[0]

Sergey Lavrov, Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs (Photo: Mikhail Evstafiev)

MOSCOW (Kommersant) - In the break between the G8 summit and the informal CIS summit, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov granted an interview to Kommersant's Nargiz Asadova in which he spoke about the challenges of Russian foreign policy.

Is it time to expand the Eight to include India, China and Brazil?

It is, objectively speaking, expanding already. For several years in a row, those countries, as well as others, have been invited to take part in the summits. This year, for the first time, we did not limit ourselves to simply inviting the countries, but included them in the preparatory work that went on all year in all the aspects of the agenda of the St. Petersburg summit. Their finance, education and health ministers participated in the preparations. Therefore, the contribution of those countries' representatives is present in the documents adopted formally by the Eight. And, as you probably heard, the president made it clear when he took stock of the summit that we are seeing the necessary expansion of the circle of countries that can express themselves on key issues in that format.

Russia has repeatedly condemned Israel in the last few days for a disproportionate response to Hezbollah. What response would be proportional in your view?

We have not condemned anyone. We are convinced that condemnation of some side will not lead to results. We are urging that an immediate ceasefire be declared as the first step. The prime minister of Lebanon is insistently asking for the same thing. A ceasefire is needed before anything else. The sides should carry out all that was mentioned in the statement of the Eight. That is to free the hostages, stop mutual bombardment and free the members of the cabinet and parliament of the Palestinian administration. You understand, if we begin to think in the categories of who is guilty, as some states do, accusing specific countries and specific leaders, it will only, in my opinion, enflame passions even more. We are trying to think about what to do.

Pressure can be applied to Israel, since it is a member of the UN. But who can pressure Hezbollah?

The Arab countries, including Syria and Iran, can apply pressure to Hezbollah. All of those who have relations with Syria and Iran are working toward that. Pressure can be applied to Hezbollah by those elements within Hezbollah that favor its integration into Lebanese society and Lebanese political life. Not long before all of this started, a national political dialog was begun that Hezbollah was participating in at the invitation of the Lebanese government. And that dialog was very encouraging. Even our American and European partners acknowledge that the provocation was made by radical elements within Hezbollah. Not all of Hezbollah, nor all of Hamas, can be lumped together with those who stand on that side of the barricades. We have to struggle so that Hezbollah and Hamas realize their largely legal political strivings through participation in the political life of Lebanon and Palestine. And not through terrorist acts and not through violence.

A week ago, the Six decided to return the Iranian nuclear dossier to the UN Security Council. When will the Security Council meet over it?

Not to return it, but to renew work on it, because the draft resolution was discussed in April and work on it was frozen in May when it was decided to give them the opportunity to work on the proposals that were being prepared and that were consequently presented to Iran. Now a lot of time really has passed, much more than the Iranian president promised our president from the point of view of when there would be an answer from Iran. Work will be renewed, I think, any day now. Our position is well known. We will be ready to pass a resolution that confirms the IAEA's requirements of Iran and asks it to respond within some time limit.

An informal summit of CIS leaders will start soon in Moscow. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili will come to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin. At the same time, the confrontation between Georgia and Russia is mounting.

The essence of the problem is very simple. The Georgian side is consistently sabotaging work using mechanisms that were set up for settlement of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts. It is also sabotaging agreements that it is party to itself. It is rejecting proposals from the OSCE to reach agreements with the South Ossetian and Abkhazian sides on not using violence and on guaranteeing security in the conflict zones. It is refusing to renew the return of refugees to Abkhazia, even though the procedures proposed by the High Commissioner for Refugees are long known to it and have been on the table. The recent heightening of tensions over the peacekeepers is very alarming to us. Besides the two prevocational detainments of embassy cars with our diplomats in them, one of our peacekeepers was blown up by a mine. Mines have appeared there only recently, and from the Georgian side.

There are many facts that cannot help but arouse the suspicion that some sort of violent act is being prepared in South Ossetia. The parliament's demand that the peacekeepers be withdrawn is a link in the same chain. The Georgian side cannot accuse them of not fulfilling their mandate. Thanks to the peacekeepers, peace has been maintained and bloodshed avoided in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If anyone has forgotten, we can remind them how those conflicts began and at what price, which included the lives of our soldiers, the bloodshed was halted. There are mechanisms approved by international organizations in both cases. For South Ossetia, that is the OSCE. For Abkhazia, it's the UN. Within those organizations, as I said, are existing peacekeeping mechanisms. Therefore, the parliament's decision is an attempt to create a situation beyond them.

Russia has said that it will raise the price of natural gas to Belarus this year. There is a general impression that relations with Minsk have noticeably cooled. Does that mean that Russia has rejected the idea of establishing a union state?

Russia has proposed to all the CIS countries and all our partners that we convert to market principles in trade, including trade in oil and gas. Negotiations have begun with Belarus. That transition has already begun or taken place with all other countries. Gazprom is negotiating with Belarus. I expect that a solution will be found that will reflect the real market situation and take into account the interests of providing for the Belarusian economy and the interests of the Russian economy at the same time. That in no way indicates a departure from the line to realize the agreement on the formation of a union state, that indicates the gradual advancement of the principles of market cooperation.

On the same day as Tbilisi passed the resolution on the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers, in Chisinau, they stated the necessity of withdrawing Russian peacekeepers from Transdniestria. What is the reaction of the Foreign Ministry to that statement?

Peacekeeping forces are stationed there, there are about 500 Russian peacekeepers. They mainly protect arms warehouses. How those people can influence democratic elections, I don't know. The Moldovan leadership understands very well that those statements are groundless. As for objective free expression of will, Transdniestria has invited international organizations to take part in monitoring the elections. I am convinced that they will allow all who want to come. The Moldovan leadership would do better to live up to its own assurances, obligations and initiatives, including the two-year-old initiative that Moldova rejected because of the obligation for Moldova to remain a federative, neutral and demilitarized state. Now the Moldovan leadership is not talking about a federative Moldova, or a neutral Moldova, or a demilitarized Moldova. I think conclusion can be easily drawn. (Originally published by wwww.kommersant.com)