RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER’S REMARKS AT NEWS CONFERENCE WITH ARMENIAN COUNTERPART

Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
April 9 2015

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media
questions at a joint news conference following talks with Foreign
Minister of the Republic of Armenia Edvard Nalbandyan, Moscow, April
8, 2015

Ladies and gentlemen,

I’ve held talks with Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan.

Armenia is our reliable partner and ally. We value our relations that
go back centuries and are steeped in the historical, cultural and
spiritual affinity of our two nations. These relations have been
evolving steadily and have now reached a new level with Armenia
joining the Eurasian Economic Union.

We have reviewed compliance with the agreements signed during the
contacts between our respective presidents, starting with the state
visit by President Putin to Armenia in December 2013, which was
followed by a series of summits held in 2014. More summits will be
held this year. We agreed to continue to improve the legal framework.

New important agreements are in the works.

We noted the efforts to promote our economic and defence cooperation.

Relevant intergovernmental commissions are fully operational. Today,
we reaffirmed the importance of stepping up their activities.

We have fairly good trade, which exceeded 1.4 billion dollars in 2014.

The cumulative amount of Russian investments in the Armenian economy
stands at about 4 billion dollars and growing.

Our cooperation in the fuel and energy, telecommunications and banking
sectors is expanding. Plans are in place to provide financial
assistance to our Armenian friends in the project to extend the life
of the existing Armenian Nuclear Power Station power unit.

We maintain a good inter-parliamentary dialogue. Today, we discussed a
number of issues that will be more effectively addressed as part of
our inter-parliamentary relations. The leaders of our parliaments
regularly exchange visits. There’s a commission on cooperation between
the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the National
Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, which will meet again in Yakutsk
in June.

Cultural cooperation, including cultural and educational exchanges, is
a hallmark of our relations. We have supported a new initiative in
this area. Yerevan hosted the first Russian-Armenian Youth Forum in
February. We hope that it will become a tradition, as have
interregional forums, of which three have been already held, and the
fourth one is coming. The legal groundwork to open a Yerevan branch of
Moscow State University has been put in place.

In the sphere of foreign contacts, we have signed a plan of
consultations which serves as a solid foundation for cooperation
between our two foreign ministries. In addition to bilateral contacts,
candid exchanges of views and coordination of our positions, we work
together with other partners within the CIS and the CSTO. We agreed to
consolidate our joint foreign policy actions in the United Nations,
the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the Organization of the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation and, of course, the Commonwealth of Independent
States.

We maintain high levels of cooperation in implementing practical
projects in Armenia that are part of international organizations, such
as UNIDO (United Nations Industrial Development Organization) and UNDP
(United Nations Development Programme). Russia provides financial
assistance to Armenia to implement specific projects in the textile
industry and rural development.

We exchanged views on the situation in the Trans-Caucasian region,
including issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Acting
bilaterally in its relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan,
respectively, and as co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia will
continue to facilitate the resolution of this problem on a mutually
acceptable basis.

In general, our talks have confirmed that Russia and Armenia enjoy
good relations based on alliance and strategic partnership. I’m
confident that our talks were an important building block on our way
to implementing the policies outlined by the presidents of our
respective nations.

Question: As is known, Azerbaijan has been lately making strong claims
to Armenia’s territory, above and beyond Nagorno-Karabakh, which have
been expressed in official statements and armed provocations. Is
Russia ready to fulfil its military obligations to Armenia should the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict escalate? What will Moscow do if tensions
increase?

Sergey Lavrov: There’s no need for any explanations. All obligations
that have been assumed by the members of the Collective Security
Treaty Organization on a reciprocal basis, are enshrined in this
treaty. All instances where such obligations become actionable are
listed there. Therefore, there’s no need for me to comment on
anything, except just one thing.

We do not even consider the possibility of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict ever entering a “hot” phase. I’m convinced that despite the
rhetoric, none of the parties involved want this to happen, either.

All Russia’s actions in the process to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh, which
my colleague and friend Edward Nalbandyan has kindly mentioned, are
designed to find mutually acceptable solutions within the shortest
possible time.

We maintain regular contacts. The representatives of the co-chair
countries of the OSCE Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
often travel to that region, visit the capitals of Armenia and
Azerbaijan and the contact lines. The presidents of the co-chair
nations personally monitor efforts to find a solution.

In 2014, President Putin made some special efforts, following which we
have continued consultations on possible practical steps that would
allow us to start overcoming this, in my opinion, wholly unnecessary
conflict and to make the Trans-Caucasus region an area of cooperation
that is free from any blockades, sanctions or restrictions. Everyone
stands to benefit, including our Armenian friends.

Question: Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is in Moscow on an
official visit. As is known, he is critical of the EU sanctions on
Russia. Does Russia believe that Greece’s position on this issue may
change the way the EU approaches these sanctions?

Sergey Lavrov: First off, we are entirely convinced that in our
relations with Europe we must collectively (meaning other EAEU members
as well) seek to overcome the same old systemic problem, which is the
“with us or against us” approach. This mentality in the Brussels
bureaucracy shows no sign of changing. This is unfortunate, because
even German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois
Hollande and others have repeatedly spoken in support of responding to
the long-standing initiative by President Putin to start a dialogue on
ways to form a single economic and cultural space from the Atlantic to
the Pacific. I’m confident that once the dialogue begins the needed
solutions will be found and regional powers will be not be forced to
make a false choice. Creating such a space is in the interests of
Russia and the EU. In today’s highly competitive world, only joint
efforts in Europe and Eurasia, especially in the economy, can best
secure the interests of our countries. As you may be aware, back in
January 2014 President Putin proposed opening a specific dialogue on
establishing a free trade area between the EU and the then Customs
Union, which is now the EAEU. This proposal is still on the table.

During the meeting of the leaders of the Normandy four in Minsk on
February 12, the declaration adopted in support of the document signed
by the Contact Group members, which contained the package of measures
to resolve the Ukraine crisis, confirmed that the leaders of France,
Germany, Russia and Ukraine supported the idea of promoting
integration processes in Europe and Eurasia, including contacts
between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union.

Unfortunately, Brussels hasn’t responded constructively to our
proposal to start working on the practical implementation of the
purported goals so far. Hence, the questions like the one posed by our
colleague from Bloomberg. The question is formulated as either/or: the
Greek prime minister, who opposes the sanctions, is coming to visit –
will that help change the EU approach?

I watched Euronews today which aired the announcement of Prime
Minister Alexis Tsipras’s visit to Moscow. The Euronews correspondent
had the following to say about this visit: “Everyone expects that the
visit will help to answer questions such as how can Alexis Tsipras and
Vladimir Putin help each other and whether Vladimir Putin will succeed
in causing a rift in the European Union.” Clearly, the presentation is
already a problem. It’s not about an individual reporter or a TV
channel. It’s all about the way of thinking that is promoted in
Europe. If anyone in Europe starts acting based of their national
interests, it is taken as a violation of the principle of solidarity.

As if the principle of solidarity was developed solely for supporting
the Russophobic minority in the European Union.

When it comes to choosing economic and political priorities and
partners in the regional and international arena, we want every EU
country to be guided by their own fundamental national interests,
rather than far-fetched principles that can hardly even be referred to
as “principles.” They look more like a pretext to keep everyone
together in some kind of an anti-Russian harness.

Regarding the sanctions, an increasing number of EU countries consider
the restrictions to be a counterproductive decision and move by the
EU. This means only one thing: they are beginning to act according to
their national interests, rather than the premises that someone is
trying to impose on them and that run counter to those interests. I
hope that all of the EU countries without exception will act like
that. Someone’s national interests may call for tougher sanctions, I
have no way of knowing that. Each country must have its own
understanding in this regard. However, if you think that taking
coercive actions serves your best interests, and someone else thinks
it doesn’t, then everyone should be able to stick to their respective
beliefs and not force everyone to follow some scheme that was imposed
on them.

Question: Over the past few weeks, the media started reporting
statements by your Western colleagues, such as US Secretary of State
John Kerry and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, in
which they do not rule out the possibility of talking with Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad. Might this signify a change of tone in the
West regarding this issue? Will that speed up the convening of the
Geneva-3 talks, as called for by the Syrian opposition members who met
in Moscow? Are you going to meet with them today?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, this signifies a change of tone, because we
are hearing things that haven’t been said before. Better late than
never. The bloodshed in Syria and human suffering – by the way,
Christians are suffering in Syria – has lasted for over four years. We
talked about this as well today, building on the initiative that
Russia, Armenia, Lebanon and the Vatican have put forward in the UN
Council on Human Rights by adopting a statement in early March. Sadly,
early on during the crisis, our Western partners have again chosen the
wrong path of settling accounts with this leader, whom they had
“appointed” a dictator. Once they started down that path, they began
to indiscriminately choose their allies from among extremists and
terrorists, with whom they, in fact, interacted. Our Western partners
refused to condemn the terrorists in the UN Security Council, even
though the former tried to undermine the foundations of Bashar
al-Asad’s government. They refused to do so despite our numerous
proposals and the long-held UN Security Council principle that
terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstance. We were told
that these terrorists are bad guys, but they resort to such actions
because they are dissatisfied with the dictatorship. In fact,
Washington was justifying terrorism, which is unacceptable and
outrageous. They hoped that everything would end quickly, and the
regime would fall. They tried to convince everyone that the regime was
“rotten” and had no support in Syrian society. All of that was not
true. The Syrian government still enjoys the support of a significant
number of Syrians: from 50 to 60 per cent, according to various
estimates. That’s a lot. Syrians believe that this regime is a
guarantee that their country will not become a second Libya and will
not fall to pieces, which will then be put together by those who broke
it. No one knows how it will end, though. We welcome the fact that
common sense is prevailing and that more and more opposition groups
agree on the need to find a political platform to overcome the crisis.

As you mentioned, the second meeting of the Syrian opposition is being
held in Moscow these days, and it will be joined later by the Syrian
government’s delegation. After the first meeting held in January, its
moderator – Academician Vitaliy Naumkin, head of the Institute of
Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences – formulated
principles that the parties did not reject, but rather supported in
general. We hope that further understanding can be achieved if we
stick to these principles. Our goal is not to replace the effort to
start official negotiations, but to prepare the conditions for making
such talks productive and representative. The Geneva communique of
June 30, 2012, which everyone agrees serves as the basis for the
settlement, requires that the dialogue involves the entire Syrian
society. Previous attempts to start such a dialogue have failed,
because our Western partners and certain countries in that region
tried to appoint just one opposition group of Syrian emigrants as the
one and only group to represent almost all of the Syrian people.

They have now de facto recognised the prejudicial nature of such an
approach. Along with our Egyptian colleagues, we are making efforts to
consolidate the Syrian opposition around a platform of dialogue in
accordance with the Geneva communique. This dialogue must produce
results on the basis of the mutual consent of all the opposition
groups and government representatives. Let’s see how the current round
of Moscow consultations ends.

From: A. Papazian