Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and his answers to questions from the mass media during the press conference summarising the results of the negotiations with the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, Moscow, 17 September 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have conducted negotiations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French Republic, Laurent Fabius. According to established tradition, the talk was trustworthy, open, valuable and well-timed.

Our readiness to discuss each and all issues, both those in which we have prospects of mutually beneficial interaction, and those in which our current positions do not match, is an important part of our bilateral political dialogue.

We share the state's positive assessment of the prospects of Russian-French relations. We have a fairly tight schedule of bilateral contacts up to the end of this year, including regular sessions of the Council for economic, financial, industrial and trade issues (CEFIC) and the session of the Russian-French Commission on issues of bilateral cooperation at the level of heads of state. During these events, we will review the entire set of issues of advancement of economic interaction, as agreed between the presidents, with the emphasis on partnership in high tech, innovation areas, industrial cooperation and prospects of mutual entry into the markets of third countries.

We expect to hold another session of the Cooperation Council on security issues (two-plus-two format) with the participation of the Russian and French foreign and defence ministers in November in Moscow. We expect it to become another important event to compare our positions in all problems of key security and international relations.

The peoples of our countries have always shown interest in the history, cultural heritage of one another, that is why the cultural and humanitarian aspect of our bilateral cooperation is so important. In 2013-2015 Russia and France will see Seasons of theatre, cinema and fine arts. We are preparing additional events, of interest to both the Russians and the French for the next year.

We welcome the French measures to strengthen the position of Russian in France. We are studying the opportunity to open a Russian-French elementary school and a lyceum in Paris. Of course, we are grateful to our French friends for the attention they focus on the construction project of a Russian Orthodox temple and a spiritual and cultural centre in the French capital city.

We are doing everything possible together to further ease the visa regime in our bilateral relations as much as possible. We are grateful to them for their consistent position in favour of easing and finally eliminating visa requirements in relations between Russia and the EU.

We also have an area of cooperation such as the NATO-Russia Council. We are also grateful to France for its constructive stand aimed at looking for possibilities to combine the efforts of Russia and all the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Today we discussed the situation in the Middle East and North Africa in sufficient detail, with a special emphasis on the situation in Syria. We have no disagreements regarding final goals, which all of us wish to see for the Syrian people. Namely, to overcome bloodshed, restore peace on the basis of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity of the country, preservation of its laic nature, at the same time enforcing rights and liberties of all ethnic, religious and other groups. Moscow and Paris share these goals, although we do have some disagreements on how to achieve them. At the same time, we share positions that the rather acute problem of the elimination of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic must be resolved. We thank our French friends for their support of the Russian-American initiative, which will now be reviewed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and then we expect to adopt a UNSC resolution in support of the OPCW's decision. We also share the understanding of the need to convene the Geneva-2 conference as soon as possible for the purposes of full implementation of the agreements from Geneva-1, including the creation of a transitional governing body, which will undertake full executive powers based on mutual consent of all the Syrian parties.

When we talked about the situation in the region, we also drew the attention of our conversation partners to the fact that the problem of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was always the focus of our attention. This also concerns the long ago established, but still not implemented, task of creating a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East. The resolution of the problem of chemical weapons in Syria will be a big step towards the creation of such a zone. It is wrong to delay the official convention of such a conference. We will speak in favour of the convening of this forum as soon as possible.

Our positions also match in other different international arenas. As you know, we supported the actions of France in Mali in terms of deferring the terrorist threat for the entire Sahara-Sahel region. We look forward to the first session of this new mechanism, which was created within the framework of the two-plus-two format – I mean the bilateral work group to counteract new challenges and threats, which will allow us to coordinate our actions in combating terrorism, drug threats and organised crime in general, more closely. We proposed holding the first session of this group in Moscow. We hope that specific dates will be agreed in the near future.

Therefore, our discussions were interesting and valuable, like they always are in our relations with Laurent Fabius and our French friends, in general. Good leads for the future were created, including in respect of further coordination of actions on the Syrian crisis. I repeat that despite our disagreements on tactics we share an understanding of the tasks to be resolvedfinally.

I am grateful to Laurent Fabius for our good collaborative work.

Question: How do you comment on the evaluation of the UN expert report, in particular, the statements that this document fully confirms the guilt of Bashar al-Assad's government in the organisation of the chemical attack (the 21 August in Ghouta)?

Sergey Lavrov: The UN experts had no mandate to determine who is guilty. This does not depend on them. This mandate was issued by the UN Secretary-General. It has not been completed yet, and the experts need to return to Syria to investigate the incidents of March near Aleppo and in other parts of Syria in other periods. We think that the reports about uses of chemical weapons after the 21 August, namely on the 22, 24 and 25 August must also be investigated. The inspectors are supposed to do it, and then they will draw up their final report on this mission.

As to yesterday'sreport, it is devoted to one specific episode. Many countries wished that the inspectors stop their mission and prepare a report only on this particular case of use of chemical weapons on the 21 August. We were not against such an extraordinary approach. The report proves that chemical weapons were used. We asked the questions we have in the UN Security Council. There was no answer as to the origin of the missile – factory or artisan-type. There are no answers to other questions, which we asked, as well.

I will repeat, the report should be studied not in isolation, but together with all the evidence the internet and the mass media are full of, including the evidence presented by nuns of the nearby monastery, a journalist, who specifically visited this region, talked to militants and received information that somebody brought them some armaments from a foreign country. There is also an open letter from ex CIA and Pentagon employees to the US President Barack Obama, in which the events of the 21 August are described as staging.

We want these events (of the 21 August) to be investigated without prejudice, objectively and professionally. We have serious reason to believe that it was a provocation. Some of our partners categorically state that only the regime could use chemical weapons – as you have mentioned in your question. However, the truth must be found. It will be a quick asset ratio for further work of the UNSC: either we fly to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, when somebody states that the regime or the opposition used chemical weapons, and play on the emotions, which are absolutely unacceptable, when serious decisions are being made; or we rely on professionals, who must study each episode and each report thoroughly and without prejudice and report the final picture to the UN Security Council.

Question: What are prospects and the fate of Geneva-2, if the stands of Russia and France do not match?

Sergey Lavrov (answers after Laurent Fabius): First of all, I can say that Syria is not unique in not answering questions regarding the possession of weapons of mass destruction, for a long time. The main thing is that Damascus has finally acknowledged this, and, even more important, has acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention without any reservations. Even more than without any reservations. According to normal procedure, the Convention would be applicable to the Syrian Arab Republic as a new member, 30 days after application. Syria requested application of the Convention immediately and expressed its readiness to fulfil all its liabilities under it. We welcome this.

As I have already said, we need to view it also in the context of the implementation of the task on the creation of a Weapons of mass destruction free zone in the Middle East, which was set three years ago by the entire international community. I am convinced that current dynamics, resulting from that agreement, will allow us to improve the atmosphere for the implementation of the initiative to convene the Geneva conference, for the purposes of full implementation of the agreements contained in the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012.

On the 13 September, we had a meeting with the US Secretary of State John Kerry and the UN/LAS Special Envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi in Geneva. We share an understanding with France on the issue of holding such a conference. I will say more, this June at the G8 summit in Lough Erne, when we discussed the topic of Syria, the President of the French Republic Francois Hollande offered that the G8 proposes the initiative of announcing a specific date for the convention of such a conference to apply pressure on all its potential participants so that they stop stepping aside from this event. The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin supported this proposition of Francois Hollande, but some other G8 members considered it to be inappropriate.

The Russian party is ready to announce the date even today or tomorrow, since we are convinced that the Syrian Government has already announced its readiness to send a delegation. This delegation has been announced. The main thing now is to make the opposition act in the same way.

We value the efforts undertaken by our American partners, colleagues in Europe and in the region, which have a decisive influence on the National Coalition, whom they consider the main and only opposition movement. However, these efforts still fail. The coalition was hostile to the Russian-American proposition to eliminate chemical weapons in Syria through mechanisms of the Convention, because they expected the problem would be resolved through military intervention. They were disappointed that there was no intervention, and the issue was transferred to a purely political and legal plane.

In our opinion, such a stand is counterproductive. Those, who influence the coalition, who created and continue to strengthen it, are certainly responsible for it, as well as for ensuring the participation of the opposition in the Geneva conference. We discussed this task with Laurent Fabius. We have matching positions that we need to carry out as soon as possible to push all the Syrians towards the achievement of joint consent on the creation of a transitional governing body, which would exercise full executive powers, as is written in the Geneva Communiqué.

We face the problem of personalities, as the opposition has announced many times. However, Syrians themselves must agree. The more frequently and louder we hear from different capital cities, including from Europe, countries of the region, Washington, statements that Bashar al-Assad, President of the Syrian Arab Republic, is a "criminal", that "there is no place for him on earth", but "his place is in the International Tribunal in the Hague", the more inexorable the coalition, pretending to represent the interests of the entire Syrian people, becomes. The more complicated it is to force the coalition to fulfil the Geneva Communiqué through the convention of a new conference, now with the participation of Syrian parties. I repeat, we have common goals, while our methods are still not perfect. We need to continue our work.

Question: Is Russia ready to vote for the forceful resolution of the UN Security Council under Chapter VI or VII of the UN Charter?

Sergey Lavrov: It is an abstract question. We need to talk about the task the international community now faces rather than about any resolutions under Chapter VI, VII or any other. As I have said together with Laurent Fabius, the task is to holdthe Geneva-2 conference. Our key task is to implement the plan of liquidation of Syrian chemical weapons.

According to known reasons, we speak in favour of full implementation of the Russian-American initiative. We understand that other countries were not part to this agreement, however, the US Secretary of State John Kerry and I agreed to actively promote the approaches, which were agreed on the 12-14 September in Geneva. We discussed it today with Laurent Fabius. I have felt that France like many other countries (as our foreign colleagues report) is ready to support such approaches. The proposition primarily consists in the preparation of a draft decision of the OPCW Executive Committee by Russia and the United States, which will state procedures, methods, deadlines of events for the elimination of chemical weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, as a priority step. The OPCW is a professional organisation. Considerations of Russian and American experts regarding our general vision of such a decision are included in the documents, which were approved in Geneva. These considerations still wait to be translated into an understandable, clear and implementable legal language, of course. Russian and American experts, OPCW specialists will prepare this draft and submit it in the near future.

The second part of the Russian-American agreements consists in the approval of the decision made by the OPCW Executive Committee by the UN Security Council, as well as approval of additional measures on the issues outside the competence of the OPCW, primarily security issues of experts' work.

In accordance with generally accepted practice, the host country (the accepting country, the government of the country concerned) should ensure the safety of the inspectors' work. By the way, in our joint statement with John Kerry we mentioned that other Syrian parties – i.e. the opposition – are also responsible for the safe work of those who will come to eliminate chemical weapons. It is also clear that additional steps are required, because storage places, which will be determined at the first stage of expert work, will require a certain international presence. I am convinced of it. Russia is ready to participate in the event to ensure such security around the perimeter of the regions, where experts will carry out their respective work.

Probably, this is all. The UNSC resolution, envisaged to approve the decision of the OPCW Executive Committee, will not be adopted under Chapter VII. We stated this clearly in Geneva, and the document we approved has no mention of it. However, the resolution will indeed include the liability of the Security Council to regularly control the course of the implementation of the decision of the Executive Committee of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. If we receive other reports about refusal of cooperation, impeding the work of inspectors by one or the other party, reports (Lord forbid!) about the use of chemical weapons by anybody, the UNSC will certainly review such a situation, to find the truth as soon as possible, to understand, whether this information is just a provocation (we have had many of them lately). The purpose of such reports is to provoke external intervention. However, convincing data is available, the Security Council must take measures against breaches – and such actions will indeed be carried out.

I will mention, that the Russian-American document specifically highlights that we wish to emphasise the opportunities encompassed in the Chemical Weapons Convention, in particular in Article VIII. It envisages that in the event the OPCW faces difficulties in its work for the elimination of chemical weapons in any country, this Organisation has the right to turn to the UNSC. Therefore, this link between the professional work of inspectors, who will feel "on ground" how things are going on, and the UN Security Council, which will control the course of their work and receive regular and prompt information from them (if any problems occur) on the current situation, guarantees a sufficiently reliable legal mechanism for tracing the entire process.

Question: Could you comment on the information according to which yesterday'sreport by the UN experts contains a passage that the chemical weapons ammo, which hit Ghouta on the 21 August, was delivered using a Soviet missile.

Sergey Lavrov: I saw a picture, where we can see an inscription in Cyrillic alphabet on the ammo.

So many different weapons from Soviet and recent times are "scattered around" in this region. The weapons, which were supplied during the conflict in Libya, despite the unilateral UNSC embargo for the supply of weapons to the country, have "been distributed" all over North Africa, and may even be outside it. It seems they may be found in Mali, the Central African Republic, Chad and Mauritania.

We advocate the strictest control of arms trade. We try to put a stop to the illegal, non-licensed production of Soviet-type weapons, which continues in many countries. It is hard, because many countries, including members of the EU and NATO evidently see a profitable business in it, and do not wish to agree on non-licensed production of old Soviet weapons. We will try to accomplish it.

As to the specific case you asked about, as I have already told you, we need to study all the facts, including the evidence of persons, who personally visited the region of these events.