Interview Granted by Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, to ITAR-TASS Deputy Director General Mikhail Gusman for ITAR-TASS News Agency, the Newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Rossiya 24 TV Channel

Question: Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama have set up a Russian-US Presidential Commission on Bilateral Cooperation. You and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are its focal points. The Commission is working in different areas. How would you rate its activities? Does it have potential? On what aspect of its work would you consider it right to concentrate?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: This is a unique mechanism – unlike previous such attempts, for example, the Chernomyrdin-Gore Commission, which dealt primarily with economic issues, it is dedicated to the entire spectrum of Russian-American relations. Within the twenty working groups, which fact alone speaks about the tasks, issues arising in the bilateral sphere are being discussed: military-strategic themes, the economy, high technology, innovation, combating terrorism and drug trafficking, cultural and educational exchanges. As part of one of the working groups there functions the subgroup on the media, which you head.

A serious and useful framework for dialogue and to achieve a better understanding of each of the designated areas has been created. However, the work is not limited to dialogue. In many working groups specific projects are launched, particularly in the areas of energy efficiency, high technologies, innovation and culture. The result is definitely positive. It helps build a constructive agenda of Russian-American relations.

As to the reserves, they exist. You should always strive for more than what has been achieved. Secretary Clinton and I as the coordinators will endeavor to dispose our colleagues towards active work and concrete results.

Question: Speaking of Russian-American relations in general, I had occasion to talk to all the co-chairs in different sectors on such seemingly complex topics as military cooperation. We talked to the recently resigned US Joint Chiefs of State chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and to Nikolai Makarov, the Russian co-chair and Chief of the Russian General Staff. And even on military cooperation: apart from the "sore" topic of missile defense, for which attempts are now also being made to find solutions, let us leave the MD topic for the military, do you think there are other "sore" themes in Russian-US cooperation, which we are now most worried about? How do you assess the current state of Russian-American relations?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I would rate them as relations of constructive and pragmatic cooperation. Constructive – because we strive together to tackle issues where our interests coincide, and where they can be brought to a coinciding position. We raise in a principled manner the issues on which we differ, but do not turn them into obstacles for all the rest.

On the credit side of the ledger I would place the achievement of a number of well-known decisions and arrangements. They are the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the ratification of the Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement (the so-called 1-2-3 Agreement), which opens up very positive prospects for Russia, the US and business circles of our countries, as well as opportunities for close and long-term cooperation between Moscow and Washington on the markets of third countries. Among the positive moments I will also mention the WTO bilateral market access agreement reached with the United States, and the entry into the concluding stage of multilateral negotiations in Geneva on this topic. Hopefully, with tangible US support promised by Obama, this saga will end happily in the near future.

The positives also include the new sphere of high technology and innovation, which was slightly hamstrung in the past years because of mutual doubt. Now, a working group on this issue has been set up. Several U.S. companies have come to Skolkovo and are searching for specific projects together with Russian partners. Previously, we did not observe that.

Problems, of course, exist. You've mentioned missile defense. This is a particular manifestation of the continuing philosophical differences.

Question: Phobias?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I would call them philosophical differences. Although phobias probably manifest themselves in some people's minds, they do not dominate the relationship between the administrations of Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev.

The differences are over how to conduct affairs in the modern world. The idea of a common indivisible security, with which the Russian President came up by proposing the appropriate Treaty, presupposed the need for such a system for everyone. Once both countries at the political level declared that we were not enemies, and would not try to strengthen the security of each of us at the expense of any other state, Medvedev suggested making it a legally binding principle and fixing it in the Treaty. We were asked what situations might arise. Missile defense is precisely this kind of situation: close to Russian borders, bases of interceptors are being created, radars are being installed. In our assessment, and deep conviction, this it is not done at all in the configuration that is required to deflect, as we are told, the threat from the south, from outside the Euro-Atlantic region.

Here there is a particular need for the indivisibility of security in a legally binding form. The American partners would have us believe that we do not need this, because Russia and the US are not rivals, and the system being created is not aimed against Russia. As military and political figures of the XIX century used to say, "Intentions change, capabilities are what matters."

These differences in philosophy, in the perception of the modern world are manifested in a number of questions. In particular, we concur with the Americans in values and goals: we support the rule of law and democratic values, consider the spread of nuclear weapons and of any type of WMD unacceptable, actively fight against terrorism and drug trafficking, and work on conflict resolution. The Americans are pushing at the national level in other countries, the principle of the rule of law and democratization. We agree that this principle should be the cornerstone for each state on the planet. It is also our belief that, in accordance with the UN Charter, the same principle should apply in international affairs. Here the United States does not agree with us; does not agree with that which, by and large, it signed up to when joining the UN. In situations of crisis and conflict in most cases, our Washington partners think it's correct to act by methods of sanctions and the isolation of countries which it doesn't like.

We don't believe that is the right path. It's necessary to resolve conflicts, disputes and crises through the involvement of all parties, whether it be the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, Iran's nuclear program, the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem or the crises in the countries in North Africa and in any other region. Such a philosophical problem in our relationship is there. We regularly discuss these issues in the terms in which we now mention about them. We strive through a common understanding, an understanding of the fundamental approaches in each particular question to move further than is possible today.

Question: In your opinion, as I understand it, the key word characterizing the Russian-US relationship is partnership. In recent years, your partner has been Hillary Clinton – a politician with a considerable biography, unusual for a US Secretary of State. Attention is riveted on her activities. How comfortable is it for you to work with her as a partner, interlocutor in talks? On the other hand, in our conversation with her, she complained: Sergey and I constantly run out of time. A nice phrase on the lips of a lady. How do you assess the cooperation with your American counterpart? And for what do you run out of time with her?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: First of all, it is comfortable and interesting for me with her. Hillary Clinton is a very experienced politician and a person with a broad vision and a desire to achieve results. There is no doubt that she firmly defends the interests of her country. But she is also tuned to achieve a goal with the understanding that this result will not be through unilateral concessions, but by finding a win-win compromise.

It seems to me from our communication that Hillary Clinton well understands the value of partnership with Russia to ensure the national interests of the United States in the modern world. Not everyone grasps this easily. There are politicians that support the idea of unification with China, of joint problem solving, as China is a major power. There are India and Brazil. Of all BRICS countries Russia has least significant economic growth. However, these people look at the present conjuncture of affairs and assess the situation on the basis of dry statistics, which, indeed, says something, and must be taken into account. But they lack the ability to look beyond the horizon. Hillary Clinton has this ability. Again, I am interested and comfortable to work with her, and I enjoy the communication.

With regard to the time factor of our relationship, the above agenda, namely, the Presidential Commission with twenty working groups, with reports – that is what we regularly discuss and have to approve for submission to the Presidents. It concerns the growing number of crises and conflicts; working together in the G8 and the Middle East Quartet; participation in the Russia-NATO Council, and the numerous other activities that take place with the involvement of Russia and the US, for example, in the AP region, under the auspices of ASEAN or the East Asia Summit – mechanism that the US and Russia joined this year. A simple listing of issues on our agenda explains why we run out of time. On the margins of EAS meetings, during the meetings in Moscow and Washington and the numerous multilateral forums that I mentioned, we always find an opportunity at least for an hour to sit down and see what the most current and controversial subjects of our dialogue require immediate attention.

There are bilateral issues that are addressed by the twenty working groups of the Commission. But there are also specific topics for the foreign affairs agencies. For example, Hillary Clinton was and remains an enthusiast for the conclusion of a visa facilitation agreement for Russians and Americans, especially for tourists and businessmen. This arrangement is already fixed on paper. The national procedures are being completed in Moscow and Washington. I hope that soon we will be able to announce its entry into force. This will be useful and pleasant for citizens of our countries.

Question: Don't know whether to sympathize or envy you, because during your eight years of service as Minister of Foreign Affairs your partners were ladies. Now it is Hillary Clinton, before her it was Condoleezza Rice.

If we evaluate the past half-century as a whole, who do you think of the US secretaries of state left the most visible mark on world politics and the diplomatic world? Once Mikhail Svetlov said just this phrase, "In the world there are many good poets, but I would like to have dinner with Pushkin." And with whom of the secretaries of state would you love to have dinner?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Besides Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, I worked with Madeleine Albright, however, when she was ambassador to the UN. After becoming secretary of state, she regularly traveled to New York and did not forget to offer to meet. A year and a half ago I talked with her, when she led NATO's Group of Wise Men to prepare the alliance's new strategic concept. I will not talk about my preferences, especially since it is difficult for me to compare the secretaries of state with whom I had the privilege to work. To these diplomats it's worth adding Colin Powell. I don't think it is right to give assessments. To dine, probably, is nice with any of them.

Question: Our program is dedicated not so much to the US Secretary of State as to such an institution of power as the State Department, the very name of which is different from traditional foreign ministries. How do you evaluate the importance of the Department of State in the American political machinery? Is there a difference between that institution and the traditional "foreign offices," a variety of which our Foreign Ministry is?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: I think there are many differences. For example, by American tradition the Secretary of State is the fourth figure in the country. And if something happens to the US President, Vice-President or Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Secretary shall act as head of state.

Second, under State Department control is a powerful propaganda machine – the Agency for International Development (USAID), a mechanism to assist foreign countries, which deals not only with awarding grants to projects in the field of economic development, but also with promoting social processes. Russia is now creating an Agency for International Development Assistance. I believe that states which have similar agencies and make them part of their foreign policy tools do the right thing as it is about grants, the provision of concessional funds for purposes that are intended to strengthen the position of the state in a country where such projects are being implemented. This is pure foreign policy. In Russia, as in many European countries, such functions are separated.

In the rest the US Department of State is a foreign affairs agency. This is the largest foreign ministry in the world. On the one hand, there is a plus, because such a huge staff allows it to carefully and thoroughly study every issue. On the other hand, there were quite a few instances where the Americans were the last to receive instructions from Washington. I often came across it while working at the UN. That was due to the large number of coordinating and analyzing units. Each system has its advantages and disadvantages. In this case, there is such a tradition. The US Department of State, of course, is an institution.

Question: We meet with you on the eve of the APEC summit in Hawaii, where the symbolic transfer of the baton from the US to Russia will occur. There you will have a meeting with Hillary Clinton. What do you consider it necessary to discuss with her?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: We try not to read out a report to each other on what has been done. We fix the reports of subordinates in relation to those issues which in our previous meeting we entrusted to them to study and solve. If all is done, we do not return to these issues and direct the efforts to further search for solutions to outstanding problems.

Among the issues that we routinely raise before our partners are, of course, those connected with attitude to the Russian citizens who in a number of cases have been detained by US law enforcement agencies in dubious situations and circumstances. These are situations where, in our opinion, the detention took place in violation of US obligations under various international conventions, laws of other countries (Thailand, Liberia, etc.). We were not warned about this.

Compared with global problems, this topic seems private, but for us it is of fundamental importance, because every citizen has the right to non-discriminatory and equal treatment in accordance with the laws of his country and international law. This topic is regularly addressed by us. During the July meeting in Washington with Hillary Clinton, we handed over to our American partners a whole list of questions that we would like to get answers to. At our meeting in September in New York the Secretary of State assured me that the answers would be prepared. It is our constant concern, and we regularly raise this topic in the same way as Americans care about their citizens when they find themselves in difficult situations.

Second, an exchange of views on missile defense will take place. Our deputies meet regularly and endeavor to continue the dialogue. But the question is not moving. The flat refusal to discuss anything that might limit US plans in this area (not just the four stages of the phased adaptive approach, designed for the period till 2020, but other stages as well), reinforces our conclusion that it won't be possible to come to an agreement. We will try to continue to negotiate. Our precondition: legal guarantees that the system will not be directed against our deterrent capability and the criteria that will allow us at any moment to check that this is really so.

Question: But what does the Russian understanding of "legal guarantees" actually mean? Is it about the United States adopting a special legislative act, an order of the President or something else?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: First of all, it should be a bilateral agreement or an agreement within the purview of the Russia-NATO Council, as the Americans are turning their system into a NATO one. The agreement should be signed, ratified and contain the legal guarantees that this is not against Russia. Otherwise, a situation will recur where we are called to trust the intentions while the capabilities being created are very different.

Question: With the two presidents' blessing you and Clinton pushed the "reset button." From our conversation it follows that the "reset" works and that the "button" is in the pressed state. What would you write on the next "button," which should replace the one currently operating?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: In American political culture it is customary to describe stages and processes in one intelligible word. I have repeatedly said that we do not consider our relations with the administration of Barack Obama "our reset." We experienced disappointment at how cooperation was built with the administration of George W. Bush. With excellent personal relationships between the presidents and between the heads of the foreign affairs agencies, in practice, work was being carried out against Russian interests. I want to be correctly understood: any US administration is bound to undertake actions that we will not like, because we are two big countries. But under George Bush everything took on the forms that were greatly disappointing, especially since the American actions followed the sincere desire of Russia to become a partner of the US in the fight against terrorism and other threats and challenges, and most importantly – in building a safer world, including by developing a joint missile defense. In 2007, Vladimir Putin pointedly said that if we succeeded in doing it together, then we could even move to an alliance in some questions.

Barack Obama became head of state after Bush. He is a man with a different philosophy, manners, worldviews, and with a desire not only to listen but also to hear others. Of course, not everything works. But the desire to understand others and find forms of realization of one's interests through multilateral mechanisms, including the UN and the formation of interest coalitions is preferable to unilateral actions.

The striving of the present US administration towards multilateralism, with all the positive achievements of this tendency is not realized easily. Many Americans have to abandon the ideals of the period when America could snap its fingers and the world would fall into line. But we are realists and understand that this line of conduct is accompanied by a desire to dominate in a common position. I think this very painful process for the US will take decades.

I recently met with Dimitri Simes, our former citizen, who now heads the Nixon Center in Washington and is actively engaged in political science. He had just finished a bipartisan report on how to deal with Russia in the context of US national interests. It's about the idea of creating a bipartisan consensus towards our country. He also brought a journal, "The National Interest," announcing on its cover the principal theme of the issue – "The End of American Influence."

It is not the first time that Americans have addressed this theme. With the emergence of other centers of economic growth and financial strength, with which comes political clout, the United States' share of the global economy is objectively becoming different. To tackle some of the issues it already does not have enough of its own resources and is in need of forming support groups. In the world such groups can only be created in a legitimate framework, primarily in the UN. The case of Libya shows that legitimatization of such collective actions will require increased scrutiny from now on. We will no longer tolerate an ambiguity that penetrated the resolution on Libya. Americans understand this.

It is in the interests of Russia and other states to seek to engage the US in multilateral cooperation on an equal basis, on the basis of, inter alia, respect for the rule of law not only at home but also in international affairs.