Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in front of students, professors and teachers of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University and his answers to questions during the following discussion, Astana, 12 September 2013

Dear Erlan Batashevich,

Dear Samat Islamovich,

Dear Alexander Vladimirovich,

Dear colleagues and friends,

I am very glad to be able to speak at the Eurasian National University, a new yet already authoritative centre of scientific thought in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Our cooperation in the area of education and science is developing successfully. I have been pleased to note that the University is cooperating closely with many Russian scientific and educational institutions in a range of areas, thus contributing to the strengthening of the common humanitarian domain. There are six branches of Russian higher education institutions currently functioning in Kazakhstan, and one of them – the Kazakh branch of the Lomonosov Moscow State University – was housed by your University. With the intensification of economic integration and international cooperation, contact between academic centres has become of significant importance.

In his last interview, Lev Nikolayevich Gumilyov, a prominent thinker and historian whose name is carried by your University and whose 100th birthday we celebrated last year, expressed an idea that our main value in our lives lies in our friends and sincere allies. The relations of strategic partnership and alliance between Russia and Kazakhstan are an invaluable heritage of our people, and we aspire to save and pullulate them as much as possible.

The bilateral partnership principles that we recognise are formalised in the Agreement on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 25 May 1992. In 2012 we extended it for another ten years.

At the order of President Vladimir Putin and President Nursultan Nazarbayev, work is being carried out to establish a Treaty on good neighbourly relations and the alliance of Russia and Kazakhstan in the 21st century, which we plan to sign this year. This document is a forward-thinking one, and it should bring a new level of quality to our cooperation, taking into account the modern realities and the agreements on the further development of economic integration that have been established in the context of the work on the creation of the Euroasian Economic Union.

Our countries have the longest land border in the world – more than 7600 km, hence the extent of our active interregional and cross-border links and our far-flung trade, and our economic and manufacturing cooperation embracing more and more new lines of interaction – foreign trade amounts to about 40% in the total turnover of goods. This year the tenth anniversary of the session of the Forum of Interregional Cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan will be held in Yekaterinburg, where government chiefs will be present.

The approaches that our countries adopt in face of the majority of the key problems of the modern world, match or are quite close. In particular, this concerns the assessment of the current transitional period of global development. This consists of the formation of a polycentric international system which must be fair, democratic, and reflective of cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world. We consistently stand in favour of the advancement of the rule of law and indivisibility with regard to security principles in international relations. This is especially important against a backdrop of attempts to settle crises through the use of force would be against the UNSC or the principles of the UN Charter, which would only lead to the disruption of international stability and a dangerous accumulation of chaotic elements in global affairs. We act in favour of collective efforts to find answers to global challenges, including problems concerning non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We think that the creation of a zone free of nuclear weapons in Central Asia is an important step. This will contribute to the development of security in the region, the main guarantor of which is the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

Moscow and Astana are at the centre of multidimensional integration processes within the CIS area. In our eyes the region has acquired the opportunity to unite on a qualitatively new, pragmatic and economically attractive ground around the Eurasian "core". The President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev was one of the founders of this project.

Here I remember again the words of Lev Humilyov, who thought that Eurasianism doesn't just have a promising future – it has no alternative in the long run, because it is a path to cooperation rather than confrontation, mutual understanding rather than conflicts, and equal rights of nations large and small rather than nationalism and chauvinism.

Vasily Klyuchevsky, a prominent Russian historian, once noted the significance of the popular psychological content of historical process. Under modern conditions, this means that the success of large-scale initiatives is possible only if the political will of the government goes hand in hand with widespread popular support. The increase of welfare, the creation of comfortable conditions for human life, and the extension of possibilities for business, creativeness, and innovations are the main focal points of integration processing in the CIS area within the Customs Union (CU) and the Common Economic Space of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Today this market unites 165 million consumers and is based on universal principles in accordance with WTO provisions, and is harmonised on the basis of many parameters, including macroeconomic policy, and rules govbrning competition, technical regulation system, transport.

Let me provide just a few figures. In 2011, the volume of mutual trade between CU member states increased by almost forty per cent; it increased by 8.7% last year and continues to grow this year. At the same time, the contribution of Kazakhstan to the total export of CU countries is dynamically growing. GDP increased by an average of 3.8%. New workplaces are being created –unemployment has reduced by almost 20%. The total investment climate is consistently improving, as do business conditions in the three countries, including those for small and medium business.

Our countries share the strategic goal of forming the Euroasian Economic Union (EAEU) by 1 January 2015. This envisages free movement of goods, services, capitals and work force without deductions and restrictions, and is expected to ensure maximum use of mutually beneficial economic ties in the CIS area.

We expect the EAEU to become the largest integration project, which will determine the future of not only the three countries, but also other States within the post-Soviet area which share the goals and principles of our integration and which are ready to assume proper liabilities. Kyrgyzstan and Armenia have already made announcements regarding it. Doors are open for other CIS countries as well. As you know, on the 31st May Ukraine signed a memorandum for the intensification of cooperation with the Eurasian Economic Commission.

The build-up of the Euroasian integration process is an objective reality. Here we cannot disagree with the opinion of Rashida Dati, Member of the European Parliament and ex-Minister in France, that it would be an historically significant mistake to confront the emergence of this new union: given the existence of certain dynamically developing Asian countries, it might become "a bridge to Asia" and a stabiliser of world equilibrium in Europe.

It is easy to break such equilibrium. The attention of the entire world is locked on the events in Syria. I will not repeat our assessments. I am convinced that you know them. We will continue to contribute to the achievement of a political settlement on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012, in accordance with which Syrians themselves must determine their future. Russia is undertaking active diplomatic efforts to prevent external military interference in Syria, which would lead only to further destabilisation in this country and the entire region. We welcomed the consent of the Syrian government to our proposal to agree with regard to the establishment of international control over chemical weapons storage places in this country, and their destruction and the full acquiescence of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I am convinced that there is a chance for peace in Syria; we should not miss it. Today we will have a substantial talk about it with the US Secretary of State John Kerry in Geneva.

It is understandable that a set of security-related threats in the Central Asia region is not limited to problems originating in the Middle East. There are many other challenges, including those related to the development of the situation in Afghanistan. They form the significance we attach to the establishment of peace and security in the Central Asia region in close cooperation with our Kazakh partners. We will continue the consistent development of the regional system of security and allied relations on a bilateral basis and within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the CIS and the SCO.

It is easy to explain our interest: the situation in the region directly affects the national security of Russia, and the welfare of the more than five million of our compatriots who live here. We are interested in ensuring that these five Central Asian countries develop in a stable way, without shocks. We want them to feel safe. In the event of negative events development, you and we will be those who will have to ensure security of our nationals, resolve refugee problems, fight manifestations of extremism and respond to other challenges.

The fight against international terrorism and trans-border crime, illegal drug turnover, and threats to use information and communication technologies to provoke instability and incitement of international, interreligious and social conflicts to the detriment of personal, public and State security are part of the focus of our attention. This is why it is so important to further strengthen the cooperation of law enforcement, border and anti-drug agencies of member states of this Organisation within the framework of the CSTO.

Over the last years, the CSTO has significantly build up its experience and potential for the successful resolution of multidimensional tasks in the area of security and the neutralisation of threats in its area of responsibility, including the Central Asia region.

At the same time, the CSTO is open to cooperation with external "players", including NATO; in particular with regard to the problems of Afghanistan. We are interested in combining our efforts in combating the Afghan drug threat. The stopping of illegal drug turnover is also a serious contribution in the counteracting of international terrorism, which receives financing from the distribution of drugs. The "Kanal" operation has been carried out under the aegis of the CSTO for ten years, and under it about 5.5 tons of drugs were seized last year. We attach great significance to regional cooperation within the framework of the SCO on the basis of the SCO Anti-Drug Strategy for 2011-2016 and the Action Plan for its implementation.

We consider the SCO a priority arena for a consolidated regional contribution to the Afghan peace process, and an advocate for strengthening the link between the SCO and the CSTO. Russia and Kazakhstan are active participants in the activity of the SCO and its Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS).

Last year, the President of Russia Vladimir Putin proposed the creation of a universal Centre for counteracting new challenges and threats to the security of member States of this Organisation on the basis of the SCO RATS. We expect such a decision on the development of the concept of the creation of such a centre, which is envisaged to become an effective security instrument, to be made at the SCO summit in Bishkek.

Neighbourly relations and multidimensional cooperation with partners are a priority task within Russian foreign policy – on the basis of principles of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect of the fundamental provisions of international law and interests of each other, of course. This is how we intend to continue to develop our relations with Central Asia states. Our ties are based on rich traditions and have ages-deep roots. We have good knowledge of the potential of this region, its rich natural resources and transit opportunities.

Today, the total turnover of goods of Russia with these countries exceeds 30 billion US dollars, with the value of Russian-Kazakh trade and economic ties amounting to 22.5 billion US dollars. There are about 900 functioning treaties and agreements, primarily economic in nature. About 5.7 million nationals have come to our country from Central Asia this year, but their money transfers to the region make about 12 billion US dollars per year.

We intensify our efforts of assisting their allies in the region. Over the last five years we have invested over 1 billion US dollars as donor contributions. Foreign liabilities were written off for individual countries of the region. In some cases we have supplied energy resources free of duties, thus actually subsidising them. Thousands of students and professionals from Central Asia are studying in our country at the account of the Russian budget.

At the same time, the percentage of the entire region in the total Russian turnover of goods amounts to only 3.6%. We recognise a common task of diversification of trade and economic links, improving conditions for business, and implementation of long-term projects in the interests of maximum benefit of the existing weighty potential of mutually beneficial cooperation.

In Kazakhstan they say that friendship is tested by faithfulness. Over the last years our countries have managed to establish exemplary relations, which are based on a mutual readiness to take into consideration each other's interests for the sake of a better future. My meetings in these days with the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, my negotiations with the Foreign Minister and other contacts with Kazakh friends, confirm a serious mutual disposition to continue along this path steadily.

Thank you for your kind attention. I am ready to answer your questions now.

Question: How do you assess the effectiveness of the G20 in resolving real problems related to the global economy? Isn't this structure part of another discussion forum?

Sergey Lavrov: As you know, the G20 has existed for a long time at the level of ministers and experts. We had meetings, which were almost unnoticeable until the crisis of 2008-2009 struck. The countries which became concerned with this problem considered it right not only to use this structure, but also to bring it to a higher level. This reflected the understanding that problems related to the global economy are not resolved in narrower formats. The G8 and the G7 (which still exist) don't seem to be sufficient for convincing and representative consideration of problems related to the global economy and for the establishment of proper recommendations.

The first G20 summit was held in 2010. Decisions were made there, including systemic ones related to the reform of the international monetary and financial system, so that the voices of the countries which are the drivers of economic growth and centres of financial power today were heard more clearly within this system, in particular in the International Monetary Fund. Thus, their rightful participation in decision-making would be ensured.

The G20 is certainly not an official organisation, but rather an informal club. It includes countries which make up about 90% of the global GDP. Let us not forget that there are 180 other member states of the UN, which depend on the turbulent processes of the global economy, whose interests need not be taken into consideration.

I will highlight two aspects. First of all, in the development of their recommendations, the G20 still assumes that they should not have direct legal effect, but should be approved by respective structures, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and, to a certain extent, the World Trade Organisation; and that they should obtain recognition at a universal scale in the UN as a minimum. The Russian presidency acted in this manner. We concentrated on the key problems of today – to develop measures which would contribute to the creation of favourable conditions for the growth of production investments in the global economy and to the creation of additional jobs. The plans, which were agreed in documents of the G20 summit in St Petersburg, will certainly be the basis of the discussions conducted in the structures adopting legally binding decisions. The very fact of voluntary consent to the leading economies of the world for the adoption of measures to ensure more transparency in the tax area (in order to cease the abuse of offshore zones) means that the members of the G20 intend to deal with such problems seriously.

I will highlight the second thing. The G20 cannot – and has no right – to present itself as some ruler of the destinies of the world. From the very beginning of the Russian presidency, when we developed the agenda and the programme, we not only agreed on it with participants of the Group, but also delivered a special presentation in the UN, and obtained an understanding of the entire global community. At the end of the summit in St Petersburg, our representatives made another presentation in the UN, in which they presented the results and established agreements, and answered questions of the UN member states. I repeat that it was a meeting between all countries, and not just those which are members to the UN.

I think that, in the future, we must act only in this way. Our practice was actively supported by countries which are not members to the G20. I hope that all further presidencies will do everything possible to keep the activities of the G20 transparent and take into consideration interests and special concerns of all other countries which are not members of this group. The practice of inviting to G20 summits representatives of different sub-regional and regional organisations, and those of simply large states of regions in which another meeting is being held, is but a contribution to this.

As you know, the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev participated in the work of the summit in St Petersburg with full rights as a representative of the leading country in terms of integration processes in the post-Soviet area. In my opinion, his participation was very valuable and helped us draw a very important line regarding the need to resolve problems related to the global economy through maximally effective promotion of integration processes, which must be open and congruent, rather than through the creation of closed blocs, within the framework of which some privileged conditions for their participants will be discussed and promoted to the detriment of other members of the global community. The participation of the President of Kazakhstan, as well as the line drawn by the president of the summit (President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin), helped participants to better understand the nature of integration processes in the Euroasian area and the significance which our integration has as a prospect in the healing of the entire global economy – it ensures an organic link between the Asian, Pacific and Atlantic European regions.

Question: Russia has been a member to the WTO for slightly more than a year. What, in your opinion, did it gain or lose during this period?

Sergey Lavrov: We do not need to discuss any losses or benefits with anybody. A balance is important here. For many years – it was probably a record negotiation period in light of the acquiescence of one country to the WTO – our negotiators, experts, professionals constantly leveraged this balance. There should be no winners or losers here, but rather mutual respect and the aspiration to find solutions which ensure mutual benefit. More than a year has passed, but only a short period is needed to understand what consequences it will have in the long term. We also analyse consequences for our agricultural sector, various industrial areas (aviation industry, etc.), banking, financial, and insurance sectors. Professionals note that panic forecasts have not been confirmed. Generally, we act calmly, without any breakdowns or slips. The more we participate in the WTO, the more we learn to compete, which is a revitalising factor for our economy.

Question: What is your assessment of the situation in the Middle East?

Sergey Lavrov: I am worried, probably just like all normal people. The events there constitute a serious crisis, and one which has gripped many countries. This is very dangerous from the point of view of the risks regarding the intensification of interethnic, interreligious contradictions – a split within the Islamic worlds. A part of this is threats, which – if not neutralised – will affect both our countries and many other countries adjacent to this turbulent region.

Analysts sometimes dispute that we need to impart some bright, unusual, unconventional idea to settle the crisis. However, all recipes are known – and all of them are included into the UN Charter. Above all, it is the respect of the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states, and non-interference in their internal affairs, and the settlement of each and all disputes only through peaceful, political and diplomatic means.

Look at the results of the last decades: the situation has become worse in each country where foreign interference has taken place. In Iraq – about which others prefer to remain silent, concentrating all attention on Syria – dozens of people die every day from terrorist attacks. This is terrifying! The country, which was announced a "winning democracy" 10 years ago after the intervention of the United States, now faces very serious internal problems – preservation of territorial integrity, ensuring the unity of all Muslims living in Iraq. The relations between Sunnis and Shiites is a topic which response regimes and groups wishing to blow up the Middle East invoke in their speculations not to manifest "troubled waters" there, but rather to create chaos and try to draw some benefits from it.

Libya is another example of unauthorised foreign interference setting the country decades back. Just the day before yesterday I met the Libyan Minister of Foreign Affairs of the transitional government, Mohamed Abdulaziz, in Moscow. Russia actively supports the efforts of the central authorities to ensure unity of the country and its management system, but these issues are far from solved. There are certain clans ruling in these or those regions of Libya which still do not wish to obey the central government. The division of countries and the risks of them losing territorial integrity poses a great danger. For instance, let us take the problem of Kurds. What will become of Kurds if their countries of residence start to break up? We need to think about how to preserve sovereignty in these countries, and their territorial integrity and ensuring as broad rights as possible for the minorities, including Kurds, Christians, etc.

Frankly speaking, I am surprised that others have started to discuss the need to use force in connection with Syria. Serious politicians cannot disregard the harmfulness of such intent, at least based on the examples of the events in Libya. All of us still have fresh memories of the tremendous negative consequences of the last intervention in Libya. My Libyan colleague emphasised the complexity of weapons control, because militants seized control of weapons from government warehouses. According to some estimates, these weapons have already illegally entered 12 countries in the region. The militants who fought in Libya also enter there, and since it is the only thing they can do, they start to kick up a fuss in Mali, Chad, Niger and other countries. Therefore, it is very important for us that everybody acts consistently and based on principles of international law. If all of us declared that international terrorism made up by drug traffic is the main enemy of civilised society, then we need to fight international terrorists wherever they are. We must not act depending on our preferences, likes or dislikes in each individual case. We should not act according to the below mentioned scheme: if I like an authoritative leader in one country, I will justify him using all efforts and close my eyes to his support of extremists, but if an authoritative leader in another country does not obey me despite his attempts to fight terrorism, I will overthrow him. There has to be some logic here – we should not act on the basis of the mentality of the 19th century and the "Cold War", when those who are your friends, will be my enemies and otherwise. There are no "good" or "bad" terrorists or extremists. To build one's policy in the Middle East on the basis of the principle that "if they promise support to me and deploy my military bases, all the rest is of no interest to me, and I will use any methods against those who do not wish to be friends with me" is a way to bring about where we almost are right now. We need to do everything to get out of this "storm" and to find a way to agree.

I expect that the Russian-American interaction we started in May (when we proposed a joint initiative to convene an international conference on Syria to implement the principle of the Geneva Communiqué in accordance with which Syrians themselves need to reach an agreement between the Government and the opposition regarding ways of further development of their country) will help us advance. I expect that the understanding established over the last weeks regarding the idea of gaining control over Syrian chemical weapons – which will remove the threat of strikes – will strengthen the chance for peace. Many people say that if Russia and the United States always acted jointly, many problems would be resolved much easier. So we try to act jointly, listen to such advices.

I will emphasise again: many things depend on Russia and the United States, but we will never achieve a result together if our initiatives are not supported by countries of the region and the wide international community. However, to receive such a support, our initiative must (I return to my initial thought again) be firmly based on principles of international law. And, in my opinion, the events of the last days are currently acknowledged in a correct way. I hope that today in the evening and tomorrow in Geneva we will try to justify the expectations of the global community.