Interview of S.V. Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, with S.B. Brilev, Anchorman of Rossiya Television Channel Following the Address at the State Duma as part of the ‘Government Hour’, Moscow, 14 March 2012

Question: Sergey Viktorovich, what is your impression of communicating with the delegates?

Sergey Lavrov: I've liked it. I believe, it is a very useful tradition, we appreciate it. The invitations to the ‘Government Hour' at the State Duma where we can answer numerous questions as well as present our vision of the current situation are a good supplement to virtually daily contacts between the relevant committees of the State Duma and departments of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On the one hand, it efficiently helps satisfy the interest of deputies in foreign policy issues and some aspects of relations with particular nations. On the other hand, the nature of their questions enables us to realize the inner concerns of the State Duma. That is important to keep in mind as well.

Question: Some of the topics exceeded the competence of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a sense. One of them is immediate recognition of Scottish independence. Do you get embarrassed about such questions?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that it is a relevant question because a Scottish independence referendum will be held in the United Kingdom in 2014. Incidentally, a delegate inquired about the Russian position.

Question: Not just a delegate. It was Andrey Lugovoy who is sort of directly related to the British, isn't he?

Sergey Lavrov: Our position in regard to this issue is based on the international law. Everything is quite simple and clear here.

Question: You have surely read the joint op-ed by the U.S. President Barack Obama and the British Prime Minister David Cameron. It has a curious phrase – that the United Kingdom and United States are ready to support Kofi Annan's mission in Syria in order to perform the "transition of power" after B. Assad's departure. So, after all B. Assad is leaving, isn't he?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a somewhat inaccurate statement of the tasks assigned to Kofi Annan. We had a conversation immediately after his appointment as the UN/LAS Special Envoy on Syria. We met in Cairo on the eve of the meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and LAS member states and had a talk after his trip to Damascus.

Mr. K. Annan has delivered his proposals to the Syrian leadership. I can assure you that they do not contain the idea of B. Assad's departure. I think that it is the Syrians who are to decide on the future of Syria. Russia will support any arrangement resulting from the all-Syrian political dialogue between the government and all opposition groups.

Question: On the basis of the results of a constitutional referendum, Mr. B. Assad called a parliamentary election on the seventh of May. However, the referendum was ignored by the opposition. Is it correct to hold elections by virtue of a law boycotted by half a nation?

Sergey Lavrov: I understand you and see all complicacies. However, more than half of the population took part in the referendum. It is necessary to take into account the opinion of this group of people.

It seems strange that the political process goes on, whereas combat actions take place in cities where the governmental troops are fighting armed groups of the opposition. Beyond doubt, there are certain outrages. Undeniably, force is used disproportionately very often.

Question: Do you mean governmental troops?

Sergey Lavrov: Force is being used by both parties. On 11 March, there was a number of acts of terrorism in Syria: a bridge was blown up in Hama, Aleppo was the scene of assassination of a man widely known in Syria and adored by everyone, an Asian box champion. He was shot dead in his own car. There was shooting at government offices and administration buildings in Homs and other cities.

Of course, the situation in Syria is far not as simple as the black and white presentation some are trying to offer. Nevertheless, there is an alternative approach. The Russian side stands for using Mr. K. Annan's mission for the development of a monitoring mechanism that will provide for sending signals to all parties to the conflict. However, it is not only us who have to work in this situation. All those capable of influencing the armed opposition have to engage too, so that they simultaneously stop all combat operations and declare truce.

As the first step in this direction, Russia supports the introduction of daily two-hour ‘humanitarian pause' proposed by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It was also sought by Valerie Amos, United Nations Under-Secretary-General who recently visited Damascus and goes on with her efforts aimed at the improvement of humanitarian situation. Otherwise, we will have what we are having now.

One may not demand something from B. Assad without setting similar claims to his adversaries. The situation is very complicated and not because we support B. Assad's regime. I repeat that no one will disarm unilaterally. Everybody understands that. Thus, our proposal is to focus on bringing everyone to the conference table.

Question: This is a very important aspect. During your speech at the State Duma you said that B. Assad was not always submissive to Russian advice. Nonetheless, Russia has a direct contact with him. Does the American side have similar direct channels for contacts with the opposition? Bearing in mind that the Syrian opposition is something unknown, a thing in itself, sort of a conglomerate of Islamists, is it relevant to suggest that it is a purely American client? Who are they – the Syrian opposition?

Sergey Lavrov: Many of our western, American and Turkish partners obviously have direct influence on the political opposition.

Question: Are they inclined to listen to them?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot say that. There is probably certain influence, for if the oppositionists do not hear anyone at all, they will hardly succeed in strengthening their positions in the processes of shaping the future of the Syrian state.

It is another matter that in meetings with, for instance, B. Ghalioun and some other opposition leaders (by the way, we are soon expecting another group of Syrian opposition in Moscow) Russia tried to persuade the political opposition into dissociating themselves from those who were trying to bring the conflict to the military area, and from the armed gangs that perform provocative acts thus provoking a disproportional reaction of the government, which happens very often. However, today the opposition's activities are being to a degree militarized. Anyhow, the Syrian National Council headed by B. Ghalioun has declared that it is setting up a "military wing" to raise money for the procurement of weapons in order to continue fighting the regime.

Of course, if the events continue to develop this way, it will be hard to expect our appeals to the government to be accepted in so far as they relate to the cessation of fire.

Question: Last question about Syria. Before interviewing you I consulted some good friends and colleagues of mine and inquired about what, to their thinking, the European governments wanted. As a rule, they answered that they were essentially concerned about humanitarian reasons. As to the Americans, my European counterparts say they are far more interested in Syria as a link of a common chain with Iran which is the primary goal for the U.S. I will not develop this theory. After all, your official capacity does not allow that either.

I would like to ask you another question. Are my colleagues in printed press right stating that H. Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, has asked you to tell the Iranians, if not the Syrians, that it is their last chance, otherwise there will be a military strike?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, I never disclose my non-public discussions with my counterparts. C. Rice, the predecessor of H. Clinton, presented in an absolutely distorted light our conversation following the end of the war unleashed by M. Saakashvili, President of Georgia, when our military forces completed everything they had been ordered. C. Rice rudely distorted what we had discussed. For this reason, I will not comment on my conversation with H. Clinton. I can only say that I share your fears and the fears of some of your conversation partners that Syria may prove to be a prelude to very bad developments.

If someone violates the inter-ethnic and inter-confessional nature of the very complex Syrian state that has had a lot of dramatic events in its history, the consequences may prove to be unpredictable. It is obvious now that the current pattern has failed. Unfortunately, this is where the crisis evolving inside the Muslim world between the Sunnites and Shias may flood out. If the present-day structure does not collapse, the situation may change not only around Iran, but also around Iraq where the Sunnites feel offended and do not hesitate to talk about it.

Thus, certain decisions on Syria may set off very serious processes and everyone who may render a slightest effect on these processes must be fully sensible of their responsibility.

Question: How do you assess on a 1-10 scale the probability of opening hostilities around Iran, taking into account the current situation?

Sergey Lavrov: I have never been a juror at the show ‘Dancing with the Stars'. I am in no position to tell fortunes and, moreover, bias anyone this or that way by my forecasts.

Question: Shall one prepare for the worst or for the better?

Sergey Lavrov: It is necessary to prepare to work because everything depends on people. And diplomacy have to gain the lead here.

I would like to emphasize once again that we support what Mr. K. Annan is doing. We believe that the Syrian leadership must support his approaches without delay. We will expect the same from the armed and political opposition, since only after the obtainment of consent in principle to what the UN/LAS Special Envoy on Syria is promoting in his contacts with the Syrians we can launch the process of cessation of hostilities, to be followed by the initiation of an all-Syrian dialogue.

Question: Will the Syrian leadership otherwise lose the Russian support?

Sergey Lavrov: I repeat: we do not support the Syrian government. What we support is the necessity to start the political process. For this purpose, we first of all need a ceasefire. The Russian side will do its best for that, despite any decisions made by the Syrian government. By the way, we disagree with many of them.