Sergey Lavrov: We Have Nothing To Be Ashamed Of
The more active Russia is in reclaiming its erstwhile place as a major player on the international scene, the more questions surface that can be asked of Russian diplomats. Some of them a Rossiyskaya Gazeta correspondent put to Sergey Lavrov, the head of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Q: Now that enough time has passed since the Munich address by Russian President Vladimir Putin, which made headlines all over the world, we can review the response received. Who is out there that Russia can count upon, so to speak?
A: There were, and still are, quite a few partners who see eye to eye with us. Ill tell you more: They are in the majority.
If we want to join forces in fighting the threats and challenges that we all face, then we shouldn’t think of joint action as appeals to all the others to subscribe to a strategy that is developed unilaterally. Joint action must be understood as teamwork right from the word go: joint analysis of the situation, joint development of measures that are required to overcome this or that crisis.
You can hardly have an effective approach unless it has been coordinated with all the players involved in addressing a given situation. Again, if we are presented with an absolutely unilateral strategy and we are called upon to join ranks against this or that evil—and we have our own views as to how the evil can be combated, though we concur in the ultimate aim to eliminate it—then this is no longer what you expect from a partner.
We cannot accept such an approach. Neither can it be accepted by a vast majority of other countries, including most countries in Europe. I can assure you that the same keynotes that the president delivered in Munich have been voiced—with changes rung on them, and much more critical changes at that—and are still being voiced in confidential talks with us.
We realize that not all can afford to articulate it for everybody to hear. But somebody had to say that. Besides, since we had failed to get through to our partners directly and draw their attention to the fact that things should be done, generally speaking, on the level, the president came out and said it on the record. He said it, not because we want to blame somebody for something, but because we want to get things moving, to identify the sticking points, to demonstrate the need for straight talk in addressing the world’s current problems.
After all, the problems in question concern us all. A collapse of Iraq, for instance, will have catastrophic consequences for many players. Afghanistan, the Middle East, international terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons, Iran, the DPRK [North Korea]: All this can come to haunt many a country, in one way or another, including Russia. And it is not immaterial to us, how things are done in this or that region.
For example, as far as Iraq is concerned, we warned, again and again, even before the outbreak of hostilities, that it was a mistake. And now, when we are being urged to spare no effort in helping to bring about a settlement in Iraq, we are willing to do it.
We are not going to gloat, ‘Well, you’ve made your bed, now you must lie in it; we told you so.’ Let historians explore the question: Who was right? What is much more important now for all concerned is to get on with the job at hand: prevent a catastrophe in Iraq, a disintegration of that country, lest a chain reaction break out, given the Kurdish problem, given the widening schism between the Shias and the Sunnis.
A dialogue between civilizations implies an intra-civilizational [sic] alignment, too. It would be unacceptable if we let Islam be split into the Sunnis and the Shias and used the ones to pacify the others. We are not the ones who brought about the situation in Iraq, but we do want to pitch in to bring about a resolution of the situation. Yet we are told: ‘We are on top of it; here you are: this is our new strategy. All you have to do is strike a blow for it: Write off Iraq’s debts or send your companies down there. Let them breathe new life into Iraq’s economy, or supply weapons to the Iraqi army.’
We say in response: ‘All right, Russia is willing to help in these areas—provided, however, that the process of national reconciliation gets off the ground in Iraq for real.’ We can provide support for the Iraqi army and security forces, provided, however, that the weapons supplied are not used for civil war. Let us sit down and start helping the Iraqis, making sure that national plans are, indeed, put into life, with the so-called patriotic opposition getting involved as well, with all Iraq’s neighbors—without exception—getting involved, including Iran and Syria, and with the members of the Security Council, of the League of Arab States brought in, too. We have been proposing it since 2003.
And, again, the calls along the lines ‘oh no, you can’t remain uninvolved’ are no longer heeded. And not by us only. It’s just that there are those who can’t afford to say no to the USA. As far as we are concerned, however, we can afford to tell the truth and suggest specific viable alternatives which, to our mind, will pave the way for cooperation, rather than rejecting unilateral proposals for assistance out of hand. And not only for [cooperation with] us, but also for a vast majority of the countries that are instrumental in bringing about a resolution of the Iraqi situation.
Q: In other words, Russia has finally decided that she is now strong enough, both her feet firmly on the ground, so that she can now say what most cannot bring themselves to say.
A: Our centuries-long political tradition has always had a place for a desire, willingness, the need to tell the truth, to have our own views on things. It is natural though, that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s unprecedented weakness imposed certain limitations on us. Those included financial bondage, which had the country in a stranglehold; economic ruin caused, among other things, by the adoption of new economic mechanisms; food shortages; and dependence on humanitarian assistance. All of the above hampered, naturally enough, Russia’s innate desire to speak her mind and act independently.
Now, however, with all those problems resolved, we are in a position, for the first time in a very long historical period, to tackle the tasks of revitalizing the economy and reorienting it towards innovation, to introduce state-of-the-art technologies, to address social problems, and to embark on modernizing the Armed Forces. I do not recall a period in our history when we could afford to grapple with such mammoth and momentous tasks at the same time.
We now have the resources to get involved, not only in implementing the world policies in a majority of areas but, also—and that is more important—we now have an opportunity and the means for influencing the terms of reference that can be put in place later on. But this, I reiterate, hinges on our major partners being ready to act in concert.
Q: What measures, if any, does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs take to improve Russia’s image?
A: I prefer to talk about Russia’s ‘unbiased image,’ rather than about improving her image. We have nothing to be ashamed of. And when we put our cards on the table about why and what we do at home and in our foreign policies, normal, adequate [sic] people have no problems with any of that.
I see nothing wrong in having our life and our actions covered with a pinch of salt. What is important is that it should be done without putting a spin on it. After all, not a single country can boast that it has nothing it doesn’t want changed or improved, itself. We want to be open. Whenever we find ourselves at the receiving end of positive criticism, and the president has said this time and time again, we are willing to lend our ears and take it into account.
What can we do? In all likelihood, just to talk more and more frankly about what, why and how we do. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does its best to step up such efforts. That said, I make no bones about being stupefied by the deluge of negative and unfounded articles published abroad. Aware, as we are, of what we can do in practical terms, we realize that Russia can only hold her own against the West in terms of information quality rather than quantity.
By Vladislav Vorobyov
