Speech by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and his answers to questions from the mass media during the press conference summarizing the results of the negotiations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants of the Republic of Lebanon, Gebran Bassil, Moscow, 24 April 2014

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We have conducted constructive and businesslike negotiations with my colleague, Gebran Bassil.

Russian-Lebanese ties have an age old history. Today we have stated with satisfaction that cooperation between Russia and Lebanon, including its trade and economic component has noticeably improved in the last years. We discussed ways of further deepening our comprehensive interaction. Prospective areas of joint work include the promotion of projects in the area of transport and energy, including the participation of Russian companies in the exploration of hydrocarbon deposits, the build-up of interaction within the framework of the acting agreement on military and technical cooperation, primarily, within the framework of the reinforcement of the ability of the Lebanese Army and law enforcement agencies to fight terrorist threats, as well as the extension of humanitarian exchanges, which have a rich history.

Russia confirmed its principled position supporting sovereignty, territorial integrity and the unity of Lebanon. We consistently speak out against any attempts to interfere into internal Lebanese affairs, which will cause destabilisation of the situation in the country and the growth of intersectarian tensions.

We discussed the situation in Lebanon. Russia is observing the events in this friendly country closely. On the eve of the election of a new president by the Lebanese parliament, we expressed a hope that these elections will be successful (the first round of them has already been held), permitting all state bodies to function effectively and consolidating the Lebanese community.

I repeat that we will support important efforts of the Lebanese Army, law enforcement agencies, which have undertaken important efforts lately to make order in Tripoli and in the north of the Beqaa Valley to counteract jihadists.

Russia will further continue to actively participate in the work of the International Support Group for Lebanon, which should mobilise extra aid from the international community, the aim of which is to reinforce power bodies, army, law enforcement agencies and overcome acute social and economic problems, which have significantly aggravated as a result of the inflow of large numbers of refugees from neighbouring Syria. Lebanon has provided asylum to over a million Syrian refugees in its land, which make up one forth of this country's population. Of course, such numbers create a lot of problems. We assured our partners that Russia will continue providing humanitarian aid to Lebanon. To resolve this problem, we will provide assistance in a more systemic approach as part of the international community for this quite complicated situation.

We share the idea that this situation can be drastically changed, if violence is stopped in Syria. The internal conflict in this country is the main cause for the exodus of refugees. We agree that there is no alternative to a political and diplomatic settlement of the Syrian crisis on the basis of the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012. For these purposes, we support the renewal of inter-Syrian negotiations, the third round of which should take place as soon as possible. Its agenda was in fact agreed, and we would not like to delay this question. An important task is to prevent Syria from turning into a place of international terrorism and extremism.

We discussed other topical regional problems, including the efforts to promote the Middle East Peace Process. This issue is also directly related to Lebanon, taking into consideration the large numbers of refugees from Palestine moving to the territory of the Lebanese Republic.

I am satisfied with these negotiations. I anticipate succession in our relations and for the continuation of our contacts in the interests of promoting our ties in all areas.

Question: Please comment on the results of the first round of voting on the candidate for the Lebanese presidency. In your opinion, what qualities should the future president have to deal with the challenges faced by Lebanon and the region in general?

Sergey Lavrov: This is Lebanon's internal affair. The Lebanese Republic is a complicated, multi-sectarian and multi-ethnic country. The structure of the Lebanese state, which is formalised in its constitution, must unconditionally be respected, primarily by the Lebanese and all the states, which are interested in the peaceful life and welfare of the people of this country. The procedure of the election of the Lebanese president reflects the needs of the Lebanese community and its state order. We have no personal preferences.

We are convinced that the decision by the Lebanese parliament will correspond to the interests of its people, will correspond to the unity of all the nationals around one national leader, and will contribute to the stabilisation of the situation and bring about a solution of the problems faced by Lebanon.

Russia will work with any leader of this country, who will be chosen by the Lebanese parliament on the basis of their constitution. Whoever the president is, we expect him to be interested in the continuation of our good, friendly relations to ensure succession and deepening of our historical ties.

Question: What steps should be undertaken in the Syrian conflict by key players and the world community to give a new impetus to the peaceful settlement of the Syrian conflict?

Sergey Lavrov: The main thing is to stick to the agreements formalised in the Geneva Communiqué of 30 June 2012 rather than attempting to interpret them in an unfair way, refuse to accept absolutely unrealistic requirements and preconditions and to accept the reality, which is as follows: this conflict has no armaments-based solution, it has only a political and diplomatic solution. This was the purpose of the conference in Montreux, which gave a start to the Geneva-2 process. Russia as one of the sponsors of these negotiations is convinced that artificial delaying of the convention of the third round of Geneva-2 is counterproductive. We believe that this round should be organised as soon as possible. In response to sceptical affirmations that this is senseless and invaluable, we say that we have no right to give up until the format of Geneva-2 has exhausted itself. This is our position. Those, who are blocking this process, assume great responsibility. By coincidence or probably, for a reason, those who are against the third round of Geneva-2 are rather indecisive in their actions to stop the terrorist threat, which is not only growing in Syria, but creates risks for the entire region.

I will again remind that the word once given should be kept in the same way as the agreement of the G8, which was reached last year at the summit in Northern Ireland, that terrorism is the main threat in the Syrian conflict, but government and the opposition should combine their efforts to fight it by collective methods. Russia as a participant of these agreements supports such an approach, and we all have grounds to say that the Syrian government is ready to support it. It is up to those, who signed the declaration by the G8 leaders and have a decisive influence on the opposition.

Question: The Fatah and the Hamas reached an agreement yesterday. How do you see further settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict taking into consideration yesterday's statement by the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that the President of the Palestinian State, Mahmoud Abbas, should choose whom he would cooperate with: the Hamas or Israel?

Sergey Lavrov: I also heard the statement by the United States, which was disappointed about the agreement about Palestinian unity and said that "it was reached in an inappropriate time". There are quite weird assessments. Any normal person believes that unity of people must always and unconditionally be welcomed and supported. We have always spoken in favour of such a resolution of the old problem of the Palestinian division. We are convinced that without restoration of Palestinian unity any agreements, which can be reached between Palestine and Israel, will not be sustainable. I am convinced that if the decisions, which were announced yesterday are implemented, the Palestinian delegation will work with Israeli partners more responsibly and effectively. I do not think that a single Palestinian delegation will be contrary to Israel's interests. On the contrary, the decision, which can be developed at these negotiations, will be taken in a more responsible way and will be better preserved and sustainable. This corresponds to the tasks put by the international community when it appealed for a comprehensive Middle East peace process.

As to the assessments heard from Washington, even if somebody pursues any personal goals, which are not truly related to the specific conflict, in terms of diplomacy it does not seem right to doubt national unity and speak about this. If we talk about other examples, where national unity is required, we can remember Ukraine. On the 21 February an agreement was signed by three leaders of the coalition, who committed a coup d'état. This agreement was also signed by the foreign ministers of Germany, Poland and France. The first point of this agreement states that a transitional government of national unity should be formed. On the next day, this agreement was broken by those, who signed it, and there was an anti-constitutional coup d'état. Instead of the sequence included in the agreement of the 21 February which called for a national unity government, a constitutional reform with parallel disarmament of illegal formations and an organisation of elections on the basis of a new constitution, it was announced that there will be no national unity government, the constitutional reform was withdrawn, and the idea that presidential elections would not be held at the end of the year and not on the basis of a new constitution, as it was agreed the day earlier, but on the 25 May, was moved to the fore. The protection by the United States and our European partners of the actions of the authorities, which committed this coup d'état and trampled on the agreement, which was signed by them in presence of Europeans, in fact, means that the United States does not support the creation of a national unity government in Ukraine as a transitional body, which could take into account the interests of each and every Ukrainian region and ensure work on a new constitution with further organisation of presidential and parliamentary elections on the basis of this constitution, approved by people.

Excuse me for this insight into the Ukrainian topic. When I answered your question, I found similarities which included other examples of the attitude of our partners to the idea of national unity.

Question: Does the non-implementation of the agreement of the 21 February and the Geneva agreement of the 17 April mean the end of diplomacy? How to break this "vicious circle"? Maybe Russia or the United States takes the initiative and will be the first to announce the need to disarm? The South-East is considered to be pro-Russian. Probably it is wise for Russia to state this more clearly in the South-East of the country, which is considered pro-Russian, but the United States should do this in Kiev and in the West. How do you see the exit from this situation?

Sergey Lavrov: I would not call it a "vicious circle", which is usually associated with the problem of the "hen and the egg" – which existed earlier. In this situation, there are no questions regarding what existed earlier. I already mentioned the Agreement of the 21 February, which was broken as a result of a coup, on the day following the day of its signature, as an example. After that we saw the evident inability of those who seized power to achieve elementary order in Kiev and in the country and to take control of extremists. The disarmament of illegal armed formations, which was proclaimed on the 21 February, did not start, but, in fact, the authorities started to support these formations, which started to "play the tune" in the country, started to connive at the Right Sector and similar ultranationalists. As I have already said, the constitutional reform was pushed to the side-lines, but threats, including from the Verkhovna Rada, addressed to the Russian-speaking population, Russian language, Russian culture, Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, started. There were arrests of participants of protests for their political views, there was an inability to protect candidates for the Ukrainian presidency, who were beaten, who lost their guards and who had their access to the mass media restricted. When in response to all this a wave of popular indignation rose up in the South-East, people refused to recognise illegitimate Kiev authorities, or accept the oligarchs-governors, who were appointed by Kiev, and started to create their own popular local government bodies, they were called terrorists and the start of a counter-terrorism operation using army against civilians was announced. The current events in Slavyansk and the events at night in Mariupol are the result of irresponsible politics, which is based (I repeat) on ultranationalist, extremist and mainly neo-Nazi groups, which had to be disarmed according to the Agreement of the 21 February.

We believe that the main condition for Ukraine's exit from this crisis is to stop the illegal actions by the Kiev authorities, who should admit their responsibility for everything written on the 21 February in Kiev and on the 17 April in Geneva, where it was stated clearly that there should be no violence, but the use of the army against people, including support for radical nationalists is an unacceptable form of violence. I think that it is a criminal decision. These agreements also state the need to disarm national radicals, they contain requirements to fight terrorism, religious intolerance, anti-Semitism and to start a true, comprehensive and inclusive national dialogue.

Nothing of the kind is happening. We have no doubts that the first steps should be made by Kiev authorities. This is absolutely undoubted. To step aside and attempt (as our western partners do) to present the case, that angels rule in Kiev, who do everything right and without any mistakes, is simply incorrect, as well as it is incorrect to accuse Russia of interference into the events in the South-East without presenting any facts. As I have already said, I have no doubts that our US partners can influence people, who announced themselves as the authorities in Kiev. The counter-terrorism operation was announced immediately after the behind-the-scene visit of the CIA's Director, John O. Brennan, to Kiev. The Easter pause, which was announced by Kiev within the framework of this operation, was interrupted immediately after the visit of the US Vice President, Joseph Biden, there, who held a meeting with Ukrainian leaders, in fact, in the format "heads of state at an internal meeting": he was sitting at the head of the table, but Ukrainian representative sat at his sides.

I am convinced that our US colleagues can and must use all their influence to make the current Kiev authorities not just become aware of, but also implement their responsibility for all these events. We are in favour of an immediate start of de-escalation steps. The term "de-escalation", which is brought to the fore by our western colleagues, means that there was escalation before this, the beginning of which on the 22 February I described to you. In parallel to the pull-out of the Army, taking control of the Right Sector and disarming of its militants and similar persons, a constitutional reform should also be started. And it is not enough to just say that the Kiev authorities invite representatives of regions to a wide dialogue, but it is necessary to officially convene something like a round table or a constitutional assembly or to deal with combining the requirements of regions and reaching a compromise. This is the key for the Ukrainians to determine their fate themselves and reinforce their national identity without outside dictation. Otherwise, each newly elected president, as it has already happened, will have to adapt the constitution "to himself". This took place each time during the last cycle of elections in Ukraine. This is the recipe of breaking the "vicious circle". I do not see another way out.

Question: Does Russia support any candidate for the Lebanese presidency?

Sergey Lavrov: I have just answered the question of your colleague about the candidates to the Lebanese presidency. I have nothing to add.

Question: There are Syrian refugees in the territory of Lebanon, who are a heavy burden on the economy of this Republic. Keeping in mind that the situation in Syria will hardly get better in the near future, what steps can be made to resolve the issue with the growing inflow of refugees from Syria to Lebanon?

Sergey Lavrov: Today during negotiations with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Lebanon, Gebran Bassil, we mentioned the problem of refugees. We are convinced that sending of humanitarian aid for Syrian refugees in Lebanon, whose numbers are constantly growing, is not a solution of this problem. There are international norms and standards related to the treatment of people, who were torn away from their homes and became refugees or displaced persons. Of course, we need to take into account the specifics of the country and territory, to which they move, in each particular case. This problem requires a systemic approach rather than the simple sending of food, medications, tents and other humanitarian aid.

We believe that in this case, like in any other international issue, we should primarily respect the interests and approaches of the interested state – in this case the Lebanese Republic. We agreed with Gebran Bassil that Russia jointly with other international players would be ready to constructively and seriously consider the approaches, which the new Lebanese government plans to formulate for a more complex resolution of this problem, taking into consideration the specifics of the Lebanese community and the regional situation.