Address and answers of Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov of Russia to the media questions during the briefing on the Russian initiative to convene an international conference on Syria, Moscow, June 9th, 2012

Dear colleagues,

I thank you for having responded to our invitation. The past days, the media community has been heating up tensions around Syria. I deem it essential to voice the Russian point of view on what is going on.

The situation is growing increasingly alarming. It looks like the country is on the verge of a full-scale civil conflict. We are also concerned about the reaction of some foreign players openly supporting the opposing armed groups yet demanding the international community take decisive actions to overthrow the regime in the SAR. For the first time during the crisis, the foreign intervention issue has been brought up point-blank and quite emotionally. As a result, people keep on dying. In many respects, it is due to the fact that external players push the armed opposition towards taking an uncompromising stance and continuing hostilities, which arouses hopes with the opposition for the Libya scenario to be repeated. This is a very dangerous game.

Our stance remains unchanged – we will not authorize the UN Security Council to use force, which would lead to dire consequences for the entire Middle East region. I hope we all have had enough negative experience dealing with the consequences of the war in Iraq, "democratization" of Libya which effects are still being felt in the country, in Mali and other places. It is not clear when the election which has been put off many times will take place in Libya. There is no point in creating stir in Lebanon which is already facing serious issues. I am confident that other countries in the region will not be left unaffected by the catastrophic scenario of the external force used to solve the Syria problem. All this might lead to creating a huge arc of instability from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf. I reckon that intelligent people understand this and realize the real threat of the Sunni-Shiah confrontation in the region. I am sure that this is by no means the future we would like to have in the region called the Greater Middle East. We want peoples of the countries of this geopolitically important region to live in peace and determine their own destiny.

The Russian party has repeatedly stated that every government bears responsibility for what is happening within the country. Syria's authorities are no exception. We have many times raised the issues explicitly pointing out to multiple mistakes committed by the Syrian leadership during the events which have been unfolding for over a year already. Nevertheless, when information on the next act of violence – and currently, such acts occur practically on a daily basis in Syria, as caused by serious destabilization – emerges, we hear most of the international media call on us to lay the blame for everything the doorstep of Syria's authorities and to make them responsible for what is going on. Undoubtedly, the official Damascus bears the major responsibility for what is happening within the SAR since the government is responsible for the safety of its residents and the protection of their rights. I do not think that just a year ago, anyone could have imagined that Syria would become the scene for such crimes we are facing today. I am confident that Syria's authorities are not the only ones to blame.

The confrontation which is increasingly actively fueled by external forces as well has made possible tragedies in Al-Houla, Al-Qubeir and many other acts of violence, including the notorious terrorist acts in Damascus, Aleppo and other cities condemned by the UN Security Council. I mean, first of all, the moral support rendered to the so-called armed opposition, providing it with money and weapons, and promoting the infiltration of militants from neighbouring and other countries into Syria. The international media which still make their estimates based on data from some well-known and quite partisan regional television channels present the actions of the illegal armed groups as "heroic deeds of the defenders of peaceful protesters", "advocates of humanity values and human rights". I would like to cite some facts shedding light on the real nature of such actions.

Yesterday (June 8th) saw someone spray with under-barrel grenade launcher fire the building in Tijara District of Damascus accommodating Russian experts. The grenade hit the first-floor wall damaging the building yet fortunately, killing no one. This is not the only case of firing at Russian institutions in Syria. Last year's autumn saw the office of the Russian company "Stroytransgas" in the city of Homs attacked. Today, a bus with Russian experts was fired at in the west of Damascus. The other day, the media reported clashes near the town of Al-Haffah in Latakia governorate. The attempted raids of a number of public and private institutions by militants from the Free Syrian Army, as well as attacking civilians resulted in destroying two ambulance cars.

The statistics from the very beginning of these events in Syria report 34 doctors killed, 43 medical workers heavily injured. Some of them were killed with their families. 24 hospitals and 84 clinics were attacked and raided, and about 200 ambulance cars were fully or partially destroyed. Whom these people are fighting against? Against doctors and peaceful population?

In past, there were no cases known of religious-based persecution or murder in multi-denomination Syria. Now, this is, unfortunately, no rare case, and occurs more and more often. The media report scores of Christians having fallen victims of religious hatred. Many Christians are forced to leave the country which their predecessors have been living for two thousand years in. Churches are getting deserted. A number of monasteries and churches have been attacked with mortar launcher, handheld anti-tank grenade launcher or small arms fire. They included the famous Covent of Our Lady in Saidnaya housing the Icon of the All-Holy Virgin painted by Saint Luke, according to the legend. Militants also attacked the Syriac Orthodox Um al-Zennar Church in Homs where people of various denominations had come to venerate the part of Virgin Mary's belt.

Syrian citizens, Russian citizens living in the SAR and journalists who work there under austere conditions have informed on many cases of the opposition and their supporters persecuting people having sympathy for or just showing loyalty to the Syrian authorities. Explosive devices were planted at their doorsteps, their relatives were killed, and they were threatened, deprived of property and blackmailed by illegal armed groups.

I would like to say a few words about the attitude of the militants to journalists, including those sympathizing with the militants. The day before yesterday saw the information made public in the Internet on a British journalist, Channel 4 News correspondent Alex Thomson, who told what had happened to him in the Syrian town of Al-Qusseir near the border with Lebanon. He visited the militants' base and then together with his driver who had been working as an interpreter and two other journalists, he drove back. The militants escorting him, the "armed revolutionaries", said goodbye and recommended him to move ahead along the road which would have inevitable led them under fire of Syrian government military men. The journalist believes it was no mistake – he had been led into a trap with a view to use his inevitable death to discredit the Al-Assad regime. Fortunately, this did not happen. You can read about this story in the Internet, it is highly insightful.

As a whole, talking about mass media, certainly, all of us want more freedom of speech. But when European Union, the League of Arabian States make authoritarian decisions to block broadcasting of Syrian state and private channels, probably, it does not fit freedom of speech concept. At once it comes to mind how it was bombed a television center in Belgrade, Tripoli. We should understand what freedom of speech is, how it should be respected not only within a country, but also by international community, how it is important to provide access to information, as it may be. We consider a situation when neo-Nazi's propagation prohibited by all possible decisions of United Nations, at the Nuremberg tribunal is justified as demonstration of freedom of speech and when it is applied other standards to mass-media as it was in Belgrade, Tripoli and the same occurs now in Syria to be absolutely unacceptable.

In my opinion, basing on the indicated facts it is clear that not only Syrian government is responsible for the existing situation. Mainly occurring events are the result of actions of those who do not stop financing of illegal armed groups, hire mercenaries, assist in their transportation through a border and flirt with various kinds of extremists to achieve their own geopolitical goals. It can be inferred that these goals are substantially defined by a confessional factor.

We are seriously concerned by growth of activity of international terrorist and extremist networks in Syria. Talking about application of common standards, about fairness as to one or another situation, let me remind, that to excuse necessity of external intervention now even more often it is indicated a problem of refugees from Syria. If to look at statistics, according to data of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), now number of escapees from Syria reaches 80 thousand people, 28 thousand of which are in Lebanon, 5 thousand - in Iran, 21,5 thousand people - in Jordan and about 25 thousand people are in Turkey. Certainly, these people need support. We expect that to UNHCR experts will be provided access to all refugee camps, but, probably, the number of 80 thousand people will increase. Nevertheless it should be correlated to other indicators. For example, with a number of refugees in Syria itself. By estimates that are as a whole proved to be true from different sources, in SAR about one million of refugees from Iraq and about a half-million of immigrants from Palestine live. Has somebody thought about them sometime? I have not heard about such care.

I have already given you an example of Yugoslavia. Does somebody remember about hundred thousand Serbian refugees from Kosovo and East Slavonia? It is the largest ethnic group of refugees in Europe, but nobody speaks about them at all.

We are satisfied by that it was possible by considerable efforts to create an international tool for assistance of promotion to peaceful settlement in Syria – it is a plan of K.Annan and UN observer mission. They work, but nevertheless, the settlement plan began to revolve seriously. Recently this fact was anxiously discussed in the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. We do not see any alternatives to implementation of this plan as a way to the peaceful settlement. I should underline, the way to the peaceful settlement, instead of forced regime change through large-scale confrontation with mass victims among peaceful population.

We cannot allow violence against peaceful people and we should make everything to stop this violence as the most priority problem. K. Annan plan provides such possibility. The most important is that it was implemented to the fullest extent and everybody without exceptions, including external players. Due to this plan on 12 April of this year armistice was reached. Yes, it is violated, but at first violence level decreased, there appeared signs of situation stabilisation, thousand people who appealed to arms earlier, grounded it, and made use of amnesty declared by authorities. Some hundreds of political prisoners and persons who were arrested for participation in antigovernmental demonstrations were released, though new arrests also take place.

Government of Syria managed to agree with UN members on access of a number of humanitarian organisations to the most stricken provinces of SAR to implement a Plan of UN emergency humanitarian response approved by Damascus. Significant progress was succeeded in expansion of access to journalists and mass-media that work now in SAR, and also it was created "afield" supervision mechanism.

But first encouraging signs which appeared after 12 April of this year, probably, did not fall into in logic of those who worked on a principle "worse is better", more likely international community will definitively be indignant and interfere in Syrian affairs. It is the main reason, I trace, that the plan of K. Annan started to revolve. We do not want to allow that. We would like to talk over fairly and frankly with all everybody who is somehow or other "tied" with the Syrian crisis, about real reasons of failure and slowdown in execution of plan provisions of the special envoy of UN/LAS. Mainly these failures root in incoordination of external player steps. It is important to understand whether incoordination is caused by absence of dialogue platform or is the result of an intended line to foil the plan.

We hope that the reason consists in the fact that we don't speak sincerely with each other for enough. Certainly, there is United Nations Security Council, but outside it there also remain other very important players - the League of Arab States, Turkey, Iran, Syria, its neighboring countries - Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. It is necessary for everybody to get together and, on the basis of Kofi Annan's plan and the UN Security Council resolutions, which it was approved by and which authorized the UN Observers' Mission, to support these essential documents. We must honestly and openly, looking at each other's eyes, negotiate that, if on the words we have all welcomed Kofi Annan's plan and have approved it by consensus in the UN Security Council, then it is necessary to exert an active influence on all, without exception, Syrians in practice, in order to force them to terminate fighting and to sit at to the negotiating table.

I am convinced, that if the solidarity willpower of all the major external players will be exercised in this direction, then the result will be achieved. And after that we can go directly to the beginning of the political dialogue, of course, on the basis of the Kofi Annan's plan, which implies the need for the opposition to unite on a platform of readiness for such a dialogue, as well as the beginning of negotiations between the government and all Syrian opposition groups.

Proceeding from these assessments and observations, we propose urgently to begin the work on the preparation of an international conference on issue of Syria. It is referred to a compact group of participants. I shall repeat, the purpose of the conference - is to assist implementation of Kofi Annan's plan and the UN Security Council resolutions, and to gather all those who routinely influence on the situation in Syria. In our opinion, the forum should involve five permanent UN Security Council members, neighbors of Syria - Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, and the representatives of the League of Arab States. By the way, Iraq currently presides in League of Arab States. It is also necessary to invite Qatar, the chairman of the Committee of the League of Arab States on the issue of Syria. It would be also important to invite Saudi Arabia to the negotiating table, as it is the largest country of the Persian Gulf, Iran. We assume that event should take place under an "umbrella" of the UN. Among the participants I would also see the European Union, which displays a keen interest to what is happening in Syria and wants to overcome the current crisis, as it was confirmed in our conversations during EU-Russia summit held in St. Petersburg on 3-4 of June.

We want the sincere conversation to take place at the conference, in the course of which it would become clear how realistic it is to agree on a coordinated, joint and several, hitting, as the saying goes, "into one point" actions in relation both to SAR Government and all opposition groups.

Regarding the timing of convening a conference - the sooner the better. Of course, we cannot simply meet, having not uttered all aspects with the countries mentioned. For sure, the expert meetings would also be required. We are actively working with all of our colleagues, and believe that now it is fundamentally important to establish informational background prepossessing to the search of ways to a speedy stop of violence and beginning of political dialogue. If the appeals for prompt intervention in the Syrian affairs by military means, accusations against the regime of Bashar al-Assad without presenting any facts will sound every day, and our colleagues will not wait until results of the investigation carried out by the UN observers and the humanitarian agencies, including the Human Rights Council, if every day they will be saying that "Russia needs only to order al-Assad, and everything will rise on the places", then we are not going to achieve the desired result.

Therefore, we need responsibility, responsibility and one more time responsibility. Irresponsible statements in their turn may result in such fires, which we will not be able to extinguish afterwards. You must not send signals that daily deepen the conviction of the opposition in fact that it is just about to be helped, as it happened in Libya.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, can we now speak that different forces are intentionally pushing Kofi Annan's plan to failure? Aren't such attempts bound to succeed by virtue of the fact that except Syria and Russia, nobody else is taking any steps for its implementation?

S.V. Lavrov: In my opening statement I have already said about the impression, that there are very powerful forces who would like to disrupt Kofi Annan's plan in order to prove the inability of the Syrian leadership to cooperate in the implementation of this document, and thereby to justify the forceful intervention into the crisis. These attempts are visible with "naked eye", and even unsophisticated people understand what is meant and what stands behind these or other appeals, declarations and accusations.

I have already mentioned that United Nations Security Council is not going to authorize the military intervention. That will not happen not because we are defending Bashar al-Assad and his regime, but because we know how complicated an interconfessional composition of the Syrian country is. We also understand that some of those demanding military intervention in SAR want to break the existing interconfessional composition and, in the great scheme of things, to make Syria a polygon of war for supremacy within the Islamic world. This is an extremely dangerous trend. Russia will do everything to prevent a similar scenario.

When the UN Security Council is called up to authorize the actions under Chapter VII of the Charter, which provides enforcement measures including the use of military force, we can not abstract from what happened in Libya, where one resolution has been adopted by consensus, and the second has not received any Russian or Chinese veto, and when both of resolutions were flagrantly violated in practical actions of NATO, which caused them to perform. The consensus decision on the introduction of an arms embargo was not performed by any of the countries supporting the rebels.

Our colleagues from several Arab and European states openly and even with some pride told that they have supplied weapons to the opponents of Muamar al-Gaddafi's regime. Then why should an arms embargo be suggested?

Once again I shall emphasize, we defend not the regime, but the chances for stability in this region, the chances for stability in the Islamic world and international law. The way the Syrian crisis will be resolved will play a huge role in how the world order will continue - whether it will rely on the UN Charter, or be considered as the place where the "right of the strong" works.

Question: Does Russia have any the evidence that allow suggesting that the military operation of Syrian opposition goes under control or command of external forces?

S.V. Lavrov: There are insufficient data about the supply of weapons and other means of maintenance combat effectiveness to an armed opposition, as well as the information support provided to «Syrian freedom army» (SFA). There is also information about those who manages this "army" and who commands different groups somehow belonging to it. Some of them obey strict discipline, others act in less coordinated manner. There is also information about the location of headquarters of SFA and about that, which countries are helping it with money. Our Saudi and Qatari colleagues, by the way, speak about it openly.

Yesterday (on 8-th of June) the Congress of Syrian businessmen was held in Istanbul, on which the establishing a fund for financing SFA was announced. I am convinced that in the line of special departments there is more than enough information available. Including the British authorities, which have one of the highest reputations in this field. All information is also available to European countries and NATO. We know that. In private conversations without journalists, our foreign colleagues are showing magnificent awareness about what is really going on in Syria.

Question: Have Russia and the US discussed the possibility of Yemen scenario according to which Bashar Assad will quit his post and leave Syria?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the Yemen scenario, I would not like to reduce everything to simplified schemes. The situation in Yemen, by the way, is far from being calm and simple regardless the implementation of the plan to end crisis which implied the idea we are talking about. Yemen Sides sat down at the negotiation table themselves and came to an agreement. There were no preliminary conditions similar to the initial obligatory retirement of the President. Peaceful plan was the result of the agreement. If the Syrians themselves reach an agreement on the matter, we shall be glad to support such an outcome as well as many other States, I am convinced. But we have our principled reasons to think that it is unacceptable to impose the conditions of dialogue from outside. This is not the way to sustainably solve the problem. The Syrians themselves should choose their life and agree among themselves through expression of the will of people.

Our-proposed conference implies creation of environment for this and prevention of interference from external players. Now they interfere in the settlement process by instigating one party to continue the so-called "battle of liberation" until the international community interferes by military intervention. I am citing acting President of the Syrian National Council Barhan Ghalioun who literally stated: Do continue the "battle of liberation"... until international intervention.

Our-proposed conference, if supported, should be conducted most likely in more than one stage and probably with the establishment of working mechanisms. It's aim is to remove negative interference of external players in the ongoing conflict and re-direct the will, energy and potential of all external forces to assisting in the cease of bloodshed and launch of all-Syrian dialogue. We should create such conditions but it is up to Syrians to negotiate.

Question: Western media and expert circles discuss more and more, directly and indirectly the delivery of Russian weapons to Syria. This issue is being always included in multiple publications, for example, the British ones, thus creating the impression that Syrian citizens are being killed with Russian weapons.

Could you, please, give us some evidence that would help us to stop or, at least, minimize the speculations on the matter?

Sergey Lavrov: Or deny these lies.

Russia does not provide the Syrian government with any weapons that could be used against peaceful protesters even if one's imagination goes too far. We are completing the implementation of contracts that have been signed long ago and paid to supply air-defense items. These items can be used only if Syria faces any foreign intervention. We do not supply other things. When the unrest started in Syria we took a special decision not to supply, if requested, any small arms or other things that can be used, this or that way, to suppress internal actions.

In certain countries of the Persian Gulf our American colleagues deliver weapons that can be used agains peaceful protesters. Another corresponding contract was concluded not long ago.

As you remember, during the Libyan conflict the weapon embargo was declared. And what? Nobody sold nothing to the government in Tripoli but the opposition was really fueled with weapons, the European special forces worked together with rebels in the Libyan territory.

This is another example proving that it is important to be fair. It will be needed in the future.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, you have already noted that armed terrorist groupings have recently intensified their activities. Fortunately, the last crimes did not bring victims and injured among families of Russian specialists. Yesterday a transformer was detonated near Damask. Nevertheless, some foreign players say that they want to implement Annan's plan. In this context, there are many speculations, different rumors recently that the Russian opposition can change. Can be the last Russia's initiative to convene an international conference called the "contact group" by Kofi Annan as change in the Russian position on the plan related to UN/LAS special envoy plan?

Fair peaceful Syrian citizens all around the world would like to hear from you again if there are grounds for such rumors and why are they spreading now?

Sergey Lavrov: In my introductory speech I said that there were no reasons to re-consider the positions. If anybody takes Russian initiative to convene the conference as a signal to this, such persons do not understand correctly the Russian position. And this position does not imply that we are going to sit and say that "we shall veto everything". We have an initiative-based approach. We are sincerely trying to find ways to move forward. That is why as early as in August 2011 Russia initiated a draft statement by the UN Security Council President that was adopted. We were the first to propose the Council to take care of the situation in Syria.

In September last year and a bit later, the Russian side elaborated draft resolutions based on the need to influence all Syrian sides. Western countries did not accept those resolutions. We supported the November (2011) decision by the League of Arab States to send to Syria the LAS Observation Mission. We persuaded Syrian authorities to agree with this option and accept the monitoring mission. It was not easy. I repeat - the Syrian authorities made lots of mistakes, it was late in solving evident problems that could change the situation to the better.

Apart from persuading the Syrian authorities to accept the mission of Arab observers we tried to ensure that the number of observers grow and they report to the UN Security Council. The Arab States did not want for some reason the report of observer - that they prepared at the end of the one-month stay in SAR - go to the UN SC. I do not know why. I have some ideas but I cannot talk about things that are not proved 100% per cent.

We brought this report to the UN Security Council. When it happened the LAS cut back its mission. I think that the report was rather objective. It pointed out to those unacceptable things that were allowed by Syrian authorities and to the fact that the situation was evolving not in the vacuum, and well-armed people fight against Syrian authorities. I do not know, perhaps, that is why the LAS mission was overthrown, because somebody did not like it.

The same thing is now. We actively supported the appointment of Kofi Annan as UN and LAS special envoy. Immediately after it happened we invited him to Moscow, supported his ideas which turned into a six-point plan.

Now the Russian Side has the same purposes. We convene this conference not to say that Russia is changing its position but to implement Annan's plan that was supported in the UN Security Council on a consensus basis. I told you about the price of this consensus for some of our partners giving as an example the resolution on embargo for Libya which was violated even if it was adopted on a consensus basis. We would like to make sure that those who supported the consensus with regard to K.Annan's plan did this sincerely. That is why we need this conference. This is kind of sincerity test, if you want.

We state fairly and sincerely that the conference, if accepted by our colleagues, should become a unique format for supporting the efforts on the implementation of the UN SC resolution that were made to approve K.Annan's plan. This is not a Group of Syria's friends which, in essence, is a group of friends of the Syrian National Council. Other opposition political groupings, including intransigent, acting inside Syria, do not agree with such approach. that is why we say that the Syrian opposition members should agree on getting together on the platform of readiness to dialogue. They were required to do this by the UN SC.

Why then the Security Council do not respond to the fact that acting President of the Syrian National Council B. Ghalioun who visited Moscow and with whom we talked in detail requests foreign interference into Syrian affairs which is not provided for by the Security Council and refuses from the dialogue with the government, as provided by UN SC decisions?

If anybody has any concerns that we shall put this conference to "under umbrella" of the Group of Friends of Syria, I am ready to decisively remove them. If all want to support Annan's plan then they should get united. It can be called differently - a conference or a contact group. Conference can take a decision to establish a contact group. But we should get together around one common idea. The Group of Friends of Syria is not capable to do this.

The fact that our position remains the same was confirmed during the visit of President of Russia Vladimir Putin to China, in adopted joint documents on behalf of all SCO members, during the Beijing summit of the above organization. This position remains in force but it is not frozen therefore, the idea of conference is not a departure from, but a development of our approach. Once again, in essence, it remains the same.

Question: Did you reach an agreement to convene the conference regardless the differences on the issue of participation of Iran yesterday during your negotiations with US special Syria envoy Fred Hof?

Sergey Lavrov: The consultations with Hof were conducted by two of my deputies - Bogdanov and Gatilov. There were no rejections of ideas we voiced with regard to the initiative to convene this conference on behalf of the American Side. We decided to continue these discussions. Yesterday, I discussed this issue with Kofi Annan.

We want to make this event effective. To this end, we need the representation of all those who have influence on various parties to the Syrian conflict. Iran is one of such countries that influences the Syrian government. From the point of view of serious diplomacy, it is a light-mindedness to say that there is no place for Iran at the conference because it should be blamed for everything and it makes part of the problem and not of its solution.

The Americans are pragmatics. When needed, they turn to ideological aspects, i.e. when speaking about Iran. When they needed to reduce somehow risks and threats for their soldiers in Iraq they contacted perfectly the Iranians, spoke to them and reached agreements. This is a normal approach because pragmatism is important for the foreign policy. But if it was possible to protect the American contingent in Iraq why then it cannot be done to protect Syrian citizens?

The participation in the conference of those who influence the situation aims, first and foremost, at helping all Syrian Sides to send signals to immediately stop violence. We are speaking about saving lives of people. I hope there will not be any double standards.

Question: it was revealed that Syria has asked Russia, China and other countries to investigate the massacres in Hula. Do you support this proposal? What do you think of the idea of carrying out an international inquiry into the homicide in Hula and Hama under the auspices of the UNO?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Indeed, the Syrian side proposed that Russia and China had sent their experts. But there is a resolution that the investigation should be carried out by the experts of the UN Monitoring Mission in Syria. We regard the fact as the readiness of the Syrian government to allow international experts and to show them everything without any reserve. We welcome such openness in its substance. But concerning its form, I repeat, neither we nor the Chinese will stand by for the UN Mission, which is instructed to investigate.

The other thing is that we already have an evidence of the fact that UN personnel will be hindered. What happened in Hula, according to the ethnic composition of the area, is a Sunni-Shia issue. Alawites and Sunnis live close enough up there. In response to the deepening crisis and growing manifestations of power, including the activities of extremists and terrorists, interfaith contrariety, which was smoothed under the conditions of inter-religious peace, comes out, particularly but not exclusively because of the external incitement.

The investigation should be pursued by the UN personnel. I hope that those who have influence over the militants will demand of them not impede the investigation, as we demand that of the Syrian authorities.

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, in recent days the idea emerged to supplement or modify the Kofi Annan's plan, and among other things, to determine the specific terms of its implementation. What is your position on this?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I would suggest the detailed elaboration of the Kofi Annan's plan. I don't think this plan is irrelevant. On the contrary, it remains important in all its components, but still it lacks a specification of each item, particularly of the sections, implying the cessation of bloodshed and the beginning of political dialogue. One of the objectives of the conference proposed by Russia is to develop a mechanism of monitoring the cessation of hostilities by all parties, the mechanism of convocation of events intended to launch a political dialogue.

As for the completion period of the plan, it is also a poorly veiled attempt to introduce a ultimatum, and then to say: «The time has passed, we wash our hands of an affair, we won't extend the mandate of the UN Monitoring Mission and, thus, we create a critical mass of international community's anger». And then no one will cop out, and the UN Security Council will vote, as it should vote. This is obvious, the "game" is so obvious that a blind man could see it.

I have already alluded to the experience of the LAS Observer Group today. They were withdrawn a month later. Although it's difficult to achieve a lot in a month, they, nevertheless, obtained certain results. We had to build on the achieved progress gradually, especially as the Syrians were willing to grant admission to almost an unlimited number of observers. They were way more numerous, than the UN personnel right now – about a thousand people. If there were no LAS decision to withdraw these observers without any reason, we would have already had an enhanced international presence in this country, spread apart virtually all the regions of it. The Arab mission could be strengthened by other observers on the resolution of the UNO Security Council. This is also a mistake.

We must realize that a series of decisions that were made with the emergence of a glimmering hope for the cooling-off, suggests that initially some of our external partners were on the line based on the principle "the worse is the better," so that the justification of the armed intervention will be obtained sooner. Now we need to make sure that the same fate will not await the Kofi Annan's plan in some capitals. That is why we convene the conference.

Artificial deadlines had nowhere to run. Is there a deadline to handle the situation in Palestine? No. Why not? Everyone understands how difficult it is. Why is it Syria should be treated with a less circumspect approach?

Question: On the eve of today's briefing, Kofi Annan and Hilary Clinton discussed in Washington the situation in Syria. In addition to the international community's efforts, which are essential for the implementation and promotion of the Kofi Annan's plan, a strategy of transferring of political power in Syria was addressed. Does this mean that the Western countries have already made a decision on a question of regime change?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: This is one of the major contradictions of meaningful properties. As I see it, Secretary of State has made these statements following the results of her meeting with Kofi Annan. As for Special Envoy, he operates under the assumption that an agreement should, above all, be made by the Syrians themselves (at least, that's how I understood him during our telephone conversation yesterday.)

We believe that the foreign players should not impose any schemes on the Syrian parties, they should provide conditions for them to begin negotiating with each other by themselves. We have to literally make them to sit at the negotiating table, having ceased the hostilities first.

I repeat it again, the conference is not intended to predetermine the parameters of a political settlement, but to provide the necessary conditions so that the Syrians themselves have begun this work and so that we constantly prompt them to continue negotiations. That is how, by the way, it happens in regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Palestinian-Israeli settlement, in relation to other crisis situations, where the global community clearly acts on the basis of generally accepted principle that the parties themselves should come to agreement. Take the Karabakh problem as an example. Co-Chairs of the OSCE group in Minsk provide the conditions, prompt the parties to seek compromise, but do not impose decisions on them. That is the way we should act in all cases, including the situation with Syria.

Question: There were a lot of negotiation and international meetings on the Annan's Plan, but the results are not yet seen. Does multilateral discussion of the plan contribute to its implementation, or do you convene the parties, because the peace plan has reached an impasse and another decision should be found ?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Judging by the question, I understand that you follow your editorial policy.

I do not think the situation with the implementation of Annan's Plan is hopeless. The convening of the conference is proposed in order to provide the implementation of the mentioned plan through the coordinated actions of external players, intended to work on the Syrian side, so that they would stop violence, sit down to talk, and begin themselves to negotiate with each other.

I would not say that Annan's Plan is not executed in any of its paragraphs, like some of our colleagues prefer to do, inflaming passion. This phrase is so bright for the viewer (or reader), which is not versed in the details of what is happening, and will remember a short thesis - "Kofi Annan's plan fails through in every of the items". This idea is hammered into their heads, and it seems to possess the masses.

The first paragraph of the plan addresses to the need to work actively with the Kofi Annan's team in order to establish the political process. The Syrian Government has contacts with the Special Envoy's team. Kofi Annan is pleased with these contacts, there are no obstacles for his team to communicate. Another thing is that the content of these contacts is not yet completely gratifying, but the process is a process. Incidentally, the head of the UN Mission, the Norwegian general R. Mud, notes in their reports to the Security Council that Syrian authorities cooperate with him and provide all the assistance, that they have committed themselves to provide during the establishment of the Mission.

Now let's address the point, which implies the cessation of hostilities and the truce garantee. Initially, after April, the 12th Syrian troops actually came out of the settlements. They were criticized, because they stayed not far away from these settlements. But they refer to the experience of autumn 2011, when following the Arab League's plan, withdraw the troops from the cities, which were immediately occupied by the armed oppositionists. This is another confirmation of the fact that we need a mechanism to ensure the non-militarization of cities after being left by the governmental troops. We should also think about it, there is a place for the role of the international community. But when the Syrian army loses up to 30 people every day, then it is not peaceful demonstrators who attacked the military, but the armed opposition. Neither the opposition, nor the government observe the paragraph, suggesting a cessation of violence. But we can't say that it's only the official Damascus to be blamed, and that as soon as the governmental forces stop shooting, everything will be all right. The armed opposition immediately occupies the cleared areas. Everyone knows which districts of the cities are controlled by the militants.

A separate item of the plan is devoted to humanitarian assistance. Recently, the Syrian authorities have completed negotiations with the UN personnel, the documents on the admission to the country of the seven UN humanitarian organizations are signed, Humanitarian Forum with the participation of Syria was held (in Geneva), the Syrian government provided funds and assistance is delivered. In my opinion, this is quite a lot.

Now let's talk about the release of political prisoners and peaceful demonstrators in detention. Hundreds of people are released. Yes, there are more arrests, but to say that nothing is done, is also wrong. These statements are designed for the people , who do not want to see into the details, and consume unpretentious slogans from the television and the Internet.

Concerning the admission of the media. We have urged the Syrian authorities to open its borders to all journalists for a long time. They complained of bias in the coverage of events in Syria. Yes, there are biased journalists, we know that, there are such examples. For example, some television reporters of the "Al Jazeera" channel resigned in protest against the editorial policy. It is said that they were forced to do so. Such cases are well-known.

We tried to persuade the Syrian government, that the vast majority of journalists hold their reputation dear and will work professionally. Unfortunately, it was not done until the end, not fully, or too late. But after the adoption of the plan of Kofi Annan the number of journalists in Syria substantially increased. Yes, not all of them have a visa for a permanent job, but, nevertheless, it's wrong to say that nothing is done. I gave these examples because it is impossible to draw a picture in black color only.

Question: In your opinion, what do regional and Western players, who act following the principle "the worse is the better" really want? Is it a military intervention, economic and political benefits, or it's all about the religious background?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I have no desire to guess what they want. I can speak about our feelings about what this may come to. And everything can result in serious blow on the stability, which was so seriously compromised in the region. The consequences will be unpredictable, they will affect a huge number of countries, and in the heart of the process will be the break within the Muslim world between Sunnis and Shiites.

I hope that's not what those who occupy a firm position in favor of regime change in Syria want. Our estimates suggest that such a scenario is possible, if we all together do not take decisive and coordinated steps to affect all the Syrian parties in order them to stop fighting with each other and sit down to talk.