Lavrov: "No one wants the perpetuation of the status quo, but now we need to stabilize the situation"

Interview of the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs by the first deputy  director general of the TASS news agency, Mikhail Gusman, Baku, April 7th 2016

- Now tripartite work of the Foreign Ministers of Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran is being implemented. This is a new, but a long-planned format. As I understand, the events in Nagorno-Karabakh have slightly changed the agenda. Yesterday, immediately after your arrival in Baku, you met with the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. I can assume that the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh was the main topic of your conversation. Could you tell us about the main content of your conversation with Ilham Aliyev? What ways out of this situation do you see?

- By the time we met with Ilham Aliyev immediately after my arrival in Baku, the situation had stabilized. You know that Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by telephone with his counterparts in Azerbaijan and Armenia, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is arriving in Yerevan today, and tomorrow he will be in Baku. At the level of the Ministers of Defence of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia an agreement was achieved (we mediated in the process) on a cessation of hostilities. A ceasefire was announced, which is now generally respected. We are monitoring the situation. The main thing is that both sides reaffirmed their commitment to the regime.

Yesterday we recorded the state of affairs in this way. Today we continue the conversation on the level of foreign ninisters. In addition to the tripartite meeting there will be a bilateral meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, E.M.Mamedyarov, and tomorrow in Moscow, which will host the meeting of the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers, a long-planned meeting with the Foreign Minister of Armenia, Edward Nalbandian, will be held.

The main task now is to prevent another outbreak of violence. Yesterday we discussed with President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev (I hope this will be discussed with the participation of the Armenian side) that it is very important to go back to the ideas that had been fixed in the joint statements of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, three or four years ago, when the meeting had taken place with the participation of the presidents of our countries. In addition to efforts on the track of a political settlement, to reach an agreement on how to deal with deciding with this whole situation, in principle, the issues related to the confidence-building measures on the line of contact were discussed at the meeting, bearing in mind the presence of the dead. There were cases that resulted with victims on both sides, hostages were taken, it is necessary to exchange the bodies of those killed. Then there was an idea to separate snipers on the contact line. It is very risky, when people look through crosshairs and see each other every hour, every minute – someone could lose his nerve. Such steps have been planned for a long time.

By agreement of the presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, together with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs (in addition to Russia, it is France and the United States), we were preparing specific steps. There is still a document, which has not been approved completely yet, but it exists, and we have been working on it for several years. I believe that the current situation will spur us all and get these measures approved and implemented as soon as possible.

Yesterday, during the meeting with Ilham Aliyev, I touched upon this topic. He supported this approach in understanding that we will introduce these measures not for the perpetuation of the status quo (no one wants this), but in order to stabilize and normalize the situation right now, to create a more favorable atmosphere for the political process in which Russia, in addition to the efforts of the three co-chairs with our American and French partners, takes its own initiatives.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev before him were actively promoting various ideas that would unblock the situation through the liberation of the regions around Karabakh, while addressing the issue of its status. I will not go into details, but several options are on the negotiating table. Yesterday at the meeting with the President of Azerbaijan we also touched upon this issue. We will continue our efforts.

- You will meet with the foreign ministers of Iran and Azerbaijan. Why did this format appear, and what do you expect from this meeting? Can it become a prelude to a possible meeting of the three heads of state?

- We have very long-standing, strong, good, friendly relations of strategic partnership with Azerbaijan and Iran. The agenda of our bilateral relations with Baku and Tehran covers the economy, political dialogue, security, the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking, cooperation in the Caspian Sea, infrastructure projects. During a recent telephone conversation between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia, Ilham Aliyev proposed to Vladimir Putin such a trilateral format, to see how we can discuss these interconnecting issues all together. It was agreed that the idea of ​​the summit, in principle, was approved, and the foreign ministers will gather for its preparation (this is what we are doing today in Baku) and discuss the main areas in which our three countries can supplement their bilateral contacts through tripartite interaction. As I said, it is already clear that this will involve security issues, including regional, cooperation in trafficking, suppressing terrorist operatives, as well as the trafficking of drugs, implemented in the region, security in general terms, the fight against organized crime, cooperation in the Caspian Sea, where we are working on a five-sided convention involving all coastal states (yesterday and today, experts in Baku continued to work on the convention). In addition to the five-sided process of working on a legal document on the status of the Caspian Sea, we have mutual projects with Azerbaijan and Iran. This may be a more intensive use of ports, tourism and its promotion among these three countries. Of course, infrastructure projects have been discussed for a long time in the context of the ‘North-South’ international corridors, in which about twenty countries that have already signed up for this, ranging from India to Scandinavia, are interested.

The railroad workers of Russia, Iran and Azerbaijan are working, in particular, on the site of the Rasht-Astara railway, which goes mainly through the Iranian territory. In the case of the creation of the ‘North-South’ railway route, it will have been completed by that time, I repeat, and it will be advantageously used by many countries. We are interested in studying the possibility of our participation, and this will also be discussed today. Then, of course, specialists from the ministries of transport, the customs authorities, of course the railroad workers, will participate in this.

Another large bloc are the humanitarian and cultural links, the links between the regions of Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran, which have been carried out vigorously through bilateral channels for a long time. There is an obvious interest in ensuring that this cooperation complements the tripartite activities.

As a result of today's meeting, I hope,  we will issue a final communiqué and report to our leaders, bearing in mind their interests that they had already identified. As a result of today's trilateral meeting we will report our considerations, and the presidents will have to make decisions. The purpose of the summit is set.

- You have touched upon the Caspian theme. Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran are the Caspian states. There is a five-sided format. A summit in Kazakhstan is expected. You mentioned that experts are now preparing the documents. What are the prospects for the long-awaited signing of the comprehensive document on the Caspian Sea at the upcoming summit in Kazakhstan?

- The prospects were designated by the presidents a year and a half ago in Astrakhan at the previous summit of the five Caspian states. The next will be held in Astana. The aim was undertaken to complete a many-year work on the 'Convention On the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea’ at this summit. Progress is evident. About a half a dozen issues that remained controversial for many years are ‘closed’ now at the expert level. Two or three main issues, I will not go into details, remain. There will be more than one expert meeting. Next summer there will be a meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Caspian Five, at which we can understand the terms regarding the convening of the summit and the signing of the convention. The aim is undertaken to ensure that the summit will be convened when all the problematic aspects of this document are closed. Again, there are still two or three issues remaining.

- Recently the Russian Foreign Ministry clearly stated its position on the CIS reforms, which are widely discussed now. We are talking about certain changes, adjustments to the activities of the various institutions of the CIS. How do you see the upcoming meeting with the ministers in this aspect? What is the position of Russia in this case, exactly in the aspect of development of the CIS?

- No forms of cooperation can be frozen. Any organization, if it is capable and active, is a living organism that understands exactly what you need to do at this stage for more efficient operations. This fully applies to the CIS. We can see the reforms not just like some piece of paper, on which it is written ‘to create a new authority, to abolish an old one.’ This is much more like a fine-tuning.

There are many structures in post-Soviet space. This is right. The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEC) emerged, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) acts very effectively and actively. Many of our colleagues say that maybe it is not necessary to duplicate the economic cooperation in the CIS and the EAEC. The same applies to security issues. It would seem, why discuss them in the CIS, when we have the CSTO? The fact is that the CSTO and EAEC do not include all the CIS countries, such as Azerbaijan, which is not a part of the EAEC or CSTO. Although I hope that this situation may change. But, nevertheless,  now there are several post-Soviet countries that are not members of these advanced integration associations in the fields of economy and security. But in the CIS there is a free trade zone, which includes not five, as in the EAEC, but nine countries. It would be wrong to lose it, because it would be detrimental to the interests of the countries, including Russia, which are included in the free trade zone. In the CIS there are structures that are dedicated to the joint fight against common threats, such as the Council of Commanders of Border Troops. If you take the formal logic, all the safety issues should be concentrated in the framework of the CSTO. Such structures as the Council of Interior Ministers of the CIS countries, the border guards involved in very specific things. It's not that it's some kind of an artificial construction. Stolen cars, which must be sought throughout the former Soviet Union, drug trafficking, movement of people who are wanted – these are all very substantive things, a few people know about them, because it is the everyday work of people from the relevant ministries. But this is a very important component of the proper functioning of all our states. Therefore, we will look at the state of the CIS Secretariat, the structure of the bodies. Some authorities, certainly, can gather less often or merge with any other. But all this must be based on the principle of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I hope that we will focus precisely on this, including when these issues will be discussed in Moscow at a meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the CIS countries.

- A few hours ago the results of the referendum, which was held in the Netherlands, were published on the opinion of the people of this country on the issue of Association of Ukraine with the EU. As a result of not the exit polls, but the result of the already-counted votes, the referendum was declared valid – 32% of the Dutch electorate took part in it, and more than 60% voted against the Association of Ukraine with the EU. How much were these results expected? How do you evaluate them? As I understand, this is a legal deadlock for the Netherlands, isn’t it?

- This is an internal matter for the Netherlands. A referendum is a mechanism of democracy. It was organized by the Netherlands in accordance with its own laws, when a certain number of signatures were received, it was proposed holding a referendum. The referendum results are results for the Dutch government. As I understand, it is an advisory referendum, non-binding. I watched today the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, my colleague, who said that the government will analyze its results and will take them into account in their practice and to reach conclusions regarding the next steps in the relationship between the Netherlands, the EU and Ukraine. We do not interfere in this process.

When the referendum was prepared, they tried to blame us for campaigning to vote against. In fact, there was a huge campaign by the official Kiev authorities and the very many Western patrons of the Ukrainian authorities. They were pushing the population very much. Generally we had no hand in that, we did not touch this issue, because we were convinced that we should not interfere in processes that are called democratic. So we have what we have. I do not know how the European Union will continue to act, it is not our question.

We always had a very simple position on the bonds that develop between our neighbors and the EU. We welcome all this. Each country develops social, economic and other contacts with foreign partners, based on their interests. The only thing we talked about was that when the agreements reached with third parties affect the obligations that exist between our neighbor and Russia, it is necessary, of course, to harmonize those and other issues. There was the situation when Ukraine was preparing an agreement on the EU Association – the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych saw that the obligations under the CIS free trade zone came into conflict with some part of the obligations that Ukraine would have to take on the signing of the Association Agreement. In order to reconcile those obligations and to remove these contradictions, he took a break, which immediately led to successful attempts to carry out a coup. It is clear that this was just an excuse, many speculated about the fact that Viktor Yanukovych allegedly betrayed the European ideals, undermining the dream of the Ukrainian people. This was demagogy, and it was all clear.

But then the new head of Ukraine, Pyotr Poroshenko, along with the Germans, the French, the leadership of the European Commission, agreed with us that there would be a special process, which would aim to ensure the harmonization of the obligations of Ukraine in the framework of the CIS free trade zone, and what it needed to do, opening up their markets to EU goods. Unfortunately, this agreement did not lead anywhere. We take this philosophically. We introduced those protective measures that we had the right to implement on the basis of the WTO principles, when our trade regime with Ukraine was subjected to risks due to the fact that  inconsistent decisions were made between Ukraine and the European Union. Our ultimate goal, of course, is promoting the idea of ​​a pan-European, economic, social and humanitarian space.

Last autumn the Eurasian Economic Commission through its mechanism, through the EAEC college, sent a proposal to the European Commission. More recently, after more than 4 months, unfortunately, but nevertheless, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said that he supports the idea of ​​developing contacts between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. He has yet to make an appropriate decision. There is no final clarity, but conceptually he supports the idea. We remain faithful to it. I think that in line with the harmonization of the integration processes in Western Europe and in the Eurasian space, we can actively solve the problems for the benefit of all participants.