Secretary-General's press conference with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (unofficial transcript, revised to incorporate transcript of FM's comments)
Press events | Kofi Annan, Former Secretary-General
During the meeting in the Kremlin President Putin said that Russia was supportive of the United Nations, that Russia believes that the United Nations plays the role of a key coordinator of the activities of all states, that the United Nations was an efficient instrument to resolve international conflicts, even difficult ones, and that all of these conflicts must be resolved on the basis of international law.
The Russian side believes that if there had been no United Nations, then there would have been much more problems in the world, and it is in this context that we should address all the criticisms that are sometimes voiced with regard to the United Nations. The UN cannot do more than what its member states are prepared for. But when they are ready to support the Secretary-General, when they are ready to act through the United Nations, then the results are always better than when they act by themselves.
Today we are discussing in detail the efforts that the United Nations is pursuing, with assistance from the international community, to resolve the problems in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, where the problems have been on the rise slightly, plus a few other crisis spots. Today, among the other areas of tension, we focused on the Middle East, on the need for a comprehensive approach towards the settlement of the conflict there, and we also focused on the need to reform and renew the states of the region.
We focused on the need to have a comprehensive approach to the resolution of the conflicts in the region, and the needs to support the efforts of the states of the region in an attempt to reform and renew their countries. We voiced a shared opinion that addressing all the new threats and challenges should be on a basis of a comprehensive framework, and that the main threat is posed by terrorism which knows no borders, which knows no religious frameworks, and which is No. 1 enemy of the entire mankind.
With regard to addressing all these problems, as well as the problems that have to do with social and economic development, and environmental issues, Russia stands ready to play an active part, together with other members of the international community, in addressing them, and in doing so we have a special hope for the United Nations. And we are genuinely happy that at this very difficult and challenging period in our history, the United Nations is headed by Mr. Kofi Annan, and I would like to turn over the floor to him.
SG: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister and my dear friend. I am also very happy to be back in Moscow to have very constructive and fruitful discussions with the leadership. As the Foreign Minister has indicated to you, I've had a full day, or let's say a full time in a relatively short period, and have covered lots of ground and lots of territory. But what these meetings have had, particularly the meeting with President Putin, is the reaffirmation of Russia's belief in the United Nations and its determination to work with the UN and its emphasis on international cooperation. I shall leave Russia convinced that our partnership is solid and that on the major issues of the day, we are going to work very closely together, whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo or whatever.
The Minister has given you a full brief of what we have discussed, so I will not go through that in detail to use the time more effectively and to answer your questions.
Q: [A correspondent of Al-Jazeera, interpreted from Russian] My first question is to Mr. Kofi Annan: the US Secretary of State recently said that wrong information had been provided on chemical and biological weapons. Are there going to be any apologies about leading the international community into delusion?
[The same journalist then asked a question in Russian to the Foreign Minister regarding a recent statement by the US Secretary of State regarding the US initiative on “the Greater Middle East”].
SG: Let me say that, I think, the Secretary of State's statement stands for itself. He has, in his statement, clarified his position, and I think it should stand there.
FM [interpreted from Russian]: In addition to what the Secretary-General has just said, I believe that now we need to focus on what should be done in Iraq, given a serious situation that we have found ourselves in. We cannot afford the luxury of not joining our efforts, for the situation in too serious to be deflected by things of the past. What we are facing now is a real threat to the countries of the region, to the Iraqi people, and we need to act jointly and in constructive manner under the leading and coordinating role of the UN, and this is precisely what the UN is doing.
As to the second question regarding whether Russia has a final position on the US idea of “the Greater Middle East,” we do not see that the United States has its own final position. This idea is now being discussed very broadly –and it is, by the way, not that new, for instance, the European Union has a process of inter-acting with this region, which has been ongoing for quite a while. And before we formulate a position of our own –and that, most probably, will take a lot of time, so the word “final position” is not the most appropriate one –we would like to know the intentions of the countries of the region, and this will allow us to identify the best ways to support them in their efforts.
Coming back to what I said at the beginning, this idea should be viewed in the context of resolving the conflicts in the region, primarily in the Middle East and in Iraq.
Q: [Interpreted from Russian] My question is to both the Secretary-General and the Foreign Minister: are any specific steps gong to be taken after recent events in Iraq and after the clash between supporters of the Shiite leader in Iraq and coalition troops and the death of Sheikh Yassin in Palestine?
SG: Let me start on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There's been lots of discussions in diplomatic quarters, and envoys of the Quartet met recently to discuss what further steps could be taken to energize the peace process and to try and get the parties back to the table. And these discussions are ongoing. What is important is that we not only take steps, but also find ways of stopping the killing that is going on in the region. What I can assure you is that all the members of the Quartet, including the Russian Federation, are determined to really re-energize our efforts to bring the parties back to the table and find a way forward.
On your second question, the UN presence in Iraq is not very extensive. We have a team there now, trying to work with the Iraqi people in trying to determine what mechanism they should use for the political transition to the establishment of a government by end of June. We will do our best to ensure that an Iraqi government that represents the Iraqi people, that's in charge of its own affairs, its political and economic destiny, is installed, and that is what the Security Council wants. In the meantime, I would want to appeal to all in Iraq to cooperate with each other and to resist the violence that has taken innocent civilian lives.
FM [interpreted from Russian]: I'd like to associate myself with what Mr. Secretary-General has said. With regard to the situation in the Middle East, both the Security Council and the Secretary-General himself have more than once stated their view with regard to what is happening there. I do agree that we must do everything possible to stop the violence and to find a resolution of the conflict, and this must be done on the basis of the Roadmap which was endorsed by the Security Council and the parties to the conflict. Any steps taken on the ground should be in conformity with the Roadmap, and this is precisely what the Quartet members are doing.
Regarding what needs to be done in Iraq, I must say, firmly and unequivocally, that we must work for an earliest possible restoration of the Iraqi sovereignty, and we should pursue a central role of the United Nations in the political transition in Iraq.
Q: [A Greek journalist, interpreted from Russian] My first question goes to the Secretary-General: we know that demonstrations in Cyprus and the public polls in Cyprus have shown that your proposal is not acceptable either for the Greek part or for the Turkish part of the island. Why was this rush necessary? And was it necessary to include an element of blackmail in this proposal, implying threats and dangerous consequences if the proposal was not accepted?
[The same journalist then asked a question to Mr. Lavrov, inviting the Minister to comment on the developments in Cyprus and “the external pressure that is being exerted there.” It is well-known that Russia has always been opposed to such external pressure, he added.]
SG: Let me say that the whole Cyprus process is something that the parties engaged in with the United Nations freely and willingly. And when we met in New York on the 13th of February, there was an agreement and a time-table [inaudible], as to how to proceed, which included, at the critical stage, bringing in the leaders of Greece and Turkey to help the parties find a compromise, and failing that, I was to fill in the gaps, complete the plan, which is to be brought to referenda jointly on the 24th of April. So the last word will be with them, and I don't think one is imposing anything on them. They decide.
FM [interpreted from Russian]: Following up on the same issue, we still have to wait until we have the results of the referenda. With regard to the settlement of the Cyprus issue, the Secretary-General has always been acting on the basis of the UN Security Council Resolutions and on the basis of good offices missions that the Security Council requested him to perform. This does not mean, however, that the Secretary-General has no right to come up with his own initiative, and this is what he did, and as he said, he came up with his initiative with the consent of the parties concerned, including Turkey and Greece.
It is true that we had some doubts at first as to the swift pace of work, but we had never seen any self-interested motives in this, on the contrary, I viewed this as demonstration of a result-oriented approach. An alternative would have been to sit and wait for something to happen –and, most probably, nothing will happen, and whatever the results of the referendum are, the attention to the Cypriot issue is not going to weaken.
Thank you very much.