"Reboot cannot last forever"
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on relations with the United States and the situation in the worldRussian Foreign Minister SERGEI LAVROV told Kommersant correspondent ELENA CHERNENKO why Russia was recently expelled from the United States Agency for International Development, what was the fate of the "reset" and what is fraught with Western support for the "forces of change" in the Middle East.
- In your speech at the current session of the UN General Assembly several times the thesis was made about the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states. You talked only about events in the Middle East? Or is it important for Russia itself?
- Required. I will not even try to be particularly original, because this is not my notion: the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is written down in the UN Charter. It is not needed in order for Russia to feel somehow better or worse. It is based world order. This is a fundamental position, the fundamental principle of international law. If we allow to violate or easily relate to the violation of this principle in relation to a country that is unable to defend itself, a chain reaction will occur. The world will simply plunge into chaos. This trend we are already seeing in the Middle East.
- The thesis of interference in internal affairs was also sounded when it was announced that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) ceased its activities in Russia. What exactly are angry or upset Moscow in USAID work? Why USAID nevertheless expelled?
- We are not angry and nothing upsets. Any state has the right to make sovereign decisions regarding who and in what forms to cooperate with it. We had an agreement from 1992 of the year, on the basis of which USAID activities in the Russian Federation were deployed. Can you imagine what it was during the period, 1992-Year? The country was in a disassembled state, and then, probably, it was not very attentive to the documents that were signed with foreign partners. The agreement, which became the basis for USAID, was totally discriminatory towards Russia. It provided American partners with rights that in a different situation a normal state would hardly have granted. No oncoming traffic in our direction.
- A year ago, we denounced this agreement. The American side took it normally. After the denunciation, the legal basis for the activities of USAID in the territory of the Russian Federation disappeared. The reasons for which we asked to complete this activity already in practical terms, were published in a recent statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is no legal basis, there is no need for us to receive grants, since the country itself has already become a donor. And for the activities of NPOs, the Russian state itself allocates substantial funds; they have recently been commissioned by President Putin threefold.
Well, among other things, there were dubious projects that USAID carried out without coordination with the Russian side and which had a clear political tint.
- Which for example?
- In particular, projects in the North Caucasus, where USAID was not very selective in choosing partners. There's a very questionable people were recipients of grants. We spoke about this to the Americans more than once.
I want to say one simple thing: there are no obstacles for the noble goals that were pursued by USAID activities in Russia to continue to be realized. Whether it's assistance for the disabled and children, educational projects, other projects of social properties. All this money the American government can safely redirect through other channels. USAID is part of the State Department. And there are no obstacles for the same amounts to be channeled through other channels to the organizations in accordance with the new law on NGOs. Those involved in social programs, health issues, support for people with disabilities and the like should not even register as foreign agents. This is all fixed in the last law.
Therefore, I do not think that there are objective reasons for such a nervous perception of this situation. I didn’t see any nervousness in Hillary Clinton either in June, when I first warned her about it, or in Vladivostok, when we met with her on September 8 and when I said so again that they should prepare in advance for the closure of USAID activities in Russia from October 1.
It is worth noting that the agreement denounced by us provided the right for USAID employees to work as diplomats at the US Embassy in the Russian Federation. And they were not a dozen, as I understand it. We do not ask them to leave. They can remain, but let them perform the functions already provided for by their diplomatic status. Our cultural centers abroad do not have such immunity and privileges. In rare cases, only the head of the cultural center has a diplomatic passport if the host country agrees to this. All others work without diplomatic status.
On the whole, I want to say: we just want to bring the legal basis of our cooperation and relations with foreign states in all areas - economic, political, cultural, humanitarian, in the field of civil society contacts - in line with the principles of equality and mutual respect.
- Does the same fate not threaten European funds operating in Russia? German, for example?
- Not. These funds operate on the basis of intergovernmental agreements, verified and mutually acceptable, based on the principles of reciprocity and equality. I see no reason to try to extrapolate this situation to other cultural centers and countries. Americans have no resemblance to the Goethe Institute, the Cervantes Institute, the British Council, Alliance Francaise. As I said, USAID is part of the State Department. The same institutions that I have listed, although they are also financed by the state, are independent structures.
- There is an opinion that now, when the Russian Federation has decided to terminate the activities of USAID on its territory, the United States will certainly accept Magnitsky’s law introducing visa and economic sanctions against a number of Russian officials. And that those who wanted at the price of this law to ensure the abolition of the Jackson-Vanik amendment discriminatory towards the Russian Federation will suffer from this.
- This is an absolutely wrong opinion. The law named Magnitsky will be adopted in any case. And no, this is not the price for canceling Jackson-Vanik. Republicans, and indeed many Democrats in Congress, have publicly declared that the law of the name Magnitsky is necessary in itself. At the same time, many supporters of this law say that Russia is not worthy of the removal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment.
We can talk a lot on this subject, but the Jackson-Vanik amendment was introduced due to restrictions on the departure of citizens of Jewish nationality from the Soviet Union. These problems no longer exist. Nathan Sharansky, when he learned that Jackson-Vanik was still preserved in the conditions of the new Russia, said a witty thing that he was supposedly in prison not for the sake of "Bush's legs." The fact is that the action of the Jackson-Vanik amendment was extended under various pretexts. One of these pretexts was that Russia at some stage stopped the import of American legs, which were popularly called the “Bush legs”.
As for the statements that good US lawmakers wanted to secure the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment at the cost of adopting a law named after Magnitsky, this is from the field of sick imagination. Now Jackson — Vanik is a problem for the USA itself. If they do not abolish this amendment, the United States will not enjoy the benefits that they could enjoy as part of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization.
To say that the events around USAID drove the last nail into the situation and that now Magnitsky’s law will definitely be adopted - it means absolutely not to have information about what is really happening on Capitol Hill. This law is actually becoming a symbol for those who wish, in essence, to spoil Russian-American relations. And they will not refuse it. We warned that the adoption of the law named after Magnitsky would cause serious damage to our relations, the administration (the president of the USA. - “Kommersant”) understands this, but they say that they will be forced to support this bill and Barack Obama will sign it.
- The Americans say that without pressure from outside, the Russian authorities will not complete the investigation into the case of Sergei Magnitsky and will not punish those responsible.
- Russia, like no other state, is interested in the prompt clarification of the circumstances of the case of Sergei Magnitsky. The death of any Russian imprisoned is a tragedy that needs a thorough investigation. What is being done. On this account there are clear instructions from the President of the Russian Federation to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs Criminal investigation is ongoing. Let me remind you: the Russian branch of the Hermitage International Foundation, in which Sergei Magnitsky worked since 1995, was suspected of tax evasion in 2007. He was a key figure in this case, occupying the position of head of the tax and audit department in the company. Also, the investigation of another case, the subject of which is to establish the circumstances of the death of Sergei Magnitsky and the degree of responsibility of officials, is not completed. Violations of Sergei Magnitsky's detention conditions, expressed in the failure to provide him with proper medical care, reflected the general unfavorable state of the medical service in Moscow's SIZOs. In this regard, the country's leadership, in cooperation with human rights organizations, took prompt steps to improve the situation.
Playing the facts, their deliberate distortion, statements and actions bordering on interference in the internal affairs of our country have nothing to do with the declared “concern for human rights”, “the construction of a rule-of-law state”. For us, attempts to exert pressure on the investigative and judicial authorities of the Russian Federation are unacceptable.
- And how can Russia respond to the adoption of the Magnitsky law in the United States?
- Unfortunately, the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky is purposefully used by some political forces in Western countries, still thinking categories of ideological confrontation, to artificially inflate anti-Russian hysteria. This is despite the fact that in the United States the largest “prison population” in the world - there are more than 2 million people behind bars - and people die in American prisons every day. And at the American base in Guantanamo, hundreds of prisoners have been held for ten years without any trial in an absolute legal vacuum, including a citizen of the Russian Federation, Ravil Mingazov. Our repeated appeals to Washington on this issue do not give results.
The behavior of the authors of the Magnitsky law in the US Congress exactly corresponds to the Gospel maxim about the mote in another's eye and a log in his own. The sanctions blackmail tactics they propose are similar: instead of maximally expanding contacts between Russians and Americans, up to the complete abolition of the visa regime between our countries, which Russia stands for, they demand to expand blacklists and impose entry bans. Someone clearly wants to spoil relations with Russia, reanimate phobias of the Cold War. This is not our choice. We are open to deepening trade and investment ties and partnerships with the United States in other areas.
But if someone in America has the illusion that it is possible to develop cooperation and at the same time obkladyvat us with a new sanction paling, then it is better to part with them in advance. Attempts to mix trade with politics and put pressure on Russia will seriously worsen the atmosphere for both bilateral political dialogue and the field of economic interaction.
- Given the differences between Russia and the United States on a number of important issues - missile defense, human rights and international issues - can we say that the "reset" failed?
“When a few years ago, US President Barack Obama and his team expressed their readiness to seriously engage in updating bilateral ties and resolving the accumulated problems, we took this signal positively. At the same time, from the very beginning they made it clear that the tasks facing our countries can be effectively solved only on the basis of the principles of mutual respect, real consideration of each other’s interests, non-interference in internal affairs.
The vector of interaction specified then justified itself. It was possible to expand the scope of bilateral dialogue, to achieve weighty practical results. Here are a few landmark milestones: the conclusion of the START Treaty, Russia's accession to the WTO, the recent entry into force of the Russian-American agreement on visa facilitation.
Of course, there are also a lot of problems. So, unfortunately, American decisions on missile defense are taken without regard to our interests. The most important thing for us is that the anti-missile systems being created by the United States do not violate the balance of forces that has developed over the decades and do not undermine the Russian nuclear deterrence forces. We need clear guarantees supported by a reliable verification mechanism. Washington is not yet ready to provide them.
If we talk about the "reboot", then, given the computer origin of this term, it immediately becomes clear that it cannot last forever. Otherwise, it is not a "reboot", but a failure in the program. You should not dwell on the name of a particular stage. Better to think about how to develop relationships. Or, again, in the language of computer specialists, update software.
This is what we do. We have a busy agenda with the United States. For the future, we plan to pay special attention to giving a qualitatively new dynamic to trade and investment cooperation. The deeper our economic ties become, the stronger will be the safety net, which guarantees Russian-American relations from changes in the political situation.
Obviously, some important things will have to be postponed until the completion of the election marathon in the United States. But our American partners are practical people. Election rhetoric overseas will soon come to naught and give way to painstaking daily work. We are ready for it.
- In his speech to the UN General Assembly, US President Barack Obama made it clear that, despite the growth of anti-Western sentiment and the strengthening of the role of radical Islamists in the Middle East, the United States would still "support the forces of change." What do you think about it?
- I would not like to comment on this, but we already feel the "beneficial" influence of the forces of change. I met on the margins of the General Assembly with and. about. Libyan Foreign Minister and again raised the question of our citizens, who were there, we are convinced, unreasonably convicted of serious time. And my colleague answered me: Understand that we do not have a state, we are trying to help you, but we do not have levers of influence on various structures.
In other words, we have not yet figured out the consequences of the Libyan operation. And they are expressed not only in the fact that there is no centralized state in Libya, and there is still a lot to be done to subordinate the central authority of all clan leaders. The consequences are felt in what is happening now in Mali, where two thirds of the country is under the control of people who fought in Libya and who apparently have no other occupation than to fight. If they sincerely wanted to calm their country - well, they made this revolution of their own, no matter how they relate to it, and it is time to calm down. No, these people are completely different. Now they are in Mali. Who knows where they will appear later? President Vladimir Putin has recently characterized this as a situation of growing chaos in the region. This is a very precise definition.
It seems to me that our Western colleagues, including the United States, are at a certain confusion. They sowed the wind, and reap the whirlwind. We are doing everything to stop this storm. To do this, it is necessary not to incite the opposition, say, in the same Syria, to continue the armed struggle on a victorious end - until they get the head of Bashar al-Assad - and get everyone to sit down and start peace negotiations.
- How will the situation develop in Syria?
- It's all simple. There are two options. If the assurances that the priority number one now is to save the lives of people are sincere, then it is necessary to carry out what was agreed in Geneva (at the end of June. - “Kommersant”). That is to make everyone stop shooting and sit down at the negotiating table. If, in fact, number one priority is the overthrow of the regime and Bashir al-Assad, then we will not be able to help. The UN Security Council does not do this by definition. And then this is incitement to continue the fratricidal war, and we just have to understand that the price of this obsession with the geopolitical task of changing the regime in Syria will be hundreds and thousands of lives of those Syrians themselves.
The choice is very simple, but, of course, terrible. In my conversations with colleagues, I felt: they understand the absence of alternatives to these two scenarios, but are not yet ready to step on their own geopolitical song. It is sad.
- You have repeatedly talked about the distortion of Russian reality in the West. President Putin recently instructed the Foreign Ministry to work on improving the image of the Russian Federation abroad. Why is the image of Russia predominantly negative in most Western countries? And can the Foreign Ministry improve it, taking into account how events like the Pussy Riot case are perceived in the West?
- In the modern world, the image of any country is made up of a whole set of components, all of which are commonly defined as soft power. This concept includes the cultural and scientific presence of the state in the world, participation in assistance programs, success in sports, the development of civil society, the level of national media presence in the international information space, the prevalence of the national language, advances in education and health, and much, much more .
For a variety of components of soft power, Russia looks very good. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs attaches great importance to the work to strengthen them.
However, the image of the country in the global information space has another important dimension: how honestly and objectively are the position, achievements and failures of the state in domestic and foreign policy evaluated from the outside. Unfortunately, Russia often has to deal with gross distortions of truth or outright lies from a number of world media. Suffice it to, say, recall how events were described in connection with the aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia in August 2008.
The propaganda campaign around the case of Pussy Riot, promoted in the West, is also in the same row. The hastiness and non-objectivity of most comments from EU countries and the United States force us to conclude that their authors did not bother to study the circumstances of the case, the course of the court session and the norms of Russian legislation at all.
- In the West, they came to the conclusion that this was a politically motivated process.
- At no stage of the trial, the investigation put forward charges of political nature against the participants of Pussy Riot. They were tried for hooliganism in the largest Orthodox cathedral in Russia. The fact that the so-called punk-prayer in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior not only falls under the scope of several articles of the Criminal Code, but also caused a frankly negative reaction in Russian society, by all appearances, in no way embarrassed those who made statements about in Russia, freedom of speech "and" restriction of human rights. " Attempts to link the judicial verdict with a certain “general regime pressure on the opposition” ignore modern Russian realities, which, on the contrary, are characterized by liberalization of political life.
Information