Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 29, 2019
Question: Mr Lukashevich, I would like to start with a difficult question. The people seldom understand the role and importance of such institutions as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). They believe that it is all talk and little action, apart from that of the adoption of resolutions. This is partly true. Are there too many international organisations that are hardly having any influence on realities? And it also costs a fortune to maintain them.
Alexander Lukashevich: In general, multilateral diplomacy helps to increase predictability when it comes to international relations. In the modern day world, it is difficult to resolve any problems in a bilateral interstate format alone. International organisations are platforms for interaction between states, dialogue and the coordination of positions on complicated global and regional matters. Whether we want it or not, the absolute majority of problems nowadays are of a cross-border nature. One country alone or even a group of countries cannot resolve them. Coordinated collective efforts are needed for the maintenance of peace and stability on the European continent. This is exactly what the OSCE is doing. Andrey Gromyko said on this account that 10 years of talks are better than one day of war.
Question: Can the OSCE be regarded as the European UN?
Alexander Lukashevich: A vital part of the Charter for European Security is the Platform for Cooperative Security, which is based on cooperation and stipulates a framework for the interaction of various regional organisations under the umbrella of the OSCE. At that time, we believed that we only needed to take the last step towards creating a European UN, that is, approve a charter that would confirm the central role of the new organisation in the European security architecture. But that step has never been taken.
The OSCE is still not a subject of international law. In other words, it can only issue recommendations, not adopt binding decisions. The charter has not been adopted. The result is that the OSCE is a major platform for the discussion of common European topics but not a decision-making centre.
Question: How have the OSCE’s priorities changed over the past decades?
Alexander Lukashevich: At its inception, the OSCE was designed to set the rules of the game for the coexistence of two confronting systems. Later, there was a short period of time when the OSCE was expected to become the central link in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. At some stage we managed to keep the OSCE in the front ranks of international relations. Important moves were taken, which I have mentioned. But eventually the Western countries refused to bring this process to its logical conclusion. They probably feared losing the dividends of “Cold War winners.” The numerous phases of NATO enlargement were not designed to create an open system of European security but to draw East European countries into the orbit of American influence.
However, we look at the OSCE as a promising venue for rebooting the system of European security. The biggest problem is that the OSCE’s potential is not being used in full measure. Instead of building bridges between the conflicting parties, this unique organisation, which includes all Euro-Atlantic states and some Eurasian countries, is largely running idle or, worse still, is being used for increasing confrontation. Russia is categorically against this approach. We have been trying to direct the OSCE’s efforts towards reducing tension in Europe and combating common for all countries transnational challenges, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, cybercrime and organised crime.
The Russian Federation continues to believe that the INF Treaty was an important part of the architecture to ensure international security and strategic stability. The Treaty was essential to maintaining predictability and restraint in the missile sphere in Europe.
We consider the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, as a result of which it was terminated, a serious mistake, which increases the risks of unleashing a missile arms race, stepping up confrontational potential and sliding into uncontrollable escalation. Given the unrelenting tension between Russia and NATO, new threats to European security are becoming evident.
Question: It is four years since your previous visit, what is the significance of your trip to Athens this time? Do you think that the 200th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence celebrations is a reason for deepening Russian-Greek relations, and if so, in which spheres?
Sergey Lavrov: I am delighted to have this opportunity to return to Greece again. My previous working visit to Athens in 2016 took place during the implementation of an unprecedented joint project, a cross-cultural year between Russia and Greece, the main event of which was a visit by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.
The US administration has once again made news with another anti-Russia attack, accusing our government agencies of malicious activities in the field of information and communications technology.
We have received no official response from the United States to our Note dated October 16 which contains the proposal put forward by President Vladimir Putin to extend the New START Treaty for one year. We have noticed only some comments made by U.S. officials on social media platforms. Given contradictory reactions to the actual situation, we want to clarify.
Accusations of numerous cyber attacks (conducted without any meaningful purpose or result) that British authorities mount against Russia on a nearly daily basis form another cycle of their unprovoked malicious campaign.
Ladies and gentlemen,
This visit by Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Marija Pejčinović Burić, draws a symbolic line under the system-wide crisis affecting the Council of Europe in 2014-2019 due to the illegal actions of a number of its Parliamentary Assembly members that run contrary to the organisation’s charter.
The Co-Chairs note with alarm the continuing violence in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Co-Chairs call on Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to take immediate steps to execute in full the obligations of the sides according to the October 10 Moscow statement, in order to prevent catastrophic consequences for the region.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We have held talks with Foreign Minister of Denmark Jeppe Kofod. We have many urgent issues on our bilateral agenda, including some that have piled up since our last meeting on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September 2019.
The statement by the two ministers, which is unacceptable both in content and tone, points to the outright reluctance of Paris and Berlin to consider the facts that were set forth by Russian representatives more than once. Instead of properly cooperating with the Russian Federation with a view to clearing up the circumstances of the incident with the blogger, the German and French governments have now turned to threats and blackmail against us.
We noted the fairly predictable and prompt response with which German officials agreed to the publication of a report on the results of a study on Alexey Navalny’s bio materials on the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) website. These results were received shortly before, probably, timed to the beginning of the OPCW Executive Council session.
Tweet Follow @russianembassy