Nato-Russia Council

Meeting of the NATO-Russia Council at the level of Foreign Ministers

Press Conference by NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer after the NATO-Russia Council at Foreign Ministers level


de Hoop Scheffer: We have had a very useful meeting today of the NATO-Russia Council at the level of Foreign Ministers. I am issuing a chairman's statement but let me say a few words about today's discussions.

You know how much the NATO-Russia relationship is a priority for the Alliance. And Allies are certainly pleased with the progress that has been made, particularly since the Rome Summit two years ago, to put this relationship on a very solid and productive footing.

Today, we consulted on key security issues, including Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq and the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We also assessed our practical cooperation, including the military-to-military projects. This cooperation is very impressive indeed, and growing.

The 27 members of the NRC work together today, as equal partners, in areas that would be unheard of just a few years ago, including broad-based co-operation against terrorism, and ambitious joint projects in theatre missile defence, civil emergency planning, and search and rescue at sea.

We are also working to enhance the interoperability of our forces, to lay the groundwork for future cooperation.

Russian support to NATO forces in the maritime interdiction Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean, which we discussed today, would be a good and welcome example of cooperation in our common fight against terrorism.

Russian accession to the PfP Status of Forces Agreement would also go a long way to facilitating military cooperation. We discussed this, too, with Foreign Minister Lavrov indicating that finalisation of this critical agreement is expected by this year's end.

Of course, Allies and Russia do not agree on everything. Russia has questions and concerns about certain aspects of NATO enlargement. Allies have concerns about the implementation of commitments Russia made in this very city, five years ago, to withdraw military assets from some neighbouring countries, Moldova and Georgia.

We do not shy away from these discussions. On the contrary. In the NRC, we have an effective forum where we can, and do, meet regularly to engage in open and frank discussion. And we now have a relationship strong enough to support those discussions, even as we take our practical cooperation forward.

So all in all, it was a positive meeting. A practical working meeting, yes. But also another illustration that this vital NATO-Russia partnership remains strong - as it should be.

I have time for a few questions.

Questions and answers

Q: The question is... Excuse my bad English. I would like to know the position of NATO concerning the adapted treaty for... well, it is...

de Hoop Scheffer: CFE.

Q: Yes. And do you still consider this treaty the cornerstone of European security or not? And when will be started the process or ratification of this treaty? Thank you.

de Hoop Scheffer: Thank you. Your English is very good by the way. The CFE Treaty is considered by allies, and I think there's no difference of opinion between Russia and the NATO allies, as a very important treaty. Indeed, as a very important building block in European security.

But now you know that there is this link between the ratification of the adapted CFE Treaty. It has to be of course... to come into force and have to be ratified by all relevant states. There's a link between the adapted CFE Treaty and the so-called Istanbul Commitments, as I mentioned in my introduction.

So we should have a hard look at these problems. These are the hard nuts to crack, may I say, in the NATO-Russia relationship. But it's good enough to discuss these things, as I did in a brief... brief, I must say, bilateral meeting I had with the Minister Sergey Lavrov just before entering into our working session.

So the importance is very big, I should say, but it is adapted CFE and Istanbul Commitments linked. Not only political, I should add, but also legally. I mean, there's also a legal link between the two.

Q: BBC Central Asia and Caucasus Service. Russia is very slow in withdrawing its forces and military bases from Georgia. Can this issue create problems in NATO-Russian relations?

de Hoop Scheffer: Let me come back, Madame, to my previous answers. Georgia, indeed, is one of the countries which is relevant to the Istanbul Commitments with Georgia and Moldova and then I should specify Transnistria because that's where the ammunition is, so a solution for the Moldovan problem will also have to be found, where Russia plays an important role, I think, in the solution to that problem.

As far as Georgia is concerned, you know that the Istanbul Commitments are also relevant to the bases in Georgia and I sincerely hope that the Georgian and the Russian governments can come to an agreement as far as the dismantling of the bases is concerned. But this is also a key element of the Istanbul commitments.

Again, a precondition for the ratification of the adapted CFE treaty, which is by the way, quite recently, as you know, accepted and ratified by the Duma in Moscow.

de Hoop Scheffer: Thank you very much.


Transcript of Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov Interview with Russian Media, Istanbul, June 28, 2004


Question: How can you comment on the transfer of power to the interim government in Iraq that took place today?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: The very transfer of power is an important step forward in the matter of implementing the unanimously adopted resolution 1546 of the United Nations Security Council envisaging the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty, which Russia had been advocating from the very start of the crisis, insisting on the necessity of speedily returning to the Iraqi people the right to freely determine their own destiny and dispose of their natural resources.

As to the specific date for the transfer of power, it had been fixed as "by June 30." The transfer took place earlier. The Prime Minister of Iraq explained this by a wish to transfer power from the occupation forces to the interim government more quickly.

We know that the security situation in Iraq is degrading. The calculation of the Iraqi government, as was announced, is that the acceleration of this ceremony will help to show that the process of the restoration of sovereignty is already under way and there is the hope to calm down those who continue urging the speediest termination of occupation.

Russia had advocated that from the outset. When United Nations Security Council resolution 1546 was adopted, we stressed that all that is written down in it is right and important. But the first consideration will be the extent to which the specific phases of political settlement, provided for in this resolution, are going to be carried out in practice. Of key significance, as has become banal to say, is the security situation. We do hope that it will be successfully normalized. Key to this, in our conviction, is the ensuring of national reconciliation within Iraqi society and the drawing into the process of the restoration of Iraq's statehood of all the political forces, including opposition forces. This is the exact aim of our initiative for convening an international conference on Iraq, the relevance of which, in the present conditions, I think is only increasing. This conference will help gather together all the, including opposition, political forces, Iraq's neighbors and the international community as a whole, and mobilize all efforts to ensure both national reconciliation within Iraq and support for the interim government from regional and international forces. That support, unquestionably, is necessary, because a very extensive and complex task of the transitional period is facing the interim government.

Question: What is the agenda of the Russia-NATO Council session?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: To be submitted to the Russia-NATO Council session is a list of problems which have been examined in this body during the two years of its existence. We want to sum up this period of interaction, with which we are generally pleased. The past years have demonstrated that the mechanism that was created truly reflects the requirements of Russia and NATO alike in a uniting of efforts for cooperation in the field of safeguarding regional and international security.

The problems being submitted to today's session may be divided into two blocks. The first block is the fight against new challenges and threats, including terrorism and drug trafficking and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The second block consists of regional problems, we will discuss the situation in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Kosovo and around it, as well as the issues on which Russia and NATO can cooperate to resolve them in accordance with international law.

Question: How can you comment on the ratification by Russia of the CFE Treaty? What can you say about the claims being made against our country in relation to the withdrawal of Russian bases from Georgia and of weapons from Transnistria?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe is one of the bases of Russia-NATO cooperation, since it ensures the balance of forces in Europe and is an important factor of mutual trust between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Alliance, which is particularly relevant in the conditions when NATO's enlargement is being accompanied by what we believe to be unjustified measures for intensifying the bloc's military activity on the new frontiers of the countries that have joined it and of Russia.

The CFE itself is not being rejected by anyone. The principal meaning of the Istanbul Agreements from the legal point of view is the necessity of ratifying the CFE Treaty, which Russia did. Several days ago the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted this decision. Simultaneously with this decision on ratification a statement was adopted setting forth the Russian concerns and emphasizing that Russia will be strictly guided by its military restraint commitments - and by the obligations arising from the Treaty itself - to the extent the other countries parties to the CFE Treaty are guided by these obligations.

As to the claims being made against Russia, those claims, from the legal point of view, are incorrect. The agreements on resolving the situation with the Russian military bases in Georgia and with the withdrawal of Russian weapons from Transnistria bore a political, not juridical, character. In addition, Russia has been implementing these agreements, they did not presuppose any rigid timeframe for withdrawal. With respect to Georgia, agreement was reached that Moscow and Tbilisi would enter into negotiations to determine the modalities and duration of the stay of the Russian military bases on the territory of Georgia. The negotiations began, then they broke down. There has been a change of government since then and President Mikhail Saakashvili came to power, his meetings with the President of the Russian Federation took place, agreement was reached to resume the talks and the military delegations of the two sides have already begun to meet. I think that given the good will the matter can be settled promptly enough. But there is no juridical linkage between this question, just as the withdrawal of weapons from Transnistria, which is continuing (and the reasons for the inability to speed up this process are well known to the western partners), and the ratification of the CFE Treaty.

Question: Does a NATO which will be dealing with the problems of Afghanistan and Iraq and with territories that lie outside the boundaries of Europe suit Russia? Are we going to continue to cooperate with the Alliance in the future as well?

Foreign Minister Lavrov: NATO is a reality. You mentioned Iraq. I know that a decision was taken today at the summit of NATO to the effect that the Alliance will participate in the training of the Iraqi army and other security structures. All that is going to contribute to normalizing the situation in Iraq merits support. It is necessary to be very well aware of the real situation on the ground. And the situation is such that without national reconciliation, without the drawing into the political process of all the forces, including those currently in opposition and which are a kind of political mainstay for armed resistance to the occupation, without such a uniting of all the national forces it is very difficult to count on success in Iraqi settlement. Therefore, when we are talking about military assistance to Iraq, it would be incorrect not to take this factor into consideration. There were already attempts during the last nearly 18 months one way or another to solve the Iraq problem by military means, by the method of force. Those attempts did not end well. The road can only be political, and to stake on military methods is very risky, particularly in the situation where any questions of military assistance to Iraq should be considered from the viewpoint of the consequences that might occur in the conditions of a split of society.

We listened to the reaction of the Iraqis to the restoration of sovereignty, they all want but one thing - security. Security in this case is directly linked to a normalization of internal political life, to the start of a genuinely pan-Iraqi dialogue. The interim government has declared its intention to embark on that dialogue - the sooner this is done, the better. But all the Iraqi political forces should be enlisted in it.