Speech by Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, at meeting with members of the Russian International Affairs Council, Moscow, June 4, 2014:
* * *
I am delighted to have the opportunity to meet members of
the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) for two reasons. Firstly,
because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the co-founder of this organisation,
and secondly, because I personally am also a member of the RIAC. The exchange of
opinions and “comparison of notes” is a mutually beneficial process. I do not
hide that in our practical work we are actively driven by the ideas which are
discussed and formed within the RIAC. I emphasise that the organisation has
made its contribution to the work on the new edition of the Foreign Policy
Concept of the Russian Federation approved by the President, Vladimir Putin,on
the 12 February 2013.
The situation in the world remains complicated, it is
changing, and we will hardly be able to draw any complete conclusions today. At
the same time, it is evident that the Ukrainian crisis has seriously shaken the
international situation, and its effect will be felt for a sufficiently long
time. Political analysts attempt to stick clichés on it, crying: a “cold war”,
the most serious crisis in the last 30 years. The nature of these events rather
than tags are important. To that end, we would like to share some
considerations.
The events in Ukraine were not a manifestation of new
trends, but rather a culmination of the course implemented by our western
partners for many years with regard to Russia. In fact, the habit not to
perceive Russians as being of their kind has been present in Western Europe for
centuries – despite the fact that we have been an integral part of the European
culture and politics for at least the last three centuries, and the periods of
Russia’s active participation in general European affairs were characterised by
stability and peace in the continent. I would not like to go deep into
contemplations about why we cannot reach true partnership in Europe –
differences in worldview, historical experience, traditions, and finally the
size of our country evidently play their role.
Unfortunately, the trend to see a rival rather than a
partner in Russia was also maintained after the breakup of the USSR. In fact,
the course of deterrence of our country in a mild form was continued. We were
surprised that they even started to use the idea that the Soviet Union with its
communist doctrine at least remained within the framework of the system of
ideas, which were developed in the West, while the new Russia is returning to
its traditional values, which are rooted in the Orthodox faith and therefore is
becoming even less understandable.
Of course, it is not about this alone. Lately, we have been
seeing a clearer contradiction between the strengthening multipolarity and the
aspirations of the United States and the historical West to keep their usual domineering
positions,between the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world
and the attempts to impose the western scale of values on everybody, while this
scale of values is tearing away from its own Christian roots more and more and
is becoming less sensitive to the religious feelings of people of other
religions. The wish of western elites to show that the recent trend of
reduction of the weight of the West in the global balance of forces, is not
irreversible. The words by Fyodor Dostoryevsky come to my mind, who once wrote
with irony that we should serve the European truth, because there is no and can
be no other truth.
In the last quarter of a century we have talked to partners
in the European Atlantic region about the building-up of strategic relations,
created joint bodies, which were envisaged to contribute to this, adopted
political declarations with appeals to form a common space of peace, security
and stability. At the same time, our western partners have promoted their own
agenda, ignoring Russia’s interests in many points, expanded NATO, and
generally attempted to move the geopolitical space under their control directly
to the Russian borders.
It seems that our country has come into the firing line as
the most active expresser of an independent point of view in the modern world,
which considers independent policy to be its natural right. Of course, such a
line does not match the claims of others to defend their exclusiveness.
It is more and more easy for the west to take the accuser’s
position. We are defending basic principles of international law, rejecting
illegal interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, they rebuke
us of extreme conservatism, saying we have got stuck on the status quo and do
not notice the changes taking place in the world. When we support the
expression of free will of the Crimean people – fully agreeing with their right
to self-determination, they start calling us a “revisionist power”, which is
attempting to return international relations to geopolitical rivalry. In fact,
geopolitics have always been there, they just attempted to pretend that they
were a prerogative of a group of elect countries, which are able to redraw the
situation all over the world according to their templates.
The paradox is that they are doing this contrary to their
evident and objective benefit, which a combination of technologies, resources
and human capital could bring to both parts of the European continent. To a
known extent, this contradiction can be explained by the fact that the course
to restriction of Russia’s possibilities is led not by European powers, but by
the United States. Many analysts in Russia, the European Union and in the
United States underline that the United States do not want to allow the potentials
of Russia and the EU to combine, guided primarily by the objective of keeping
their global leadership. Immanuel Wallerstein wrote only recently about the
“nightmare of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis”, which is haunting Washington
politicians. It is believed that these considerations mainly predetermined the
proposition of the US initiative to create a transatlantic trade and investment
partnership.
If we look at the course of events from this point of view,
it turns out that the EU’s Eastern Partnership programme, initiated by those
members of the European Union who are extremely loyal to the United States, was
used as a means to create some kind of “healthy corridor” between the EU and
our country. In other words, to counteract Russia’s and the EU’s strategic
interests to jointly search for new sources of development.
Lately, it has become especially evident that the choice was
made in favour of activation of actions to “kick Russia back” – the United
States seem to do this more consciously, while the EU does it out of solidarity
with their US partners – and in the hope that Russia will have to “swallow”
another wave of attack on its interests. To be noted, this choice was made long
before the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine – it is sufficient to recall the
landmarks of the spinning of the anti-Russian spiral, like the Magnitsky list,
the accusations against us of all the sins of Iran and then Syria. The very fact
of the preparation and holding of the Olympics in Sochi has become a cause for
the “ballooning” of the anti-Russian propaganda, in proportions which have
nothing to do with common sense or elementary decency.
According to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin,
Ukraine was the threshold after which further “pressing of the spring” is no
longer possible. We warned our western colleagues many times that it is
inadmissible to swing the fragile internal political situation in Ukraine,
about the serious consequences of creating a spot of instability in Europe.
Despite this, there was gross interference ininternal Ukrainian affairs, the
anti-constitutional coup d’état based on ultranationalist and neo-Nazi forces
was staged and supported.
Russia responded to this in the only possible way, having
demonstrated that we will in no way observe the implementation of the regime
change in our neighbouring fraternal country, the open attack on Russians,
their language, history and culture, their legal rights according to general
European conventions. At the same time, we have always aspired to, and are still
ready for,joint honest work to assist the Ukrainians in overcoming the crisis
situation in this fraternal country.
We supported the February agreement, although we did not
believe that it was ideal, we participated in the development of the Geneva
Statement of the 17 April, accepted the “roadmap” developed by the Current OSCE
President, Swiss President Didier Burkhalter. All these documents contain the
general main principles, the implementation of which can lead to the
restoration of peace in Ukraine. Primarily, this is a stop to the violence and
the starting of an internal Ukrainian dialogue, which should ensure
consideration of the legal interests of all regions of the country. We appeal
to western sponsors of the Kiev authorities every day to use their influence to
ensure an immediate stop to the military operation in the South-East of
Ukraine. After this, we can really search for ways of setting up the
negotiation process regarding an exit from the crisis.
Now, I will tell you how we see the further development of
the international situation. Firstly, we are against sliding back to primitive
schemes of straightforward confrontation between Russia and the West. The
second edition of the “cold war” in the modern global world is impossible, due
to several reasons. Firstly, Europe is not an indisputable centre of world
policy any more, it will not be able to behave in such a way, as if the events in
other regions do not matter. To be noted, the four-year report published by the
U.S. Department of Defence emphasises that the United States are primarily a
power of the Pacific Ocean.
Secondly, global challenges do not disappear because of the
Ukrainian crisis. Refusal of cooperation between all the leading powers would
not contribute to the settlement of conflict situations around Syria, Iran’s
Nuclear Programme, in the Korean Peninsula, Afghanistan and in the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process. Let us not forget about the crises in
Africa. We already helped the European Union in Chad and the CAR, we worked
jointly against pirates. Russia is ready to continue to make a constructive
contribution to the resolution of transborder problems. On a mutually respectful
and equal footing, of course.
Only by collective efforts can we organise effective
counteraction of the challenges such as terrorism (Barack Obama said this is
the main threat to the security of the United States in West Point), the drug
industry, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, illegal migration,
climate change and many other things. “Cutting ropes” and “sealing hatches” is
not an option in relations between Russia and the West, either for us or for
them. However, it is clear that we will not return to the previous model of
mutual relations, which is insincere with regard to Russia and full of double
standards.
I hope that the current crisis will become a kind of
“refreshing storm”, which will help to transfer our relations with western
partners to healthier and fairer foundations (probably not at once). It will
probably have less tormenting discussions about the search for general values
and more recognition of the right to be different, more aspirations to build
relations on firm foundations of equality, mutual respect and consideration of
each other’s interests.
We intend to keep a positive agenda in our interaction with
all our partners in the European Atlantic region. We are convinced about the
idea of the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin,of a common economic and
humanitarian space stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, which
could include the EU countries and member states of the Eurasian Economic
Union, as well as the countries located between these integration blocks,
including Ukraine, other participants of the Eastern Partnership and Turkey. If
we managed to formalise such a strategic goal in a principled way, the
stage-by-stage movement towards it would significantly ease the overcoming of
serious misbalances in the area of European security. In this regard, and
especially in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, our well-known proposition
to codify the political obligations undertaken within the OSCE about equal and
undivided security in the European Atlantic region is still topical.
Russia is strongly committed to the philosophy of building
collective actions on firm foundations of international law, provided that
international law is not used as a tool to service the interests of individual
participants of international communication.
In any case, the concept of turning the historical West into
a sort of bastille, from which they can guide the world’s economies and fulfil
the functions of global policemen, is a dangerous illusion. It is dangerous not
because it could be implemented – it is simply unreal to build fenced out
“oases of welfare and security” in the modern world – but because the attempts
to implement it could disrupt international stability even more.
We have been proposing another path for a long time: to
combine the potentials and political will of all three branches of European
civilisation in the interests of ensuring its sustainable perspective in
today’s dynamic and highly competitive world. Of course, such interaction must
be built on recognition of the objective reality – the formation of a new,
democratic, polycentric system of international relations in full compliance
with the initial idea set down in the UN Charter by its founders.
The consistent reinforcement of the multi-vector nature is a
priority of Russian foreign policy.
I do not mean the building of anti-American or anti-western
structures. Russia’s reaction to the unfriendly innuendoes from overseas has
been shown clearly lately, that we do not accept invitations to this kind of games
and we do not intend to get involved in senseless confrontations only for the
sake of providing the United States and NATO with an image of the enemy as they
desire it. We are strongly convinced that it is impossible to control the
modern world without true partnership between the main centres of power.
The correction of the historical shift to the west is a
manageable task, but we would not like to resolve it at the expense of
reduction of our scope of cooperation in the western direction, but rather
through the building up of interaction along other vectors, primarily in the
Asia-Pacific region. The results of the recent visit of the President of Russia
to China have become a large-scale breakthrough of the country’s integration
inthis region. In general, Russian-Chinese interaction is being established as
a weighty factor in world politics, which is working in favour of
democratisation of international relations. Our interaction within RIC
(Russia-India-China), which was founded by Yevgeny Primakov, is of the same
kind.
We need to use the SCO potential more actively, including to
jointly counteract the threats generated by the situation in Afghanistan.
The forthcoming BRICS summit in Brazil is expected to
confirm the effectiveness of this influential group, which is a sample of
cooperation above regional structures and not against anybody, but for the sake
of promotion of matching interests.
Whatever the outcome, Russia is still a large global player,
and this envisages the continuation of an energetic policy in all directions,
including in the development of relations with the Latin American and African
countries. My recent trip to Latin America showed that we have good
opportunities for that. The extension of the Russian presence is actually
welcomed by all the countries of the region.
Colleagues,
The situation in the world remains complicated and it is
hard to predict its development. We can be sure that the future will bring us
many surprises, including in the form of emerging factors, which change the
rules of the game. It seems evident that international development will not be
linear and will be related to new junctions and turns incurring additional
risks and opportunities. We expect that the solid intellectual potential of the
RIAC will be used in full scope in the interests of prompt re-valuation of
events and the formulation of fresh ideas and well-considered propositions,
which should ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the Russian foreign
policy’s course.
Thank you for your kind attention.
* * *
Lavrov speech, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, June 4, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment