Interview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V. Lavrov to the International Affairs journal "Russian diplomacy and challenges of the 21st century"

Interview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia S.V. Lavrov to the International Affairs journal

Russian diplomacy and challenges of the 21st century

Question: Mr. Lavrov, which positive and negative tendencies do you see in today's world policy? Where can they lead?

S.V. Lavrov: There are several basic parameters in estimations of contemporary international situation, which everybody who tries to seriously comprehend the tendencies of world development actually agrees with. First of all, the issue is that today we are in a transition period, which in fact could mean the next end of historical era. This point was brought by the President V.V. Putin in his address at the Meeting of Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives of the Russian Federation in July. There is major changing of international landscape, which is accompanied by disturbances in economy, policy and in international relations as a whole.

Secondly, historical processes keep speeding up. We also see that in speeding-up of fundamental, in the accepted phrase, tectonic shifts, in retribution of power and influence on global level, in swift events in the Middle East and North Africa and in a number of other regions of the world.

Thirdly, it is becoming already obvious that the international relations in the 21st century move towards the establishment of polycentric system. That means that the destiny of the world will not be possible to be determined on the part of either any one, even the most powerful, state or opposing politico-military blocks, as it was during the Cold War, or even the restricted group of "chosen" countries and centres of world influence. It is about building of just, democratic and stable, ideally - self-regulating system of international relations.

Concerning which tendency is to be considered positive and which negative, I think that unambiguous estimation of world development tendencies as "black-white" is a thankless task in principle. At the same time it can be rather surely noted that in contemporary world, which becomes global, the answers to challenges, which are common to everybody, can only be found on the way of true partnership, on equal right, mutually respecting basis and with consideration of interests and concerns of each other. Recognition of this reality and practical action on that basis can probably be considered as one of the most positive tendencies of today. All responsible members of the unternational community indeed face rather difficult tasks connected with ensuring of conditions for sustainable balanced socio-economic development, consolidation of international peace and security, settlement of crisis situations, promotion of wide unternational cooperation. There are a lot of examples of approval of such approach, they include the activity of such formats as G20, G8, BRICS, SCO, the consolidation of the role pf network structures in the world policy in whole - certainly with coordinating role of the United Nations. They also include joint action in elimination of numerous threats, including danger of proliferation of mass destruction weapons, terror, piracy and so on.

Correspondingly, the negative displays in today's international relations are connected with backslide of unilateral actions, attempts to impose one's own scale of values on others, to gain geopolitical advantages for oneself, even under the most noble slogans. Those displays are connected with intensification of xenophobia, intolerance, different forms of discrimination, law nihilism.

As for Russia, the philosophy of joint productive collaboration lies in the basis of the entire foreign policy of our country. We are ready to make big advances in the development of long-term and multidimensional cooperation with all those who are ready for this on their part. And we are certainly going to contribute to the analysis of processes happening in the world, including that in terms of work on execution of order of the President of the Russian Federation on preparation of new edition of the Foreign Policy Concept before the end of this year. In accordance with the tasks determined by the President for Russian diplomacy we are to influence the situation more actively, especially at points where the interests of Russia are directly affected, to prepare for any variation of situation development.

Question: Mr. Lavrov, how do you estimate the situation incontemporary international relations evolving in conditions of world after Yalta Conference? There is an impression that the United Nations Organisation and the international law frame of inter-state relations, both established after the Second World War, are being strongly attacked. Is it a sign of transition to different format of international relations?

S.V. Lavrov: If to consider the UN in terms of Yalta world and the established world order, then I do not see viable variants to replace that structure. The UN Charter is a unique document, which was created by victor countries in spirits of victory in the Second World War. It initially stipulated the principles, which are completely relevant at the present time.

It is about sovereign equality of states, principle of supremacy of law in international relations, which is based upon principles of non-interference in internal affairs, respect of sovereignity and territorial integrity of any state and collective methods of decision-making.

In other words, the UN Charter is "programmed" as a regulator of multipolar world, which in present conditions can ensure stability of the contemporary world order.

The Cold War period, when the bipolarity was formed and the international balance was ensured by tough confrontation of two superpowers - the USA and the USSR - and two politico-military blocks - NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation - is anomalous in relation to the principles stipulated by the UN Charter.

After the collapse of bipolar system everybody received the evidence that there could be no unipolar world, since any of the countries, including the USA, is unable to manage the affairs in international arena alone. With appearance of centres for economic growth, financial aid and, correspondingly, political influence, everybody received one more evidence that the new world order must be polycentric.

It is rather long process and we are in its epicentre. Forming of such new structures as, for example, G20, intensification of the role of BRICS and SCO in solution of international problems, consolidation of integration tendencies in latin America, Asia and Africa - all are displays of process of forming of polycentric world order. The legal base for it already exists, there is no need to make it up. It is the UN Charter, which was designed as a regulator of multi-sided processes of cooperation.

We overcame the Cold War period. History decided so: the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation disappeared and new large and influential states, which are to be reckoned with, appeared.

Critics of our positions from the West say that the UN Security Council became paralysed, because Russia and China vetoed the projects of resolutions aimed at overthrowing of the regime in Syria. This standpoint is far from the truth. We exercised the veto right on resolution intended for regime changing, but the UN Charter prohibits the external interference for change of existing regimes, demands respecting the sovereignity and territorial integrity of a state. So Russia and China protected the UN Charter voting against the resolution projects for Syria.

Moreover, the veto right is the integral part of mechanism of decision-making, which was endorsed by all member-countries of the UN. They not only endorsed the Charter and the veto right, but also ratified that document. The veto right was not intended to give preferences to five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Its nature had been determined by founding fathers of the Organisation and was rooted in fundamental understanding of the absolute fact that if the decisions concerning world's fate were made regardless of the opinion of influential states, they would be inoperative.

I will remind that the League of Nations collapsed because of ignoring of interests of the largest states. During the establishment of the UN exactly the USA insisted on including the veto right to the UN Charter, in order not to repeat the negative experience of the League of Nations.

So there is a legal base for development of international relations in contemporary conditions. It is absolutely applicable and has proven its universality. Now we have a unique opportunity to develop international relations and create new world order on the basis approved by all states, which adopted and ratified the UN Charter.

Question: The first presidential term of Barack Obama is coming to its end. At its beginning the Americans proposed a policy of "reload" in relations with Russia. What, to your mind, are the results of this period of relations between Russia and the USA?

S.V. Lavrov: We considered it positive, when several years ago the President Barack Obama and his team expressed readiness to seriously start renewing the bilateral connections and settling the accumulated problems. And from the very beginning we made it clear that the only possible way to efficiently solve the tasks of our countries is to do it on the basis of mutual respect, actual consideration of each other's interests, honesty and predictability.

Owing to joint efforts we succeeded in improvement of the atmosphere of dialogue and expansion of its scope. Substantial practical results were achieved in a whole number of fields - in economy, strategical stability ensuring, development of humanitarian connections. I will also mention such significant landmarks of recent years as the New START, Russia's joining the WTO, work of Russian-American Presidential Commission, simplification of visa regime.

Ahead we have a busy agenda, the main attention in which will be paid to giving a fundamentally new dynamics to cooperation in trade and economic and investment fields. The deeper and more quality our business relations become, the more solid will be the "safety net" protecting the Russian-American relations from changes in political climate. We are going to pay special attention to forming of favourable conditions for humanitarian, educational, scientific and cultural exchanges.

There certainly are many problems. One of the main ones in the list of contradictions is a problem of ABM and its gravity shall not be underwstimated. It is obvious that the corresponding decisions are made by the United States and right after by the North Atlantic Alliance with no regard to the interests of Russia. The main thing for us is that the anti-missile means being created by the USA could not undermine Russian deterrence arsenal, break the balance of forces, which is formed throughout decades. It is necessary to determine a clear legal framework of interaction in ABM, including elaboration of legally binding warranties of undirectedness of means created by the USA against Russia and our nuclear forces (as well as, actually, against any country in Euro-Atlantic) and coordination of military technical criteria making it possible to supervise the observance of such warranties. It is clear that solving of this problem and many other unsettled issues awaits us only after the end of election race in the USA.

Regardless of its results we are ready to develop political dialogue with the USA as intensive, as our American colleagues will be ready for this. We proceed from the point that it will be built upon principles of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs, refuse from attempts of imposing the one-sided views on the issues of internal development of either of countries and interaction in the global arena.

Question: A lot of experts anxiously note the fact that the role of international law in contemporary international affairs is being downgraded. The real policy of a number of countries simply can not stay within its framework. Do you agree with such estimations? How do you estimate the practice of application of international law regulations in contemporary conditions in general? Is it possible to consolidate its role in some way?

S.V. Lavrov: Well, its hard to agree with such pessimistic estimations. But I understand the experts who make them. The attempts of undermining the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, including the respect of sovereignity and territorial integrity of states, actions circumventing the international law and the established formats of decision-making, which we observe over the recent times, lead to serious negative consequences, result into intensification of instability in international relations.

But we also should not come down to superfluous alarmism, we need to be guided by the real estimation of current events.

Bombarding of Yugoslavia in 1999 was made with no mandate of the UN Security Council, but its initiators then began searching for legitimacy post factum. Approved was the UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which stipulated the necessity to solve Kosovo problem respecting the sovereignity of Serbia and Montenegro. The situation seemed to be back to the legal framework, but that essential resolution was grossly violated when the West recognised the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo by Pristina.

If to remember the war in Iraq, the NATO leaders then did try to receive the aproval of the UN Security Council, but, as we all know now, under the far-fetched pretext. When they did not succeed in that, they began military activity without the necessary mandate. Nevertheless, the USA soon began to actively request the assistance of the UN Security Council in calling of a conference on the national reconciliation in Iraq. The objective reality required such step, so NATO was forced to move back to the international law mechanisms.

NATO had then scruples to act in Libya without the SC mandate, since they clearly realised that unilateral decisions of Alliance members would not be approved by the world community. That mandate was received. Another issue is that it was grossly abused, but that is a topic in its own right and the Russian leadership spoke on it not once. The attempts to bring the post-conflict process in Libya out of the UN framework also took place, but the issue soon returned to the Organisation. Consider this - in the Strategic Concept of NATO it is directly stated that the member-countries of the Alliance are to jointly take measures for peace and security maintenance, but in the way respecting the international law. As for abuse in interpretation of resolutions, we are to take all measures to avoid any ambiguity in the mandates of the Security Council in future.

And one more point. Among western theoreticians exists the opinion that instead of the UN mandate the principles of "humanitarian intervention" can be successfully applied. But those theoreticians acknowledged that such principles do not conform to the international law. The concept of "responsibility to protect" occured. But again in the Summit Outcome of 2005, which gave that concept right to exist, it is clearly stipulated that its force component can only be implemented with the approval of the UN Security Council.

Therefore, the UN Charter is a basis for international relations, despite the attempts to shatter that system according to the principle «every law has a loophole».

Now I would like to say a few words on consolidation of the international law. Consistent establishment of supremacy of law in international affairs is one of the key priorities of our diplomacy. Simultaneous to that succeeds a process of development and modernisation of individual legal regulations. For example, launched was the work on improvement of cooperation in counteraction to sea piracy, particularly in creation of the international mechanism of bringing pirates to justice.

However, we should not forget that the fundamentals of the international law, such as Charter prerogatives of the UN Security Council, decision-making system of this structure, or, for example, the principles of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, were established in the result of comparison of complicated, interwoven interests of states. That is why it is necessary to protect them from shortfall attempts of destruction, to approach the whole complex of corresponding challenges with maximum deliberateness, with complete realisation of the heaviest responsibility connected with that.

Question: Recently appeared talks that the United Nations allegedly need some reform. Some politicians abroad even hint at the point that the UN is an "institute of gone era" and in contemporary conditions it can not efficiently react to challenges of today. How would you estimate such statements? And how do you consider the place and role of the UN in world affairs?

S.V. Lavrov: There is nothing new about talks on the UN reform. Over its more than fifty years' history this world organisation has always been on the edge of world politics and politology discourse and generally corresponded to the realities of specific era owing to its ability to quickly adjust to them.

Paraphrasing the famous quote of W. Churchill on democracy I can say that the UN is not perfect, but it is the best that humanity could invent. Let us remember - the establishment of the Organisation itself became possible owing to compromise achieved by the leaders of the Soviet Union, the USA and the United Kingdom, whose confidence and mutual understanding were forged in combating Nazism.

During the second half of XX century geopolitical landscape was dynamically changing - enough is to remember, for example, the tumultuous processes of decolonisation, - but the UN, owing to political will of its memeber-states, was rather efficient in each historical period. And now the World Organisation is still a universal inter-governmental forum with generally recognised legitimacy, where states jointly search for solutions of the most urgent problems of unexceptionally everybody's concern. Cooperation of states within the UN favours peace maintenance through consolidation of partnership relations, expansion of the uniting agenda and establishment of law supremacy.

The UN reforming is actually taking place - new istitutes are being created, agenda is being perfected, peace-making activity is becoming more efficient. It is important for the reform not to be distracted from reality and become an end in itself, and the main thing for it is not to be an empty pretext for thoughtless destruction of reference elements of the system of international relations, a cornerstone of which is the UN Charter. In conditions of fundamental reorganisation of global management system towards more balanced and just polycentric model the reconsideration of Charter's key provisions is surely going to affect the global security.

At present stage the UN platform as never before needs proposals in terms of joint efforts for disarmament, counterterrorism and combating drugs, collective steps for sanitation of universal cyberspace. Immediate solution is required for issues of overcoming the inadmissible disbalances in social and economic development of countries and regions, consolidation of energy, food and environmental security. Unfortunately, the list of "problematic zones" continuously expands and the task of the UN is to sensitively react to new threats and prevent mixed-up behaviour of its members. Especially important is to respect the principle of Charter regarding unity of the permanent members of the Security Council as the key condition for decision-making on implementation of enforcement measures.

The role of the UN in prevention and settlement of conflicts, in post-conflict restoration becomes more and more relevant. But the UN efficiency at that point directly depends on how honestly the member-countries observe the fundamental principles of the Charter - respect of sovereignity and territorial integrity of states, non-interference in their internal affairs, peaceful conflict settlement. I already spoke about that. In this respect seriously concerning are calls to rely on unilateral methods of force, moreover in circumvention of the UN Security Council.

Certainly, no sensible politician or expert in international relations will "discard" the World Organisation. Such provocative statements with no basis have one purpose - to free the hands of those who would want to pursue the world policy according to own patterns, regardless of opinions of partners in international relations. Exactly that is why the calm and coordinated work of the UN as the largest dialogue platform is a long-term "vaccination" against "anarchy virus" in the international relations.

Question: The prospects of the Customs Union and the CIS Free Trade Area become more and more positive. The President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych made a decision on joining of the country to the Free Trade Area. Could you please tell how the relations of Russia with the CIS states are considered in terms of the new Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, which is now at stage of development?

S.V. Lavrov: I already touched upon the topic of preparation of the new edition of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. We expect that this document will be concise and substantial and will represent the wide range of tasks in terms of promotion of key priorities of the international activity of the state, which are determined in the Decree of the President V.V. Putin "On Measures for Implementation of Foreign Policy Course of the Russian Federation" dated 7 May 2012.

In his speech at a meeting of Russian ambassadors and perfmanent representatives, V.V. Putin emphasised the need for intensifying work in the focus direction - relations with CIS countries, including the closest integration partners - members of the Three - Russia, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan that have created their Customs Union and started working within the Single Economic Space.

The intensification of multilateral interaction and deepening of integration processes in the Commonwealth space is a route with strategic perspective, reflective objective trends of the globalisation era, including strengthening the role of reigonal associations. It has been an uncondtional foreign policy priority for Russia.

Integration in the CIS space has recently gained impressive momentum. We consider it a serious factors for securing stability and economic growth in the global scales.

Our integration efforts become especially important in the context of risks that still exist due to crisis events in the Euro zone, problems in the markets of the U.S., China and other countries. The work done to eliminate bareers in the mutual trade and secure free movement of goods, services, capital and workforce constitutes an effective tool of counteracting the world crisis.

The most important thing is that it brings real economic benefits evident for the people of countries participating in any integrating associations. Those practical benefits are not only demomnstated by the indices of GDP growth and mutual trade, though they are significant. For example, the trade turnover between Russia, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan has grown by almost 40% since the commencement of full-scale operation of the Customs Union. The direct result of the CU operation is the creation of new jobs, tax reduction, improvement of business conditions, including small and medium businesses, improvement of the investment climate in our countries in general. Since 1 February this year, the Eurasian Economic Commission has been working. It constitutes a supernational permanent governing authority of the CU and SES, which will be gradually given more and more new authorities.

The prospective goals of working within the Three are stated in the Declaration on Eurasian Economic integration adopted at the summit of the Higher Eurasian Economic Council on 18 November 2011. According to that roadmap, it should enable the three countries to create the Eurasian Economic Union by 1 January 2015. We consider it an unconditional priority of our work in the CIS space and the key task of our foreign policy.

The new Treaty on free trade area in the CIS is to become effective for Russia, Byelorussia and the Ukraine since 20 September. We are convinced that our economic realtions with the Commonwealth will be given renewed momentum. We count on a good dynamic of our relations with the Ukraine - the biggest trade partner of Russia among CIS countries.

We would welcome any countries of CIS joining the Treaty. It is known, that Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan negotiate this possibility.

Thus, integration processes differing in depth and pace are now implemented in the CIS. Any country may choose its way based on its own interests. The key role here will be played by those potential advantages obtained from the participation in this or that integration association.

In particular, speaking about the Ukraine I may revoke the results of the research conducted by Ukrainian experts jointly with the Eurasian Bank of Development. The matter is that the Ukraine's joining the SES might rise its annual GDP by 6 to 7%.

Question: The Syrian knot is the most disturbing event in the today's world policy. We constantly discuss this topic with the heads of different countries. What do you think about their approaches to settling the crisis? Are they ready for compromise or are the positions of some of them are so irreconcilable that we won't see the peace in Syria for a long time? For instance, the statements of State Secretary Hilary Clinton made in Turkey may give up the negotiation process in the UN Security Council for lost. What do you think about the way-out of the current situation.

S.V. Lavrov: From the very beginning of the crisis, the Russian Federation has been continuingly supporting consolidated efforts and actions of the international community in the interests of the soonest cease of violence by all parties to the conflict in Syria, alleviating sufferings of its peaceful population and creating conditions for launching the political process led by Syrians themveslves.

For this purpose, there is a political and legal base developed by the international community. I am referring to appropriate resolutions of the UN Security Council, six clause peaceful plan of the former Special Envoy of the UN/LAS for Syria K. Annan, which still remains actual, and the final Communiquй of the ministerial Action Group for Syria in Geneva dated 30 June.

However, I am sorry to say that recently some of our western partners have been constantly talking about their intention to look for the settlement of crisis in Syria beyond the framework of the UN Security Council. I hope that the statement of the US State Secretary H. Clinton she made on 11 August during her visit to Turkey together with other similar statements are of emotional nature or reflect complcated internal policy processes. I am convinced that such steps could have the most destructive and dangerous consequences for both Syria and the Middle East as a whole and finally - the entire modern world's law and order.

Previously, some states already attempted to impose their political directives on the UN Security Council anticipating the results of inter-Syrian dialogue and aimed at the Syrian regime shift. This contradicts to the prerogatives of the SC, principles of the UN Charter concerning non-interference in internal affairs. Instead of launching a negotiation process as dictated by unanimously approved resolutions of the UN Security Council, the external opponents of the Syrian regime have actually set a course for the regime overthrow. They do not intend to change such approach though this is such irreconcilable approach and the encouragement of radical opposition in its rejection of the dialogue that are the reasons for the continuing violence and suffering of the Syrian people. We do not vindicate the Syrian regime, nor do we discharge it from the liability, but it is only possible to stop the violence by forcing all parties to the conflict to cease the warfare and sit down at the negotiation table. This was mentioned at the meeting in Geneva on 30 June, but than the USA refused to approve those agreements at the UN Security Council.

It follows from all this that the political and diplomatic method of deblocking the Syrian situation does not suit to some of our partners. Actually, they intend to implement the Lybian model supporting a party to the conflict and thus encouraging the opposition to deny any possibility of peaceful dialogue with the existing government of the SAR. I think it's a spur blind track. Our view is shared by many countries, which recognise what dangers can be caused if the situation in Syria develops this way. I mention this, because the Syrian question has lately been among the focuses of all international meetings.

We can see only one way out of the existing situation: to "gang up" on all parties to the conflict so as to encourage them to sit at the table of negotiations to determine the future parameters of their country. We still have time for this. Russia is ready for such kind of work.

Question: Another big question is the "humanitarian intervention". What do you think about the very term and attempts of some states to use it for solving certain political problems in the world?

S.V. Lavrov: "Humanitarian intervention" is a term contradicting to the UN Charter. There is international humanitarian law, which provides for a certain way of acting during military conflicts, creates the rules of treating prisoners, rules of humanitarian aid delivery, etc. They don't use the term "humanitarian intervention" anymore, because it is "self-revealing", preferring to speculate on another term - "protection responsibility".

During Summit 2005 a special discussion was arranged and a separate section was introduced into the final document stating that the "protection responsibility" means many things, including humanitarian aid delivery, protection of personal property, etc. At the same time, the document does not contain a word that this term may justify external military intervention in internal afairs of another country.

I have to repeat that resolutions adopted on the basis of the UN Charter can only be deemed legitimate.

Certainly, we cannot guarantee that there will be no gross violation of the international law, which occurred when they bombed Yugoslavia and started the war in Iraq under a vain pretext. They began bombing of Yugoslavia when in 1999 the American head of the OSCE mission declared that genocide had taken place in Racak village. Thirty dead Albanian citizens were found there. And only later, when appropriate investigation was conducted, it became clear that they were not peaceful citizens, but militants, who had not been fired point-blank, as stated by the OSCE representative, but killed in a fight. All ballistics tests and postmortem examinations proved that. It is not coincidence that the report made by Finnish forensic pathologists on request of the European Union was immediately hidden and never demonstrated.

At the same time, when a US citizen and the head of the OSCE mission declared that genocide occured in Racak, they did not even attempt to investigate it, but used that as an excuse saying that "the cup is filled up and we start bombing".

The same thing occurred in Iraq. There was a pretext of a statement that the United States has reliable information that Iraq has weapons of mass annihilation. Moreover, it was declared when special commissions of the UN and IAEA dealing with that problem were close to a conclusion on the absence of any traces enabling them to speak about the absence of weapons of mass annihilation.

Thus, no one can guarantee that blurred resolutions of the UN Security Council may be used for the misuse of the mandate as it occurred in Lybia. Then, there was an agreement on the need for creating a "no-fly zone", we were in favour of it and the "no-fly" zone was declared. However, the NATO countries, which had undertaken to implement that resolution of the UN Security Council went far beyond the framework of action necessary for air policing and prevention of flights of military aviation of the Lybian regime and started bombing land objects and participate in the civil war on the side of the rebels.

We are ready to adopt the resolution on Syria. For some reasons, no one remembers that the UN Security Council has already adopted its resolution on Syria and the Action Group Communiquй was agreed in Geneva on 30 June this year. We proposed to approve the Geneva Communiquй at the UN Security Council, but Americans refused to because it contained threats, unilateral assessments and sanctions against the regime. It proposed a weighed and balanced approach aimed at cease of bloodshed in the SAR.

We can guarantee that we will never break our international obligations. However, those who do it for many years, now realise that this causes even greater aggravation in the world community. Although it is not always demonstrated in public, most countries do not want such trend to continue. That is why some countries, which want to effect an external military intervention in Syria attempt to "drag through" a resolution containing a reference to chapter VII of the UN Charter providing for coercive actions with respect to violating countries. However, I must repeat that in this case it is the matter of an internal conflict without any reasons for intervention in favour of any party. We must make all opposing side to cease the warfare and sit at the negotiation table.

We work upon this subject with the Syrian Government, which assures us that it is prepared to agree with the other sides upon simultaneous and controlled cease of fire, while the opposition is strongly against such option. It wants the West and other countries to send their troops for the overthrow of regime in Damascus.

It does not mean that the existing world order and UN Charter are unable to protect the world against such excesses, but using such methods becomes increasingly "out-of-fashion". And this harms the reputation of those using such methods.

Question: Many people are much curious about BRICS development. There are even disputes whether it is a "negotiation platform" or a full-fledged "international organisation"? How would you assess the current position and role of BRICS and its specific members - Russia's partners - in the global affairs?

S.V. Lavrov: Strictly speaking, such association has not become - at least now - and full-fledged international organisation.

Alongside with that, we welcome the further expansion of the institutional component of BRICS though we don't consider it necessary to boost the process. Russia - as well as our partners in the BRICS Five - considers this format extremely important and believes that the cooperation in its framework is a key direction of Russian foreign policy. We stand for gradual transformation of such cooperation into multilateral partnership in a wide range of matters of world economy and policy. At the same time, we want to position BRICS as a new model of global relations going beyond one-dimensional schems like North - South or East - West.

The BRICS summit in New Dehli (29 March this year) adopted a final declaration containing fifty clauses and a specific action plan clearly evidencing the intention of the "Five" members to continue their united efforts. As for the desire of our partners to preserve the initial informal nature of communication within BRICS, we believe that those arguments are quite justified. The institutionalisation process may only progress to the extent of its natural maturity in accordance with the degree of preparedness of the members.

We have made a big progress in this matter anyway. There is a sustainable practice of annual summits - the next one is to be held next March in RSA. Following the example of the Eight and the Twenty, the institute of Sherpa and Sous-Sherpa. There is a mechanism of regular meetings between foreign ministers, head and responsible representatives of a number of other specialised offices. Mutual scientific cooperation has begun and projects are already being implemented in media, political science and a number of other fields, for example finance and banking sector. Detailed discussion of the ways and priorities of the future cooperation has commenced. In a word, the is quite intensive development.

Common long-term interests contribute to the objective coming closing of BRICS members. They include the desire to reform the obsolete financial and economic architecture of the world, adherence to principles and norms of the international law, rejection of policy based on force and dictation. In addition, our countries clearly have common economic and social problems and - to a certain extent - complementarity of our national economies. BRICS partners possess a valuable experience in the coordination of actions in international platforms, including UN, in the whole range of significant international policy problems. We believe that this practice should be continued and developed.

To sum it up, BRICS, which possesses 30% of land, 45% of population and 45% of global GDP under its "flags", has a great future.

Question: What do you think: do moral and policy or, more precisely moral and foreign policy, constitute the two categories which can coexist in principle? Moral seemes to have become a kind of rarity in the international life. What is your view of it?

S.V. Lavrov: I am convinced that moral and foreign policy not only can coexist. They go hand in hand. At least, this is what we proceed from in our activities.

Today, the matter of moral reference points is actual for international relations as never before. Now, global challenges threatening the very existence of the humanity come to the fore. As events of the recent years have demonstrated, those threats tend to aggravate and interweave and may be transferred from one region to another. Accordingly, the life insistently and objectively dictates the formation of general agenda in global affairs. However, I don't think that the true uniting of efforts and deepening of mutual trust is possible without defining the value basis of mutual actions in the international arena. Taking a wider view, we may say that the prospects of sustainable development of our civilisation are connected with the possibility to use the spiritual and moral foundation of united efforts of the global community.

It is extremely important to solve the problems the modern world is faced with on the basis of justice. As soon as moral gets lost, injustice occurs, ideas appear and those ideas do not contribute to the solution of problem, but rather hide it. We view the strenghthening of the moral foundation of international relations as a part of big policy.

It is evident that it is necessary to work at promoting universal, universally acceptable moral and ethical standards in international relations, their consistent democratisation and elimination of ideological stereotypes and double standards. Main world religions have always had a common moral denominator, including such principles as aspiration for peace and justice, honesty, mercy and industry. The key elements of traditonal values - the notions of dignity, freedom and responsibility - have been fixed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

The new poycentre system that is appearing now will inevitably embody all diversity and wealth of the cultural and civilisational picture of the world. It is evident that it will be hard for Europe to find the common language with other civilisation if it forgets its Christian roots and fundamentals of its identity.

We suppose that in modern conditions the accent should be made on clear understanding of and respect for the general moral norms. The landmark in this matter is the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Due to Deep Understanding of Traditional Values of the Humanity. We should promote inter-religion and inter-civilisaiton dialogue in a vigorous and unequivocal manner as Russia does. The situation in many respects depends on how it will be possible to activate the humanitarian potential of the global community, tune it to the elaboraiton of such action plan, which could universally affirm the concept of rapprochement of cultures and value systems on the basis of suvival principles, sustainable development and prosperity of the humanity.

Therefore, the conclusion is evident moral: is quite actual notion in the context of evolution of international relations. Without acknowledging the supreme "law of moral" it is hard to count on success of any efforts aimed at creating a sustainable, fair and democratic international system.

Certainly, the factor of armed power unfortunately remains important and we have to take it into account though it is not our choice. It is worth remembering the words by Alexander Nevsky (the one who knew how to achieve great military victories for the Russian land): "the God is in truth rather than in power".

13 September 2012