Interview between Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and the Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Moscow, 19 November 2013

Question:For the last few months, Russian diplomatic missions and Russian diplomats have been attacked too often. The Embassy in Libya was evacuated; our diplomats experienced a real epic in the Netherlands. Now, the nationalists are attacking the Russian Mission in Warsaw.Can it be true that Moscow is able to respond to such incidents with just notes only?Is it possible that the American experience should be adopted, tightening the security of our embassies' premises, for example, by involving the Russian special task force?

Sergey Lavrov:This problem has several aspects.Any process originates from thoughts transferred from the mind, where those thoughts originally appeared.From the viewpoint of psychology, the possibility of firing up a crowd, even if the status of the diplomatic establishment is completely ignored, I suggest, first of all, should be a result of longstanding active shattering of the fundamentals of contemporary international law.That happened in the former Yugoslavia, when, in breach of the UN Charter and the OSCE fundamental principles, one of the members of that organization was bombarded by other members without any legal grounds.That happened in Iraq, and in Libya.

Discussions continue on how to fight. In fact, international humanitarian law exists, which is dedicated to the laws of war to a large extent.However, since the Yugoslavian events the term "incidental damage" has been introduced.They said, they had bombarded a legitimate target, but it happens that sometimes there are casualties.A situation comes to my mind, when a large country stated that a global fire needed to be set:let one half of mankind die, the other would enjoy the glory of the experiment.These things are naturally of different degrees, yet, the mentality is nearly the same.

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles leads to numerous errors at the cost of human life.They would destroy a wedding party, the other day they would bombard civilians, who are assumed to be terrorists or their accomplices.These are examples of the light mind-set on international law.However, some concepts are devised having no reference to the principles of the UN Charter.

Let's view the responsibility to protect, as an example.If a government hurts anyone anywhere, we are obliged to protect that "anyone".So, in Libya, it was the protection of the civilian population.A classic example is when NATO members grossly perverted the no-fly zone mandate granted by the UN Security Council, to intervene in the war under the guise of the protection of civilians.However, no one wishes to count the final numbers of casualties among the civilians bombarded by NATO shells.

The responsibility to protect is, however, such a topic, which, when seriously discussed, evokes a question:is it a right or an obligation?When a country having rich natural resources encounters such a situation, our Western colleagues state that no tolerance should be shown, and they invade from the air, or even with ground troops.At the same time, when a poor country experiencing governmental oppression of the people, according to them, cries for help, no one does anything.This appears to be a selective war.Well, it means, there is a menu, from which you can make your selection.If we talk about the obligation, what are, then, the invasion criteria?What is the tolerable number of casualties?A hundred, thousands?You see, it is a pointless job.As soon as you use such specific categories, arguments vanish.Therefore, we insist that force should be legitimate only in the two cases written in the UN Charter, i.e. self-defence (either individual or collective) or at the Resolution of the UN Security Council.

The same concept of the responsibility to protect was discussed in 2005.There were disputes then:is it a benefit for peace, or is there some food for thought?The Declaration was adopted. It has the following statement:when genocide crimes, crimes against humanity, are committed, the global community is eligible to intervene, including with the use of force.Then (your attention, please), the following statement wasadded:under a specific special resolution of the UN Security Council.So, this concept was finally brought by consensus to the principles guiding the UN Security Council.

Question:But in what way do the increased numbers of examples of flippancy, and even ignorance of international law, impact the attacks on the Russian diplomatic missions?

Sergey Lavrov:There were such events, as you correctly said, in the Netherlands, and in Qatar.In the mid 2000-s, five employees of the Russian Embassy in Iraq were kidnapped and put to death.Now the case is in Poland.

I watched the news on TV to listen to the comments on this situation in this country and abroad.A commissar of the German police, in charge of the security of diplomatic bodies in Berlin, said that if anyone approached the police, to be granted permission for a demonstration along the route covering the perimeter of the premises of the embassy of a large country (he wouldn't mention it should be Russia or China), they would never allow that route and would make an alternative way for the demonstration, preventing any risks of direct contact between a crowd and the fence guarding a diplomatic mission.

We appreciated the Polish leadership's response.Public apologies were made to the Russian side, and the appropriate note was sent. We appreciated the assurances that they would focus more attention on the security of our embassy. Though, on the eve of the demonstration date, we warned our Polish colleagues, including police and other relevant agencies, that it was a risky venture.We requested they tighten security, but we received a response that it would be alright.But you know it wasn't alright.

Question:Well, do we probably need to tighten the security of our embassies by involving the special task force or marine corps?

Sergey Lavrov:Over the last 10 years, we have held the tack that those in charge of embassy security should be staffed from among the Border Guard of the Russian Federal Security Service.In most countries, especially in small ones, embassies used to be secured by civilians contracted as supervisors on duty.They were not even armed.In other words, those were temporary hired employees of a Russian foreign establishment.Border guards are people referred to a foreign job as part of their military service.

We use the special task force in those countries where the military and political environment is dangerous, where criminality poses quite a serious threat.Such countries include Libya, Iraq and a number of others.It's natural that we use the special task force upon consent of the host country.

Furthermore, a few years ago a planwas elaborated for the promotion of the security of Russian foreign establishments.Together with experts we jointly estimated what workforce at the task force level was required.It numbers several hundreds of people.They are scarce, now.We are resolving these issues.We enjoy fundamental support from Russia's top leadership.I hope the financial aspect of the issue will be resolved.

Question:The two plus two format meeting,with foreign ministers and defence ministers, has recently turned out to be highly sought after.This format was successful at the level of the Russian and U.S. relationship, with France and Italy.Some time ago, similar negotiations took place for the first time in Tokyo.And, last week you and Sergey Shoygu made a visit to Cairo.What is going on?Is it a matter of militarization of Russia's foreign policy, or are the Russian military men learning to be diplomatic to the maximum?

Sergey Lavrov:What about the option that the State finds coordination of military plans and diplomacy more favourable, do you repudiate it? It's possible; this is because of existing contraventions.From the end of the last century, early part of this century, declarations were made numerous times that the importance of the factor of force is becoming reduced, it is shrinking in international affairs, because no one wants war anymore; this is on the one hand.So, agreements on peaceful cooperation should be relied upon more.But then events in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan occurred.This involves an obvious invasion from Afghanistan into a UN member state.Then, Libyan events occurred.For now, the factor of force has proved thatit was naive to believe that in the 21st century, mankind would be that enlightened as not to even think of keeping on massacring, killing and blowing one another up.As you can see, everything is quite the opposite.

It is important now to minimize the threat of abuse of force in international affairs.The force and its origin need to be identified.And these are terrorists, of course.No doubt, Al-Qaeda has distinct plans to conquer the whole world, establish the Caliphate.Syrian events showed that they had a smoothly running network of militant supplies from nearly any country.In the Syrian Arab Republic, Indonesians, Malaysians, militants from half of the European countries, our North Caucasus, Latin America, USA, England, are at war.So, a certain courier network exists.They have money and weapon supply channels.They have close contacts with drug dealers, which is the primary source of terrorism financing.Along with this, generous donations exist,which come from the sponsors for their clients.It is important this factor of force is isolated in international affairs.It is also significant that major powers do not sink to the level of extremists and continue respecting the limitations imposed by the UN Charter on the resort to force.It is especially vital today when those desiring to bombard Syria are not at rest.Another significant threat is the prospective invasion of Iran.

Question:A lot of experts believe that we received a slap in Yugoslavia.However, the negotiations on Syria seem to have become a pivotal point.What is actually happening?Have the Western states finally understood that it is impossible to resolve a number of issues in international affairs without Russia?

Sergey Lavrov:The question is a combination of factors.I don't agree with those who claim that we received a slap on the Balkans during the Yugoslavian crisis.We were dignified.

Even though I was not connected with that, yet that forced march from eastern Slavonia to the Pristina Airport in Slatina had a sobering effect.

The slap against international law was, naturally, the decision to bombard Yugoslavia.

I will have a meeting with EU representatives in Brussels in a few days.At each meeting I remind them of one fact.In January 1999, the OSCE Head of Mission to Kosovo was W. Walker. It was the period when the incident occurred in Račak, where several dozen dead bodies were discovered.He came there and, having no authority to reach any conclusions about the incident, claimed that the massacre had been ordered by the Serb forces shooting 37 civilians at point-blank range, massacring, thus, the entire community.Tony Blair immediately stated that his patience was exhausted, followed by Bill Clinton. Bombardments occurred some time later.

So, the Račak situation turned out to be a kind of trigger.We insisted on an investigation.The European Union took up the investigation.They ordered a report from a team of Finnish forensic pathologists.The latter presented a report and filed it with the European Union. The EU submitted it to the InternationalCriminalTribunalfor the formerYugoslavia.At that time I worked in New York City and requested the UN Security Council to allow examination of that report, because the use of force without the Security Council's mandate, relied on the events, the investigation of which was covered by the report.The EU's response was that it was the Tribunal's property. Finally, we were provided with a summary of the report, however, it was not clear to understand.There were press leaks and portions of the report were cited, which literally claimed that those had not been civilians; all the dead bodies discovered in Račak had their clothes changed; the bullet holes in the clothes had not matched the real wounds on the bodies.There was no single person who had been killed at point-blank range.So far, despite the fact that I bring this issue up each time, they will not show us the report itself.

Speaking about the negotiations for Syria, my opinion is that accumulation of tremendous fatigue and negativity in the public opinion in the Western countries after Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan, does produce a certain impact upon the negotiations.Iraq was abandoned, being left in a much worse condition than it had been before the invasion.It will be the same situation with Afghanistan.Speaking only about drugs, the production of drugs has increased by 10 to 15 times more than it was before the troops deployed there.

Libya also produced an effect on everyone.Their civil population is deprived of their rights now.The country is actually divided into three provinces, where some militants having weapons in their hands and are in dispute with each other.

Question:Russia has distinctly boosted its presence in the post-Soviet era.In these circumstances, the West, which obviously is wary of competition, constantly accuses Russia of revival of empirical ambitions.What do you say in response to such accusations?

Sergey Lavrov:I am amazed that some distorted reality is drummed into people's heads about Russia's plans in the post-Soviet era.One vivid example is a recent publication in Foreign Affairs titled Soliciting George Bush.Such fantasies, to say the least, are dinned into the minds of both the lay audience and respectable readers of that edition.

Question:You have recently visited Egypt.Experts talked about Cairo's breath-taking plans for procurement of Russian military equipment, and for the opportunity to establish an Egypt-stationed Russian Military Base.Is it true?

Sergey Lavrov:Russia relies on pragmatism today.Egypt is a large country.We had business and strategic relationships with Hosni Mubarak.We had a lot of plans.We were and are the major "supplier" of tourists to Egypt.Russia remains a major supplier of grain to Egypt which needs it a lot.They showed interest in energy cooperation, interrelationship between universities, which was also important to us.We had plans in establishing a shared industrial zone.Military engineering cooperation was also of interest to them.

Then, after the revolution, we didn't discontinue our relationship with Cairo.I went to Egypt when the President Mohamed Morsi was elected.Morsi, in his turn, made a visit to Russia.For some reason, no one asked Russians then, what we talked about with Mohamed Morsi.Now, when we visited the transitional authority, just as we visited the previous transitional authority and the previous elected President, the State Department representative stated at the briefing:"We will ask what the purpose of Lavrov and Shoygu's visit to Egypt was?" Well, what is there to say? We can only lift our hands in dismay.

We are friendly with the Egyptian people; the Egyptian people have a good attitude towards us.Furthermore, we have a huge capacity: we are ready to lend for various projects.In particular, they are going to develop nuclear power engineering, and we have tremendous competitive positions in this and other industries.This is the answer.

Speaking about the military base, that's probably quite overstated.Tartus is also called a military naval base.But it's not a base. It's a wall at which our ships on duty in the Mediterranean Sea moor and tank up.We wish to be present in the Mediterranean Sea. It's important for Russia in view of understanding what happens there and of reinforcing our positions.The Americans have a huge fleet there. France and other countries are stationed there, too.Experts are merely trying to stir things up with this.It is rather as if Russia is negotiating with Egypt in the face of the USA.But it cannot be in the face of the United States because the Americans would never lose their influence there.The Egyptians understand this very well.But they wish that the US would stop perceiving Egypt's connections with Russia, as with any other country, as anti-American actions.This is what the difference is with the new Government.They speak about it in public.

Question from an American journalist (translation from English):The migration and nationalism issues are vexed in Russia.From the point of view of the Russian Government, is immigration from Central Asia, immigration of Muslims, an issue for the security and economy of the country?

Sergey Lavrov (translation from English):Russia has experience of co-existence of Slavic and other ethnic groups.Christians and Muslims have co-existed in the Russian land for many centuries.Islam is a part of this country, its community and culture.It isn't a coincidence that if you ask a Russian man what his favourite food is he will say "shish-kebab", which is not Russian, at all.

During the times of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, the Russian community developed as a multi-ethnic, multi-national and quite tolerant community.Indeed, conflicts occurred from time to time, but they were not serious.The situation has recently become more vital due to the migration issues.

In the period of "wild capitalism", which the Western countries went through earlier than Russia did, this issue was completely ignored. Business was interested in using very cheap, unregistered, illegal manpower.Those people were kept in absolutely inhumane conditions. They received little paymentor nothing at all.Passports were seized from many of them. They were kept almost like slaves.

A few years ago, the Government started activities to bring discipline to this process.We sign agreements with the countries from which the migration flow is the strongest.Among them are countries of Central Asia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus.In this way, we are trying to establish the quota of persons eligible to come to Russia from these countries to work.Migrants, in their turn, will know the obligations of the Russians.In particular, an employer should register each foreigner, pay for his/her labour at the rates established in Russia and also provide accommodation that is acceptable by health authorities in a particular region.

Those, who arrived in Russia illegally, must leave the country and come here again as law-abiding citizens.But, few of them are ready to act this way.Besides, during the period of a migrant's illegal stay in Russia, many scammers try to take business off businessmen by using their vulnerability because of hidden illegal workers, resorting to racketeering, and blackmailing.It's a huge problem, because the migration issue was completely ignored in the mid 90-ies.

My opinion is that systemic legislative actions taken now, including improvement of legislation, development of practical cooperation mechanisms for representatives of the Russian migration agencies and their colleagues from the countries of origin of the migrants, will contribute to improvement of the situation, but not in an instant.

Question:It could be written that the 80th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Russia and the USA, taking place a few days ago, was celebrated by the Business Breakfast in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta in the presence of Russian and American journalists.

Sergey Lavrov:I can draw an interesting conclusion in this regard.In 1933, Maxim Litvinov and Franklin Roosevelt exchanged letters in Washington. The letter exchange was an element for recovery of the diplomatic relationship broken off after the October Uprising or Revolution, if you wish.Litvinov's letter stated, apart from the words that we were glad to recover the diplomatic relationship, that the USSR assumed obligations not to interfere with internal US affairs, not to support any groups intending to change the structure of society existing in the USA, particularly, by resorting to force, to avoid any propaganda for the same target and, at large, to exercise full respect of the sovereignty and right of the United States to resolve any matters in their territory on their own.The response letter from Franklin Roosevelt to Maxim Litvinov stated that the USA assumed the same obligation not to interfere with the internal affairs of this country.