Sergey Lavrov: “The international law is abundantly clear on this point and sets forth all the provisions on who must interpret various instances and the way this must be done. But the West is not listening”

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the Russia-ASEAN conference and the East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, Vientiane, July 27, 2024:

“Good afternoon.

We have been working in the capital of Laos for two days now. This year, this country chairs the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The annual Russia-ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting took place on July 26, 2024. During the meeting, we reviewed our cooperation in all aspects in a trust-based, specific and business-like manner, and went on to adopt a joint statement on the 20th anniversary of Russia’s accession to the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (the Bali Treaty). The joint statement sets forth the principles of equality, mutual benefit, taking into consideration each other’s interests and achieving a balance of interests. We expressed our shared view that these principles remain fully valid and relevant, especially today, considering the attempts to introduce a bloc-based mindset in the Asia-Pacific Region and create all kinds of exclusive mechanisms there, while also enabling NATO with its infrastructure to gain a foothold in this region. This runs counter to the objective of reinforcing an ASEAN-centric security architecture. Shaped by decades of continuous efforts, it meets the interests of all participants.

We carried out a performance review under the Comprehensive Plan of Action to Implement the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Russian Federation Strategic Partnership in 2021-2025. Our leaders approved it three years ago, and we concluded that the progress on this front has been satisfactory. It does include certain initiatives which we have yet to undertake before this document expires. We agreed to start drafting a new plan for the next five-year cycle and instructed our experts to focus on this objective.

We touched upon trade and economic performance. In 2023, there was a substantial increase in our trade, which has reached pre-pandemic levels. The meeting’s agenda covered all sectors where we work together as per our joint programme of work, including research, technology and innovation, education, tourism, energy and agriculture.

The coordination of documents on digital transformation is nearing completion. In 2024, Russia has become ASEAN’s digital partner. And the drafting of joint documents on countering terrorism and the safe use of information and communications technology is in its final stage. These domains are of utmost importance. In fact, it was largely Russia that initiated these joint plans with ASEAN to work on this agenda.

Capacity building and personnel training for civilian professions, as well as law enforcement agencies have always been popular among ASEAN countries. There is a growing demand for these types of services.

On a conceptual note, we discussed the need to develop a single indivisible security framework across the Eurasian continent which would be open to all Eurasian countries and organisations. The SCO and the EAEU offer positive examples here in terms of how they have been developing their relations with ASEAN, including by signing corresponding documents.

The East Asia Summit (EAS) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) are scheduled to take place today at the foreign ministers’ level. These two formats offer an opportunity to emphasise the contrasts between the trends that have been taking shape within the ASEAN-centric architecture over the past decades, with the developments the West is trying to introduce in this region by seeking to accelerate its militarisation, setting up restricted military and political blocs, deploying new weapons and escalating confrontation in general.

The ASEAN-centric architecture implies an inclusive vision. The EAS and the ARF bring together ASEAN and its major partners, such as China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and Western countries. On the other hand, the West promotes cooperation formats which are less inclusive with a clear objective of containing China and Russia. In fact, the West has been openly pursuing this objective. Our ASEAN partners understand this very well. They expressed interest in President Vladimir Putin’s initiative, which I have mentioned, to build an indivisible and equal Eurasian security system. ASEAN is ready to engage in a meaningful conversation on this topic.

We touched upon issues related to the situation in the South China Sea. It is our view that territorial disputes should be resolved by the countries concerned without outside interference. We welcomed the ongoing dialogue between ASEAN and China on a code of conduct in the region.

We had a discussion with our Chinese friends on the situation in the Taiwan Strait where the West, while verbally stating support for the one-China principle, is actually promoting confrontational approaches. It is arming Taiwan, organising various military events, sending high-level delegations, and receiving representatives of the Taiwanese “administration.” All of these policies are at odds with the one-China principle and are actually aimed at perpetuating the status quo, which means that the West views Taiwan as a separate entity from the PRC.

We reviewed the situation in Myanmar. We believe it is important that the majority of the summit participants supported encouraging dialogue on the implementation of the five-point plan developed by ASEAN. It must be implemented in close cooperation with the Myanmar authorities. Unfortunately, the West is trying to hold back political processes thereby getting the Myanmar leadership sanctioned again, while financing and arming the radical opposition. This hardly helps the process.

Among the practical steps under the EAS and the ARF umbrella, I would like to highlight the decisions to promote the formation of regional mechanisms for responding to pandemic threats and ensuring additional economic growth by encouraging cooperation in the tourism sector. These initiatives were supported.

We also proposed considering support measures for remote areas, which is another important issue on the current agenda and one of the national priorities in Russia. Russia’s initiative was supported, and the issue was included on the APEC agenda. The SCO also addresses certain aspects of the problem, such as policies to create comfortable living conditions in remote areas. ASEAN organisations can make a useful contribution to the development of relevant plans.

Other important issues on the ARF agenda are emergency response to natural and man-made disasters and countering transnational crime. One of the aspects that always warrants a lot of attention is ensuring maritime security. Our Chinese friends proposed adopting a ministerial statement on strengthening regional cooperation on ferry traffic safety; the proposal was unanimously supported. It would seem to be a side issue, but this is an important aspect in the context of maximising trust in the seas.

We reviewed the results of the ARF Inter-Sessional Meetings on ICT Security in 2022-2024 co-chaired by Russia and Indonesia. We have co-chaired this mechanism for three years. We will continue to participate in it as ordinary members.”

Question: One of the issues discussed at the Russia-ASEAN forum had to do with maintaining security and stability in the Asia Pacific Region. Who or what is hindering this and destabilising the situation? What is their goal, and what could we do in response?

Sergey Lavrov: ASEAN has been working for decades to create a group of dialogue partners, who ultimately established the East Asia Summit jointly with ASEAN. It operates at the highest level and at the level of foreign ministers. There is also the ADMM-Plus platform of the defence ministers of ASEAN nations and their dialogue partners. And there is a broader format, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), held to discuss security issues.

All these platforms operate on the basis of respect for the principles adopted upon their establishment, namely, equality, a balance of interests, consensus decisions, a focus on constructive and creative matters, and avoidance of confrontation rhetoric whenever possible.

This system worked for decades to everyone’s satisfaction. But over the past few years, some forces, above all Washington working jointly with London and, to a degree, the European Union, started promoting elements of bloc infrastructure here, including nuclear ones. The first step was made during the creation of AUKUS (Australia, the UK and the United States) and involved the construction of nuclear-powered submarines. This is a precarious issue that should be fully monitored by the IAEA, which the group’s members were not ready for.

We have demanded, so far unsuccessfully, that the International Atomic Energy Agency use its full powers to ensure complete transparency on this issue. We see attempts to expand the AUKUS three-member group by involving other countries. We also see that its activities are actually aimed at giving a “tolerance shot” to the region to make it approve the deployment of nuclear weapon components here. ASEAN member states signed the Treaty of Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, which these plans are trying to undermine.

There is one more alarming element. The United States and the Republic of Korea have recently signed an agreement on joint nuclear planning. We have been unable to receive explanations of what this means, but it certainly is an additional concern. Moreover, the Americans have been trying to involve Japan in this joint nuclear planning scheme.

They are also creating all kinds of three- and four-member groups. For example, the United States, Japan and South Korea are whipping up tensions around the Korean Peninsula, militarising their presence and holding exercises that are openly aimed at preparing for the use of force there.

In this context, we emphasised the importance of the agreement signed between President Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un during our president’s visit to Pyongyang. It stipulates mutual military assistance in the event of aggression against one of the parties, which we specifically pointed out. I hope that those who could be harbouring such plans have taken it as a warning.

Here is one more example of the proliferation of alien organisations in the region. NATO announced and reaffirmed at its latest summit in Washington that the security of bloc members is not only inseparably connected with the Euro-Atlantic region but also with the Indo-Pacific region. This directly contradicts the initial claims that NATO’s only concern is the defence of the member states’ territory. Elements of this infrastructure are to be deployed in the Asia Pacific Region. Australia, Japan and South Korea are helping implement these plans. We have openly pointed this out. So far, we have not received any sound explanations as to why they are not satisfied with the inclusive architecture created around ASEAN, which allowed discussing any concerns.

Until recently, discussions on military issues held within the framework of ASEAN-centric infrastructure were focused exclusively on the elaboration of universal confidence-building measures that would be open to all countries. Today, the issue of military aspects of security is shifting towards confrontation.

As you know, the United States has withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) and has started producing ground-launched missiles of this type, which is prohibited under the treaty. It has been reported that it plans to deploy such missiles in Europe and the Asia Pacific. I hope that the ASEAN countries are aware of the danger of that Washington’s “idea.” In other words, there are many signs of growing confrontation here.

Actually, if NATO comes here, it will bring with it all the drawbacks of the Euro-Atlantic security system embodied in NATO and the OSCE. That Euro-Atlantic security system has long demonstrated that its priority is to ensure the domination of the United States and its allies over all other countries.

Here is a relevant example. Many OSCE summit declarations stated that no member state should strengthen its security at the expense of others. Yet the US-led NATO has been doing exactly this for years, which has ultimately created the current situation in Ukraine. They did their best to turn that country into a direct military threat to the Russian Federation.

You remember what happened after that. President Putin spoke in detail about the disastrous results of disregarding the numerous warnings we issued over many years. The member states violated their obligations within the OSCE framework. Regrettably, the organisation itself has been fully discredited in that situation. We will continue to uphold our position.

But the West is not ready or capable of listening and hearing. It is not ready or capable of negotiating agreements. In the West, diplomacy as a means of foreign relations has been replaced with ultimatums, demands and the punishment of disobedient partners through illegal unilateral sanctions.

We wouldn’t like this “legacy” to be brought to the Asia Pacific Region. During our conversation with ASEAN colleagues, we saw that they are aware of the risks this entails. Anyway, they should uphold the foundations of the Bali Treaty and the fundamental principles of the architecture that took decades to create.

Question: How would you comment on the refusal of Western participants to pose for a group photo during the meeting of foreign ministers from the East Asia Summit countries?

Sergey Lavrov: Maybe, some of them are concerned that they are not very photogenic.  I don’t attach great importance to such protocol matters. As I have already said, the West has shunned diplomacy. It no longer needs it. Instead, the West needs sanctions. Apart from diplomacy, it needs pictures that would bolster its desire to dominate everyone and everything.

In June 2024, Burgenstock, Switzerland, hosted the “peace summit” that was not attended by representatives of many invited countries. Many of those who came did not sign the concluding statement. I know, and my friends told me off the record, how the West and the Ukrainians tried to persuade various capitals to send at least one representative there. In response to doubts expressed by countries of the Global South (which did not want to attend because they believed that a confrontation with Russia did not serve their interests), they were told that it would be better to address everything through an amicable negotiation and that they did not have to confront Russia. They were assured that they would not have to sign anything, that they should simply come and pose for a group photo. Nothing more.

This once again proves that the West needs this simplistic picture to promote its narrative, without delving into the substance of the matter.

However, I personally did not mind that the photo session did not take place.

Question: What do ASEAN countries think about NATO’s efforts to expand its influence on the Asia Pacific Region?

Sergey Lavrov: I have just discussed this in detail. Understandably, ASEAN countries do not want to openly confront the United States and its allies. At the same time, they can see the associated threats, including those that jeopardise their leading positions in the field of Asia Pacific and Southeast Asian security and cooperation. I know that ASEAN countries are very tactful, and use diplomatic methods in the most subtle manner possible. In this context, I can see their efforts to find a diplomatic solution to this situation and to defend their leading role in this region.

This is a challenging objective in the face of the pressure exerted by the US-led West. Today, Russia and the People’s Republic of China firmly supported this ASEAN stance in defence of their achievements and organisations that have evolved over the decades. However, confrontation is being incited.

Question: The Ukraine topic has already been mentioned. You had a meeting with China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi. Have you discussed the Chinese peace initiative for Ukraine, its progress and the opportunities it creates? What would be your comment regarding Dmitry Kuleba’s statements that Beijing supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity or that they cannot be pressured into engaging in talks? How are we to understand all this?

Sergey Lavrov: The same way you view Dmitry Kuleba. This is the only way to treat this matter. This was not the first time he said this. There were also times when he said opposite things. Only recently, they mentioned talks. Vladimir Zelensky said that, at the end of the day, they were ready to sit down at the negotiating table with Russia’s representatives. To be honest, I do not listen to what they are saying.

As for the Chinese initiatives, there is no need for us to explore them, since we know them quite well, and have shared our attitude towards them on multiple occasions. Unlike all other initiatives, China’s proposals focus on understanding and eliminating the root causes of the ongoing developments in keeping with the PRC President Xi Jinping’s global security concept.

This is precisely what we have been saying all along: how it all started, and how they wanted to transform Ukraine into an anti-Russia by supplying it with all these weapons and dragging it into NATO, and bringing a Nazi regime with its determination to strip the Russian-speaking population of all its rights in violation of the Ukrainian constitution and many other things.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi briefed me on his conversation with Dmitry Kuleba. We had a feeling that China has not changed its position on this matter. Let me reiterate that this position consists of focusing on the root causes.

As for the format, China has set out its position very clearly by issuing a document to this effect. Preparing a conference or any multilateral event can be an option only if all the stakeholders accept the parameters and terms for convening an event of this kind, and only if the agenda includes all the existing initiatives. This amounts to an outright refusal to proceed from the Vladimir Zelensky’s so-called peace formula, a dystopian and illusory vision leading into an impasse. Everyone has already understood that it will never materialise, even though the West persists in referring to it, as if prompted to do so by inertia.

As for territorial integrity, they have been speculating about this matter in bad faith. The West demands that the Ukraine crisis be settled based on the UN Charter by respecting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty.

But there are many more principles in the United Nations Charter, including the self-determination of the people. It comes up in the Charter well before the territorial integrity is mentioned there. This may look like a contradiction. The UN General Assembly has spent a lot of time working on this issue. In 1970, following a lengthy negotiating process, the UN General Assembly adopted a detailed declaration on interpreting the principles set forth in the UN Charter. It stipulated that everyone must respect territorial integrity for countries whose governments respect the right of their people to self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living on its territory.

A Nazi clique came to power in Ukraine in February 2014. It cancelled the Russian language’s official status and sent armed criminal gangs to attack Crimea’s Supreme Council. There was no way they could represent the people in Crimea or southeast Ukraine. It was all clear.

The international law is abundantly clear on this point and sets forth all the provisions on who must interpret various instances and the way this must be done. But the West is not listening. It lives by its own rules. Crimea held an open and transparent referendum and many international observers monitored the voting process. However, Western countries rejected its outcomes and said that it violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity. That said, when Kosovo proclaimed its independence without a referendum, the West applauded it, and in fact, it was the West which orchestrated this separation. The West said that this was a way for the Albanians in Kosovo to fulfil the self-determination principle. Russia has no illusions regarding the way the collective West will carry on with its efforts.

Question: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has urged Russia to trust the assurances of the West and halt the special military operation in Ukraine in exchange for a promise not to deploy long-range American missiles in Germany. How should this proposal be addressed? What are the chances that Germany will still proceed with the deployment of American long-range missiles on its territory, even if the special military operation is halted?

Sergey Lavrov: Olaf Scholz is known for his simplistic statements and ideas. The issue at hand is not solely the deployment of the previously banned ground-based INF systems.

The special military operation was initiated for other reasons. This was not the reason behind President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s decision. The operation aimed to eliminate the threats to Russia’s security being established in Ukraine, such as the planned deployment of NATO military bases, including those on the Sea of Azov.

The special military operation was also initiated to protect the population of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. Despite Kiev’s obligations under the Minsk agreements, these regions were subjected to continuous and escalating shelling. Russia had no right to ignore their request for recognition of independence and their appeal for us to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter, which pertains to the right to collective self-defence.

Regarding the medium and shorter-range missiles currently planned for delivery to Germany, it is worth noting that nobody asked German Chancellor Olaf Scholz whether the German people wanted this deployment. When the news emerged, he simply expressed his approval of the US decision to deploy these missiles in Germany, openly acknowledging that it was an American decision.

In December 2021, President Vladimir Putin proposed initiatives to defuse rising tensions and resolve the issue peacefully. These initiatives included Ukraine’s non-membership in NATO and outlined mutually acceptable security guarantees. These proposals were subsequently discussed multiple times between representatives of Russia and the United States, as well as between Russia and NATO.

In January 2022, I discussed this matter with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Geneva. He explicitly stated that no commitments would be made to Russia regarding Ukraine’s non-aligned status or its non-accession to NATO. He mentioned that the best the United States could offer was to negotiate quantitative “ceilings” on the future deployment of medium- and shorter-range missiles around Russia. That was the extent of their offer.

The special military operation did not change anything. Plans were already in place and still exist. The declared goal of the war initiated against our country by the Kiev regime is to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. Westerners are already expressing concern that if our country achieves a victory in Ukraine (and, consequently, the West suffers a defeat), it will capture the entire territory of NATO, and the US will see its influence and control over some European member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance weakened. They openly acknowledge that this is about maintaining global dominance, which is slipping away but which they do not want to lose. This dominance has allowed, and continues to allow them to live at the expense of others through neocolonial methods of coercion.

Question: Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo outlined a potential peace plan by Donald Trump. What can you say about this package of measures?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not find it necessary to comment on the multiple ideas that started coming thick and fast once the West realised that there is no use in relying on Russia’s “defeat” and now that the Western countries are increasingly realising that Vladimir Zelensky and his regime are useless. There are plenty of such initiatives. I do not remember the specific details of Mike Pompeo’s statement. I hear that Donald Trump suggested that, instead of providing money to Ukraine for nothing, the US should provide $500 billion on lend-lease terms, to profit from those who will subsequently replace each other in Kiev’s government agencies for many decades ahead. This approach is one of a businessman. I cannot comment on the multiple ideas that do not hold water.

If something of substance is offered, then, as President Putin said, we are always open to an honest conversation in the current conditions. The reality is, the Russian Constitution has been amended, to include the four regions of the Russian Federation that expressed their will at the referendum in favour of being with Russia. This is one of the biggest aspects that must be taken into account. There are others as well. For example, it is unacceptable to preserve a regime in Central Europe that eradicates the Russian ethnic minority, its rights and prohibits everything Russian physically and by law. Another aspect that must be considered is that it is unacceptable to preserve a regime that has a distinctively Nazi nature and encourages the Nazi ideology and practices by law. These are serious things.

Not only in Germany but in many other countries in Europe, the Nazi instinct is reviving. We remember that Hitler collected almost the entire Europe under his standard to attack the USSR. Before him, Napoleon conquered half of Europe and dressed the population of these countries in military uniforms to send them against the Russian Empire.

Our stance has been expressed many times. Dmitry Kuleba claims that Ukraine is ready for talks but Russia is not. President Vladimir Putin often answers questions about the possibility of talks. In particular, he noted that, with a decree signed two years ago, Vladimir Zelensky prohibited himself and all his staff from negotiating with Russia. Our President suggested that this decree be publicly abolished so that Westerners would have at least some arguments in order to blame us for unwillingness to negotiate. Nothing has happened. These suggestions have fallen on deaf ears while they continue to call on us to take a “constructive approach,” which right now they see as our surrender. Surrender will not happen. All goals of the special military operation will be achieved. There is no doubt about that.

Question: An unplanned meeting with Foreign Minister of South Korea appeared on your schedule for today. Who initiated it and what do you plan to discuss?

Sergey Lavrov: The new Foreign Minister of South Korea, Cho Tae-yul, asked for this meeting. We exchanged a few words yesterday during an evening reception and today before a meeting of foreign ministers of the East Asia Summit member states.

Since he asked for this meeting, I will hear him out. He must have something to say. On my part, I will frankly explain our own views on the situation that Seoul is being dragged into deeper and deeper. I am talking about the US maneuvers around the Korean Peninsula in order to isolate and punish the DPRK. These are dangerous games. I will mention the treaty between the United States and the Republic of Korea on joint nuclear planning. This is a serious step, and I will be frank about it.

Speaking of which, in the past two years, the foreign ministers of South Korea have always requested a meeting with us at similar meetings. We never say no, which shows the contrast between the Western participants and the G20 and East Asia summits. The Western participants are always hiding from us, avoiding any photo appearances with us. Probably, because they are not very photogenic.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs