UN Security Council President and Russian envoy Vitaly Churkin has criticized the decision of the UN Secretariat to exclude Russian and Chinese experts from the team that will probe the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria on March 19.“We’ve been told that the P5 representatives should not be included,” Churkin said after a closed session on Monday. “We are not persuaded by this kind of logic.”Churkin pointed out that excluding the expertise from the Security Council permanent member states will not guarantee that these countries won’t be able to influence the probe.“I would recommend excluding all NATO countries too,” Churkin said, adding that he still hopes Russian and Chinese experts who can “provide a lot of expertise” would be included in the commission.Beirut-based political analyst, Kamel Alwazne, told RT that Moscow is right to demand to be part of the investigation into the alleged chemical attackRT: Moscow wants experts from Russia and China to join the UN investigation. But seeing both countries were the ones that blocked the Security Council resolutions- will this actually happen?Kamel Al Wazne: I think they must assure their cooperation because the West and those Arab countries cannot be trusted. Today, the headline of the New York Times speaks very clearly-shipment of weapons helped by the CIA, Qatar, by Saudi Arabia. Over 165 cargos full of weapons has been shipped to the opposition in Syria.Somebody who is actually engaging in the war against the Syrian people cannot be trusted. I think, it’s the Russian, the Chinese rightly so, they should be involved if any investigation into the use of chemical weapons. Especially, there is a great indication that the opposition has been actually the one who used these chemical weapons.RT: Where would these chemical weapons come from?KW: If you hear about 165 cargos full of weapons coming into Syria from Qatar through Turkey, then you do not need to ask that question. These borders are open and the Turkish and the Qataris and the Saudi have been moving all kind of weapons into Syria. RT: We’ve seen several Western media reports claiming the rebels actually carried out the attack in Aleppo. The West, Washington in particular, was very quick to promise harsh consequences for Assad, can we expect the same if the rebels are actually proven guilty?KW: That is my exact point. The President of the United States has just one answer: if Assad uses the chemical weapons, what if the opposition uses the chemical weapons, what does the President of the United States has to do about that? Why doesn’t he mention the opposition- that they are the ones using chemical or could use chemical, and what he would do about the opposition?He knows very clearly those members of al-Qaeda, members of terrorist organizations have been attacking civilians in Syria, killed an Islamic brigadier like Buti, been involved in car explosion, and that is ok to the Obama administration because, because those al-Qaeda, now they are fighting on their side.So there is no problem but when it comes to the lives of the Americans-oh, it’s hell has to freeze over, then this is a double standard. The Americans are walking this road and the road has to be on their side and on their watch but the Syrian can die every day and nobody will question that. So, now it is time for the Americans to look carefully and be accountable to what is taking place in Syria. There is a lot of death. And the CIA, I think has indicated today in the New York Times, it is clearly shipping weapons to continue that war in rage in a country that deserves peace and stability. The American, the Arab sponsor cannot be trusted. I think we need the Chinese, we need the Russian and we need those independent, honest people to say who is using the chemical weapons and how it is used. … Read More
20 UN peacekeepers taken hostage by Syrian rebels in Golan Heights
A young fighter saying he was from the “Martyrs of Yarmouk” saidthe peacekeepers would not be set free until Syrian governmentforces withdrew from the village of Jamlah, a mile east of theceasefire link with the Israeli-occupied Golan, Reutersreports.”If no withdrawal is made within 24 hours we will treat them asprisoners,” he said, claiming the UN forces had collaboratedwith Syrian government troops to drive the fighters out of thevillage.After a video appeared on YouTube showing several armed-rebelfighters standing in front of two white armored vehicles bearingthe UN inscription with at least five peacekeepers inside, the UNconfirmed the incident.UN deputy spokesman Eduardo del Buey told reporters that”approximately 30 armed fighters stopped and detained about 20peacekeepers within the area of limitation.”"The UN observers were on a regular supply mission and werestopped near Observation Post 58, which had sustained damage andwas evacuated this past weekend following heavy combat in closeproximity, at Al Jamlah,” the United Nations said in astatement issued in New York.The UN Security Council demanded the peacekeepers immediaterelease. Russia’s UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said the seizure of theUN observers showed “gross disrespect for the UnitedNations.”“Right now there are negotiations between UN representativesand the captors and we hope that the [UN] personnel will bereleased immediately as the UNSC demands,” Churkinsaid.Mentioning an attack on Monday which killed 48 Syrian servicemenand nine Iraqi law enforcers, Churkin said the Golan incidentshowed “some people are trying very hard in order to extend thegeography of the Syrian conflict.”Human Rights watch said it was investigating the same rebelbrigade for its role in a videotaped execution of detained Syriansoldiers posted on the Internet on Tuesday.The capture of the UN observers points to how the situation onthe ground in Syria is getting out of control and all sides areunable to control armed groups on the ground, Karl Sharpo, a MiddleEast blogger, told RT. He further warned that that there is no wayof knowing whose hands outside aid will end up.“The lines on the ground are very fluid, distinctions don’t reallyapply and you can’t make sure the weapons end up in the intendedsites. Again if you look at the fact at what this incidentillustrates is the lack of control that any military authority onthe ground for the opposition or an outside political authority,doesn’t exercise the control it says it does,” Sharpo said.The incident follows a statement on Wednesday by the Arab Leagueoffering military supportto the Syrian rebels. Previously the League had only offered tosupport the Syrian opposition via humanitarian and diplomaticassistance.Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elarby told a pressconference the Syrian Opposition Coalition had been formallyinvited to send a representative to attend a league meeting to beheld in Doha in April.The UK Foreign Secretary William Hague also announced onWednesday that Britain will increase non-lethal aid toanti-government forces in Syria. The $19.5 million dollar packagewill include armored vehicles, body armor, search and rescue,disease prevention and communication equipment.The Russian Foreign Ministry announced last week that anydecision to send aid to rebel fighters would intensify the two yearSyrian civil war by encouraging “extremists to seize power byforce.”Shortly after Israel warned the UN Security Council it could notbe expected to “stand idle” as the Syrian civil war expands beyondits borders, while Churkin said that armed groups operating out ofthe Golan were undermining regional security.“It’s of course something very dangerous they are doing bystaging armed activity from that area. It’s something which canundermine security between Syria and Israel. So whoever issupporting that kind of activity or approving it tacitly is playinga very dangerous game,” Churkin warned back on Monday.Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967war. The country agreed to return the land to Syria in return for apeace agreement that was rejected by the Arab world.During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Syrian forces crossed theceasefire line into the Golan Heights in an attempt to retake theterritory. Syria’s troops were repelled by Israeli forces.Israel annexed the Golan in 1981, though they returned about 5percent of the territory to Syria. The land was merged into ademilitarized zone that is currently patrolled by UN peacekeepingforces. … Read More
‘US gives a wink and a nod to those sending Syrian rebels military aid’ – Churkin
Russia’s term starts on March 1 and will last for one month. Therole of the president of the Security Council involves setting theagenda, presiding over meetings, and overseeing any crisis.On the eve of occupying the presiding chair at the Council,Russia’s envoy to the UN spoke with RT about what will be on theagenda and other acute international issues.RT: What will Russia’s priorities be during its UNpresidency? What’s top of the list to tackle?Vitaly Churkin: It is a long list and it’s looking like avery crowded month in March. The highlight of our presidency isgoing to be a ministerial debate on Afghanistan, which will bechaired by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and we expect theparticipation of a number of foreign ministers from both SecurityCouncil member and non-member states, because everybody will beinvited to speak to members of the UN – those who choose toparticipate.The mandate of the UN mission in Afghanistan is going to beextended for another year – and that of course is going to be avery important year for Afghanistan with the upcoming presidentialelections in April of 2014 with the unclear prospects of themilitary presence, when US forces and ISAF international forces aregoing to pull out in 2014, the unclear prospects for a nationaldialogue and reconciliation.So, there are so manyimportant issues with a lot at stake before the Security Council,we think that this is going to be a very important element for ourprogram of work for the month of March. RT: What to do with Syria next? How is Russia going totry to bring people together there over the next month?VC: There is nothing specific at this point in ourprogram of work on Syria. But of course Syria comes our way everynow and then under different circumstances. For instance, yesterdaythere was a stirring briefing to the consultation of the SecurityCouncil of humanitarian agencies describing the awful situation inthat country. So, of course, there is a lot of worry and frequentdiscussions in the Security Council on the situation in Syria.Our position is very simple: we believe that violence must stopand for that dialogue must be established without precondition. Andthe government is saying that they have outlined their negotiatingteam and they outlined their proposals for dialogue. There is aGeneva document of June 2012, which, we believe, should serve asthe consensus basis for dialogue.Unfortunately, in the past few days the opposition seems to havebeen backtracking from their original statement, which was made bythe leader of the national coalition Mr. Khatyb, about theirreadiness to start dialogue with the Syrian government.This is the key issue. Without dialogue, I am afraid, andwithout the political will on the part of all Syrians, of the mainstake holders in that country, the international community can’t domuch. We can’t resolve that crisis for them.We can help them. Russia is trying to do exactly that by talkingat the same time with the government and various opposition groupsurging them to enter dialogue.But unless they themselves make their determination I am afraidthe violence will continue and the crisis will continue tospiral.RT: The Syrian opposition has been promised more’non-lethal’ help from the US today. Where is the ‘lethal’ supportcoming from? What’s Russia’s view on that?VC: There is a general understanding that maybe Qatar issupplying weapons to Syria, but here I am basing myself mostly onnewspaper accounts and on previous experience, because it’swell-known now, that in the course of the crisis in Libya, forinstance, Qatar happened to be a major supplier of weapons intothat country.You know there is all this talk about non-lethal assistance fromthe US. There is a certain clear division of labor. The US for anumber or reasons chooses not to sully its hands with direct supplyof weapons to the armed groups, because among them are terroristsand others, with whom the US would prefer not to be associated.But at the same time they give a wink and a nod to those whoprovide direct military aid to rebel armed groups. All this is veryunfortunate, because it takes attention away from the need to entera political dialogue.Instead of asking for more assistance of various sorts, theopposition groups, including the national council, should besticking to their initial offer or expression of readiness to entera dialogue, should be amplifying their political program, becausewe are not seeing a political program from them. The government andthe speech of President Assad in January did outline a politicalprogram. Maybe it was not satisfactory for the opposition, but atleast it was there. They should have and should now reciprocate byoutlining their political program, which they could bring to thetable of dialogue with the government and Russia and we hope otherimportant members of the international community would be there tofacilitate those discussions.RT: Ambassador, let’s talk about nuclear tensions overIran. Recent talks in Kazakhstan brought no breakthrough. Furthertalks were agreed. What are your thoughts about that?VC: My understanding was that it was a sort of a positivemeeting and it’s of course very good news that they’ve already nowagreed to have an expert meeting within weeks and then in earlyApril – another session of these negotiations between Mrs. Ashtonand Mr. Jalili and political directors from the six countries, whoare accompanying those talks and negotiating with Iran.But my understanding is that they yet have to tackle the coreissues and the six brought new proposals to the table with theactive participation of Russia in that process they just had inKazakhstan.RT: Was there anything radically new in those talks?Do we know? VC: Not really radically new. But there are some newimportant elements, which should make it more attractive for theIranians to finally enter the negotiations at the core of thematter. And that is yet to happen.RT: I’d like to ask you about the Bradley Manningcase. I am sure you are absolutely up to speed with that. In thelast hour or two Bradley Manning, the AmericanPrivate-whistleblower…VC: I am sorry. This is not something we with at theUnited Nations. And I am not up on this.RT: Absolutely! Nothing wrong with that answer, Sir,at all. Last quick question, North Korea, it’s audaciously goinghead with its nuclear test. Doesn’t that strong criticism that camefrom the UN only amount to a slap on the wrist?VC: We very quickly made a press statement, where wecondemned this nuclear test and expressed our determination toprovide an adequate reaction in the form of a resolution of aSecurity Council. The US has prepared a draft of this resolution,but so far they’ve chosen not to engage the Russian delegation inthe discussion of that resolution.We believe that there should be a strong signal from theSecurity Council to the DPRK of disapproval of this dangerouscourse of action. But, at the same time there should be aresolution which would help lead towards the resumption ofsix-party talks and a diplomatic final resolution of this issue ofthe denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. … Read More
US allies provide Syrian rebels with weapons ‘at the wink and nod’ of Washington – Churkin to RT
Washington has a lot of influence on countries like Qatar, which is reportedly the main source of weapons and support for the Syrian rebels, so they are not absolved from responsibility, Russia’s ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin told RT. With a civil war raging in Syria, French intervention in Mali, the risk of a military strike against Iran and the increased threat of Islamic terrorism in North Africa, the international community is faced with a series of complex challenges that offer no simple solutions. Ambassador Churkin explained to RT why diplomacy is the only way out of the crises in Syria and Iran, why Mali was a legitimate intervention, and how the rush to unilateral, military action cripples efforts at legitimate, multilateral solutions.RT: I’m very pleased to introduce Russia’s envoy to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin. Ambassador Churkin, thank you very much for making yourself available for this interview.Vitaly Churkin: Thank you.RT: Let me begin with Iran. Russia is about to sit down yet again for talks with five other world powers on Iran’s nuclear program. The negotiations are due at the end of February. The US Vice-President Joe Biden said that the US was ready for direct negotiations with Iran. Do you see it as a breakthrough, as a serious push for diplomacy on the part of Washington?VC: Well, hopefully, and of course we are looking forward to the resumption of the talks of the six with Iran in Astana in late February. And we have always welcomed the possibility of direct contacts between the United States and Iran.
1000
Unfortunately, over the years there has been some back-and-forth: some positive statements on the one side were met by negative statements on the other side. This time, I understand, there’s been a strong negative statement from a high level from Tehran which was saying that those talks were impossible. The Iranians are notoriously difficult negotiators, and of course the subject matter is very complex, so on each particular issue there are always very difficult discussions, and it is quite a challenge to make headway. But we believe that there has been some headway on the substance of those discussions, and we hope that there is a good point from which the negotiators can proceed with making some progress.RT: Just speaking more generally, when talking about progress in relations with Russia, I heard many times members of the Obama administration say, “Well we’ve got Russia” – quote unquote – “on board – to put more pressure on Iran.” In what context, in what ways do you see Russia on board with the United States on Iran? Do you see points where Russia is on board with the US on Iran?VC: Our American colleagues have an interesting way of describing the situation. They very often tend to talk, as you tried to quote them, in terms of the American positions and others coming over to those positions. This is not the case at all, this is not the way we see it. When we enter into some discussions with the United States and other partners in various situations we try to find a common position, so sometimes they move towards us, sometimes it’s a compromise where we have to come together midway, this is the way we find a compromise. We’re prepared to continue working together within the format of the six, even though we make no secret of the fact that we think that some of the things which are being done by some members of the six are counterproductive because, in addition to Security Council sanctions, they piled up all sorts of unilateral sanctions, which we believe are not needed as a matter of principle. Because once we agree to work together, once we develop a certain system based on Security Council resolutions, to add anything on top of that is the wrong thing to do, and in our view this is creating some humanitarian problems in Iran which should not be there, and it’s creating some bad blood in the talks with Iran which is not really necessary.RT: If the US and Israel, together or separately, were about to make the decision to strike Iran, is there anything that could stop them?VC: I hope common sense and good reason will stop them because this would be the worst thing to do. First of all, the opportunities for a dialogue are there. Nobody, no member of the six, including the United States, maintains that the Iranians have already made the political decision to develop a nuclear weapon. They accept, they say, that as far as they know the Iranians have not yet made that decision. Since this decision has not yet been made – even according to them – then certainly there is room for diplomatic discussions, for diplomacy etc. etc. A military strike would certainly make no further talks with Iran possible, so every opportunity for political discussions would be lost. I agree with those who believe that in fact that would give a great push to those in Iran – if that strike were to happen – who might be advocating building a nuclear bomb. So that would be an irrational dangerous step, to say nothing of the regional repercussions of the conflict with Iran because now we are facing instability in the region as one of the ‘standing on its own feet’ phenomenon. Until recently we were talking about common threats which we needed to face, like terrorism, international economic crisis. Now I would suggest a new common threat which we have to come to grips with and do something about it – it’s instability in a major region spr
1000
eading from Mali and Libya in northwest Africa all the way to Iran.RT: Speaking of Mali, how do you assess France’s military operation there?VC: I believe the extremists of the north made a pretty bad miscalculation, they got carried away and they decided to make a military move to the south, heading towards the capital, Bamako. Then the government of Mali requested the French to send in the troops, and they did. And we understood; we had no objections, because in terms of international law it was a completely clear request of the government, because of a clear threat to its security and integrity of the country. So we supported that in our discussions in the Security Council. Basically, everything that is happening – and now the African troops have moved in, too, in support of the French – is within the context of the resolution of the Security Council. We do have, let’s face it, sometimes quite acrimonious discussions in the Security Council, but this is not one of those situations. This is a situation where people understand the dangers, and also have a very frank exchange of views about what needs to be done in order to avoid finding ourselves, putting the United Nations in an overly precarious or dangerous situation.RT: What effects did the Arab Spring have on the situation that is unfolding in Mali right now? VC: One repercussion of the Arab Spring was the dramatic events in Libya. In the course of that crisis lots of weapons were brought into Libya, and there were lots of weapons as it is. But still, many more weapons were brought into Libya. During the recent hearings, which then-Secretary of State Clinton had in the House of Representatives, one of the congressmen said that they had information that Qatar “with a wink and nod from the United States”, as he put it, brought in 20,000 tons of weapons into Libya. And, you know, [with] 20,000 tons – you can arm a small terrorist army. And of course, this is exactly what happened. In Mali, we definitely see a spillover of the Libyan crisis to a neighboring country. And most likely, the spillover has affected other places as well. For instance, it may well be – there are many indications to that effect – that the terrorist attack in Algeria close to the Libyan border also had some sort of Libyan connection in terms of people, maybe weapons, terrorists emanating from Libya participating in that attack.RT: Did you say “at the wink of the United States”?VC: This is his expression. And I think, “at the wink and nod of the United States”. In my understanding of English, it means some kind of encouragement, so the United States was aware of that. And, incidentally, he…RT: (interrupts) I want to ask, actually, about Syria. The US now insists that their support for the Syrian opposition is non-lethal. Could it be that the allies of the United States are providing weapons “at the wink and nod of the United States”?VC: Well, this is definitely the case. I mean, the United States chose to stay clean of the bad guys. At some point of the crisis they realized that things were going very wrong, that terrorist groups were coming in, the radical Islamists were active. And they were beginning to realize, maybe before some of our other Western colleagues, that things were making a very dangerous turn, and that the original scenario that they had in mind – that it will take just a couple of months to topple the Assad regime and then democracy will triumph – was completely unrealistic and had nothing to do with the actual situation on the ground. But the United States is an extremely powerful country, definitely with a lot of influence on, for example, such a country as Qatar, which is, reportedly, the main source of weapons and support for armed opposition. If the United St
1000
ates wanted to be logical and really take a stand, it certainly could make it clear to those who supply weapons to the Syrian armed opposition groups. So the fact that they simply say that they themselves are not doing that does not really absolve them completely from responsibility of what is happening there in terms of the activity of armed opposition groups.RT: You said that at some point US officials started to realize… I think that is a sense that a lot of people are getting. Because the Obama administration seems to be a lot more cautious talking about Syria now as opposed to a year ago, for example. They talk about how complex the situation is on the ground. So have you noticed that change?VC: Yes, this is what I am saying. This change is clear, and this change is clear here in our informal discussions in the Security Council. Clearly, one could feel that their understanding of the situation has become much closer to our understanding of the complexity of what is going on there. So this is what I think makes it important to continue our dialogue in that format. But there is one disconcerting thing, among other things. There is a lot of talk about chemical weapons in Syria, which is a valid concern, and we have also talked very seriously with the Syrian government and they’ve given us all sorts of assurances that, as they put it, if there are chemical weapons in Syria they do not intend to use those weapons. But to our liking there is too much talk about that in a sort of a threatening context – that should something happen, then all sorts of things will be done. So sometimes it does give us an impression that somebody is looking for a pretext for a military intervention, to say nothing of the fact that this kind of narrative, we fear, might provide an incentive for the opposition to do something extremely dangerous with chemical weapons.RT: What kind of interference, what kind of an international effort would Russia support?VC: Now I think what Syria needs is more diplomatic support. We were the only ones who were trying to work both with the government and the opposition to bring them to the table, to try to form that transitional body, which is referred to in the Geneva document. Now our partners keep saying that the Geneva document is indeed the only rational document, point of departure, which is there on the table in order to try to arrange a political dialogue between the government and the opposition.RT: Why were they reluctant then?VC: I suppose they were still clinging to their idea of toppling the government and the opposition was not prepared to go into dialogue with the government. Our Western partners made a mistake and sent a very bad signal when they recognized the newly formed National Coalition on the basis of a platform which rejected any dialogue with the government and which called for the destruction of the government structures. But on the basis of that platform they did recognize them. However, recently there’s been potentially a very important development, and this is the statement by the leader of that coalition about which initially we were very skeptical, and still it has many problems with this coalition. It doesn’t have much of a unity within itself, it has some contradictions with other opposition groups. But still it’s there. We have to take it as a fact. And the leader of that opposition, Mr. Ahmed Muaz al-Khatib, recently made a statement which attracted a lot of attention, saying that he is prepared to enter into dialogue with the government. He gave some preconditions for that. But it was crucially important that for the first time from an important member of the opposition this statement was delivered. So what the international community should do now is to encourage this kind of attitude. And of course, this statement came after a stateme
26b
nt which was made by President Assad in early January, which was criticized by many, because it was not going far enough, because it was too tough, etc. And maybe much of that criticism was accurate but he did talk about dialogue with the opposition as well. So in our view, the role of the international community working from various directions is to try to grab those threads from both sides and to see if they can meet.RT: Thank you. … Read More
People ‘at the cutting edge’: Russia marks Diplomats’ Day
People ‘at the cutting edge’: Russia marks Diplomats’ Day Get short URLLink copied to clipboardemail story to a friendprint versionPublished: 10 February, 2013, 19:34
TAGS:Nuclear,
Russia,
Politics,
Terrorism,
History,
Iran,
USA,
Opposition,
Lavrov,
Syria,
Sanctions
The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs building on Smolenskaya Square, Moscow. (AFP Photo/Boris Yelenin)Russian diplomats are celebrating their professional holiday. The Foreign Ministry head and the country’s president have congratulated the diplomatic corps, reminding of the sophisticated tasks the Russian diplomats are facing. Russian diplomacy’s milestones860 A.D. “Agreement on Peace and Love” signed between Byzantine Empire and Slavs inhabiting ancient Russia (first known mention of international diplomacy of ancient Russia)1549 – Russian Diplomatic Service aka Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Department) founded1600s – First permanent Russian diplomatic missions abroad established1718-1720 – Ambassadorial Department gradually transformed into Collegium of Foreign Affairs created by Emperor Peter the Great1802 – Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs established by the manifesto of Emperor Alexander IBy 1914 Russia had a wide network of diplomatic and consular missions all over the world1917 – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs renamed into Peoples Commissariat for Foreign Affairs1946 – till present Russian Diplomatic Service operates as Ministry of Foreign AffairsRussian President Vladimir Putin joined congratulations, recalling “rich and glori
1000
ous history and centuries-old traditions of the Russian diplomatic service.”It was Vladimir Putin who introduced Diplomat’s Day in Russia during his first presidential term in 2002, the year of 200 anniversary of the Russia’s Foreign Ministry (the name given by Emperor Alexander I). The date January 10 was chosen because on that day in 1549 Russian Diplomatic Service (Posolsky Prikaz) was actually founded.Putin stressed that “diplomatic effort and co-operation with other states is first of all aimed at creating favorable conditions for the ongoing internal development of Russia… and improving the quality of life of Russian citizens.”“I am convinced that Russia’s authority and influence of our country in international affairs will be increasing. I am also sure that Russian diplomacy will continue faithfully and devotedly serve the Motherland,” Putin said in telegram of congratulations.Today Russian diplomats actively work in practically every significant international institution like the UN, G8, G20, APEC and other international and regional forums.As modern diplomacy undergoes changes, becoming more diverse and dynamic, the fundamental principles of the Russian diplomats remain unchangeable: professional culture of the highest level, profound knowledge of international relations, allegiance to native land and deep respect for the duty station country.‘Syria discussion tone changed’ on international arenaSpeaking on the outcome of the year 2012 in the end of January, Sergey Lavrov said that the world is going through unprecedented transitional period, but key principle of Russia’s foreign policy will stay intact: supremacy of international law equal towards all nations.Speaking about Syria – currently one of the hottest topics on the international diplomatic arena – the Russian FM urged the warring sides of the Syrian conflict to get to negotiation table and stop the bloodshed. In the exclusive interview given to RT in the last days of 2012 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also stressed that Russia in no way is “in the business of regime change” in Syria.After practically two years of civil war in Syria a resolution of the conflict through negotiations has probably appeared on the horizon as Russian diplomats have noticed that fierce rhetoric of the western critics of President Bashar Assad is showing tendency to change. The Syrian opposition that previously refused to negotiate with Syria’s officials are considering taking a seat at the negotiation table.“The tone of discussion on Syria in the [UN Security] Council, in private consultations in the Council has changed. That’s for sure,” told RT in an exclusive interview Russia’s envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin.“This change is clear here in our informal discussions in the Security Council, this change is clear in the contacts we have had with [UN-Arab League peace envoy to Syria Lakhdar] Brahimi, the trilateral contacts which he proposed,” Churkin told RT.The Russian diplomat said that “any rational person would realize that all sorts of dangers are involved in a military intervention in Syria.”Russia’s Western colleagues are beginning to realize that things were making a very dangerous turn in Syria, Churkin believes.Instead of a foreign intervention “Syria needs humanitarian assistance, because of the dimension of the humanitarian tragedy and more diplomatic support,” Russian diplomat pointed out.Vitaly Churkin, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. (Mario Tama/Getty Images/AFP)Russia expects delegations of the Syrian opposition to come to Moscow soon, told exclusively to Rusia al-Yaum (RT Arabic) Russia’s deputy FM Mikhail Bogdanov. Syrian Foreign Minister and other officials are also expected to visit Moscow, he said.Bogdanov stressed Russia does not lack contacts with all sides and fractions of the Syrian conflict.“There is no shortage of contacts, what we do lack are concrete results of both ours and our partners’ work to make Syrians stop the bloodshed and destruction of their own country and get to the negotiation table,” underlined Bogdanov.Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Levitin)Iran and opponents brought to six-party conference tableSpeaking about Iran – another time bomb of the intenational diplomacy – Sergey Lavrov warned in January against attacking Iranian nuclear program sites and expressed hope that six-party international talks will soon restart to ease the strains around Iran’s nuclear program.Throughout 2012 Israel had been calling on the US to jointly strike Iranian nuclear objects, claiming that Iran’s nuclear program poses existential threat to the Jewish state. Otherwise Israel was threatening to make a unilateral move and undertake an air strike against the Islamic Republic.But the military attack never happened. Moreover, the sides of the conflict are expected to sit at the negotiation table later this month.“We are looking forward to the resumption of the talks of the six with Iran in [Kazakhstan’s capital] Astana in late February. Russia’s been extremely creative and active in trying to devise formulas which would allow the six on the one side and Iran on the other side to move towards a resolution of the concerns associated with the Iranian nuclear program,” Vitaly Churkin told RT. “And we have always welcomed the possibility of direct contacts between the United States and Iran,” he added.”);
$(“.tail_text”).show(500);
return false;
}
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov felicitated colleagues in a video address, saying that modern world is in a complex situation due to continuing economic crisis, political instability, multiplying regional conflicts and evident lack of trust in international relations. The world needs collective action to confront conflicts and it is crucially important to do so on the solid basis of international law, Lavrov stressed.Russian FM proclaimed promotion of Eurasian economic integration one of the most ambitious aims of the Russian diplomatic corps, adding that the center task of the diplomatic corps is to make Russia prosper.However rich is the arsenal of methods and advanced technologies used by Russian diplomats these days, above all is retaining loyalty to Motherland and being ready to give tooth and nail to accomplish the task, Lavrov concluded.“Not only is it important for us to be at the cutting edge of events, we should also try and be ahead, and take steps to reinforce our policy aimed at securing the utmost favorable external conditions for a safe and prosperous Russia,” the Foreign Minister said earlier as he laid flowers to memorial tablets commemorating Russian diplomats who served at home and abroad.Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gives a news conference about Russian diplomatic activities in 2012. (RIA Novosti/Alexey Filippov)Russian diplomacy’s milestones860 A.D. “Agreement on Peace and Love” signed between Byzantine Empire and Slavs inhabiting ancient Russia (first known mention of international diplomacy of ancient Russia)1549 – Russian Diplomatic Service aka Posolsky Prikaz (Ambassadorial Department) founded1600s – First permanent Russian diplomatic missions abroad established1718-1720 – Ambassadorial Department gradually transformed into Collegium of Foreign Affairs created by Emperor Peter the Great1802 – Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs established by the manifesto of Emperor Alexander IBy 1914 Russia had a wide network of diplomatic and consular missions all over the world1917 – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs renamed into Peoples Commissariat for Foreign Affairs1946 – till present Russian Diplomatic Service operates as Ministry of Foreign AffairsRussian President Vladimir Putin joined congratulations, recalling “rich and glorious history and centuries-old traditions of the Russian diplomatic service.”It was Vladimir Putin who introduced Diplomat’s Day in Russia during his first presidential term in 2002, the year of 200 anniversary of the Russia’s Foreign Ministry (the name given by Emperor Alexander I). The date January 10 was chosen because on that day in 1549 Russian Diplomatic Service (Posolsky Prikaz) was actually founded.Putin stressed that “diplomatic effort and co-operation with other states is first of all aimed at creating favorable conditions for the ongoing internal development of Russia… and improving the quality of life of Russian citizens.”“I am convinced that Russia’s authority and influence of our country in international affairs will be increasing. I am also sure that Russian diplomacy will continue faithfully and devotedly serve the Motherland,” Putin said in telegram of congratulations.Today Russian diplomats actively work in practically every significant international institution like the UN, G8, G20, APEC and other international and regional forums.As modern diplomacy undergoes changes, becoming more diverse and dynamic, the fundamental principles of the Russian diplomats remain unchangeable: professional culture of the highest level, profound knowledge of international relations, allegiance to native land and deep respect for the duty station country.‘Syria discussion tone changed’ on international arenaSpeaking on the outcome of the year 2012 in the end of January, Sergey Lavrov said that the world is going through unprecedented transitional period, but key principle of Russia’s foreign policy will stay intact: supremacy of international law equal towards all nations.Speaking about Syria – currently one of the hottest topics on the international diplomatic arena – the Russian FM urged the warring sides of the Syrian conflict to get to negotiation table and stop the bloodshed. In the exclusive interview given to RT in the last days of 2012 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also stressed that Russia in no way is “in the business of regime change” in Syria.After practically two years of civil war in Syria a resolution of the conflict through negotiations has probably appeared on the horizon as Russian diplomats have noticed that fierce rhetoric of the western critics of President Bashar Assad is showing tendency to change. The Syrian opposition that previously refused to negotiate with Syria’s officials are considering taking a seat at the negotiation table.“The tone of discussion on Syria in the [
f18
UN Security] Council, in private consultations in the Council has changed. That’s for sure,” told RT in an exclusive interview Russia’s envoy to the UN Vitaly Churkin.“This change is clear here in our informal discussions in the Security Council, this change is clear in the contacts we have had with [UN-Arab League peace envoy to Syria Lakhdar] Brahimi, the trilateral contacts which he proposed,” Churkin told RT.The Russian diplomat said that “any rational person would realize that all sorts of dangers are involved in a military intervention in Syria.”Russia’s Western colleagues are beginning to realize that things were making a very dangerous turn in Syria, Churkin believes.Instead of a foreign intervention “Syria needs humanitarian assistance, because of the dimension of the humanitarian tragedy and more diplomatic support,” Russian diplomat pointed out.Vitaly Churkin, Ambassador of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. (Mario Tama/Getty Images/AFP)Russia expects delegations of the Syrian opposition to come to Moscow soon, told exclusively to Rusia al-Yaum (RT Arabic) Russia’s deputy FM Mikhail Bogdanov. Syrian Foreign Minister and other officials are also expected to visit Moscow, he said.Bogdanov stressed Russia does not lack contacts with all sides and fractions of the Syrian conflict.“There is no shortage of contacts, what we do lack are concrete results of both ours and our partners’ work to make Syrians stop the bloodshed and destruction of their own country and get to the negotiation table,” underlined Bogdanov.Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov (RIA Novosti/Valeriy Levitin)Iran and opponents brought to six-party conference tableSpeaking about Iran – another time bomb of the intenational diplomacy – Sergey Lavrov warned in January against attacking Iranian nuclear program sites and expressed hope that six-party international talks will soon restart to ease the strains around Iran’s nuclear program.Throughout 2012 Israel had been calling on the US to jointly strike Iranian nuclear objects, claiming that Iran’s nuclear program poses existential threat to the Jewish state. Otherwise Israel was threatening to make a unilateral move and undertake an air strike against the Islamic Republic.But the military attack never happened. Moreover, the sides of the conflict are expected to sit at the negotiation table later this month.“We are looking forward to the resumption of the talks of the six with Iran in [Kazakhstan’s capital] Astana in late February. Russia’s been extremely creative and active in trying to devise formulas which would allow the six on the one side and Iran on the other side to move towards a resolution of the concerns associated with the Iranian nuclear program,” Vitaly Churkin told RT. “And we have always welcomed the possibility of direct contacts between the United States and Iran,” he added. … Read More
‘New Palestine status to help move peace talks forward’ – Russia’s UN envoy
Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin(63.0Mb)embed videoUN move to upgrade Palestinians’ diplomatic status is a strong gesture of support to the Palestinians which could help end the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told RT.On Thursday the UN General Assembly voted for a resolution to upgrade the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic status to a “non-member observer state,” thus implicitly recognizing a Palestinian state. The Palestinian bid for statehood has been upheld with 138 votes in favor, 9 against and 41 abstentions.“It’s a major step for the Palestinians, a great success for [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas,” Vitaly Churkin said.“We believe that the challenge now is to channel this important development constructively,” he stressed, noting that the vote “wasn’t without acrimony,” as the Israelis expressed their dissatisfaction with the resolution and some countries led by the United States voted against it.“Before the vote as we were leading to this important day we’ve heard threats against the Palestinians
867
in various forms of retaliation from Israel and the United States, [and] some countries from the European Union,” he said.“We think that it would be very wrong if this vote were to turn or somebody were to try to turn it into further confrontation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We think it’s very important to make sure that it can be used as a stepping stone for restarting the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” In fact, Russia voted for the resolution on the basis of assurances from the Palestinians that resuming talks is what they are going to try to do, Churkin added.“Abbas emphasized that he did not see this move as a way to delegitimize Israel, and another assurance which we received from the Palestinian leaders is that they are not going to use this vote in order to try to isolate Israel.”Even though the recognition of the Palestinian Authority as a “non-member observer state” is not going to change the lives of the Palestinians overnight, it is a strong gesture of support from the international community that could help them enter into the negotiations with Israel towards final settlement.“It’s clear that this resolution on its own is not sufficient in order to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bilateral negotiations are necessary. It is important to satisfy in the course of those negotiations the concerns of the Israelis about their security, it’s important to settle the border issue on the basis, we believe, of 1967 lines – and they were mentioned again in the resolution that was adopted today. There is still a very long road ahead,” Churkin stressed.The international community is fed up with the conflict, he said. “Countries in the United Nations believe that dramatic steps need to be taken in order to have this conflict resolved.”“After 65 years of waiting it’s high time to have the Israeli-Palestinian conflict settled.” … Read More
