Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, February 25, 2016
25 February 201618:10
354-25-02-2016
Table of contents
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Algeria
- Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend the 31st session of the UN Human Rights Council
- The release of hostages from the tanker Leon Dias
- US official statements on the implementation of the Joint Russian-US Statement on Cessation of Hostilities in Syria
- British official statements on Syrian Kurds
- Violation of the Treaty on Open Skies by Turkey
- The current humanitarian situation in Yemen
- Preparations for the upcoming Dutch referendum on ratification of Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement
- The missing children of European migrants
- The February 17 article in La Repubblica on cyberattacks at the Italian foreign and defence ministries
- Agreement on Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre
- An ad hoc Bulgarian parliamentary commission set up to examine allegations of Russian and Turkish interference in Bulgaria’s internal affairs
- Desecration of Monument to Red Army in Slawno
- Russian-Indian agreement on the issue of six month multiple-entry tourist visas to the citizens of the Russian Federation and the Republic of India, based on reciprocity, enters into force
- Statements by Deputy Government Spokesperson Christiane Wirtz and German Foreign Ministry Spokesman Martin Schaefer about “biased” coverage of events by the Russian media
- The expulsion of Inter TV producer Maria Stolyarova from Ukraine
- An article in The Wall Street Journal
- From answers to questions
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s visit to Algeria
As usual, I’ll begin with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s schedule.
On February 29, Sergey Lavrov will visit Algeria. He plans to meet with President of Algeria Abdelaziz Buteflika and Prime Minister Abdelmalek Sellal and hold talks with the Minister of State and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Ramtane Lamamra.
A few words about Mr Lavrov’s agenda in Algeria. Algeria is one of Russia’s leading trade and economic partners in Africa and the Arab world. Trade between Russia and Algeria amounted to about $2 billion last year, growing by 120 per cent from 2014.
The talks will focus on the key aspects of bilateral relations and the prospects for strengthening cooperation in energy, infrastructure development and high technology. Our common goal is to effectively use the Joint Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation. The commission’s next session will be held in this format in Algeria.
Russia highly values its multifaceted relations with Algeria, a country that is respected and enjoys considerable influence in the Arab world, Africa, the Mediterranean and the international stage as a whole. Both countries will continue to coordinate Russian-Algerian stands on key international issues and their efforts towards strengthening the leading role of the UN and its Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, establishing multipolar world order and settling regional conflicts by political and diplomatic means based on the UN Charter and the principle of supremacy of international law.
We place special emphasis on the regular coordination of views with due regard for developments in the Middle East and North Africa and the Sahel-Sahara zone.
It is our firm position that regional nations must be able to independently determine their future without any external interference, including by settling their internal problems through non-violent means within the framework of law and through an inclusive national dialogue. This fully relates to the early settlement of the conflicts in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Mali by stopping violence and the suffering of civilians. We appreciate that Russia and Algeria have the same or very similar views on these issues.
Other issues on the agenda include discussion of ways towards mutually acceptable solutions to old regional conflicts, primarily the Arab-Israeli and the West Saharan problems, in accordance with the decisions the UN has already taken and the principles of international law.
The officials will also discuss ways to deal with new challenges and threats, primarily the fight against terrorism and transnational organised crime.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to attend the 31st session of the UN Human Rights Council
From Algeria, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will travel to Geneva, where he will address the High-Level Segment of the 31st session of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) on March 1.
We see the UNHRC as a major human rights body of the UN and protest the politicisation and narrow interpretation of human rights issues in its work. We believe that all countries and societies must be free to choose their own way.
Mr Lavrov will deliver an opening statement at the high-level panel discussion on the 50th anniversary of the adoption and the 40th anniversary of entry into force of the international covenants on human rights: universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. This issue was put on the session’s agenda under UNHRC Resolution 29/1 on the anniversary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted at Russia’s initiative, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
One of the panellists at this high-level panel discussion will be Andrey Klishas, Chairperson of the Federation Council Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Development, who will share Russia’s experience in implementing the above covenants, in particular the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
While in Switzerland, Mr Lavrov will hold a traditional meeting with the heads of international organisations and their Geneva affiliates. He will discuss a wide range of issues on the international agenda and Russia’s cooperation with these organisations. Considering that his colleagues will also attend this event in Geneva, Mr Lavrov can hold several bilateral meetings. We will duly inform you about additional details.
I’m happy to tell you that the ceremonial opening of the Russian Room at the Palais des Nations in Geneva is scheduled for March 1, 2016. Rather, it will be the re-opening of the office that opened in 1995 after a large-scale renovation, which Russia began in 2015 and which lasted until 2016.
The renovated Russian Room, alongside the French Room and the Czech and Slovak Room, will continue to be used as an office for high and summit level bilateral meetings at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
The release of hostages from the tanker Leon Dias
I’d like to begin with good news, which doesn’t happen often of late, but still. It concerns the hostages seized on board the tanker Leon Dias. According to the Russian Embassy in Nigeria, all crew members who were taken hostage by pirates in the Gulf of Guinea in late January, including Russian citizen Baklanov, have been released and are now safe under the protection of the ship’s owner. Preparations are underway for their transportation from Nigeria. The Russian Embassy and diplomats are not only monitoring the situation but also are actively involved in the situation with the Russian hostages in Nigeria.
We’ll keep you informed.
And now we will talk about Syria in the context of the Joint Russian-US Statement, which was signed the other day.
We are simply perplexed by the first statements made in Washington regarding this document. We didn’t expect some US officials to offer diametrically opposed interpretations of the Russian-US agreement on promoting the cessation of hostilities in Syria as formulated in their joint statement of February 22. In essence, some US officials have questioned the agreement that has been reached and sealed by the two presidents.
It’s nice to see some reaction, but it looks like some US officials are openly sabotaging the Joint Statement. It was the initial wave of response, which has been fortunately rolled back.
I’d like to say a few words about the current situation regarding all the issues pertaining to the Syrian settlement and international efforts towards implementing it.
As I have said, despite the statements made in Washington on the first day [after the signing of the document], we maintain contact with US officials.
The process is underway, and very actively at that. We have established a methodology for dealing with the issues set out in the Joint Statement. We have started exchanging information, and our militaries are also interacting with each other. As far as I know, the Russian Defence Ministry is providing detailed information. As for our political assessment of the situation, we are satisfied with the initial period of the implementation of the Joint Statement. It’s important that we keep up the pace and act constructively.
Barely an hour before this briefing, we were asked to comment on information provided by some UN officials according to whom a new meeting will be held between the Syrian Government and the opposition. We cannot confirm this so far. We are not only waiting for official confirmation, but also expect UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura to coordinate the process. We hope that he will succeed. We’d like this process to be launched as soon as possible, because it is one of the most important tracks of the Syrian settlement. We hope that the process, which will take over from the Geneva dialogue between Damascus and the opposition, will involve a large representative group, or even several groups of the Syrian opposition that would include those who had attended the meetings in Moscow, Cairo and Riyadh. In our opinion, Kurdish representatives should join this group, the importance of which is reaffirmed daily by the situation on the ground.
As for the group working towards a ceasefire, preparations are underway for its first meeting. We hope it will be held within days. We are actively contributing to these preparations. The first meeting is scheduled to take place on the level of experts. As for the task force on humanitarian issues, we are fully satisfied with its work. It is proceeding regularly and has produced its first concrete results. We maintain contact with the representatives of the Syrian Government, the opposition and, of course, the UN and its humanitarian agencies on this issue. As I said, this group is very active, which inspires optimism.
Unfortunately, the Western media have again provided very strange reports according to which the ceasefire should include the cessation of hostilities not only by Damascus and opposition groups, but also Russia, which has been delivering strikes on terrorist targets. It looks like an attempt to convince the public that Russia’s Aerospace Forces can be convinced to stop their operations against ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups. What is the objective of this? I can assume that this is being done to create the impression that Russia is violating the ceasefire agreement, although we have said more than once that we will continue to target terrorists. Our colleagues from the Russian Defence Ministry and the Presidential Executive Office have said this, and we want to remind you that the issue concerns a truce between Damascus and opposition groups, which should use the remaining time to register with the related Russian and US centres and declare their intention to honour the truce. Those groups that don’t do this will not be subject to the ceasefire. In addition, this agreement does not and cannot imply that the fight against terrorism will stop. We have been acting in keeping with the Russian-US Statement and the Munich Communique, which clearly sets out the [ceasefire] mechanism. There must be no speculation or alternative interpretations.
British official statements on Syrian Kurds
In this regard, I can’t help mentioning the British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Philip Hammond’s statement made during his speech in the British Parliament on February 23. Mr Hammond pointed to the concern of the British authorities about the coordination between the Syrian Kurds, the Syrian President’s regime and Russian air forces. He was especially concerned about the Kurdish role in this interaction.
We have already made numerous statements on the Syrian Kurds, as we cover this issue on a regular basis. However, I suppose that British Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Philip Hammond should refresh his memory regarding some key points. Russia has long stressed the need to establish a broad coalition to counter ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist groups, recognised as such by the UN Security Council. This coalition should include real forces on the ground, those that actually oppose the terrorist threat in Syria. This refers mainly to the Syrian regular army, Kurdish formations and patriotic groups of the Syrian opposition. We are satisfied with the fact that this very logic was overriding and was reflected in the Russian-US Joint Statement on Cessation of Hostilities in Syria, due to commence on February 27.
It seems strange that Mr Hammond, who represents an International Syria Support Group member country and who attended all its meetings in person, failed to notice Russia’s position. He remains focused on some, in his words, “troublesome trends” of coordination between the Syrian Kurds, the Syrian Government and Russian Aerospace Forces. However, Mr Hammond isn’t concerned about the existing coordination between the Syrian Kurds and US Air Forces, as well as air forces of other countries that are members of the counterterrorist coalition led by the US. We’d like to understand why. Nor is he concerned about the Turkish attacks on Syria, going on for several days and harming the peaceful Kurds living there.
We are convinced that clear and proper implementation of all terms of the Russian-US statement on Syria will greatly improve the humanitarian situation in the Syrian Arab Republic and ensure the successful promotion of the comprehensive intra-Syrian political process under the auspices of the UN. We’d like to hope that a principled approach, rather than one concerned with short-term political motives, would guide London while developing its statements and actions regarding Syria.
Violation of the Treaty on Open Skies by Turkey
I’ll spend a moment talking about Turkey’s violation of the Treaty on Open Skies.
I would like to once again focus on this issue, although we have already commented on it. As you may recall, the issue is about an incident that took place in early February. An extraordinary plenary session of the Open Skies Consultative Commission (OSCC) was convened at Russia’s initiative in Vienna on Friday, February 19. I will not dwell on what it took to have our partners agree to hold that meeting. I will just provide several key takeaways from it.
The matter is that from February 1 to 5, Russia was planning to carry out an AN-30B observation flight over the Turkish territory under the Treaty on Open Skies, to which the Turkish side agreed without any preconditions or restrictions. However, after the mission arrived at the point of entry on the territory of Turkey, and our group presented a flight plan, which included observation of the areas adjacent to the Syrian border (but no closer than 20 km to the border) and airfields with NATO aircraft, Turkey said that a portion of this area is a hazardous airspace and rejected the flight plan submitted by the Russian side. No prohibitions or restrictions regarding the use of airspace were officially published. Moreover, Paragraph 2, Section II, Article VI of the Treaty “allows for the observation of any point on the entire territory of the observed Party, including areas designated by the observed Party as hazardous airspace.”
The Russian group decided to meet Turkey halfway and adjusted its flight altitude. However, even after the adjustment, the Turkish side refused to issue permission, referring to the Turkish Foreign Ministry’s instructions. This leads us to believe that Ankara was reluctant to accept the Russian observation mission from the get-go.
During the extraordinary OSCC meeting, we pointed out that this unprecedented move by Turkey contradicts one of the Treaty’s fundamental provisions, which is to contribute to greater openness and transparency through confidence-building measures, the importance of which, by the way, our NATO colleagues constantly remind us about.
Yesterday, foreign correspondents asked me about ways to restore trust between Russia and the West. It's all a matter of trust. After all, we haven’t requested anything that goes beyond an established Treaty accepted by all. We acted exclusively in line with its provisions. If we were not allowed to perform under this international legal instrument, then, of course, trust is out of question.
We are convinced that Ankara had no right to prevent us from carrying out the observation mission on its territory, and that the refusal by the Turkish side suggests an effort to hide certain activities, which apparently take place in the areas over which Russian aircraft was supposed to fly.
When we hear Ankara's statements that Russia's allegations about illegal activities taking place on the Turkey-Syria border are groundless, that flight was a perfect chance to dot all the i’s and settle this issue. Since they preferred not to show it to us, what else is there to discuss? Does it mean they are hiding something? We all know what they are hiding, and we keep talking about it.
The Commission members emphasised that Turkey's actions should cause concern with regard to the integrity and the viability of the Treaty as an effective means of building confidence and security.
Please note that the text of the Russian representative’s remarks at the extraordinary meeting of the Commission is available on the Russian MFA website and was circulated as an official UN Security Council document.
Can you imagine our surprise when discussing this issue at the OSCC meeting, Turkey tried to shift the blame for the mission’s failure on the Russian side and create an impression that Ankara wasn’t even considering trying to prevent us from carrying out this mission?
Unfortunately, our NATO colleagues likewise tried to change the substance of the discussion.
I would like to note that this NATO “solidarity” sometimes takes on ludicrous forms. It has an entirely different purpose. We know too well what a “mutually agreed position” is. Can we talk about its relevance when the fate of an entire region is at stake, and when all international actors have focused their efforts on resolving the most complicated and severe crisis? Where are the confidence-building measures, about which we have heard so much? Of course, the attempt to make an aggrieved party look like the guilty one and gross violations of international agreements would seem funny, if it were not so sad. Can you imagine what our Western colleagues would think and say, if Russia, during the acute phase of the conflict in southeastern Ukraine in 2014, prevented them from carrying out observation flights over its territory along the Russian-Ukrainian border? As you may remember, such missions under the Treaty on Open Skies have been carried out on our territory without any hindrance. This is also part of the double standards issue.
The current humanitarian situation in Yemen
A few days ago, the UN Security Council in New York held a Russia-initiated meeting on the humanitarian situation in Yemen, at which UN Under- Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Stephen O’Brien made a report.
According to UN estimates, the situation in Yemen has reached a critical point. The country is on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe. Vital infrastructure, including residential buildings, schools and medical institutions, is being destroyed due to ongoing hostilities and air strikes. More than 6,000 people, half of them civilians, have been killed since last March and more than 29,000 have been wounded. The number of refugees has reached 250,000 and the number of internally displaced persons is 2.5 million. The number of people who urgently need humanitarian aid has surpassed 21 million, which is more than 80 per cent of the entire population of the country. And 14 million people have no access to basic health services.
The security situation is worsening. Terrorist groups, above all Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and ISIS, are making use of the armed confrontation to expand their influence and seize new territories.
The humanitarian needs of the population are growing. According to the 2016 Yemen Humanitarian Response Plan presented by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, at least $2 billion is required to fund relief efforts by humanitarian specialised institutions and their partners.
We hope that the enactment of the UN mechanism calling for the verification and inspection of cargo heading for Yemen, announced by Mr O’Brien, will help scale down the aftermath of the virtual trade blockade and pave the way for shipping vital commercial supplies for the population of the country.
Yesterday’s UN Security Council Resolution 2266, on the extension of the sanctions regime, included clauses on the need to improve the humanitarian situation and observe international humanitarian law norms in Yemen. We are convinced that the only way to radically overcome the aggravating humanitarian situation in Yemen is to resolve the political crisis peacefully. We are urging all conflicting parties in Yemen to cease all types of hostilities, which only exacerbate the sufferings of civilians, and to resume the search for consensus-based solutions at the negotiating table that would bring together all of the country’s political forces under the mediation of UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Yemen Ismail Ahmed, whose efforts Russia supports.
I will explain why we are paying attention to this issue. We’re seeing considerable attention on the part of the world media. We’re receiving requests for interviews on the issue, in particular from Dutch media outlets. So we regularly address the subject.
We have taken note of Dutch media reports on the government’s so-called action strategy to prevent the failure of the referendum on the approval of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine that will be held in the Netherlands on April 6. In the next several days, special instructions regarding the methods of conducting a propaganda campaign and corresponding arguments that are recommended for use in the course of public debate on TV and radio in support of the ratification of the agreement will be sent to government members, members of parliament, political parties, governors, city mayors, entrepreneurs and public figures.
We act on the assumption that a referendum is of course a purely internal affair in the Netherlands. At the same time, the array of arguments from the “manual” designed to prevent a vote regarding the ratification of the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement cannot but arouse legitimate questions. In particular, it recommends imposing on the King’s subjects the idea that the proponents of the referendum are secretly controlled by “the hand of Moscow” and that they are directly financed by the Kremlin. Surely you will agree that if such things are contained in the materials that are being distributed, perhaps we do have something we should comment on.
In addition, the action strategy recommends convincing the Dutch that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement is in the people’s economic interests and that when it enters into force corruption in Ukraine will be immediately eradicated, the Minsk agreements will be completely fulfilled and good relations will be restored between Moscow and Kiev. Imagine this nonsense being put into the heads of the average person, the people who presumably could not be further from politics and who still need an explanation as to why the European Union maintains the sanctions against Russia and why EU manufacturers have to suffer. Do you see what kind of intellectual fodder these people are being fed? Simple but effective.
So by promoting such over the top administrative influence, the Dutch authorities don’t even bother to ask themselves the question about how such “freedom of expression”, the freedom to express one’s political preferences in relation to their own people squares with the proclaimed and effectively upheld and supported course towards the absolute priority of fundamental human rights and freedoms.
This is not very logical. If the people are to express their opinion then of course there should be outreach and the distribution of materials. This is not even propaganda but some kind of information campaign. The most incredible thing is that we all understand very well that information campaigns are conducted in relation to other countries. What is amazing, however, is that an information campaign is being conducted in relation to their own population. Just think how much disrespect it takes to prevent people from making their own choice with regard to things that will have a direct impact on their life, including in economic terms and in terms of their country’s development.
The missing children of European migrants
We are closely watching the way the migration situation in Europe is unfolding. Russia firmly believes in the need for strict compliance with the rights of refugees and migrants in keeping with the existing international commitments. In this connection, we have taken note of the disturbing data that were released recently by Europol indicating that EU countries have no information about the location of at least 10,000 underage refugees who entered the EU in 2015. It is surprising that these refugee children disappeared after they were duly registered.
I would like to note that the European Commission preferred to distance itself from this fact. Having acknowledged that this information arouses concern, the European Commission has in effect again tasked Europol with addressing the problem.
According to Eurostat, in 2015, over 85,000 unaccompanied minors applied for asylum in the EU. To compare, in 2014, the figure was 23,000. Presumably, far more underage children arrive in the EU, a considerable number of whom, according to Europol, are potential victims of exploitation, including sex slavery, human trafficking and recruitment into criminal groups or terrorist cells.
The number of children among illegal migrants arriving in the EU mainly along the southern route also continues to increase. Between December 2015 and January 2016, their share exceeded 35 percent. These figures are confirmed by the data what were recently provided by UNICEF.
In this context, we urge EU member states to faithfully honour their obligations regarding children’s rights and combating trafficking (i.e., the illegal movement or detention of people) adopted under corresponding international human rights agreements, as well as the OSCE. We would like to hope that the EU leadership will not be inactive and sit on its hands in the face of this truly massive violation of children’s rights. We urge the OSCE special representative for combating trafficking in human beings to continue prioritising this issue. In addition, why should the EU, which actively imposes ODIHR services on countries “east of Vienna”, not recommend that the office monitor this problem on the entire territory and work out recommendations for the European Commission?
It seems to me that there are very important and relevant issues that are key to democratic development: elections, political freedoms and observance of all kinds of minority rights. However, when it comes to children and the fact that tens of thousands of children “dissolve” on the continent, which considers itself to be civilized, I believe everything else should be put aside in order to deal with this problem. These are lost generations – there is no getting away from the fact. I do not even want to say that these can be lost lives.
The Western media have once again accused Russia of cyberattacks in NATO countries. In an allegedly “independent” investigation, the Italian newspaper La Repubblica writes about a “mythical” group of Russian hackers who allegedly initiate state-sponsored cyberattacks against the websites of the Italian foreign and defence ministries for the purpose of acquiring confidential information about the US military base on the island of Crete.
This is intriguing news. In fact, it would make a good movie. The authors of this speculation provide “proof” of the Russian connection by saying that the attacks were carried out between 6 am and 6 pm Moscow time, as if this is an alien temporal dimension and not typical daytime hours in European countries. I’d like to quote from the great Russian writer, Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, who said: “Nothing spurs imagination like the lack of facts.”
Of course, it’s regrettable that it was the Italian media that published these reports, which we believe to have been written to order and were not intended to provide a true picture but to foster Europeans’ view of Russia as an aggressor and an enemy.
I’d like to say again that we are open to any kind of commentary. Even when somebody forces or encourages the media, including Italy’s, to publish such articles, you can request information at the Russian Embassy in Rome, or the Russian Foreign Ministry’s press centre in Moscow, or from Italian journalists in Russia. Why not ask us for a comment? The newspaper may remain unconvinced, but at least we’d be able to say that they made an attempt at objectivity. But it’s impossible to speak about objectivity and independent opinion when no comments are published and the other side is not allowed to have a say.
I’d like to point to the existence of European mechanisms for cooperation in cyberspace. In 2013, the OSCE approved the Initial Set of Confidence-Building Measures to Reduce the Risks of Conflict Stemming from the Use of Information and Communication Technologies. This document stipulates the establishment of “contact points” for the exchange of information between official national structures that manage ICT-related incidents such as those reported by the Italian newspaper.
The publication of such articles has reaffirmed the relevance of Russia’s initiatives for drafting a UN-sponsored code of conduct in cyberspace, building a cyberspace worthy of trust and bolstering international cooperation against cybercrime.
I’d like to use this occasion to say that we are willing to launch a dialogue with Italy on all aspects of international cybersecurity. We hope to be able to continue constructive interaction within the framework of subject-specific international organisations and forums. At the same time, we hope that the Italian media will do its part in providing reliable information on this issue to the public.
Agreement on Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre
In light of a public discussion underway in Serbia regarding the 2014 draft agreement on immunities for the personnel of the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre (RSHC) in the Serbian city of Niš, I’d like to draw your attention to and to answer a question that was asked last time. I want to say that it is not appropriate to compare this document to the Serbian-NATO agreement on logistics support, which was recently ratified in Belgrade. The thing is that the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre is a civilian body. Speculation about its military or even espionage nature is ill-intentioned. The RSHC has provided much assistance to Serbs and other people and saved lives. It is fully open to cooperation with all concerned countries. Its activity is not based on bloc principles or mentality. It is an open organisation.
As for the possibility of signing an agreement on the RSHC, Belgrade’s stance on the matter was announced the other day by Serbian President Tomislav Nikolić, who proposed considering this in a balanced manner suiting the Serbian neutrality as part of preparations for the upcoming working visit to Serbia by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
We are willing to discuss this and other issues of mutual interest with our Serbian colleagues constructively and in the spirit of strategic partnership.
We have analysed the decision of the Bulgarian Parliament to set up an ad hoc commission to examine the facts and circumstances related to allegations of Russian and Turkish interference in Bulgaria’s internal affairs.
The absurdity of this situation starts with the title of the commission. History has recorded several examples of what could be described as Russian “interference” in Bulgaria’s internal affairs, when armed Russian soldiers entered Bulgaria to fight Nazism and to liberate our Bulgarian brothers from that evil. Before that, Russian soldiers helped Bulgaria end nearly 500 years of Turkish domination. All of us remember history, and those who don’t have a chance to refresh their memory. We are perplexed, of course, that somebody has again decided to search for “Moscow’s long arm” in a country where several generations owe their sovereignty and their sovereign existence to its Russian brothers. Not that we want to use this occasion to remind Bulgarians what Russians have done for Bulgaria. We never did and never would have done this, if not for the appearance of absurd agencies that serve up lies as the truth without even trying to establish the facts. In this situation, we find it necessary to remind people about our shared history.
We fear that a period of neo-McCarthyism could start in Bulgaria at the prompting of these MPs and politicians. Moreover, the cynical proposal to create this commission was made ahead of the 138th anniversary of Bulgaria’s liberation from the Ottoman yoke. It has soured the atmosphere of the festivities that have been held and those that are yet to be held, such as the exhibition of prints from the period of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 that opened in the State Duma. I’d like to remind you about the sincere statements on the close ties, friendship and fraternal relations between our Slavic peoples that were made at the opening ceremony on February 24.
Desecration of Monument to Red Army in Slawno
Poland continues its anti-Russian campaign that, regrettably, enjoys the active support of the media and certain high-ranking politicians. This campaign amounts to the systematic desecration of Soviet memorials linked with World War II. On the night of February 19-20 a plaque with the inscription “Glory to the Soviet Army Heroic Soldiers Killed in the Battle against Nazi Invaders. Residents of the Slawno Land.” was torn off from the Monument of Gratitude to the Red Army in the city of Slawno in West Pomeranian Province. This inscription was made by a grateful people. A five-pointed star disappeared from the same monument a year ago.
What is particularly disturbing is that the media that covered this story and the responsible politicians are ignoring the fact that both Soviet and Polish soldiers died in the battle for Slawno in 1945 and initially this obelisk was installed on the site of their fraternal grave.
A resolute protest was sent to the Polish Ambassador in Moscow on February 25 in connection with this act of vandalism. His attention was once again drawn to the direct violation by the Polish authorities of their international legal commitments, in part, the provisions of the Treaty of Friendly and Good Neighbourly Cooperation of May 22, 1992. Under this treaty the sides pledged to protect any memorials that are respected and revered by the citizens of both countries.
We demand that the monument be brought back to normal as soon as possible, and that those guilty of the desecration be found and punished.
The Russian-Indian agreement on the issue of multiple-entry six month tourist visas to the citizens of the Russian Federation and the Republic of India, based on reciprocity, enters into force on March 5.
This category of visas will be issued on the basis of documents confirming a visit and processed in accordance with the legislation of the receiving state, and on condition that the term of each stay on the territory of the receiving state will not exceed 30 days, and that the total stay will not exceed 90 days during each period of 180 days.
We’d like to draw the attention of citizens who want to visit India or Russia to this agreement.
We are perplexed by the statements made by Deputy Government Spokesperson Christiane Wirtz and German Foreign Ministry Spokesman Martin Schaefer at a news conference in Berlin on February 19 about the “biased” coverage of events by the Russian media. It is absolutely unclear what they mean by this word biased, but if politicians are using it, they imbue it with some meaning. So what is this “bias” in Russian media coverage all about?
For some reason our German colleagues don’t consider “biased” the information policy of the leading German media that are extremely negative as regards Russia that they are accusing, in part, of a purposeful campaign to discredit Germany and personally German Chancellor Angela Merkel. They don’t rebuke them or talk to them about how to cover events in Russia.
This logic is very strange. It appears that it is possible to write anything about Russia without thinking for a minute whether it’s true or not. This is what these representatives interpret as freedom of expression, freedom of speech.
What anti-German campaign are they talking about, not to mention materials targeted against Germany? There are articles on specific subjects written by specific authors. If this is reality and such events take place in Germany, why couldn’t they be covered? But freedom of speech doesn’t work in reverse -- otherwise it’s called “bias.” There are some unflattering facts and we understand that they exist in any country. Yet, we cannot tell the media to ignore or whitewash them. We believe if they exist why shouldn’t they be described? It is bizarre that some German officials make such appeals and reprimands, sometimes bordering on intimidation. I’d like to recall that today the Berlin Prosecutor’s Office is conducting an inquiry to establish whether a report by Ivan Blagoy, a First TV Channel correspondent in Germany, on an incident with a Russian underage citizen living in Germany violates German law. This is a direct attempt to harass a Russian journalist. Why haven’t German officials commented on this? So, they can comment on Russian media reports but cannot qualify an attempt at legal pressure? I think that if you write about the Russian media, review all aspects of the issue and don’t forget about freedom of speech.
The expulsion of Inter TV producer Maria Stolyarova from Ukraine
You can familiarise yourself with this issue in the media, something you may have already done. We have been trying to understand what is happening. There were references to a decision by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), the very agency that deals with journalists and freedom of speech. To be honest, we didn’t find any materials (maybe we should have looked it up elsewhere) on the SBU’s official website, but we found a comment by the agency’s official spokesperson, who wrote about Maria Stolyarova’s “otrimala kvitok v odin bik,” which in Ukrainian means “one-way ticket.” Judging by what she posted on the account, SBU agents, as far as I can tell, watched Maria Stolyarova and suspected her of anti-Ukrainian propaganda. Frankly, “spying on journalists” is something new in fundamental European principles. And deporting them on suspicion of preparing a TV story is also something new.
Again, we are calling the attention of our OSCE colleagues who monitor freedom of speech issues to yet another instance of the persecution of journalists and censorship. Only in this case, censorship means taking certain steps against journalists, rather than correcting TV reports.
An article in The Wall Street Journal
A WSJ article reads that the US government “has warned some top US banks not to bid on a potentially lucrative but politically risky Russian bond deal, saying it would undermine international sanctions on Moscow.”
For 20 years we have been taught that political pressure on business is unacceptable. We have been told that “Moscow, the Kremlin, the Russian political elite pressure business and hamper the development of civil society.” So, what do we see? “It is essential that private companies – in the US, the EU and around the world – understand that Russia will remain a high-risk market so long as its actions to destabilize Ukraine continue” – that’s what the State Department told The Wall Street Journal in 2016. It also warned of the “reputational” risk of returning “to business as usual with Russia.” This is not just pressure, this is intimidation. These are two different things.
Let me quote Paul Craig Roberts, an American economist and political and economic observer. This man is not a Kremlin or a Moscow sympathiser, far from it. He is a recipient of the Order of the Legion of Honour, a Republican, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy in the Reagan Administration. In the US, Paul Craig Roberts is seen as one of the chief architects of the “Reagan’s economic miracle.” On February 21, Paul Craig Roberts gave an interview to the Yerevan Geopolitical Club, you can read it, in which he says that all US foreign policy efforts are aimed at weakening Russia and that the goal of US foreign policy is to eliminate countries that can impede America’s world domination.
Question: Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, the Russian President's Special Representative for the Middle East and Africa, recently said that Russia and other countries will deliver joint strikes at those conflicting sides in Syria who refuse to honour the ceasefire regime. What does this mean? Are there any dividing lines in Syrian airspace between the zones of operation conducted by the different sides?
Can you comment on the dispatch of Saudi Arabian combat aircraft to Turkey? Who will take part in joint operations to strike terrorist groups? Will the Saudi or Turkish Air Force units, that are accountable to the United States, participate in them? Or will Jordanian fighter jets? Can you provide any details of these operations? But of course, I know you’ll redirect this question to the Russian Ministry of Defence because it’s their competence.
Maria Zakharova: This is progress: you are answering your own question, so it means that my attempts have not gone unnoticed. What was your first question about?
Question: About statements by Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov.
Maria Zakharova: I’ll explain it again. The Joint Russian-US Statement clearly stipulates a mechanism for cooperation. The text of the Munich Statement is absolutely clear and transparent. The thing is that different opposition groups and organisations that have been fighting or are fighting in Syria should register and supply complete information about themselves to the two relevant centres in accordance with the stated requirements. Those who don’t register as participants in the cessation of hostilities have excluded themselves from the cessation of hostilities. This is a voluntary action: nobody will be forced to honour the terms of the cessation of hostilities; those who are interested should take advantage of it. As the saying goes, ready or not, here we come. I believe this is applicable in this case.
Of course, the fight against terrorist groups has no relation whatsoever to the cessation of hostilities. Cessation of hostilities applies to certain Syrian groups [that have indicated their commitment to and acceptance of its terms]. The main thing for them is to register their intention. As for the fight against terrorism, we will continue it. As for how, we now have a mechanism that includes interaction between our militaries. Russia and the United States are now working on details. In principle, the United States also represents the [anti-terrorist] coalition because it is the leader of the coalition, which is its zone of responsibility. This is why we are discussing and working on these mechanisms.
As for dividing lines in the airspace, you should address this question to the Defence Ministry. As for the dispatch of Saudi combat aircraft to Turkey, this issue concerns relations between these two countries. Saudi Arabia has a right to send its aircraft to Turkey, but this is not the point. Regarding “rights,” of course they have the right to do this. We have no question about this. What we want to ask about is the purpose of this action. Apart from having our own plans and goals, all of us are now busy trying to settle an immensely complicated regional crisis. The main task is to create an atmosphere of trust between the sides because the hostilities cannot end without mutual trust. Will dangerous steps and political statements create an atmosphere of trust or help promote dialogue? Absolutely not, as you must agree.
Question: You said, “Ready or not, here we come.” Regarding the Syrian opposition groups that have registered, it’s clear that you don’t need to force them [to comply with the terms of the ceasefire]. But does Russia have the resources to force those sides who don’t register to comply with the ceasefire terms? Let’s assume that Russia can influence the Syrian Government. But do you have the resources to influence the multifaceted Syrian opposition? Will you rely on the US side, which, as we know, has a “Plan B” alternative?
Maria Zakharova: We’ve already commented on this “Plan B.” The trouble is that we saw a strange reaction and heard chaotic statements from various US agencies the next day [after the signing of the Joint Russian-US Statement]. It appears that not everyone is happy about the development of the Russian-US dialogue on Syria or on specific actions. It is possible that they have not only disappointed many people but have clashed with a number of interests. We have stated that the negative rhetoric is on the decline, and we are working together very actively.
As for the resources we have or don’t have to influence this or that group, I will answer this question yet again. This is a voluntary process. None of the conflicting sides will be forced to do anything. The issue concerns what they want. If their goals are a political process and the welfare of Syria, they can use the opportunity offered to them by the international community. Their registration for and compliance with the terms of the ceasefire and a parallel political dialogue between Damascus and the opposition (which, we hope, will be launched soon by the UN through the offices of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura) would comprise a multitrack mechanism that will be used to settle the Syrian crisis. But if the sides fight for the sake of fighting, if their goal is not the wellbeing of their country or the political process but a war, then we can hardly invent better mechanisms than the ones we’ve proposed. It’s for the conflicting sides to decide. Some of them have announced their intention to comply with the ceasefire. I believe that responsibility rests with the task groups that must create conditions for the sides’ compliance with the ceasefire. Responsibility rests with the parties to the ceasefire and the international guarantors, who have pledged to provide an international legal basis for bringing this about. In short, this is collective work. As I said, this work is only beginning, and we must prevent any attempts to undermine it. We believe that we can do it regardless of the number of provocations, which have been numerous, and we see provocations launched as soon as an implementation mechanism is approved. Of course, enforcing compliance with a ceasefire is a patently misguided approach.
The ISSG countries have created a platform that is guaranteed by two co-chairs, who have also adopted a detailed statement with the modalities necessary to implement these functions. I believe that all sides should use this opportunity. This opportunity must not be wasted.
Question: Can you confirm President Vladimir Putin’s scheduled visit to Bulgaria?
Maria Zakharova: The Presidential Press Service comments on the President’s schedule per longstanding tradition.
Question: As you have noted, a Bulgarian parliamentary delegation is visiting Russia in the run-up to the March 3 celebrations of the anniversary of Bulgaria’s liberation from Ottoman rule. An exhibition opened yesterday, and today the Bulgarian Embassy is hosting a meeting with the Bulgarian Minister of Tourism. Can you comment in greater detail on a note regarding interference in Bulgaria’s domestic affairs received by the Russian Foreign Ministry?
Maria Zakharova: I have no information about a note sent to the Foreign Ministry.
I’ve already discussed historic Russian-Bulgarian ties in great detail. It appears that our inter-parliamentary ties are being expanded on one track, and we’re trying to eliminate our current disagreements on some issues. While at the same time this positive development is being countered by some ridiculous and absurd statements and actions, including the establishment of an ad hoc parliamentary commission to study the facts of Russia’s alleged interference in Bulgaria’s internal affairs. We would very much like the first track to prevail, leaving aside the second track which will lead us nowhere, raising such unwanted questions.
I’ll brief you on the note, after I receive an update.
Question: Does this simply amount to accusations of interference in domestic affairs?
Maria Zakharova: It’s the establishment of an ad hoc Bulgarian parliamentary commission to assess Russia’s alleged interference in Bulgaria’s domestic affairs.
Question: Earlier, you called Bulgaria ungrateful. Perhaps we should delineate between the people and the Bulgarian politicians because most Bulgarians are grateful to the people of Russia.
Maria Zakharova: I would not think of calling the people of Bulgaria ungrateful. I said that those politicians and public activists who stand behind such initiatives don’t have enough historical memory to be grateful to my compatriots who gave their lives, fighting shoulder to shoulder with their Bulgarian brothers, for the liberation of Bulgaria. I repeat, we are not squaring accounts, we are not raising this issue on our own, but we are forced to respond to such absurd and, to be honest, disturbing actions, as the creation of these commissions. This is deceitful and an attempt to lead the younger generation of Bulgarians into an “information forest” by providing distorted information about our shared history.
Question: Maybe, they are trying to pit us against each other? They are now pitting Russia and Ukraine against each other, and a fratricidal war is on.
Maria Zakharova: Maybe, I can’t rule this out. We should do everything possible to prevent this. Although I can’t rule out anything, I believe that our two peoples should have historic ‘immunity’ from any such attempts. I can’t confirm or deny it. But our knowledge of history should allow us to overcome such attempts, if any.
Question: A few days ago, the Russian Government approved a $200-million loan to Armenia for the purchase of Russian arms and military hardware. Then, the official spokesperson for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry announced, the day before yesterday, that Azerbaijan had issued a note to Moscow, demanding guarantees that the new Russian systems and weapons “will not be deployed on the line of confrontation in Nagorno-Karabakh or on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.” What do you know about this note? In your opinion, isn’t this an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of two sovereign states – Russia and Armenia?
For reference, Azerbaijan has purchased around $5 billion worth of Russian weapons and military hardware over the past five years and there haven’t been any official notes from Armenia.
Another question is about the recent visit to Iran by the Azerbaijani president. Could this mean that a “Moscow-Baku-Tehran axis” is being created?
Are any Russian or Azerbaijani foreign minister-level visits being planned, or a stepping-up of relations as Turkey boosts its diplomatic efforts in the Transcaucasian countries?
Maria Zakharova: Yesterday we were contacted by many sources, including Azerbaijani news agencies Azeri Press and Trend, requesting a comment on the note you mentioned which the Azerbaijani foreign ministry representative gave us a detailed account of.
I’d like to say that at this point the Russian Foreign Ministry does not have the original document, only a copy that arrived yesterday by e-mail.
Let me explain why we always stress whether we have or don’t have the original document. In diplomatic practice there are traditional ways of communicating with our partners. Only original documents should be submitted; we must work with original documents.
Since the issue was brought up publicly, I would like to answer publicly. Let me repeat that at least by the beginning of this briefing we did not have the document itself.
I’d like to remind you that we have communicated this information to Azerbaijan through diplomatic channels. Armenia is Russia’s ally and we are developing cooperation, including military and military-technical ties, in a transparent and open manner, concealing nothing. We expect this well-known fact to be perceived with understanding in Azerbaijan. It should be noted that any supplies of weapons to Armenia or friendly Azerbaijan are thoroughly weighed and take into account the need to preserve the balance of strength in the region.
On the whole, when it comes to arms supplies, Russia always fulfils its international commitments, acting within the tough framework of the national export control system fixed in Russian law. This requires, among other things, the compulsory issuance of end-user certificates.
As regards your question whether such statements by Azerbaijan are attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign states, I wouldn’t say so. I think that any neighbouring state has a legitimate right to be interested in how neighbouring states live, how they feel and their attitude. Of course, military-technical cooperation is always a delicate and sensitive issue for a neighbouring state. That’s why we conduct these transactions openly and transparently and provide Azerbaijan with all the necessary information through diplomatic channels.
As regards the creation of a “Moscow-Baku-Tehran” axis, I know nothing about it. We develop manyfaceted and multi-vector cooperation on a bilateral and multilateral basis and cooperate with our colleagues in various formats. We pay regular visits to various countries. Frankly, I don’t know anything about such an “axis.” Our foreign policy priorities do not envisage building relations along any “axis.” We proceed from the fact that there are associations, I mean associations of countries. We have our associations – the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Union, the SCO, and other regional structures. The term “axis” somehow does not belong in the Russian foreign policy vocabulary.
About visits. Not only visits but also bilateral meetings regularly take place, including between foreign ministers. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov meets with his Azerbaijani and Armenian counterparts.
So far, there isn’t any exact date for the exchange of official visits between the foreign ministries that I can confirm. But I know for sure that bilateral contacts with our Azerbaijani counterparts are included in the ministry’s schedule. I will find out and inform you as soon as the dates are fixed.
Question: The United States and China have agreed on a draft resolution that will expand UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. The sanction resolution includes several points that China blocked in the past, such as a ban on air fuel supplies, natural resource imports from North Korea and the visit of North Korean ships to world ports. So, large-scale construction and the nuclear and missile programmes are likely to come under these sanctions. Does Russia agree with this position of using sanctions against North Korea? Will this sanctions resolution impose restrictions on economic cooperation? Russia, North Korea and South Korea have a joint project, Khasan-Rajin. Will Russia look for a new partner if South Korea cancels, or will this resolution not affect the project?
Maria Zakharova: As for the resolution you mention, I can confirm that the text has been given to us. This text was drafted by the United States who held consultations with a number of countries. More than a month has passed since the work on this text began. Nobody forwarded it to us – we have just received it.
You were right in saying that this text requires meticulous study in the Foreign Ministry and interdepartmental contacts, considering the issues it concerns.
So we’ll need time to study it, including interdepartmental contacts, to be able to explain our position and general government approach to the media, and decide how to react to it. We’re scheduling our time for this now.
Question: I’d like to draw your attention to a recent statement by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu who said that since the Kurdish People's Protection Units have been blacklisted as a terrorist organisation, Turkey reserves for itself the right to violate the announced truce. How many countries in the region are against the truce in your opinion and who could cause it to break down?
Maria Zakharova: It seems Turkey’s leaders have been taking too much upon themselves lately, “reserving some special rights.” I’d like to remind the Turkish side that the decisions were adopted with due respect for the Turkish position and consideration of the Turkish vote in the ISSG. It is disreputable to sign a general document that was discussed by representatives of all countries during general debates and then walk out and say that you reserve some right for yourself. All rights and reservations should have been discussed at the negotiating table. If something was agreed upon, it should be honoured. We know what people that don’t keep their word are called.
Question: The boundaries within which hostilities will be ceased are controlled by different forces, including ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Syrian opposition. How realistic is it to enforce a ceasefire within these boundaries?
Maria Zakharova: It is realistic, of course. The world and the international community are known to have come to agreement on far more serious issues and led countries and entire regions out of more formidable dead-end situations. First, everything hinges on the will and second, on the responsibility of the concerned parties to meet their obligations. If each party keeps saying that they will retain the sole right to certain activities, of course, this is a path towards the breakdown of the agreements that have been achieved. If everyone honours their commitments I believe it will be not just realistic but a good opportunity to achieve the desired objective. How? The main mechanism that Russia has been talking about and pressing for during the past five months or so, specifically contacts between the military to address these highly challenging issues, is now beginning to work.
Where has everyone been during these five months? This is not a question to us. We have insisted on this. It was one of our principal ideas and concepts to put the political declarations and statements into practice. Through contacts between the military – bilateral, multilateral and through the relevant centres and posts – it is possible to identify the terrorists, the moderate opposition and the opposition that has laid down arms. This is the job of people who deal with this professionally. If all of this is observed we’ll achieve success. There is no other formula.
Question: Is there any information about the fate of Ivan Rudny, a sailor aboard the Bourbon ship that was seized by Nigerian pirates?
Maria Zakharova: If this is about the Bourbon Liberty 251, which was captured together with its crew in Nigerian territorial waters, we know about two sailors. One of them is reportedly a Russian citizen. Russian diplomats are actively working to ascertain his fate.
As you know, in such cases we cannot provide complete information about the work in progress. We seek either to share good news or raise awareness as necessary. I can assure you that all cases of this kind (and you could see this for yourselves in recent years) are not simply on our radar screen but are the priority for our embassies – i.e., protection of Russian citizens. If I have specific information that I can share, I will certainly do so.
Question: Recently, Iran’s deputy foreign minister stated in Astrakhan that 30-day visas will be issued at Iran’s international airports to tourists from 180 countries. He also underscored the role of tourism for the national economy and pointed out that this action plan offers a wonderful opportunity to address the economic problems of Iran and other countries and pave the way for the country’s progress and economic development. Could you comment on Iran’s policy in this area?
Maria Zakharova: This is Iran’s internal affair, the country’s position on the development of the sector in question. I cannot play the role of an expert in this case because I’m an official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
We are developing bilateral ties with Iran, including in this area. We will continue to develop them. The way Iran sees the development of its tourism industry is a question for Tehran to answer.
Question: The United States and China have reached agreement on a UN Security Council draft resolution on new sanctions against North Korea. Does Russia have an idea when the draft resolution will be put to a vote?
Maria Zakharova: As I said, Russia is a member of the Security Council and we need time to study the matter, as it concerns not only the Foreign Ministry’s political reaction but also requires an expert appraisal by our relevant agencies, since it raises a number of questions. So we need time. As of right now, I have no forecasts regarding the date of the vote. What is important in this case is not when to vote but how to vote.
Question: How will this resolution impact the Russia-North Korea ties?
Maria Zakharova: We’re developing bilateral ties with North Korea and other countries. However, there are certain steps that require a reaction in terms of international law. We’ve been consistent in our assessment of the situation. The UN Security Council is the only body that can adopt such documents involving sanctions that we regard as legitimate. I believe it is essential to see the difference and most importantly, to understand the mechanism and essence of the decisions made by the Security Council, as well as their goal. To reiterate, there are bilateral ties, and we will develop them. At the same time, there is a problem that calls for reaction in terms of international law, which can be provided by the UN Security Council.
Question: The Turkish prime minister says that Turkey is not a party to the ceasefire and that the ceasefire only applies to Syria. In your opinion, what does this show?
Maria Zakharova: Is this what they’re actually saying, that they are not party to the ceasefire? That is, they confirm that they are directly involved in the ongoing armed conflicts? Recently, the Turkish leadership has made a lot of strange statements – not only in relation to Russia but also regarding its position on a number of global processes. Some experts suggest that these apparently illogical and strange statements of the Turkish leadership make sense if viewed from the perspective of Ankara’s revived imperial ambitions or even nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire.
A number of experts believe that from this perspective, many things fall into place. It is essential to understand history and remember how the Ottoman Empire ended, what Europe and a number of European countries were put through in its heyday and in its twilight, and how European countries had to lick their wounds after those “wonderful times”. As a general rule, the average European person remembers nothing about those days. However, those who deal with this on an expert level, do. So if the Turkish leadership has taken this path, it will be a huge mistake to follow through on what many describe as nostalgic perceptions of what Turkey should be like.
To repeat, you should flip through the pages of history, rewind and see how it all ended. This approach will lead to collapse, including on the regional level, if the Turkish authorities indeed advocate this concept. In this case I would go not so much by what the Turkish leadership says, since the motivation here may differ, as the need to focus on what has been achieved and the agreements that have been signed, which make it possible for us to move ahead from the viewpoint of the regional crisis [resolution].
With all due respect for an independent position of an individual country and for the fact that every country has its own perception of foreign policy and international relations, certain joint agreements are in place and Turkey is a party to them. When doors open and everyone leaves but Turkey talks about its “special opinion”, this behaviour is not only dishonourable but also dangerous, as everyone is now focused on the resolution of a challenging problem. We’re on the threshold of a real solution. It is unconscionable to lose this trend only over the ambitions not so much of certain countries as of certain representatives of the Turkish leadership.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
