Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a joint news conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura
December 19, 2015Ladies and gentlemen,
I’d like to express my gratitude to the US Secretary of State, Mr John Kerry, who suggested that we meet in New York. That initiative did not guarantee success, but we agreed that our priority should be to maintain unity in the framework of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG). This is a complex group, because it combines countries that hold diametrical views on the Syrian crisis and the solutions to it. But in this also lies its strength because it is only with the involvement of all external parties who really influence the situation on the ground that we can succeed.
As I said, this is a very complex group, with countries that sometimes hold opposing views on the Syrian crisis and solutions to it. But in this also lies its strength because it is only by rallying all the external parties who can and do influence the situation on the ground that we can succeed.
I think it would be appropriate to focus on the ISSG meeting. We’ve had very open and instructive discussions today on ways to implement the Vienna Statements. These include the fight against terrorism, redoubling efforts to create conditions for the political process, assistance to refugees, humanitarian aid, and everything else that should be done to ease the suffering of civilians and to bring about an end to the bloodshed in Syria and other countries.
We have agreed that the principles that were developed in Vienna on October 30 and November 14 are not to be revised. This is the reason we have appealed to the UN Security Council to approve the work of the Vienna group. The resolution that was adopted today has reaffirmed the need for the Support Group to continue working and approved the principles of the Vienna Statements, which Mr Kerry described as the roadmap to the full implementation of the Geneva Communique of June 30, 2012. The key provision is that the Syrian people will decide the future of Syria. All the parties involved accept this principle, even though not all of them have abandoned their preliminary conditions and their own interpretation of the practical implementation of this principle. By the way, not all parties have stopped considering a military solution to the Syrian crisis, which is absolutely unacceptable. The main achievement today is that we have launched the implementation of the Vienna Statements and have secured the backing of international law for these efforts through this UN Security Council resolution. UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, acting under the guidance of the UN Secretary-General, has been issued a clear mandate to initiate practical efforts to convene representatives of the Syrian Government and the broadest possible spectrum of the opposition for formal negotiations.
We took note of the events that have been held in various countries to bring together all opposition groups and all opponents of President Bashar al-Assad on a platform of constructive talks. These events were held in Moscow and Cairo, and the latest of these meetings took place in Riyadh. The outcomes varied, but we tried to pinpoint an issue that brings the participants of these meetings together. The thing these opposition groups have in common is their support for the idea of talks with the Syrian Government. Some approved it with reservations, and others voiced their concerns, too, but the main thing is that we are moving on towards a political process. Mr De Mistura and his team have been charged with difficult objectives. Russia, as the co-chair of the ISSG, has pledged to help Mr De Mistura and his colleagues in organising this process. We hope that the ISSG will continue, as this is written in the resolution, to facilitate these efforts. Acting with support from the UN Security Council, we will be able to push ahead. This implies persevering, firm and consistent work, which is why we plan to meet again in January in keeping with Mr Kerry’s proposal. By that time we will know, at least approximately, the range of individuals and organisations that will be invited by the UN to participate in the intra-Syrian talks, as well as the starting positions of the sides on this platform.
I’m not overestimating what has been achieved today, but a very important step has been made to create the required external conditions, so that the people of Syria can accomplish what we want them to do – that they reach agreement on issues linked with the future of their nation and country.
Question (to Secretary of State John Kerry): You have discussed the remaining problems and, most importantly, the future of President Bashar al-Assad of the Syrian Arab Republic. Are you simply putting off the solution to this problem, while declining to address it today? You will have to face and address this problem in the future – say in six months, one even a year or 18 months from now. What can you tell the Syrian opposition in this connection? Today, Saudi Arabian representatives have said they want Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to resign after the transformation process is launched, otherwise they will not take part in the Geneva talks.
Sergey Lavrov (answers after Secretary of State John Kerry): I’ll continue answering. In reality, the Vienna documents, the UN Security Council resolution and the Geneva Communique that was also approved by a UN Security Council resolution stipulate the national unity concept through the creation of a governing body on the basis of mutual accord between the Government of Syria and the entire opposition. No one has ever denied this concept and our entire work hinges on this concept. It has been elaborated and built upon in the decisions of the Vienna meetings, and it is also formalised in today’s UN Security Council resolution.
We believe that a search for common accord between the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and the entire opposition will become one of the main tasks of UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura and his team. According to our documents, it is necessary to provide “credible, inclusive non-sectarian governance.” Yes, it appears that this task cannot be accomplished overnight. Of course, diplomatic skill and a certain amount of time will be needed for the sides to get used to each other as negotiating partners. We don’t want this process to drag on forever. Mr Kerry has said that we have coordinated our guidelines. We believe it’s quite possible to try and reach this agreement in six months. After that, it will become necessary to draft a new constitution. Our common recommendation calls for holding of elections on the basis of this new constitution. We believe it would be possible to implement the entire political process in approximately 18 months.
Question: You read the resolution, which statess that the future of Syria and the fate of its president will be decided by the Syrian people. Do you see it this way?
Sergey Lavrov: We’ve repeatedly spoken about Bashar al-Assad’s fate. Quite recently, President Vladimir Putin dwelled on this issue during his annual news conference. We cannot agree in principle with any approach that implies the assumption as to whom a nation wants to see as its leader would be imposed on it from the outside.
Modern history has seen many examples of this sort. Demonising the figure of Saddam Hussain was central to the Iraqi crisis. The same happened with regard to Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. We can see now what is happening with Iraq and what has happened with Libya. I’d like to hope that the latest agreements on Libya will work, but it’s far from being all that simple there. A similar case exists in Yemen, where the focus was on the need to remove President Ali Abdullah Saleh. He has even been removed on the basis of a document that has been imposed on the Yemeni parties. This document doesn’t work – precisely because this is an imposed decision (even though it was collectively supported by Europe, the US, Russia and countries in the region), rather than a move to cultivate the natural concord of all Yemeni parties. I think that we should avoid a repetition of our own mistakes and, therefore, in answering your concrete question I say that the phrase asserting that the Syrian people alone will decide the fate of Syria on their own includes, as we are deeply convinced, the fate of the country’s president.
We often hear people argue that real coordination in the fight against terrorism is impossible unless we deal with the Assad problem. This is a very dangerous logic and a very dangerous approach, because it is crossing out all principles that have been approved by the UN Security Council and say that terrorism cannot be justified by anything. It is unacceptable to advance any preconditions for a fight against terrorism. We must see the priorities. ISIS and other terrorists are a common threat for all of us and a civilisational challenge to the whole of mankind. Sacrificing it to anyone’s geopolitical ambitions is, to my mind, a huge mistake.
Question (addressed to Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry): You mentioned at the second ISSG meeting in Vienna the importance of forming an opposition group and coordinating a list of terrorist organisations. None of these questions was answered definitively until today’s meeting. It looks as though you’ve handed the issue over to the UN. Why do you think the UN will be more efficient in reaching an agreement on this issue than the ISSG? Many provisions in the resolution – on humanitarian assistance, on halting attacks on the civilian population – figured in the previous resolutions. They don’t seem to have had much effect on the situation. Why do you think they can have the impact they didn’t earlier? The ISSG pledged in the second Vienna Communique to consider withholding assistance from those parties to the conflict that failed to join the transition process. This document says nothing specific about this. Is this commitment still in force and is it still relevant for ISSG members? To what extent would you agree to do that?
Sergey Lavrov (speaking after John Kerry): I’d like to second Mr Kerry’s explanations. We didn’t create any committees at the November 14 Vienna meeting. We were indeed talking about – and reflected in our document – two subjects: the fight against terrorism and preparations for talks. As far as the terrorist groups are concerned, we have decided to exchange analyses on what we regard a terrorist organisation without creating a committee. We asked Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh to coordinate this work, and he did.
Given the somewhat diverse composition of the Vienna Group, where, as I said, many countries hold diametrically opposed positions, the list is, of course, very controversial. There are many situations where one country sees a huge number of small groups as terrorists, while another country doesn’t and has a list of its own. We need to introduce clarity here, because, as John said, we have agreed to develop criteria for adding other obvious terrorist groups to ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra at a later date. For us, these criteria will include, for example, the regular shelling by certain organisations of residential areas in Damascus and other populated areas, including repeated mortar attacks on the Russian Embassy in Syria, as well as other absolutely clear manifestations of terrorist activity. This process will be continued. Hopefully we’ll add to the list to be endorsed by the UN Security Council.
We didn’t create a committee to prepare for the talks either. If you read the Vienna-2 document, it says that we welcome all efforts to prepare the opposition for talks with the Syrian Government. Today, we have specified these efforts. We noted that that they had been undertaken in Moscow, Cairo, Riyadh and other places. As the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, acts on the UN Security Council resolution, he will take into account all these processes. It seems to me that there is some progress; it may not be as significant or progressive as each of us would like, but then the situation is very complex.
As for withholding assistance from those who refuse to participate in the talks, let me say that I didn’t take part in the Paris meeting. Parenthetically, let me say that we believe that all non-inclusive formats should perhaps be discontinued now that we have established the ISSG, with a focus on operations within the ISSG that we created with so much difficulty and where the main outside parties are represented. I think, first, that far from all that are on the ground should be invited to the talks. In the case of the talks, I’m referring to the Syrians who really represent the patriotic opposition, including the armed opposition, and who are not implicated in terrorist activities or the promotion of ISIS or Jabhat al-Nusra ideology. And not only should those who preach terrorism and engage in terrorist practices be prevented from joining the negotiating process, they should also be excluded from any ceasefire arrangement, when it proves possible to announce one. This will be our position of principle. I think that if we talk about outside support for various groups fighting in Syria, it would be ideal, as has been repeatedly stated by the many other countries represented here, to close the Syrian-Turkish border. I hope that all those who work on the ground and those who give them air support will address this issue without delay.
Question (to Sergey Lavrov, John Kerry, and Staffan de Mistura): According to the resolution that was just passed by the UN Security Council, negotiations between the Syrian Government and the opposition are to start in early January. Do you believe this will happen?
Sergey Lavrov (answers after Staffan de Mistura and John Kerry): As far as the date for the negotiations is concerned, I agree with Mr de Mistura and Mr Kerry. This is a specific result that matters, not just something written on paper. We chose early January as a preliminary date hoping that it would work out, but we won’t be making it an ultimatum. It is the substance that matters. Achieving substantial results will require additional efforts on the part of the UN team and on everyone who is trying in one way or another to influence the Syrian Government and the opposition to bring them together to begin negotiations.
Question (to Sergey Lavrov and John Kerry): Do you believe in any way that the military operations carried out by Russia and the US in Syria can be coordinated?
Sergei Lavrov (answers after John Kerry): We maintain contact with the US on the general HQ level and on other levels. Our contacts are ongoing with France, and another meeting between defence authorities is scheduled in the coming days. Recently we met with the military of the United Kingdom.
I would like to note one thing in this respect. Our colleagues tell us: “Let’s start a political process so that those who want to depose Assad have some hope of doing so. Then we can start coordinating our fight against terrorism with you.” It’s sad that yet again we are forcing our common goal – putting an end to terrorism – to hinge on one person’s fate.