MIL OSI Translation. Region: Russian Federation –
The G20 Summit is completing its work. Following yesterday’s first session, today was the second. It was devoted to the overlapping problems of overcoming the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus pandemic and the need for a more coordinated and effective fight against COVID-19. The third session was devoted to the sustainable development goals in the context of the UN Sustainable Development Goals until 2030. G.
The main conclusion that can be drawn from this summit and the work of not only the leaders, but also the experts who agreed on a detailed multi-page declaration, is that attempts to promote unilateral approaches have turned out to be unclaimed. The overwhelming majority of the participants expressed their support for the G20 to set an example in the search for collective solutions designed to ensure a balance of interests, both in the field of combating coronavirus infection, the struggle to maintain a comfortable climate for living, and in the field of energy security.
On energy security, it is stipulated that the G20 will advocate such decisions in the field of energy policy for the future, which will be based on a stable balance of interests between suppliers and consumers of energy resources.
Regarding climate change, the principle logic of the Paris Climate Agreement has been preserved for us, based on the voluntary steps of each state in the field of reducing emissions while ensuring respect for national interests in the field of economic development and growth.
I think this is a positive result. You can get acquainted with the Declaration in detail today. The main tendencies that we must support in every possible way are the desire for teamwork. We have always advocated this.
Q: The US Navy’s Sixth Fleet has sent its command ship into the Black Sea. Did the USA warn us about this in advance? How can you evaluate such a step by the American side?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: This is not a warning, but the implementation of international legal norms for the entry of ships of non-coastal countries into the Black Sea. These issues are governed by the Montreux Convention, according to which the flag states of a particular warship are obliged to notify the Turkish authorities. As far as I know, these rules are followed. At least, we clearly track that this is exactly the case.
We know this is not an isolated case of the display of the US Navy flag in the Black Sea. The United States has several times explicitly declared the need for its warships to enter this water area with the task of containing Russia, preventing the creation of risks for American allies in the Black Sea from our side. This does not add stability. The Americans are actively trying to push the coastal Black Sea countries that are members of NATO to pursue a fairly confrontational policy. They talk about the creation of new naval bases on the coast of Romania or Bulgaria. I do not think that this will meet the interests of good neighborliness in the Black Sea region.
Ready for any threat. There are no problems for us to reliably ensure the security of Russian territory in the Black Sea as well. We are always in favor of promoting cooperation projects, not confrontational initiatives. There is the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, in which not only the coastal countries participate, but also other states of this region, as well as the European Union. We advocate that it is cooperation, not whipping up tensions, that be the basis of relations between states in this part of our region.
Question: This week the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran came to Moscow to discuss the “nuclear deal”. The day before, in Rome, contacts were held between Europeans and Americans on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the Settlement of the Iranian Nuclear Program (JCPOA). Does the activation of contacts in this direction mean that the parties are ready to return to the deal in the foreseeable future? Can this happen without preconditions?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: If contacts become more active, apparently, the parties want to come to a renewal of agreements. The deal can be renewed only in the same form in which it was approved by the UN Security Council in 2015. Any additions and deletions are unacceptable for the Iranian side. We fully support this approach. If they agreed on something, and then someone backed away from this, then we must seek a return to full respect and compliance with the agreement.
Question: Are there any signals from NATO about readiness to continue the dialogue now? It is known who will represent NATO interests in Moscow?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: You are asking the second question, as if the first answer was positive. We have no information about what NATO is going to do. We rely on facts, and they are as follows: NATO does not want any interaction with us. When our representatives were still there, the Russia-NATO Council was working, they only wanted to teach us how to live, demanding to convene the Council every time to discuss Ukraine. Their whole interest was in whipping up propaganda and putting pressure on Russia. The question is closed.
If NATO has any reason to turn to us, then there is the Russian Ambassador to Belgium, who is responsible for bilateral relations. Informed the North Atlantic Alliance that in case of anything they can send signals through this diplomat.
Question (translated from English): Did the summit make progress on the issue of mutual recognition of vaccination certificates? How is it planned to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Russian vaccine if the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin did not attend the summit in person, despite the fact that he was vaccinated?
Sergey Lavrov (translated from English): With regard to vaccines, you can read the final communiqué of the summit. It clearly follows that the G20 leaders are in favor of mutual recognition of vaccination certificates.
I see no connection between vaccination and physical presence at the summit. Many leaders in their speeches today expressed support for what the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin spoke about regarding vaccination.
Question (translated from English): Have you met with your colleague, US Secretary of State E. Blinken? Despite the fact that the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin was not present at the summit, is there a possibility of his meeting with US President George Biden at the end of the year?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: I did not meet with US Secretary of State Eduard Blinken in Rome. I don’t know if he was present at the summit. Yesterday, during an official dinner, we managed to talk with US President George Biden. He did not ask to convey anything.
Question (translated from English): Why did Russia not support the initiative of the European Union to create a Coalition to achieve net zero emissions by 2050?
How do you assess the work of the Italian G20 Presidency?
Sergey Lavrov (translated from English): Why do you think that 2050 is some kind of “magic” milestone? I would like to hear the answer as you ask the question convinced that this figure is non-negotiable.
Question (translated from English): It was 2050 that was declared by the EU countries as a goal. This is recorded in the original communiqué.
Sergey Lavrov (translated from English): If this is declared as a goal of the European Union, other countries should also have the right to their ambitions.
With regard to the communique, we highly appreciate the work of the Italian presidency of the G20. This morning, the Italians managed to assist in discussing and agreeing on the final declaration, which will be circulated. However, we would prefer that the draft statement be provided to us in advance. As we were explained in private contacts, the reason for this delay was the fact that the first draft declaration was agreed upon by the G7 member states, and then decided to circulate it among the rest of the countries. This is why the communique referred to 2050 as the stated target. It is not very polite to use the negotiation process the way the G7 did. The Italian media is confident that the European Union, the United States and other G7 members are targeting 2050, and they are presenting this as the ultimate truth. I’m afraid this is not very respectful towards the rest of the G20 and the entire international community.
We have made calculations. We do not like to make unfounded statements and give empty promises. The European Union has pledged to stop using Russian gas pipelines for fuel purchases and to satisfy its needs in the spot market. Everyone knows how it ended.
The Russian side announced that it plans to switch to carbon-neutral fuels by 2060. This is our intention, based on real calculations, to which we are committed. Correct me if I’m wrong, but no one has ever been able to prove to us or other countries that exactly 2050 should be a common goal.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.