From Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia: Transcript of Speech by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at the Foreign Ministry’s MGIMO University on the Occasion of the New Academic Year, September 1, 2008

Video

Esteemed Anatoliy Vasilyevich,

Esteemed Aleksandr Nikolayevich,

Esteemed colleagues and friends,

I am sincerely happy to greet the representatives of MGIMO and the Diplomatic Academy and all the guests of the event on the occasion of the beginning of the new academic year and congratulate all those present on the Day of Knowledge.

Traditionally I would like to say a few words about the current affairs of Russian diplomacy.

We have accumulated serious foreign policy capital – it works for the country’s development, and the protection of the interests of citizens and national business. Russian diplomacy has become firmly embedded in the successes of our internal development and in the real-life national interests understandable to people.

Russia has returned to the world arena as a responsible state which can stand up for its citizens. If somebody was mistaken on that score, then our resolute actions to force Georgia to peace and our recognition, due to the circumstances, of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia should have dispelled any such doubts.

With its reaction to the Georgian aggression Russia has set a certain standard of responding that fully complies with international law, including the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and our specific commitments in terms of the settlement of this conflict. Moreover, Russia and its peacekeepers have followed our deeply Christian tradition of dying for our friends.

The actions of Russia to force Georgia to peace have become a model of moderation, since they have pursued no aims other than those dictated by the necessity of providing effective guarantees of the nonresumption of Georgian aggression against South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Unfortunately, neither multilateral diplomacy nor Russian-US interaction, directed at keeping Tbilisi from a perilous adventure, had worked. Military aid had failed to give the US sufficient leverage to restrain Saakashvili’s government. It had rather encouraged the irresponsible and unpredictable regime as it proceeded along the road of gambles.

The phantom of the Great Game wanders again in the Caucasus. If the United States and its allies’ final choice is not their national interests or those of the Georgian people, but Saakashvili’s regime, which “has never learned anything,” this will be a mistake of truly historic proportions.

The situation brought on by Tbilisi’s attempt to settle the conflict by the use of brute military force has mirrored all the negative aspects of the current stage in the development of international relations, of the dangers in the underestimation of which Russia warned more than once, in particular in the speech of Vladimir Putin at Munich and in the Berlin statement of Dmitry Medvedev. They are unilateral response opposed to multilateral diplomacy; staking on force as distinct from a commitment to the pacific settlement of conflicts; and the complicated dialectics of such principles as territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination.

The events of the last few weeks give rich illustrative material on the theme of whether it is possible to replay a real war lost on the battlefield in a virtual reality of the information space. This is also a question of the moral foundation of international relations – of the norms of morality not being abstract categories in world politics. What is more important: the truth or an ability to lie beautifully from TV screens and relay the lie hourly to the whole world?

* * *

The entire development of events since August 8 has borne out the correctness of the analysis that was contained in the remarks of President Medvedev at the meeting of ambassadors and permanent representatives on July 15 this year. He said in part that the world, having got rid of the Cold War, simply can’t acquire a new equilibrium; that the conflict potential, including in areas close to the Russian borders, is sufficiently high; that the tilt is increasing towards methods of force, although they every time prove to be untenable. We see political provocations, various kinds of “revolutions,” the cynical practice of double standards being brought into play. And probably it is not fortuitous that those meddle in the affairs of other states ever more frequently who do not exactly succeed in doing things right at home.

To us, the CIS space is not a “chessboard” for playing geopolitical games. This is a common civilizational area for every people living here, one that keeps our historic and spiritual legacy alive. Our geography and economic interdependence give tangible competitive advantages to all of the Commonwealth countries. The integration imperatives of globalization make themselves felt here as forcefully as anywhere else in the world. The chief thing is that nobody should interfere by creating artificial obstacles in their own egoistic interests.

No matter how we may be provoked, we will continue to keep restraint and a soberness of judgment; will go on firmly, but unconfrontationally upholding our interests and principles. Exactly a year ago here, at MGIMO, I spoke of our “red lines” – actions that inflict unacceptable harm upon our national interests and undermine international legality.

Someone wanted to “unfreeze” the frozen conflicts. Now we can judge the results. Every cloud has a silver lining. Today’s clarity is better than any uncertainty and ambiguity. It should be understandable that South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not seek independence in general, but precisely independence from the Georgia whose leadership for some reason has always tended to be chauvinistic towards ethnic minorities.

One should not forget that thanks to Russian peacekeeping in South Ossetia and Abkhazia Georgia enjoyed the fruits of peace for the last fifteen years. And the greatest failure of all the Georgian governments has been their inability to derive benefit from this in the interests of their own country, of their own people. It wouldn’t be bad for Saakashvili’s external patrons to ask themselves the same questions that are being asked by opposition forces in Georgia itself.

For us, recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was dictated in equal measure by legal, moral and also pragmatic considerations – primarily in terms of assuring effective security for their peoples. We can no longer afford, as we did in recent years, to merely wait when a Tbilisi blitzkrieg begins against South Ossetia or Abkhazia again. No matter how quickly our military may have responded after the attack on Tskhinval on August 8, it would all the same have been impossible to prevent hundreds of casualties among civilians and peacekeepers, let alone our losses in the bloody battles to dislodge Georgian forces from the territory of South Ossetia. The way events developed – in a forestalling vein – in Abkhazia only bears out the correctness of that conclusion. Of course, if you place the lives and interests of people at the top of the list.

When we are being continuously told about “Georgia’s democratic government,” does this mean that it is permissible for a democratic government to act this way against a civilian population which it considers its own? We will never agree with this British-style “license to murder” that some capitals issue to the “friendly regimes” certified by them.

People living in the conflict regions in the post-Soviet space have found themselves in the “gray zone” through no fault of theirs, often never becoming citizens of states which arose as a result of the breakup of the USSR. It is incomprehensible why those speaking in virtually every corner about the “responsibility to protect” forgot about this when it came to the part of the ex-Soviet Union space where the authorities began to kill innocent people by appealing to sovereignty and territorial integrity. For us, the question in South Ossetia was one of repelling aggression and protecting our citizens directly on the borders of Russia and not in the Falkland islands.

Double standards are all the more disgusting when at issue are the lives of people: who are to live and who to die, whose children have a greater right to life and whose children are merely a soulless entity in geopolitical apportionments. Who among those championing Georgia have uttered even a single word over the almost daily civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan resulting from the actions of the NATO-led coalition forces?

I consider it urgent that Europe come back to simple, not politicized and not geopolitical values.

Realized in Russia’s actions to protect the rights of the population in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, of whom Russian citizens form a large part, are not only the fundamental requirements of our Constitution, but also the growing support in the international community of the idea of the security of the individual, which by no means runs counter to the traditional concept of the security of the state. To kill people whom you consider your own citizens is not an internal matter. We cannot regard people as “belonging” to anyone’s territory that can arbitrarily, without these people’s consent, pass under the sovereignty of this or that state in violation of the UN Charter and the principles of the Helsinki Final Act. Such an approach would return us – in present-day Europe – to the times of serfdom.

Sovereignty, of which the people are the only source, presupposes responsibility; in the first place – responsibility to one’s own citizens, including ensuring their rights and freedoms. Herein is the purpose of the existence of the state itself – not the individual for the state, but the state for the individual.

In the zones of the Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhaz conflicts Saakashvili and those who stand behind him (and without external support he would not hold out a day) had decided on testing Russian power for strength. In so doing the present Georgian regime revealed its essence by taking it into its head to bomb the population of South Ossetia into submission to its diktat. Right after this the same fate was prepared for Abkhazia. This did not work and never will. To ensure the region against relapses of violence Russia will continue to take measures to punish those guilty and ensure that this regime cannot perpetrate evil any more. For a start it is necessary to impose an embargo on supplies of arms to this regime – until another government turns Georgia into a normal state.

We are interested in the closest cooperation with the OSCE and UN in order to provide lasting security guarantees for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as envisaged in the six principles put forward by Dmitry Medvedev and Nicolas Sarkozy in Moscow on August 12.

* * *

The turning point in world development requires a profound, philosophical approach. In this regard, there is no way to dispense with turning to history – otherwise we will be doomed to repeating it.

This is important, since Europe, unfortunately, still does not have a collective security system created which would be open to all and provide all with equal security. But something needs to be done – otherwise everything in Euro-Atlantic affairs will drop back into its rut. The present crisis points to this as well. Europe needs a positive, not a negative agenda. For a start it would not be a bad idea to look at whether the previous structures and mechanisms are adequate today or thought must be given to something new for construction of a new European architecture, firmly guaranteeing the inviolability of postwar borders while taking into consideration the realities of the 21st century. Let us call it an “audit.”

President Medvedev suggested concluding a European Security Treaty and starting this process at a pan-European summit. At issue is the establishment of a truly universal system of collective security in the Euro-Atlantic area with the full integration of Russia in it. In this context honest consideration must also be given to the problems that have arisen over the CFE Treaty and the deployment of elements of a US global missile defense system in Eastern Europe. In the absence of a reasonable multilateral dialogue we will respond ourselves – in line with the principle of reasonable sufficiency. National security cannot rest on a word of honor – President Medvedev also spoke of this.

But we would, of course, prefer collective work on European security issues – naturally on an equal, not a bloc basis. Our relevant initiatives remain valid.

Russian relations with NATO are experiencing a long-cherished moment of truth. NATO itself has taken the path of raising the stakes. There is a feeling the alliance again needs “frontline states” to justify its own significance in the new conditions.

It is not we that are subjecting the entire present European security architecture to test. Its systemic defects are obvious, including above all Nato-centrism, which by definition negates the creation of a truly universal mechanism of collective security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

I am certain that Europe is perfectly well aware of this. It has been Europe, taught by its own historical experience and having gone through national catastrophes, that has come closer than others to reformulating the meaning of its existence in a truly global, collectivist vein, when all global problems are seen as its own. National egoism does not work anymore. There should be no rollback allowed, whether in the form of populism, intolerance or Islamophobia. Russia is ready for a joint search for new fruitful ideas which would bring our common future nearer. Now is the time to follow Paul Kennedy’s advice in his article in Foreign Affairs for May/June 2008 and “take intellectual risks.”

As to Russian-American relations, their positive program is set out in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept. We have noted that, in the course of the current presidential campaign in the US, sensible voices have begun to be heard, particularly about the need to maintain real control over strategic offensive arms. I am sure that a positive agenda can be built on such a pragmatic basis, reflecting the true state of affairs and national interests and not ideological fantasies.

At a point in the past the US responded with the presidency of John Kennedy to the intellectual, military-political and technological challenges of that era. The situation repeats itself. America needs to acknowledge the reality of the “post-American world” (Fareed Zakaria) and to start adapting itself to it. I can only agree with F. A. Lukyanov, who in his article in the newspaper Vedomosti for July 21 says that the “the next presidency is fundamentally important – it will show how deep the crisis of American policy is and how much time will be required to overcome it.”

We are going to have dealings with any America. But our American partners should realize that positive relations between leading world powers can only be built on the basis of strict reciprocity and absolute honesty, with the entire “package” in place, not just its selected elements. We’re going to speak to Washington as long as the slightest hope remains of understanding each other and coming to an agreement. And we frankly admit that we would like that in international affairs America would take the path of changes, not stand in their way.

Unless this occurs, complicated times await the US and the world. The attempt to live in its own, “unipolar world” has become protracted – this is a dangerous state for all. And we see its manifestation in anti-Russian provocations, including the aggression of Tbilisi against South Ossetia.

I am convinced that the discredited practice of maintaining client states and dummy regimes should not be revived.

It will take time to sort all these things out fundamentally and decide which is more important. The mythology of separate, bloc security in an era of globalization or a successful antiterrorist and antinarcotics struggle in Afghanistan and a joint analysis of likely global implications of the developments in Pakistan; a further fragmentation of the Balkan states or united actions to stabilize this explosive region.

I think that sooner or later we are going to arrive at the recognition of the necessity of reviewing the whole international agenda with a view to agreeing on its truly collective version. While no one needs to start from scratch, a radical revision is unavoidable, since it is the imposition on all, including Russia, of the West’s unilaterally painted view of the world’s development since 1992 that lies at the base of all the present misunderstandings.

The only reasonable way forward is pragmatic and sensible cooperation, without self-deception and illusions, which the partners have definitively freed us of. The criterion for our relations can only be total reciprocity.

* * *

In the actions of our opponents it is hard not to discern a striving – at the level of the subconscious – to somehow make up for the lack of obedience on the part of Russia. Dissatisfaction with this unavoidably leads to the road of a policy of “containment.” And all this is contrary to the wise advice of Joseph Nye on the harmfulness of policies from a position of military strength in our time. And contrary to the thesis formulated by Chancellor A. M. Gorchakov in his famous circular of August 21, 1856 that this kind of policies ultimately “give back to Russia the full freedom of action,” and also contrary to the opinion of F. I. Tyutchev (in his unfinished treatise “Russia and the West”) that “it has been the most sworn enemies of Russia that have contributed with the greatest success to the development of its greatness.” With this last point it is hard to argue if you recall who started the wars that ended with the entry of Russian forces into Paris in 1814 and into Berlin in 1945.

A standoff is again being imposed on us in virtually the same region where one and a half centuries ago Russia was being contained under the slogan of the Eastern Question. The slogans are different now. Only naval demonstrations in the Baltic Sea are lacking (in the Black Sea we are already watching them). But this is also not far off, if you bear in mind the US plans to deploy its antimissiles on the Baltic coast of Poland, and for their protection the appropriate systems of not only ground, but also of sea basing. It will be recalled that after the Crimean War Western Europe was never able to restore its equilibrium without the participation of Russia, particularly on the fronts of World War I.

So there is no way we can get away from the fundamental theme “Russia and the West.” We have in fact shared all the tragedies of Europe in the 20th century, when the continent’s western part set the tone in European civilization. Now, with the end of the Cold War, truly collective decisions are possible in the Euro-Atlantic area, which are unthinkable without the equal participation of Russia.

It is appropriate to say here that today some people are trying to scare us with Germany, which if let out of the NATO “cage” will supposedly again threaten all of Europe. I think those who would like to undermine trust in the outcomes of the postwar development of the FRG pursue their own selfish interests. For us, the German question has been settled definitively. Russian-German reconciliation is one of the major factors in the construction of new Europe. And we will allow no one to drive a wedge between our peoples.

The problems of the historical West are most acutely manifest on the other side of the Atlantic – first of all because it is there that the load of a policy based on instincts and prejudices of the past has turned out to be the heaviest. But in a cardinally changed, globalizing world everyone will have to rearticulate their mission. Western Europe has actually done so, its majority refusing to share the Americans’ staking on military force. The new Russia has also made its choice, reaffirming it in the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, as endorsed by President Medvedev. Now it is up to the rest of the members of the European and Euro-Atlantic family.

The response of some western countries to the South Ossetia crisis – on the verge of self-exposure – in a pointedly geopolitical, ideological vein, i.e. unrelatedly to the real facts, vividly illustrates a deficit of morality. Those incapable of siding with the truth and justice simply cannot, no matter how hard they try, represent the whole of European civilization, not to speak of the incompatibility of that approach with other civilizations and cultural traditions.

Today, in order to claim a privileged position in the international system, it is necessary to prove the capacity for real leadership in tackling global problems, be it global poverty, energy and food security or climate change. Look at the unsettled Arab-Israeli conflict alone. Representing a different civilization, Kishore Mahbubani, a National University of Singapore professor, writes (in Foreign Affairs for May/June 2008) that “the West has gone from being the world’s problem solver to being its single biggest liability.” That’s the bill for which those will be held to answer to the rest of the world who aspire to formulate the position of the “entire West.”

Focus should be on positive achievements, particularly by drawing lessons from history. The result of the entire historical development of Europe in the 20th century, including both world wars, the Cold War, bipolarity and so on, is the socially oriented economic development model. Attempts to destroy it – as a thing no longer necessary after the end of the Cold War – have led nowhere. Against the current financial crisis Britain’s Financial Times (July 14) has noted that even America has not turned out to be impervious to socialist things like “government sponsored” mortgage associations and corporations. London has also taken the path of nationalizing the bank Northern Rock, which not so long ago was anathema from the point of view of Anglo-Saxon political economy.

Russia has voluntarily chosen a socially oriented economy as its aim. It is with this civilizational product that the whole Euro-Atlantic area should enter into the global market of ideas, values and development models.

The time has come when tackling global problems must become a part of national development strategies. This will call for a fresh look at things, an ability to consider and integrate the interests of all groups of states. How important this is can be seen from the example of the failure of the Doha Round, the present exacerbation of the global food crisis, and major setbacks in the world commercial, economic and financial system. Attesting to the level of political analysis of our opponents is the fact that in the talks on Russia’s WTO accession, conducted honestly by us, our partners, instead of buttressing the collapsing multilateral trade system with Russia, have been trying to impose discriminatory terms on us.

There is no doubt that Russia and the historical West can for a time, perhaps even significant, live and act on two occasionally intersecting planes, in different coordinate systems. Such was already the case more than once, not by virtue of a conscious choice on Russia’s part. One can say that in historical terms we are quite used to it.

Far from all in the West suffer from a lack of understanding of what is happening. Today’s EU summit should clear up a great deal. We hope the choice they make will be based on Europe’s basic interests.

* * *

Our view of the contemporary world and the goals and objectives pursued by Russia in it are clearly formulated in the Foreign Policy Concept, approved by President Medvedev. In a concentrated form, its essence is reaffirmed in the five principles set out by Dmitry Medvedev in an interview with Russian media on August 31.

We will never agree with legal nihilism in world affairs, with an attitude towards international law as a “draft pole” and as the “fate of the weak” or with attempts to “cut corners” to the detriment of international legality, which is the embodiment of the moral principle in relations among states. Indeed, international law is our ideology in international affairs. To use Tyutchev’s phrase, we want “once and for all to establish the triumph of law, of historical legality over the revolutionary mode of action.”

With the end of the Cold War the prerequisites arose for the affirmation of the principles of genuine freedom in the international community. The grounds for bloc policies have disappeared. The multivariant behavior of states has increased on the international scene. The notorious principle of “you’re either with us, or against us” no longer operates. Conditions are being created for a multipolar world in which states are driven by their national interests cleansed of ideology and by a common understanding of collective interests. Herein is the basis of an emerging new, self-regulatory international system.

Russia has suffered a grievous loss – Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn has died, the man who was rightly considered the chief dissident of the Soviet Union. It is therefore quite appropriate to say now that a part of the answer of the new Russia to the challenge of his spiritual legacy is that we are in practice upholding in international relations the right to dissidence, in other words – the right to freedom of speech and thought for any state – regardless of its size or civilizational identity.

We are not going to let ourselves be drawn into any confrontation – lovers of confrontational configurations will have to do without us. If, however, the partners are not ready for joint action, Russia will be forced to go it alone in defending its national interests, but always on the basis of international law.

On the firm basis of international law, the Constitution and laws of Russia, we are going to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are, and to support the interests of Russian business and develop privileged relations with Russia’s friends in different regions.

Russia has a coherent view of the contemporary world and its own role in it. There is no room for illusions about the possibility to make us by a wave of the wand “change tack” in the international arena.

Somebody does not want us to focus on construction, to tackle successfully the important tasks for our people and to occupy our lawful place in the world. But we will have enough patience not to succumb to provocations. The stage of “concentration” has been traversed by us on the whole. The task today is to unfold the accumulated potential in the interests of Russia, the achievement of a new quality in its domestic development and our active contribution to shaping and implementing an international agenda.

The new condition of the country and the world has also determined the new tasks that were set by President Medvedev for the diplomatic service at the ambassadors’ meeting. It was a demanding talk, primarily as regards foreign policy coordination and information work. With the strengthening of Russia our role and responsibility have increased in international affairs, but competition has also become tougher. It is necessary to struggle for an information space – without this it will be hard to ensure the competitive ability of the country in the new conditions. It was on its backers’ control over the international information field that Tbilisi counted when it undertook aggression against South Ossetia and was preparing a blitzkrieg against Abkhazia. That is on black being passed off as white.

All of this requires of us more initiative, more forestalling action.

It cannot be forgotten, which the President particularly stressed, including at his meeting with the young staff at the Ministry, that required of us all are an active civic stance, the desire and ability to work for the state, the striving to make the promotion of national interests the chief priority in self-realization and the establishment of a truly creative atmosphere in the Ministry’s collective. In the final analysis, it is about converting the care shown by the country’s leadership into a new quality of our work. The same high requirements are also set for those wishing to work at the Russian MFA.

MGIMO possesses excellent facilities and an exceptionally competent faculty to give you the most up-to-date education. Here you are taught to think creatively and to build relationships in a collective in the right way. The MGIMO students will acquire the command of a huge array of knowledge that forms a solid foundation for their future career. Also helpful in developing it is our Diplomatic Academy, the reformation of which must make it competitive by the highest international standards.

Allow me to wish the future graduates successful and productive studies, persistency in mastering the sciences, a striving to broaden your outlook and continuous self-improvement.

And I wish the administration and faculty robust health, a lot of energy and patience to ensure that your present charges will in the future become first-class specialists ready to loyally serve the Motherland in any field of activity.

Direct link