Russian FM: We follow international law principles in dealing with Syrian crisis

Moscow, 18 Aug. 2012 (WAM) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that his country's position on Syrian crisis is consistent with the principles of international law, objectives of the United Nations charter?s respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, non-interference in states? internal affairs and rejection of the threat of force and a rejection of attempts to solve problems by means other than political except in those cases where the decision is taken by the UN Security Council.

In an interview with Sky New Arabia, Lavrov indicated that Russia adheres to a clear, traditional line to resolve all crises ? the need to arrive at collective positions which are implemented unanimously.

The interview dull text follows: Sky News Arabia: Many of the countries within the Arab world have been critical of the way Russia has dealt with the Syrian crisis, and perceive your stance to be based on what has happened in Libya. What are your thoughts? Lavrov: We are used to starting with ourselves before we analyze the positions of others. We strive to ensure the correctness of our positions and rank them according to clear criteria: the principles of international law, objectives of the United Nations charter?s respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, non-interference in states? internal affairs and rejection of the threat of force and a rejection of attempts to solve problems by means other than political except in those cases where the decision is taken by the UN Security Council.

They criticize us because we used, with China, the veto in the UN Security Council. We did so consciously not for revenge, but to prevent the violation of the United Nationals charter. We defended these principles by veto. Our partners wanted to take a decision based on one interpretation (of events) that distorted what was happening on the ground and which would have intentionally punished the Syrian regime and opened the way for regime change - the Americans admit to this. The mission of the UN Security Council is to create conditions to solve the problems by peaceful means. If we interpret the violations of international law and international humanitarian law and breaches of obligations to protect civilians that Bashar al-Assad has permitted, we nevertheless cannot imagine that Assad confronts unarmed protesters and exposes them to violence without provocation. The current stage of the crisis is quite different. There is a confrontation between armed factions and they are government factions and the Syrian Free Army which recently announced the enrollment al Qaeda fighters in Syria. This is a very dangerous sign and we have already warned about it, but our partners in the West prefer to ignore our warnings as do some countries in the region that you want to change the regime.

Sky News Arabia: But this does not apply to the initial stages of unrest in Syria when the opposition was still unarmed?Lavrov: The first armed clashes with the participation of elements of the armed opposition took place in April 2011. This soon led to an armed struggle and to a flow of weapons and equipment for the opposition carry out an armed conflict. I repeat, we condemn any acts of violence and whoever criticizes Russia condemns all violence by the Syrian government and this is the difference.

Sky News Arabia: How do you describe the current situation in Syria? Is it a revolution as claimed by the opposition, or a civil war, or a global conspiracy as claimed by Damascus in its official statements?Lavrov: First of all, it is an armed conflict as classified by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Internal conflict means the presence of government forces and fighters opposed to them. It is a very sad state of affairs. The events began in the context of developments of the Arab spring. A section of the Syrian people are not satisfied with their situation and demand reform and improved the living, economic and social conditions and democratization. These are all clear ambitions and we understand them and sympathize with them not only with regard to the Syrian people but the peoples of the Arab countries too. Of course, the regime has committed many errors and was too late in responding to the demands for reform though it has taken some, albeit too late and inadequate, steps. Syrians must sit together at the negotiating table and agree on their future for themselves if reform is to be completed in a way that satisfies all Syrians. I do not think that it was an external plot. Yes, the role of external forces is evident at certain stages and in the direct invitation to arm the opposition and urge them to reject negotiations with the regime and to continue the armed conflict. All these calls put oil on the fire and are inconsistent with the relevant Security Council resolutions, Kofi Annan?s plan and the Geneva Conventions.

Sky News Arabia: The U.S. military leadership has announced that Turkey and Jordan are keen on establishing safe zone areas on the countries? borders with Syria, which poses the question of setting a no-fly zone. What are your thoughts on this?Lavrov: As far as the positions of Turkey and Jordan are concerned, it is best that I hear in this regard from the leadership of Turkey and Jordan directly. I have heard what was said by representatives of the U.S. military command which is not the first time they propose this. That would be a violation of sovereignty if this included areas Syrian territory as well as a breach of the United Nations charter. If the objective is the fate of refugees and displaced persons, we also want to facilitate their affairs and it is important to agree on this matter in accordance with various mechanisms. UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Valerie Amos has visited Damascus and a number of areas in Syria and there is consent by the Syrian government to resolve these problems. There are initiatives by the High Commissioner for Refugees to provide aid to refugees in camps on the territory of Turkey and Jordan and other countries as per the international humanitarian law. But if they are trying to create safe zones and no-fly zones for military purposes by citing an international crisis-- that is unacceptable.

Sky News Arabia: Still, the United States has said that it does not rule out the use of a substitute for a no-fly zone.

Lavrov: The United States never rules out anything.

Sky News Arabia: Do you have any information on the United States? movements outside of the framework of the UN Security Council?Lavrov: The United States has already announced that it will move outside the framework of the UN Security Council and it is a the position that is incomprehensible to us because they announced it a few days after the Geneva meeting which led to the formation of a working committee that issued a statement detailing Annan?s six point plan and which was approved unanimously. But when we started the discussion about it in the Security Council, we were ready for approval, literally without adding amendments, but it became clear that our partners were not ready for it. They tried to interpret the statement as if it was a mandate to bring down the regime and excluded it from the negotiations, which is not what was included in the statement at all. It stated in clear, simple English the need to stop the violence by all sides and for the government and the opposition to propose names of negotiators to come together to reach consensus on a transitional body comprising representatives of government and opposition through consensus by the Syrians themselves.

I think that what we hear from Washington and some other capitals about the death of the Geneva statement is irresponsible for it is the most consensus that has been reached on Syria with the participation of the West, the United States, the Europeans, Russia, China, leading Arabi countries and Turkey. To say now the statement is dead means that there are those who are looking for any pretext to declare there is no prospect for peaceful settlement and to resort to military action. This is what worries us and it is the road to a major disaster in the area.

Sky News Arabia: You have called for a meeting of the Security Council. How can this step be interpreted? Is it an attempt to revive what was reached in Geneva?Lavrov: What was reached in Geneva was not buried by anyone. At least we did not bury it. Nor did we hear that the European countries or China backtracked. This is also the case for the Arab States and the Turks. The United States declared that a page has been turned on this agreement; something that lacks any basis or factual reality is that the Geneva statement contains all the necessary factors for the transformation of the dispute into a political discourse ? that requires not just for the Syrian parties to hear this call but also for foreign actors to convey because they have different degrees of influence on the parties in Syria. Those who attended the Geneva meeting and also Saudi Arabia and Iran, which did not attend, should send the same signal to all the Syrian players who are fighting each other now.

If we were all ready to do so the situation would be completely different situation. An Arab observer mission was set up last year, but for unknown reasons the mission was terminated. And now the international observer mission is coming to an end and will be replaced by a UN mission in Damascus. All this is in addition to the attempts to bury the Geneva statement alive and reinforces the impression that there are those looking for an excuse to prove the futility of finding a political and justifying and legitimizing military intervention!We in fact want to hold a meeting in New York for the permanent representatives of all the countries that attended the Geneva meeting in addition to Saudi Arabia and Iran to say yes, we were in Geneva and we held fair and constructive negotiations and we ended up with a unanimous position still retains its purpose and we are ready to apply it to the ground. The U.S. State representative sought clarifications about the meeting to which she was invited, saying her country is not aware of what is being talked about. I say that everyone knows everything and U.S. officials do not have to pretend they are not aware, which is not in fact not the truth. At least we gave an answer without hesitation to those who asked about the meeting, but if some have tried to wriggle out of this, it means either that they were not sincere in Geneva or they changed their minds now. They should talk about it openly!Sky News Arabia: Besides that, does Russia plan on presenting an initiative to solve the Syrian crisis alongside what you have planned on doing during the Security Council?Lavrov: We adhere to a clear, traditional line to resolve all crises ? the need to arrive at collective positions which are implemented unanimously and that is what happened in the Security Council with the adoption of the Annan plan and committed ourselves to Geneva statement as external players to pressure all Syrian parties to implement this plan. Here are all the initiatives. Our goal is not to create initiatives that provoke a storm, such as establishing no-fly zones or safe areas. We do not seek to satisfy domestic public opinion. Our goal is to understand the essence of the dispute which can only be done on a consensual basis and collectively as was the coordination in Geneva. Our efforts today are to apply what was been agreed in Geneva.

Sky News Arabia: In your opinion, what can the successor of Kofi Annan accomplish in solving the Syrian Crisis, and after appointing Lakhdar Ibrahimi, the former Algerian diplomat, what can Al-Ibrahimi given that Al Assad?s government refuses to stop the violence?Lavrov: Everyone refuses to stop the violence and one of the most important points in the context of the Geneva statement talks about the need for an end to violence by the government and the opposition. Our western partners are evading this agreement and violating commitments they have made. They are now calling for the Syrian government to stop military actions of one side and pull armed elements and military machinery from Syrian cities. Only after that they be prepared to ask the opposition to stop military action!Let us assume that the regime declares an exit from all cities and withdraws all its forces ? and this is something that is not necessary ? do you think that the opposition will hand in its weapons after that?! The opposition will take over those cities and put them under its control as happened during the autumn with the attempt to implement the Arab plan. The matter is not linked to our objectives or to advice we give Assad. Rather, the matter is not realistic from the perspective of any politician or any military operation. And when they talk about the need to disarm the Syrian regime, the goal is not to calm the situation or save the lives of civilians, but rather regime change in breach of the principles of the United Nations charter. So when we talk about what should be done by Kofi Annan successor, it should be noted that the strength of his mission will be less than the task of the observers ? their number was a few dozen ? and there are plans to divide them into military observers, politicians and a third group to help in the implementation of humanitarian initiatives and the delivery of aid. I doubt the ability of the members of this mission to visit the Syrian cities or get out of Damascus due to the ongoing violence, so it is clear they will focus on political actions and statements that allow the start of political dialogue - but this is subject to the success in stopping the violence and not the success of the person, Lakhdar Ibrahimi, despite his experience and wisdom ? just as in the past it did not depend on the international observers who oversaw the cease-fire announced last April.

We propose a halt, similar to a ceasefire, under the responsibility of external actors who have influence on the government and armed opposition groups. If we are successful in the political process it is necessary to collectively pressure all armed opposition groups to ceasefire and convince them to quickly appoint negotiators send them to a location agreed by everyone to start agreeing on a transition body and determine the fate of key laws including the constitution and of course preparing for elections.

Sky News Arabia: Even if Al Assad remains in power?Lavrov: The Syrians must decide that for themselves, as is the case in other countries. The public determines the fate of the leadership.

Sky News Arabia: There are those who perceive that Al Assad?s army does not control a large portion of the Syrian territories?Lavrov: At the same time they see Assad?s forces controlling a large part of Syrian territories... and this is a reality. An internal armed conflict is taking place in the country, and even if we talk about this reality, examples have been mentioned to you about what those outside who write what they perceive the scenario of the reform in Syria to be. They want Assad to withdraw his troops. No one can convince Assad of that, no one! They made sure the opposition categorically rejects a cease-fire and demand Assad to disarm, which is effectively to surrender. Assad forces decided to fight to the end which is to be expected and they wanted to provoke him in this way to provide an excuse for those who want to use armed force and say they do not give up as long as the Security Council remains idle.

Sky News Arabia: It is known that the Syrian government has been using weapons and artillery to shell civilian areas, and of course, this is done using weapons purchased from Russia. Based on this, will you continue providing them with weaponry?Lavrov: Do you mean the weapons he bought from the former Soviet Union? We have said repeatedly that we implemented the old contracts but do not enter into new deals.

Sky News Arabia: More than 130 countries in the General Assembly of the United Nations condemned the government of Bashar al Assad a few days ago, except for Russia, China, and a few of the Latin American countries. As such, are you not worried about the possibility of having Russia political isolation?Lavrov: First of all, Russia and China did condemn the Syrian government in the past. What you are speaking of is in relation to a decision which only takes into consideration the requests of one party, without acknowledging the fact that the violence is caused by the opposition as well and not only from the Syrian government. There are victims falling due to the violence of the opposition, and the Human Rights watch has recently announced that the armed opposition is also guilty of committing war crimes. Therefore, we had to vote against the decision as those who placed it refused to acknowledge those facts.

We condemn the Syrian government for committing violations, but we also condemn the opposition. As for our stance and the possibility of being placed under global isolation, I can site several examples in which one country would vote no against a decision and all of the others would vote yes such as decisions pertaining to the Middle Eastern crisis and the ban against Cuba and others-- and nobody thinks of placing that country in isolation. This only has to do with taking a stand, and I reiterate that our vote during the General Assembly was not due to any particularly ideology or bias against a particular party, but rather to defend the United Nations principles which doesn?t include the word ?revolution?, and does not get involved in them. On that principle, we have met with leaders of the Syrian National Council. Burhan Ghalioun visited us in November, and last month we were also visited by Abdulbaset Seida; both of whom confirmed that what is happening in Syria is a revolution. We told them that if it was a revolution then it was no business of the Security Council to interfere as it works to solve conflicts peacefully by communicating with parties who stand against the violence, and that is how the dialogue amongst conflicting parties takes place. We do not feel isolated, and that is what is most important. All of the opposing parties have been in touch with us, and we hold talks with the opposition both within and outside Syria. We were visited by delegates from the National Coordination Committee, which takes a stance very close to ours as it insists on the termination of violence by all parties, and the release of all political prisoners and those kidnapped by the government and the opposition; along with the the delivery of humanitarian aid and the initiation of a political dialogue amongst all Syrian parties.

Almost all of the Arab countries have stressed their interest in further developing their relationship with Russia politically and economically. We have also felt this interest emerge from the new leaders of Tunisia and Egypt-- the latter where a religious movement is now in power, and the former where liberalists have become the ruling party both of which have expressed interest in reviving our relationships.

Sky News Arabia: It is, however, noticeable that there is growing disapproval from Arab citizens, who have become used to Russia and the Soviet Union providing support to the civilians rather than the governments.

Lavrov: This is reliant on our presence in the media field. I believe that those who can watch Russian television networks, including those reporting from within Syria, will have a different opinion to those who cannot do so.

Sky News Arabia: Is the problem only with the media?Lavrov: No, no, this is done based on a media background. General opinion is formulated by politicians and the media. When the media sources announced the murder of a Russian General in Syria, then it becomes prevalent that this is a lie; it was part of the general opinion. It was incessantly published that the Russian General has been killed, and that he was an advisor to Al Assad, but when their lie was exposed they timidly corrected it in a manner which did not reach many.

This same thing is related to the scandal which was attributed to my Deputy Minister Bogdanov, who did not speak to the Saudi paper Al Watan. I have listened to the voice recording, and it was obvious that someone was answering questions that he was asking his own self. This reminds us of the 2008 Caucasus war, in which CNN published images of the city of Tskhinvali in Ossetia, which was invaded by Georgian army tanks and several women and children were killed. At the time, CNN said that these tanks had invaded the city of Gori in Georgia much like another channel which had broadcasted footage from the Iraqi war taken ten years ago, and said it was footage of the Syrian government?s violence against civilians. As such, there is a lot reliant on the media.

When people in the Arab world state that Russia supports civilians rather than governments, they are correct. Our stance was not taken to support the Syrian government, but rather we condemned it and criticized it and asked it to accept the Arab resolution and Kofi Annan?s plan, as well as the United Nations observer mission and the Geneva decisions. Al Assad has complied with all of this, despite his other actions. He even assigned an official negotiator as per the demand by of the participants of the Geneva meeting. On the other hand, these same demands were ignored by the opposition, and so I must ask which party is in fact supporting the dialogue?Al Assad is under pressure from all parties and is suffering of sanctions. If the participants of Geneva were sincere in their intentions, they would have demanded the acceptance of dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.

Copyright Emirates News Agency (WAM) 2012.