Transcript of Remarks and Replies to Media Questions by Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov at Joint Press Conference with Russian Minister of Defense Anatoliy Serdyukov, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and US Secretary of Defense Rob

Foreign Minister Lavrov: Good afternoon, dear colleagues.

Thank you for waiting. We just finished a very fruitful round of “two plus two” consultations. We’ve become convinced that our Presidents had been absolutely right when they instructed us to resume work in this format. Our discussions centered on the theme of shaping a strategic framework for our dialogue, a point raised by Presidents Putin and Bush preliminarily as they met at Kennebankport last June. Our strategic dialogue encompasses practically all spheres of relations between Russia and the United States, and today we exchanged views on each of the main areas of our partnership.

On most themes we noted steady progress, primarily where the implementation of the two Presidents’ initiatives is concerned in the sphere of combating acts of nuclear terrorism, in the sphere of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and bolstering the nonproliferation regime and in the sphere of developing peaceful nuclear energy on a safe, secure and sustainable basis. We also discussed further efforts in developing our economic, commercial and, especially, investment cooperation and exchanged views on the creation of new and reinforcement of existing mechanisms in this sphere.

Of course, we also discussed the issues on which we do not yet see eye to eye. I mean, above all, missile defense and a future regime to limit strategic offensive arms after the expiry of the START I Treaty in December next year. As to missile defense, Russia and the United States are both keen on tackling problems arising in this sphere on a cooperative basis, on a basis of equality, primarily in the framework of interaction between our countries and Europe. As you know, our perceptions differ on how to move forward to reach this aim, and today we talked very thoroughly about that. The United States reconfirmed its intention to create a third GMD site in Europe. Russia, disagreeing with this, puts forward the alternative that President Putin offered at Kennebankport. The American side, as far as we understand, has sensed our concern. At least, in response to our concerns, even though the US intends to finish the third GMD site work, fairly important, useful proposals were presented to us that we will consider and which the American side has put forward in a bid to dispel our concerns. We agreed to continue our consultations following examination of the proposals received today.

In respect of a future treaty concerning strategic offensive arms we came to an agreement that it should be legally binding, although there is still a lot of work to be done to flesh out that document, of course. We will continue this work as well.

The proposals on all the issues we today discussed in the strategic dialogue framework will be reported to the Presidents when we finish preparing the relevant documents. Overall, it seems to me that today’s meeting has borne out the readiness of both the US and the Russian side to continue following the course that was adopted by Presidents Putin and Bush and which consists of maximally building up our political partnership in implementing the joint initiatives and accords and in pursuing further our concrete professional work on the elimination of the differences which on a number of issues still remain with us, to be sure. And it is very important that this work should be maintained as relations between the two Presidents are on a basis of mutual respect and mutual consideration of interests. We have agreed that the work we were engaged in today and will continue should have a great significance for ensuring continuity in Russian-US relations at a period when the constitutional transfer of power is occurring in both countries.

Question: Did you discuss the latest violence in Kosovo at your meeting? Do you think that international recognition of Kosovo’s independence has stoked up that violence? And was there any talk about assistance with the logistics for NATO’s operation in Afghanistan today?

Foreign Minister Lavrov (replies after Rice): As to Kosovo, there is no big secret that the positions of Russia and the US remain opposed here. We believe a gross violation of international law has occurred in connection with the unilateral declaration of independence by Pristina, and our position is well known. We had warned that such a step would inevitably have consequences and, unfortunately, that’s how it’s happening, because driving all those refusing to live in an illegally proclaimed state into the framework of this state is no easy task. And the fact that for many long years, after 1999, the rights of the minorities, primarily the Serbs in Kosovo had absolutely not been ensured, their security and their freedom of travel had not been ensured does, of course, suggest a sad scenario when in the conditions of Kosovo’s independence these minorities will be feeling strangers in their own country. We are, of course, against any violence in dealing with any problems. We are for solely political methods of resolving any situations. And we also hold that the international presence which is in Kosovo under the mandate of the UN Security Council is duty-bound to fulfill its mandate comprehensively, not selectively. This also includes the inadmissibility of any unilateral steps like a unilateral proclamation of independence. International law should be observed by everyone and in all of its components, not selectively as it suits somebody.

As to our contacts with NATO in respect of logistical support of the operation of the international security assistance force in Afghanistan, being carried out under the mandate of the UN Security Council, in response to the requests from Brussels we are currently under the auspices of the Defense Ministry with the participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducting talks and I think that the result will soon be known. We, for our part, have long since been suggesting to our NATO colleagues that this bilateral channel of cooperation be supplemented with interaction between NATO and the Collective Security Treaty Organization – this would substantially enhance the effectiveness of the fight against the narco-threat and against the terrorist threat that emanate from the territory of Afghanistan. We look forward to receiving a constructive answer to this proposal in the foreseeable future.

Question: A question for Madame Secretary regarding the strategic framework agreement. You mentioned that some elements were agreed to. Could you identify what those elements are? Could you discuss also the outstanding elements? How long might it take to actually agree on the framework itself, and could you flesh out a little bit how – what the intention is? Is this to be essentially a list of issues to be discussed, or is it to be an enduring sort of agreement, a formal agreement? Please tell us what this framework agreement represents. And also if I may ask Secretary Gates, you had said going into these meetings that it was time for the Russians to give some ground on missile defense. Did the Russians do it, come up with some constructive proposals?

Foreign Minister Lavrov (replies after Rice and Gates):I want to add a couple of words so the journalists have a better understanding of where we are on missile defense in relation to this question, and how far we have come closer together in our approaches to the problem. There is a proposal which has been developed by the US. It is the plan for deploying a third GMD site in Europe. We consider that this plan is creating risks for us, and so President Putin has put forward the alternative that presupposes cooperation by Russia, the US, European and other countries and which poses no risks for anyone. But since the United States has firmly decided to create that site, we have appreciated that, while essentially disagreeing with us, the Americans have acknowledged that in the realization of this project we do have some just concerns and they submitted the proposals designed to dispel or assuage these concerns. And although we still believe that the best way to dispel our concerns would be not to have the third site – once the United States is going to realize this the proposals which we expect to receive on paper today have appeared us, as I said, important and useful for minimizing our concerns. Hopefully, after our examination of these proposals and relevant consultations we will be able to confirm such an assessment.

Question: I have two questions, one to Secretary Gates and the other to Secretary Rice. My first question goes to Secretary Gates. It’s an open secret to everyone that the state of the US economy does not look good. Given the enormous expenses the Pentagon incurs in many hot spots, will it really have enough money for its projects in the Czech Republic and in Poland and in Turkey? And my second question goes to Secretary Rice. Is it true that the oral understandings dating to your previous arrival differed heavily from the written proposals that were transmitted to Moscow some time later?

Foreign Minister Lavrov (replies after Gates and Rice): I wanted to add that what was in October has long since been utterly discussed. March has come – a month more optimistic – “let bygones be bygones.” And it is important that this time around we received the proposals on the same day we were discussing them. Hopefully this will enable us to work constructively, with our sights set firmly on results. This time no things got lost in translation.