Reuters: Hamas leader says U.S. blocking Palestinian unity

On the complications of the situation in Yemen

After the high-level meeting on Yemen in London on January 27, it is important to achieve effective consolidation of international assistance to the Republic of Yemen in repulsing threats to its security, ensuring internal stability and tackling socioeconomic problems. A Group of Friends of Yemen was created in London to this end. It includes Russia.

We presume that the measures to assist Yemen in various fields will be undertaken in consultation with its government, excluding interference in the internal affairs of that country in any form.

In this regard, Russia – reaffirming its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Yemen – is planning to provide humanitarian aid to internally displaced persons there; develop trade and economic cooperation; and continue to assist in strengthening the armed forces of that country.

On the statement made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about Iran’s willingness to send out its stocks of low-enriched uranium to produce fuel for the Tehran research reactor

I was asked to speak about the statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that Iran is willing to send out its stock of low-enriched uranium to produce fuel for the Tehran research reactor.

In addition to the remarks of Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, I can say that a lot of such statements have been heard in Tehran recently. In early January, Iran officially handed over to the IAEA its additional considerations regarding the Agency's scheme to send out its LEU to produce fuel for the Tehran research reactor. The main condition put forward by Tehran was a simultaneous exchange of uranium for fuel within the territory of Iran, which did not coincide with the mission of the Agency. If, however, Iran now intends to follow the IAEA-proposed scheme, as stated by President Ahmadinejad, it would be imperative for Iran to officially notify the Agency, after which we could study in detail the new Iranian proposals. We could not but welcome such a move. We have spoken of the importance of realizing the scheme for the Tehran research reactor on more than one occasion.

On Russian humanitarian assistance to Mongolia

The relief fund has also received money from the staffs of the Russian-Mongolian joint ventures Erdenet, Mongolrostsvetmet and Ulan-Bator Railway.

Q&A:

A: First, a bit of background. The so called Jackson-Vanik Amendment, incorporated in Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act currently in force, links the granting by the US to individual countries of most-favored-nation treatment or, in American terminology, normal-trade-relations (NTR) with their market status and the freedom of emigration they provide.

In 1994, the US administration officially published opinion on the full compliance of Russia's emigration policy with the provisions of Title IV of the Trade Act. On this basis, Russia was granted temporary NTR status, and there was introduced the practice of suspending the amendment in respect of our country based on annual White House recommendations to Congress that do not require the approval of the latter. In 2002, Russia was officially recognized in US trade legislation as a country with a market economy.

Nevertheless, a separate Congress decision is needed to graduate Russia from the amendment to a permanent and unconditional basis. The previous US administration repeatedly affirmed its intention to resolve this issue, but never took any real steps for fear of strong resistance from those lawmakers who see the amendment as a potential lever of pressure for ensuring certain, especially economic, national interests. Individual Congress members have also periodically come up with legislative initiatives, along with representatives of American business circles and public organizations lobbying for abolition. As we know, so far also to no avail.

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has no information about US Congress having considered cancellation of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment in respect of our country in recent weeks. At the same time, I would like to note that this theme is a regular subject of discussion in our contacts with the American side at the most diverse levels, including inter-parliamentary ties. The question is also included in the agenda of the Working Group on Business Development and Economic Relations of the recently established Russian-American Presidential Commission.

Let's hope that the Administration of Barack Obama will finally move this chronic problem off dead center.

A: Indeed, the Russian side did not receive an invitation to the meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors which will be held in Canada. The leadership of the Russian Ministry of Finance has already commented on the matter.

The Russian side has repeatedly expressed its opinion, including to the present – Canadian – presidency of the G8, about the lack of Russia’s full-fledged participation in meetings of this kind. We have always held that this is the wrong approach, reflecting the old political stereotypes.

There is another point to keep in mind, though. Against the background of the rise of the G20 as the major international forum for discussion of financial and economic problems, the importance of activities of the narrower composition now changes too. Strategic decisions on the financial and economic architecture of the world can no longer be taken without the participation of leading players, to which the BRIC states belong, including Russia, and major developing countries.

A: We have noted and analyzed these remarks. For years, the US has been an integral part of the Euro-Atlantic security processes. It participates in two leading organizations in this field, the OSCE and NATO, and largely determines the evolving situation here and the thrusts of its development. Therefore, by definition, Washington is no less entitled to its own voice in the realm of European security than any European country.

Now as regards the statement of Assistant Secretary of State Philip Gordon. We have noted them, and we were surprised that the assessments set out by the high-ranking American diplomat were clearly discordant with the tone and content of the Russian-American dialogue on this important issue, which is maintained between the two countries, including at the highest level. From the personal contacts, as well as messages of the presidents of the two countries we have formed the impression that the US administration has responded with interest to the Russian proposals and has shown willingness for further discussion and joint constructive work in this area, including from the viewpoint of the European Security Treaty initiative. The very fact that the initiative has for over a year now been discussed at various international venues, such as Corfu Discussions, where, by the way, the US also participates on a full-scale basis, serves as an indication of the ongoing work here.

Not only do the remarks of Gordon not fit into these realities, they are at variance with the overall emerging understanding between our countries, instilling doubts about the nature of the signals coming from Washington. It turns out that the line of US policy in such fundamental matters as European security is determined, contrary to the assurances of the country's leadership, merely by the logic of political curtseys and is being pursued with a result obviously decided beforehand.

We, of course, will keep such strange assessments in mind, but in our daily work prefer to rely on the clear instructions of the presidents of Russia and the United States to expand the bilateral dialogue and cooperation on all aspects of creating a truly indivisible security space in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Q: How can the Foreign Ministry comment on an article of the Foreign Ministers of Poland and Sweden where they have appealed to the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear weapons stationed on the borders with the EU or on its territory?

A: Raising the issue in this way (that is, presenting it in the context of Russian-EU relations) has caused us some surprise, as it is, in fact, contrary to earlier statements made by representatives of the EU. The EU regularly refused to discuss with the Russian side any questions of deployment of elements of a US missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, referring to the fact that this was a subject of bilateral relations between these countries and the United States.

It is an element of our principled stance when discussing the full range of nuclear disarmament issues that questions pertaining to further nuclear disarmament, including tactical nuclear weapons, should be viewed not in isolation but in close connection with other types of weapons, including conventional forces in Europe and missile defense systems.

In addition, Russia has consistently advocated the deployment of nuclear weapons only in the territory of those states to which they belong. In this context we would welcome the withdrawal of the US tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to the territory of the United States. And it should be accompanied by complete and irreversible elimination of the entire infrastructure for the deployment of such weapons in Europe.

We would like to receive from the article’s authors necessary clarifications whether their opinion means a shift in the European Union’s position and, consequently, the readiness for closer, more open and thorough dialogue on all aspects of European security, particularly taking into account the initiative of Russian President Medvedev for concluding a European Security Treaty. We are ready for such a task.

Q: The newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets has today published an article saying that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was forced to send a note to the Abkhaz leadership expressing “grave concern about numerous instances of alienation from Russian citizens of their property in Abkhazia.” Could you confirm this information? How can you comment on the situation in general?

A: Naturally we have made note of the publication.

I can assure you that no notes on this subject were sent. But we know from our Abkhaz colleagues that individual cases involving problems with property of citizens of Russia do arise. This is known to us and our Abkhaz colleagues alike. We are raising these issues in the course of our communication and try to solve them in a calm and mutually respectful manner. You have to understand that post-conflict settlement is a complicated thing; there are questions that require a certain degree of patience and respect when dealing with them.

Q: The Foreign Ministry has already commented on the incident with the Japanese fishing vessels, but the investigation is continuing in Japan, new facts are emerging. Has the position of the Russian Foreign Ministry on the incident changed as of now?

A: The circumstances of the incident with the Japanese fishing vessels, the No. 58 Takamaru and the No. 63 Kiyomimaru, in the waters of Kunashir Island were sufficiently detailed in the Ministry’s Information and Press Department commentary of February 1. It is displayed on the Ministry website and I think that there is no need to recap on it. The Russian media have taken a note of this theme.

The vessels have violated the provisions of Russian legislation as well as conditions of fishing under the intergovernmental Agreement on some matters of cooperation in the field of fishing operations for marine living resources of February 21, 1998. The fact of violation was fixed by means of objective control and at the present time Russian law enforcement agencies continue investigating the incident. So I would not like to talk about the related technical details, which are now being clarified.

As to the protest of the Japanese side, it was rejected as unfounded and unacceptable. Moreover, this demarche is puzzling because it is in stark contrast with the realities and inflicts harm upon the positive atmosphere of bilateral relations. In this connection, I would like to recall that we expect the Japanese side to take the proactive steps to ensure strict compliance by Japanese fishermen with the terms of the Agreement.

A: We cannot comment on matters which do not fall within our immediate purview. If the real facts are established, we will then be able to draw conclusions and bring them to your attention.