauropegic New Monastery of the Saviour and the Church of the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Uspensky Vrazhek have made a particularly impressive contribution toward collecting humanitarian relief aid in 2015.
The All-Russian Organisation of Veterans ‘Combat Fraternity’ has been providing humanitarian relief aid to Syria since January 2014. In all, the fraternity delivered five batches of aid, including baby food, warm clothing for refugees, food and medications, and wheelchairs for wounded persons, to Syria. Families who lost their breadwinners, Orthodox Christian orphanages of the Antioch Orthodox Church and boarding schools for the children of Syrian soldiers, killed in action, received material assistance.
In July 2015, a group of students from boarding schools for children of Syrian soldiers killed in action, and children from orphanages of the Patriarchate of Antioch were invited to Russia. The school students visited Moscow, toured the capital and spent two weeks at the ‘Combat Fraternity’ youth camp in Crimea.
In 2014-2015, Russia’s RUSSAR Charity Foundation delivered humanitarian relief aid to refugees in Syria, including warm clothing and blankets. Families in Damascus, Homs and Safit received direct material assistance.
In 2014, St. Andrew’s Foundation arranged vacation holidays for 86 Syrian children who lost their parents due to the hostilities in Syria. We kindly list the contact information of humanitarian project coordinators from the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society and the Russian Committee of Solidarity with the Peoples of Libya and Syria. You can reach them on the issue of delivering humanitarian relief aid to Syria and on other informational matters. I’m urging you to do this, so that the US Department of State would be able to learn about Russian efforts involving government organisations, NGOs and ordinary citizens who are concerned about helping to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria to at least some extent.
Feel free to call Yelena Agapova, Humanitarian Projects Coordinator with the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, at: + 7 (915) 236 6299, or Nelli Kuskova, Humanitarian Projects Coordinator with the Committee of Solidarity with the Peoples of Libya and Syria, at: + 7 (903) 790 1162.
Main stages of practical implementation of the JCPOA on Iran
After January 16, implementation day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for the settlement of the Iranian nuclear crisis, work in this area went into a routine mode. Further development of Tehran's nuclear programme and international cooperation with Iran in the nuclear field should be carried out strictly within the framework of the JCPOA and UN Security Council Resolution 2231. Obviously, it will take some time to build the required mechanisms, given their complex and unique nature, to coordinate the efforts and begin to work smoothly and at full strength. The Russian side will actively contribute to this in the interest of sustaining the JCPOA throughout its implementation, meaning at least for the next decade. We hope that all the other participants in the process will strictly comply with their obligations to ensure that the work does not stop but continues most effectively.
The main focus of attention has now switched to the IAEA. That agency should confirm somewhere down the line that Iran does not keep any undeclared nuclear material or engage in such activity, a call that should abolish the remaining restrictions on cooperation with Iran in certain areas, including military-technical and nuclear cooperation, before the deadline stipulated by UN Security Council Resolution 2231. This work by the IAEA has already begun as part of Tehran’s implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement. We hope that it will not be politicised, and that all parties will make every effort towards its early completion.
Russian-Iranian trade and economic cooperation prospects
Lifting sanctions against Iran in connection with the beginning of the JCPOA implementation creates additional conditions for the expansion and diversification of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Iran.
In this context, we’d like to note that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Iran on November 23, 2015, followed by contacts between representatives of the two government’s economic officials (in December last year, Iran was visited by First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov, and Transport Minister Maxim Sokolov) has led to a substantial package of new bilateral agreements in this field, and that constant, dedicated work is underway to ensure practical implementation of those agreements.
This year, the mutual willingness to deepen cooperation in many practical areas has been confirmed by specific agreements to expand the range of mutual supplies of agricultural products and foodstuffs, signed during Minister of Agriculture Alexander Tkachev’s visit to Iran on January 19.
The potential exists, and this trend will be actively promoted.
Iran’s SCO entry prospects
Since 2005, Iran has been deeply involved in SCO activities as an observer nation; in 2008, the country officially applied for full membership in the organisation. However, the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN Security Council were an obstacle for that, as it was contrary to the SCO Charter.
The beginning of the JCPOA implementation aimed at resolving the Iranian nuclear programme, which serves as the basis for the cancellation of the international sanctions against the Tehran regime, opens the way for practical consideration of the country’s SCO membership application. Russia, which consistently supports Iran’s full-scale engagement in cooperation with the SCO members, directly with the organisation and with the SCO "family," is ready to assist in getting the process going. We support Iran’s full-scale participation in SCO activities.
The UK publishes Public Inquiry Chairman’s report into the “Litvinenko case”
Now let us cross to another continent and visit the UK. As you may know, a report by the chairman of the so-called “public inquiry” into the death of Alexander Litvinenko was published this morning. We have been repeatedly urged to comment on this issue. The Russian Foreign Ministry issued its comments immediately. After a primary perusal of the report, we have some additional considerations on this score.
We have to state that the result of a year and a half of behind-the-scenes games (and it’s hard to give a different name to this process), chaired by someone who seems to be a professional judge, comes as no surprise to us. We have seen no “novelty” in the results. This is a logical consequence of a pseudo- or quasi-judicial act put on by the British judiciary and the executive authorities, an act that in itself is controversial and, one may say, criminal. Their aim was to besmirch Russia, its official representatives and leaders, and that was clear right from the start.
I must remind you in this connection that, despite its name, this, mildly speaking, highly “original” form of inquiry is neither transparent nor public – both for the Russian side and British society. The proceedings were rife with private meetings that reviewed the intelligence services’ “secret” material and listened to evidence from “top-secret” witnesses. Earlier we said in connection with a number of similar stories that our Western colleagues had become actors in the theatre of the absurd. All matters surrounding the so-called “public” inquiry into the “Litvinenko case” no longer amount to an absurdity. It’s a shadow pantomime! The proceedings took place behind the scenes; everything was obscure and secret. The “public inquiry” was secret through and through. The only conclusion that suggests itself is that we have every reason to doubt the objectivity and impartiality of the verdict.
Let me remind you that Russia has repeatedly declared its interest in an objective and unbiased investigation into the death of both Alexander Litvinenko and numerous other Russian nationals, who regularly died and continue to die in the UK under different circumstances, including very odd ones. The fact that the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation took an active part as a concerned party in the open coroner investigation that was held in keeping with British law in the UK is evidence of this.
It is common knowledge that the “public inquiry” was launched following the suspension of the coroner investigation, which, judging by all appearances, failed to yield what the British authorities wanted it to. Russia’s Investigative Committee had to withdraw from the “public inquiry” solely for the reason of there being no transparency and the inevitable politicisation of the proceedings. Eventually our misgivings were proved true. The proceedings were absolutely not transparent, private, top secret and politicised.
It will be recalled that by mid-2014, when the Home Office decided to begin this “public inquiry,” which strangely (or perhaps logically) coincided with an upsurge of tensions in eastern Ukraine, two key witnesses – Boris Berezovsky and David West, owner of a London night club patronised by Berezovsky and Litvinenko, where traces of polonium were found two days before the assumed poisoning of the latter – had died under obscure circumstances. Agatha Christie pales in comparison to this.
It is also symptomatic that the current preliminary hearings into the death of another Russian national, Alexander Perepilichny, have revealed that the UK police have withheld from the coroner inquiry evidence of his involvement with the UK secret services. Obviously, this is an “unimportant” point for the British judiciary. Well, so much for unbiased UK justice.
After that the inquiry ran into increasingly more parallels with the “Litvinenko case.” Among other things, the police said they would urge the classification of a number of documents as potentially hazardous for national security or the UK’s international relations.
An interesting – and horrific – point to note is that the “national security,” with which the UK is so obsessed, is increasingly associated with the death of people, including Russian nationals, on its territory.
What is the next conclusion to make? The UK is creating a dangerous precedent: They use their internal legal mechanisms to promote a politically motivated and nontransparent inquiry with a predetermined outcome, all of which is a travesty for a so-called objective judicial investigation and a made-to-order politicised farce.
European migration crisis
We are closely monitoring and regularly comment on the situation created by the inflow of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa into Europe. This is in fact a humanitarian crisis that has been caused by an irresponsible and very short-sighted interference in the affairs of sovereign states to destabilise them and to overthrow undesirable governments in the region.
According to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, over one million refugees and migrants (1,014,836 people) entered Europe in 2015 and another 29,461 in early 2016.
As we said before, the international refugee protection regime is stipulated in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. We urge a responsible approach to the asylum institution. We believe that its erosion must be prevented even in conditions of the mass inflow of refugees. A clear distinction must be made between refugees as defined in the above Convention and its Protocol and illegal economic migrants.
Furthermore, we consider it necessary to create additional channels for legal migration, to control migration flows, to prevent crime and to provide for readmission. At the same time, we must do our utmost to prevent terrorists from entering Europe together with real refugees, who need our help and protection.
Europe’s irresponsible attitude to the crisis and to the growing humanitarian disaster is endangering the continent.
We note the ineffectiveness of the EU efforts to settle the migration crisis. In our opinion, the reason behind this ineffectiveness is not just the massive scale of migration but also a lack of coordination among European countries regarding practical measures to resolve this difficult and ever growing problem.
All of this has a serous negative effect on the refugees, who come across major problems on their way into Europe. We are witnessing chaos on the European borders, including inside the Schengen zone, which is fraught with the loss of the authorities’ control over the situation.
We urge our European colleagues to more responsibly implement their international commitments to guarantee and protect refugees’ rights.
Russia believes that the international community should redouble and coordinate efforts to find political solutions to conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa and to fight against terrorism, above all ISIS, based on international law and with the UN’s key role.
The key priority is to remove the causes of the migration crisis and to restore peace through a settlement in Syria and Libya. We’ve noticed that European governments are coming to realise the truth of this, but we’d like them to act quicker and to translate their awareness into concrete steps more effectively.
Another equally important task is to facilitate socioeconomic development and state-building in the refugees’ home countries. Since you found it possible to destroy their lives, now you must find the courage and capability to help restore them.
I believe that the countries that are responsible for launching these conflicts must also bear the brunt of responsibility for humanitarian aid to their victims.
Human rights situation in Turkey in light of targeted actions against Kurds
We have been asked to comment on the human rights situation in Turkey in light of targeted actions against Kurds. We addressed this issue at our previous briefings, and we’ll continue to cover it.
We are alarmed by mounting violence in southeastern Turkey due to the ongoing Turkish military operations in the Kurdish-inhabited provinces.
According to the non-governmental Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, 162 civilians perished from December 11, 2015 to January 8, 2016 in the course of the so-called counterterrorist operations that involved the use of heavy weaponry. Curfew is still effective in some towns in the country. As a result, people have been denied prompt access to foodstuffs and basic necessities.
On January 11, 2016, over a thousand scholars from 89 Turkish universities and hundreds of foreign scholars signed a petition titled We Won’t Be a Party to This Crime. We wholeheartedly support the scholars’ appeal to the Turkish government to stop its deliberate massacre and deportation of people in the region, to lift the curfew, to find and punish those guilty of infringing on civilians’ rights and freedoms, and to ensure that local and international observers have access to the region.
It is indicative that the academics who signed that petition have been promptly accused of aiding terrorism and terrorists, and some of them have been arrested. Turkey has launched the fight against dissent, which has led to the slandering of these people by pro-government media outlets.
It is a fact that the persecution of dissenting opinions is not the best way to resolve problems.
Kyrgyzstan’s withdrawal from agreements to build and operate the Kambarata-1 plant and the Upper Naryn hydropower cascade
On January 20, the Kyrgyz authorities decided to withdraw from the agreements to build and operate the Kambarata-1 hydroelectric power plant and the Upper Naryn hydropower cascade. Despite the importance of the planned construction and subsequent joint operation of the above facilities stipulated under the Russian-Kyrgyz intergovernmental agreements of September 20, 2012, these are above all economic projects that were designed to benefit both sides. The commercial feasibility of these projects was assessed based on the situation at the moment of their signing.
Since then, Russia and Kyrgyzstan have accomplished a great deal to implement these projects. In particular, they have established joint ventures, coordinated the technical parameters of the projects, are discussing the allocation of land plots for them, and have started building infrastructure for the preliminary stage of the Upper Naryn cascade project.
While implementing these agreements, the sides have come across a number of objective legal, fiscal and economic problems and have created a negotiating mechanism to deal with them. They have been working to find mutually acceptable solutions to all issues, including the terms and sources of funding.
These problems arose above all due to the global economic crisis, which has increased borrowing costs and had a dramatic effect on economic growth rates. The situation was further complicated by the absence of confirmed demand for the future power stations’ electricity.
Ultimately, the implementation of these two projects based on the provisions under the agreements signed is no longer possible and commercial borrowing would render them economically unviable.
As I said, on January 20, the plenary meeting of the Kyrgyz Parliament adopted a decision to terminate the agreements on the construction and operation of the Kambarata-1 plant and the Upper Naryn hydropower cascade.
Russia will accept Kyrgyzstan’s decision to withdraw from above agreements provided it complies with international law and respects the sides’ property interests.
Poland’s official position on the anniversary of the liberation of Warsaw from Nazi occupation
There is another issue that, unfortunately, has become popular. It has to do with Poland’s official position on everything related to the results of World War II, as well as to historical memory.
On January 17, 2016, traditional memorial events took place in Warsaw, dedicated to the 71st anniversary of the liberation of the Polish capital from the Nazi invaders. For the first time, only NGOs and veteran organisations participated in preparations for these events. What’s more, following the decision of Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz, a guard of honour and a military band were not provided for the events.
It looks like this is how the Polish authorities confirm in practice some new historical realities and policies. We are greatly disappointed by this approach.
Unfortunately, our hopes for at least an elementary human tribute to memory and respect for the historical truth where it is incontestable were dashed. I would like to remind you what every Pole should know: Over 600,000 Russian soldiers and officers fell liberating Poland from Nazism, and there is no getting away from this fact. It is impossible to disprove or distort it from a common sense position. We would like to hope that this will also be the case in Poland and that our Polish colleagues and citizens will remember this figure.
Entry ban for Russian journalists
In conclusion, I would like to note one regrettable and disturbing trend. We are regularly forced to take issue with the ongoing campaign against Russian journalists in the EU countries and elsewhere. This applies to Western countries in general. Today, I would like to tell you about such cases on the European continent. Now, our European colleagues have started to move from theory to practice.
Today, VGTRK journalist Alexander Balitsky, LifeNews correspondent Kirill Olkov and Channel One journalists Ilya Kostin and Dmitry Bedarev were banned from entering Moldova. We regard this incident as further evidence of the gross violation by Chisinau of the norms of international law with regard to human rights, freedom of expression and the fundamental principles of democratic society. Unfortunately, Moldova is not an exception here. Such actions by the authorities in certain Eastern European countries are becoming disturbingly regular. We often come across this kind of approach.
Here is another example. Unfortunately, the case of Russian journalist Leonid Sviridov from Rossiya Segodnya has not been resolved yet. Warsaw and the Polish authorities have done all they could to prevent Sviridov from entering any Schengen country. Sviridov said in an interview there has been no court ruling with regard to his deportation and the court has yet to examine it. He said he is resolved to fight to the end and uphold his professional reputation. Maybe this is a reaction to the journalists’ determination to ensure that justice prevails. This is precisely what our Western colleagues groundlessly accuse Russia of, without giving any examples, alleging that we persecute dissenters, make it impossible for Western journalists to work here and so on. Here are just a few examples of how European countries squeeze out this dissent, putting up all possible obstacles to them and to Russian journalists in general. Why is this being done? Obviously, to prevent any alternative opinion from making its way through information unipolarity. After all is said and done, it seems to me that these cases are designed to teach a lesson, just to intimidate, to put it simply. If journalists talk independently, not the way Europe wants them to, and disseminate alternative views, this is what is in store for them. All hell will break loose in their lives, journalists will lose their residence permits, etc.
Regarding Sviridov, I will stress that based not only on the information from our Embassy in Poland but also on his statements, no official charges have been brought against him. What is going on is the squeezing out of Russian journalists from the information space and now also, physically, from countries where their presence is considered to be undesirable.
In this connection, we expect an appropriate reaction from the international media community, as well as from the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, which is especially important for us as a foreign policy agency. If we are told once again that they have not seen or heard about such cases, then we will remind them by sending letters to this effect, making comments, and so on.
Excerpts from answers to media questions:
Question: Please comment on the recent statement by US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter condemning Russia’s air strikes in Syria and accusing it of bombing the opposition? The participants of the opposition meeting in Riyadh said they will not go to the forthcoming round of Geneva talks if the opposition forces proposed by Moscow go there, too.
Maria Zakharova: Yesterday, Minister Lavrov gave an exhaustive comment on what you just asked. I would like to reiterate that the lists of participants of the meeting, which is scheduled for late January, are drawn up not by Russia, the United States, Saudi Arabia or any other country. The UN and, in particular, the UN Special Envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, are in charge of this. He is the one who will extend invitations to prospective participants of this meeting. As you may be aware, all the countries that are, one way or another, involved in the peaceful Syrian settlement, are making their contributions to this work. However, it’s the UN represented by Mr de Mistura that extends invitations to this meeting. Therefore, all invitations should be extended based on the decisions taken as part of the Vienna format, and, of course, the UN Security Council resolutions. I can recommend that those who are making such statements grab the UN Security Council resolution that was recently adopted in New York and read it. They will find out that it says exactly what I just mentioned.
With regard to accusations against Russia to the effect that it bombs the opposition forces, I can reiterate that our Defence Ministry holds regular briefings not only for reporters, but also for the diplomatic corps, military attaches and foreign embassies on all issues that they may have an interest in. One may claim that Russia is bombing civilian targets, turn a blind eye to the humanitarian aid that Russia is sending to Syria, or say all sorts of things, but you need to understand that living out of touch with reality is beginning to look ridiculous.
Again, we hold briefings to provide information and also conduct bilateral meetings. Here’s a tip for those who never stop making accusatory statements, or fail to see or understand things – stop looking ridiculous and start using the facts that Russia provides on an almost daily basis. Furthermore, when providing these facts, the Russian side makes sure each time that everything is clear and encourages everyone to ask more questions to make sure they have all the information they may want on facilities, points or coordinates. All those endless and groundless accusations are nothing but short-lived bubbles with a lifespan of a couple of seconds.
Question: Today, several media outlets reported that Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry reached an agreement yesterday regarding the opposition delegation members. There seem to be disagreements, since the delegation formed by Riyadh is reluctant to include any more representatives of the Syrian opposition in it. Allegedly, there’s an arrangement between Mr Lavrov and Mr Kerry to the effect that the latter will fly to Riyadh to persuade the Saudis to include the opposition members with which Moscow is willing to talk in the delegation. Is that true?
Maria Zakharova: There’s an obvious contradiction in what you said. If someone out there believes that the talks are held between the United States and Russia, then Secretary Kerry going places to talk someone into doing something makes no sense. Can the position of the United States depend on the opinion of a third party? Given its exceptionality and power, it’s an unlikely proposition.
My suggestion is that we leave all these fun stories to fiction writers. Again, invitations are extended not by a particular country or a group of countries, but by the UN, which Minister Lavrov clearly stated yesterday following his meeting with Secretary Kerry. He did so to head off any speculations on this issue.
" rel="111">True, all countries contribute to launching this political process (I’m referring to the dialogue between Damascus and the opposition). No one is trying to hide this fact, and this issue was widely discussed within the Vienna format and during bilateral and multilateral meetings. Of course, everyone is trying to help, express their points of view, etc. However, in this particular case, a binding decision was made to have the UN, namely Staffan de Mistura, extend invitations to this meeting.
Question: The Foreign Office of Great Britain summoned Russian Ambassador to London Alexander Yakovenko in connection with the Litvinenko case. Could you comment on this?
Maria Zakharova: Alexander Yakovenko will find the right words to convey to his British colleagues our attitude to this farce. It’s wonderful that he’ll have this opportunity today – it’s just in time.
I can say that we, too, will bring our point of view and all the relevant arguments across to the UK diplomats.
Question: Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalya Yaresko told the Davos forum about Kiev’s plans to start bringing Crimea back to Ukraine in 2016. In her words, Kiev is planning to create a diplomatic format similar to the Geneva forum involving Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the US. Could you comment?
Maria Zakharova: Let them dream on.
Question: Is it true to fact that Russian and Turkish businesses restarted Turkish Stream talks?
Maria Zakharova: I have no information of this sort.
People often ask us to comment on contacts between Russian and Turkish companies. Let me remind you that we haven’t broken off diplomatic, cultural or economic relations with that country. The case in point is assessing the Turkish leaders’ actions following the November 24 tragedy. It is a real tragedy for our country, involving the death of officers who were performing their military duty both for their own country and the world at large, which is suffering from international terrorist attacks. Our position is quite clear: It is a reaction to the concrete Turkish steps.
President Vladimir Putin and the national leadership in the person of ministers and representatives of various agencies repeatedly reaffirmed that the Turkish people remained a friend to the people of Russia. We believe and know that this is and will be that way. We had to take appropriate measures, but they are not directed against the Turkish people. There is no need to seek something sensational in current contacts and relationships, including contacts between businesses and economic partners. Turkey has committed a crime that invited a fitting Russian response. But the Turkish people still are our friends. I’d like people to proceed from this basic point; comments and opinions regarding bilateral relations shouldn’t overlook Russia’s principled approach.
Question: What questions will be posed to the Polish side at tomorrow’s meeting of Polish and Russian deputy foreign ministers? What are the expectations for the meeting?
Maria Zakharova: We have confirmed the fact of consultations. The officials will consider a wide range of issues, prioritising bilateral relations. We’ll inform you promptly about the results.
Question: You said the investigation of the Litvinenko case was politicised. But it contains concrete information on the complicity of two Russian nationals in this murder. Besides, it says that polonium-210 is produced only by Russia and it’s impossible to use it unbeknown to the state. Could you comment?
Maria Zakharova: It’s very important to comment on a statement when you understand how a process developed. We gave our assessment to the proceedings, which were secret practically throughout. The outcome was not a surprise. It worked out exactly as we expected.
It is perhaps counterproductive to comment on the final statement while lacking an understanding of the proceedings. It is for this reason that we have offered our assessments and explained why we regard the proceedings as quasi-legal. If everything that took place within the framework of a public – the emphasis is mine – inquiry was classified (both documents and witnesses), and, moreover, the key witnesses ceased to exist under very odd circumstances, then what results can we discuss now? This is the assessment that we’ve provided.
Question: Could you speak specifically about the polonium.
Maria Zakharova: I’ve already answered this question.
Question: You spoke about the proceedings.
Maria Zakharova: I said that the proceedings led to absolutely politicised statements that we’ve heard. Let me repeat that all statements should be based on materials, and the horrible thing is that all the key materials have been classified. We are speaking about the UK judicial system, which has always positioned itself as both independent and apolitical, as well as the oldest in Europe. But when you classify all documents and witnesses, how can you talk seriously about these proceedings that have been called “public?” There is something amiss here.
It would be fine, if, instead of discussing the origin of the polonium, the judge provided or at least referred to the materials from which all these odd conclusions were derived. Give us the materials! How can you talk in earnest about the results of a public inquiry that was secret through and through?
Question: Do you know which Syrian opposition groups, and more precisely which Kurdish parties will participate in the peace talks?
Maria Zakharova: I’d like to clearly repeat the following, so that no one would have any doubts left. Of course, all countries are contributing to the development of dialogue between Damascus and the opposition, but it is the UN Envoy on Syria, Staffan de Mistura, who has been made responsible for convening the talks. He will send invitations and is fully responsible for forming the lists of invitees. This is the third time that I have said this, and very clearly, today. There can be no question that this is the task of Mr de Mistura, who must extend the invitations. Please address your questions, if you have any, to Staffan de Mistura, because under the adopted decisions, which we’ve mentioned, no country alone or group of countries can be involved in issuing these invitations. It is the zone of responsibility of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria.
Question: Sources in Syria have announced that since the beginning of this week Russian forces have been entering an area that is controlled by Kurds – the town of Al-Qamishli on the border with Turkey. It is also said that engineering units entered the area together with the Russian forces to build facilities for a second [Russian] base there. Can you confirm this information?
Maria Zakharova: These issues fall under the expertise of the Defence Ministry. I believe they will provide a competent answer. We deal with political issues. As to how and where the Russian armed forces are deployed and what their plans are, please address these questions to our military experts.
The only thing I can do after today’s briefing is to draw their attention to this question, for it falls within their competence.
Question: The technical part of the investigation into the causes of the Malaysian Boeing crash over Ukraine, which did not take the Russian stance into account, has been completed. Has the situation within the framework of the legal investigation changed? Are they cooperating with Russia?
Maria Zakharova: We have to state that there has been no comprehensive or full cooperation with Russia in this legal investigation. Russia’s request to work on the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) has been denied. Malaysia was the only of the five countries on the team that replied to our request positively. The other countries said in reply to our request that Russia can only contribute to individual efforts on individual subjects. However, even acting within this limited scope of cooperation, Russia has acted upon the legal queries its legal authorities received from the Netherlands. We said more than once that the Prosecutor General’s Office has provided a host of materials to its Western colleagues that could have helped with the crash investigation. The numerous Russian invitations, including those from Rosaviatsia [the Federal Air Transportation Agency] and the Almaz-Antey concern, to come to Russia in order to analyse the results of our research and experiments within this investigation remain open. But all our appeals and invitations have been disregarded.
In general, JIT’s selective approach to cooperation within the framework of this investigation is not clear and I would even say unacceptable. Where there should be cooperation we see a selective approach, when the other side says it is not interested in some evidence and completely disregards other elements. For some strange reason, they have rejected many of Russia’s reasonable proposals for open cooperation and mutual exchange of data, while giving the green light to Kiev, saying that Kiev alone can help establish the real cause of the tragedy. It’s unclear why the Netherlands, for one, considers it accurate to describe Ukraine as a full and unbiased member of the investigative team, but forgets or disregards the fact that Kiev can also be seen as a party to the crime. Evidence of this selective approach was the recent backroom meeting between Dutch chief prosecutor Fred Westerbeke and a first deputy to Ukraine’s prosecutor general. During their meeting, to which representatives from other countries were not invited, they discussed the course of the criminal investigation. This is very strange for a full-scale, open and unbiased investigation.
The attitude toward Russia has been biased and politically motivated, not only at the government agencies of other countries, but also in some international media. We feel that they are simply carrying out somebody’s orders. For example, Rosaviatsia has recently sent a letter to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB), in which the Russian agency provided facts proving the bias of the final report of the international technical commission. Most Western media outlets did not even mention the letter or the information it contained. It looked as if someone had ordered them not to publish this information, although the letter also highlighted an issue the importance of which the West has not fully appreciated, namely Ukraine’s failure to close its airspace to civilian aircraft, which was a crime.
Western journalists who are guilty of one-sided reporting actively used planted and leaked information, which they described as being reports from Bellingcat. It is one of those organisations or centres that has been established to analyse a specific problem, for example, the Syrian settlement, but which does not provide reliable information and itself is not a serious agency, one that has stood the test of time and has been found to be reliable. Bellingcat is often quoted [in the West], but when [Russian] organisations use their right to respond to various allegations, their material, signed by senior and other officials whose names have been mentioned in these reports and during the investigations, is completely disregarded. This is barefaced politicisation and not at all how a normal investigation should be conducted.
Of course, this makes one doubt that the Joint Investigation Team is interested in establishing the truth. We see too many “buts” and too many elements proving that this dragged-out criminal investigation is politically motivated. We’ve experienced this before, and we spoke at length about similar processes today. Unfortunately, history repeats itself. But the more cases like this happen, the more people come to realise that there is a great distance between these processes and the way this should be done in theory. In this particular case, theory and practice are worlds apart.
Question: A couple of questions about the Alexander Litvinenko case. One of your points was about the lack of trust in the inquiry because it is based on classified files. But, as far as we know, quite a number of decisions are made in Russia based on secret materials. Why do we mistrust their classified materials and trust our own?
Second, is Russia defending Lugovoi so much because he may have had links to Russian government agencies? Or is it because Russia has conducted its own inquiry and established that Lugovoi had nothing to do with Litvinenko’s death?
Third, if Moscow is determined to ignore the results of the UK inquiry, Britain is obviously going to do the opposite. Not only have they summoned the ambassador but also they have issued statements saying relations with Russia would be reduced to “the most sensitive issues” only and so on. How do you think relations with Britain will develop after this inquiry? Will it be difficult for Russia to maintain dialogue with Britain?
Maria Zakharova: But do you believe it is possible to reduce Russian-British relations any further? Are there any lacunas left that the British side hasn’t covered?
I’d like to say that your second question should be addressed to our law-enforcement agencies, it’s their competence.
Now about why we don’t trust the British investigation where the majority of documents and witnesses are classified though we have similar cases in our country. Do you know any examples when a foreigner died in Russia, the Russian side classified all the documents related to the inquiry, and then two key witnesses, also foreigners, died? Perhaps you could tell me about it? I can’t recall anything of the kind. I’ve repeatedly said that this is all a farce because the inquiry was declared “public”. The idea was to bring it to public attention whereas in reality the true information used by prosecutors and investigators was classified. What happened? The word “public” was used to forge out a certain public opinion, the story was regularly updated but still no specific facts were presented. This is why we are talking about the underlying strategy. Unfortunately, British authorities among others have been using this method for years to forge a particular image of our country. Did it begin just now? Of course, not. The answer is simple. The mechanisms, judicial and investigative, have been employed with a view to shaping public opinion rather than finding out the truth. Hence, the combination of incompatibles: on the one hand, it is a process open to the public, and on the other, it uses classified materials. They simply needed to use the available mechanism for drawing the political portrait of their opponents. That much is clear. What we are witnessing now is far more interesting than any detective story ever written.
Incidentally, I wonder if Boris Berezovsky’s death has become any clearer to the British justice and law-enforcement bodies? We hear the statements intended to steer public opinion against the Russian Federation. The question is – have they discovered any truth about his case or is it less fun? Perhaps, because the Berezovsky case wouldn’t give them any excuse to summon the Russian ambassador as they would have to summon one of their own?
Question: Protests are continuing in Chisinau. What is your position on the situation?
Maria Zakharova: We are closely following the events in the Republic of Moldova around the formation of a new government. Unfortunately, this process sometimes amounts to open clashes between various political forces.
Hopefully, the drawn-out political crisis in Moldova will be overcome within the field of law based on free will and democratic principles. In this regard we urge our western partners to show more restraint.
The Russian Federation remains committed to good relations with a stable and friendly Moldova.
Question: I would not like to go back to the issue of “Monte Cristo” (the Tajik citizen who escaped from a Moscow pretrial detention centre). The fugitive has been caught. I would not like to talk about him at all. The court will decide whether he is guilty or not. However, the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper ran a story very much in the style of people who write that “he did not run too far away.” Can law enforcement agencies be wrong with regard to a foreign national? How could they have written that a foreign citizen from a neighboring country escaped from Pretrial Detention Centre No. 5?
Maria Zakharova: Do you have a problem with the reporter or with law enforcement?
Question: I don’t know who to turn to.
Maria Zakharova: So you’ve decided to come to me. Here’s what I think we should do. We’ll help you file a complaint and when you do that and we understand who is really to blame, then we’ll revisit the issue.
Question: You said the report on the Alexander Litvinenko case was designed to discredit Russian leadership. Precisely who do you mean?
Maria Zakharova: If you have read the report, it states everything in black and white. I talked not only about leadership, but also about the country as a whole, the efforts to forge a negative image of Russia. Time goes on and much in the country is changing. Nevertheless, a certain enemy stereotype remains the same. Whatever happens here, no matter how the country changes and whatever course it follows, we are seeing more or less the same approach towards covering what is going on here, as well as attempts to shape a corresponding perception among their citizens.
Here is an example. We remember well the time when our country was involved in a fierce fight against terrorism, including international terrorism, in the North Caucasus, which came with much sweat and blood to our people in the literal sense of the word, when the terrorist threat, excuse the tautology, threatened everyone in our country regardless of where that person lived and regardless of his or her faith or political views. We remember very well the British position on the issue, when these terrorists, these militants were guests of honour at the best homes in London, when they met with representatives of the political establishment, when they took their case to representatives of the legislative branch of government and the executive treated them as officials. We have not forgotten this. We remember this even though it happened many years ago. Years go by but the attitude remains unchanged. This does not mean that this is the way the British people treat us. This is the position of a certain part of the political establishment, which sets the goal of shaping a particular image of our country. Years have passed and militants who used to be guests of honour at social events were replaced, for example, by Boris Berezovsky. This, despite the fact that it was obvious to everyone that he was guilty of all sins that London accuses Moscow of, such as corruption, etc., and he became the hero of all national media outlets and political talk shows. For many years, it was almost impossible to find information about Russia in the British media not only from official agencies but simply from civil society. Instead, Berezovsky was in the limelight, as prior to him, Akhmed Zakayev had been.
Have we not seen this before? We have. With regard to your question, this gives us reason to say: This is a made-to-order move. Unfortunately, the judiciary played the first fiddle here. This is terrible because British Lady Justice has always positioned herself as independent. Now she has allowed herself to be used. This is obvious and everyone knows about this. This is self-evident.
Our entire experience gives us grounds to draw the conclusions we have drawn. This is not an accident but a carefully staged event, which was reanimated “by coincidence” with the onset of the Ukraine crisis. There are no such coincidences. It could have been a coincidence if we had not seen what we had seen on the part of official London, namely, that, as I just said, the militants who were wanted in Russia, with court rulings against them, felt not only home free there but were the best friends of the entire political establishment. These people have blood on their hands, including the blood of women and children. There [in the UK], they were treated as the best friends, almost stars.
Question: Precisely what provisions would Russia like to push into the Ukrainian constitution through the militants who have seized Donbass?
Maria Zakharova: You’re using some kind of barroom language – push though provisions. There is a package for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, as well as follow-up decisions that were made, in particular, during the meetings of Normandy Four leaders. The ministers meet regularly, talk by telephone and exchange letters and messages on the subject. Now our American colleagues have also become actively involved in this process. They have not formally joined it, however, but expressed their interest in becoming involved. This applies to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. For our part, we have no intention of, as you put it, pushing anything through. We only want to ensure that all provisions of the Minsk Agreements are put into practice, in the exact order that is stipulated. It is a process that involves diplomatic talks and a search for compromise and mutually acceptable solutions.
Globally, the prime goal is to ensure that Donbass and Kiev coexist within a single state on the basis of democratic principles, so that the people who live in Donetsk and Lugansk do not feel outcasts in their own country and enjoy all the rights as citizens of their country. They should not fear for their future and worry about a change of government in Kiev, that some new official will start acting differently and lobbying for some solutions based on the use of force. They should be full citizens of their country and enjoy all the benefits of a democratic society. This is the prime goal, and the Minsk Agreements have paved the way to achieving it.
To reiterate, we are in contact with our colleagues within the framework of the Normandy Four, with countries and parties that have some influence on Kiev and are willing to contribute to the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. We have never – to use your verb – “pushed” for anything “of our own” nor do we plan to, except for what is officially provided for. This is solely about the implementation of the Minsk Agreements. This is not an end in itself that everyone is fixated on just to implement these agreements. It is a key to the door that leads to the coexistence of people in a single state, on an equal, long-term basis, on the basis of mutual respect.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
