 Thank you very much for introducing me, and since I'm not going to deliver a speech, but rather to say a few productive remarks and then to engage in some interesting discussion, if you don't mind, I'll stay here. Thank you to everyone who came to this event, which was very kindly organized by Mercedes and the Kislyak. Ladies and gentlemen, it's an honor to be able to talk to you this morning. The time is, I think, very right for frank discussions. The world is a result of this variation. This is the turning point of history. A new system of international relations to a system of managing global affairs is emerging. The best manifestation of this is the activity of G20, which reflects the objective trend of a polycentric world being shaped in front of our eyes, when more countries with economic and financial power and with political influence, which come with it, become active in international economy, international finances, and in international politics. And certainly the nature of the challenges and threats we all face demands coherent, coordinated, collective action, because to think otherwise than to think and act in the logical stereotypes of the 19th and 20th century, I think would be a huge mistake. And of course, another sign of the modern times is the democratization. Democracy is required, is demanded by people in the Middle East and North Africa, and thus where democracy and the rule of law become the order of the day, but I would very specifically emphasize the need to respect democracy and the rule of law, not only domestically, but internationally as well. So what is the place for Europe, the United States and the Russian Federation in this environment? I think it is important to ponder on what our role of the three pillars and three branches of the European civilization would be today and tomorrow. I think for us to be, for the European civilization, which was spread by the Americans, I mean by those who immigrated to the United, to America, the West War and was spread by the Russians over centuries. East War, thus creating this famous space from Vancouver to Vladivostok, I think it's in our best interest to make sure that we are competitive in the modern world, in the modern polycentric world. And from this point of view, we have to be united. We have to join resources, join our intellectual, inventive, creative capacity. And I think this understanding is getting through, not without problems because old habits die hard. But still in Europe today, we witness that confrontational approaches give way to more cooperative stance and more and more countries realize that it is in our best common interest to resolve the issues in Europe so that Europe is united, so that Europe doesn't have any dividing lines, which are, of course, heritage of the Cold War. And so that Europe feels one piece Europe, I use this term to refer to Euro-Atlantic community. After the Lisbon Summit of NATO-Russia Council, after the OSCE Summit in Astana last year, very right words were pronounced by the leaders. Indivisibility of security, strategic partnership, that was the motion in Lisbon. The goal of building strategic partnership between NATO and Russia was endorsed by the leaders. They also said that they want to see the Euro-Atlantic space based on the visibility of security, predictability, transparency, mutual respect, taking into account the interests of each other. So it seems that everything has been agreed and that exactly this movement towards unity has been endorsed. And some people ask, what do you Russians need? What else do you need? We believe that what we all need, not only Russia, we need to make sure that these principles are really implemented in practice. Call it legally binding, call it anything else. Those very lofty words must be translated into practical deeds. And you might recall that three years ago President Medvedev suggested that we all consider concluding a treaty, a European Euro-Atlantic Security Treaty, which would codify the principle of the Indivisibility of Security, the principle that no country should increase its own security at the expense of security. Those are rotations from many documents endorsed in the 90s by NATO-Russia Council, by the OSCE, but the principle of Indivisibility of Security was never indeed made legally binding. But it is not just for the sake of making it legally binding that we talk about it. This principle was not applied in practical life. And I mean quite a lot of things which went contrary to the declared principles, including expending NATO when the Russia Treaty disappeared, including the violation of the commitment not to deploy military infrastructure in the territory of new NATO members and so on and so forth. Those were commitments not carried out. Therefore we believe that something must be done for us to make sure that whenever we strike a deal, we implement it. This is a very old Russian tradition. When Russian salesmen in the 15th, 16th century just shook hands, this was considered sacred. So maybe we are overly idealistic, but we still hope that people would keep their word. So what can we do now and what is the answer to the query? Why do you need this treaty and what in practical terms this would mean? Unfortunately or unfortunately the answer is readily available and the answer relates to the missile defense situation. The discussions on missile defense started in July 2009 when President Obama visited Moscow and together with President Medvedev they endorsed a statement saying that they would like to have a joint coherent effort on missile defense starting with common analysis of the threats and challenges, then developing common responses and then implementing those responses if God forbid there would be a need for this. And there have been continued discussions between the American and Russian experts. There have been continued discussions in the NATO-Russia Council, but so far those discussions did not materialize in some agreement, but parallel with those discussions, facts on the ground have been created on the basis of the American design for missile defense, the well-known phased adaptive approach. And you know our analysis of that approach. We do believe that at the end of this period designated for the four phases and no one is telling us that there would be no further phases, but at the end of the announced period of the four phases the military infrastructure of this project would create risks for the Russian strategic arsenals. And it's not a matter of who is going to attack whom, we are not enemies, we said so in Lisbon very bluntly, we said that we are partners, but it's just a matter of military planners who are paid for making sure that whenever something which can fire is next to your border you must take some compensating measures as it were. So missile defense situation is the crux of the matter of indivisibility of security. This is the material manifestation of what we mean among other things. There might be other material manifestations, but this one is just being formed, being shaped at this very moment. And this remains, I think, the single irritator of considerable importance in Russian-American relations to which I come in a couple of minutes. So we believe that what was agreed in Lisbon should be implemented. And the absolutely indispensable thing is to, after we have said that we are partners to say the next thing and to make sure that whatever we do missile defense or anything else is not, I mean in the military area, is not targeted against any of the participants of the European community. And that's what we suggested to our colleagues in Washington and in Brussels and we continue to discuss this problem. So I believe that honest dialogue on things related not only to security but to economy as well in this Troika format, US, Europe and Russia will bring us a long way to this goal of Europe without any dividing lines, Europe without zones with different level of security. And Europe of common prosperity, I hope, a house divided against itself cannot stand. That very famous ancient wisdom was quoted by then-president to be Abraham Lincoln in 1858. I think it's very much relevant to the modern Europe. We do have some experience in introducing the Troika format in practical activities. The dialogue between the foreign policy planning departments is being held at the level of foreign ministries. I mean, State Department, Russian Foreign Minister and the European Foreign Service. But we need to do more. We need to embrace additional areas of cooperation comparing views on how we perceive the modern world. Of course we are not going to enter as a member of what is called the Western community. Probably we are too big for this to become part of any agreed format which is existing in the Atlantic area and which is associated with the Western world. But we are the biggest partners of NATO and also of the European Union. So we should not be really obsessed with formalities, formal membership. We should concentrate on practical areas where the potentials of the three participants would be very useful in both together. To make us one, I would emphasize this once again, more competitive in today, a very competitive role. And it relates to economy, it relates to developing new technologies, it relates to our ability to react promptly and rightly to the unpredictable situations like the one we are witnessing in the Middle East and North Africa. Otherwise the time itself and history itself would overtake us. My last point is the Russian-European relations. I alluded to them already through their has been ups and downs. We are on the ups stage now, but even the ups stages are not without bumps. I alluded to one of them being missile defence. We do hope that we can overcome it and will be as Russia doing anything we can to achieve a fair deal which would be based on equality, respect for the interests of each other and the respect for the security concerns of each other. We have achieved the what? The start to achieve the one-to-three agreement, the creation and very active functioning of the Presidential Commission was 20 working groups. The two groups were lately added on innovations and on the legal issues. We began to cooperate more actively in such forum as APEC, G8, G20, the United Nations in spite of the fact that on some things in the U.N. we disagree. I wanted to mention the Resolution 1973 of Libya, but we should not be complacent with what we have achieved. I think we must put new ambitious goals in front of the two countries, the goals which would not ignore the interests of Europe. And there are no such goals, I believe, in the Russian-American context which would be detrimental to the European security and European development. Our immediate task is to finalize a very protracted and famous W2 accession. We are sick and tired of new and new demands. And I think we are closing a moment, nearing a moment of truth, and it would be very unfortunate if the truth would be negative rather than positive. I mentioned missile defense, which we have to resolve if we are responsible members of the international community. But we also have to put in front of us the goals which would be immediately felt by our citizens. And I would just mention the agreement between the two presidents when they met in the margins of the G8 summit in Deville to start working on an agreement on visa facilitation, which is ready and which we will sign very soon. It will provide for businessmen and tourists to get multiple visas for three years. And for the officials of the two governments to get one year multiple visas. Besides, when Vice President Biden visited Moscow last spring, the goal of this free regime was put forward by the Russian leadership and President Biden said, it's a good idea. And I think he wasn't joking. Only two years ago such thing would be unthinkable. But I'm not saying that we will move to visa free regime tomorrow, but this is a realistic goal. It will take time, like it takes time to move to visa free regime between Russia and the European Union. With Israel, we reached visa free arrangement much, much faster than with Europe. I hope the similar arrangement that the United States would take not longer than the European-Russian deal, but much less time. And of course, we finalized a very important agreement on adoption or cooperation on the issues of adoption. It's a good agreement. It's an agreement which is equal, which provides for instruments to monitor the fate of the adopted kids. And it prohibits adoption by individuals independently. A certified U.S. competent organ would be involved and would be responsible for the decisions taken on adoption of the Russian kids. I think I stop here. One last thing probably. When I say we need to do more, which would be immediately felt by our citizens, and this of course relates to the Europeans as well, the Americans and the Russians. And if we are guided by this, I think we would achieve much more compared to a situation where we make the potential useful, usually beneficial agreements, hostage to domestic electoral situation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister Lavrov. One of the really seismic events that has great effect on Europe, the United States, and on Russia has been the Arab Awakening. And there have been differences in policy and in approaches, both in terms of Libya and continuing certainly on Syria. I wonder if you could address opportunities that you see for closer torqued cooperation in resolving both the situation in Libya and in Syria. Well, I think it's a very good question. And when Europe, the United States, and Russia together, when we also bring China to our common position, and if the three are together, China would almost always be very much eager to join the club. And this is important because this format, this China in it, includes all five permanent members of the Security Council, and whether we like it or not. But this China provision is still very, very important for the international community. Yes, sometimes people blame the P5 for either not doing anything or doing too much, for either imposing reforms or blocking the reforms. But this is the cornerstone of the United Nations, which made it so successful compared to the League of Nations, which didn't have the mechanism of the permanent members. That's why the Americans left. And that was, you know, the very best thing for Europe after all. So the key to the success is, for all of us, to start by developing a common position. It's the same as with missile defense as with MSNAS. When we, agonizingly, painfully negotiated for almost half a year the last resolution on Iran, we reached consensus in the P5, including consensus between the European Union, the United States, and the Russian Federation. The resolution was adopted immediately after this, the United States and the European Union and some other countries introduced unilateral sanctions in addition to the United Nations sanctions. And whatever was not possible for them to negotiate in the Security Council, they just added, you know, al-Aqqat individually. I think this is the realm approach. Because we have been hearing the appeals to us, to the Chinese, we have to be together overall. We have to show our unity and solidarity. But does it mean that you cannot detract from the agreed product, but you can add to that this product these sanctions? I don't think so. Not to mention that many American sanctions, extra territory targeting, among others, the European and Russian countries. And the Europeans, last time Iran was topical in the United Nations, end of the 90s, I think. The European Union negotiated with Washington a deal whereby the European companies would be exempt from the unilateral American sanctions if respective companies abide by the Security Council resolutions, but do not necessarily fit into the American legislation. At least we want the same. But we still cannot get there, and quite a number of undeserved sanctions on the Russian companies have been removed during the last year, and I pay tribute to the administration, which understood the importance of moving in this direction. So when the Libyan situation evolved, or rather erupted, we all joined consensus on Resolution 1970, declaring total arms embargo, declaring the goal of immediate cessation of festivities and beginning of the political process. And Russia voted without any hesitation because we condemned together with Zolares what Gaddafi was doing using Hindi arms and airplanes against his own people. The Resolution didn't help Gaddafi continue to do what he was doing. Then the Arab League requested from the Security Council to decree the Libyan airspace, I know, Faisal, and we supported this goal because, as I said, it's absolutely unacceptable to use air force to kill civilians. And then the Resolution was negotiated with this goal as its centerpiece. The only problem we had with that Resolution was the paragraph saying that anyone can do anything to ensure the goals of the Resolution implement. We wanted together with China, Germany, India, South Africa, we wanted to specify who is going to volunteer to deliver this null Faisal regime. What would be the rules of engagement and what would be the limits of the use of force? I think it was a very fair request. It was ignored. And the draft Resolution, which we introduced, demanding under Chapter 7, immediate ceasefire, was also not supported. So we didn't have any other choice but to abstain, unfortunately, because we had the co-sponsors given it a bit more time to negotiate, not a carte blanche to anyone, to do anything, but to negotiate the means necessary to ensure the null Faisal regime. It could have been a consensual Resolution as 97. Now Syria, it's a different story. For many reasons, I wouldn't really go along explaining why, if only for the important Syria place in the region and the connections with so many regional aspects, which are very important. Before even suggesting that the Security Council should do something, the United States and the European Union introduced the unilateral sanctions. Not once, several times. And then they said, well, we need to do something in the Security Council. There was the European Resolution, the French-British Resolution, draft Resolution, which basically said that the entire situation in Syria is because Assad doesn't want to do anything. The opposition is fine and Assad must, must, must. In the base of the information we have had from our embassy, from other sources, we knew that this is not entirely true. Their position was not entirely peaceful, among peaceful demonstrators who were, of course, predominant. There were people who were armed and who were provoking violence. So we suggested that the international community in the form which would acceptable to everyone should address both parties and should tell Assad, well, we heard your promises of reform. This is right, but you must implement those reforms in practice faster. That's exactly what President Medvedev told President Assad during the several phone conversations in the last couple of months. But we also have to tell their position. You should not provoke violence. You should not resort to violence yourself. You should not count on the repetition of the Libyan scenario and you should not ignore the proposals for dialogue, the proposals for the discussion of reforms coming from the government. What was already done by President Assad was the removal of the emergency law which had existed for decades in Syria. Two amnesties were announced. The national dialogue was proposed and I think started yesterday and it continues today. Or rather, it should have finished yesterday. I think maybe they continue. And it's good that a considerable number of opposition forces, parties came to that dialogue. The President of Syria proposed a set of legal reforms including constitutional reform, including electoral reform of the legislation on the media. This should not be rejected. This should be engaged. Because we have seen only too often the prevalence of the logic of isolation over the logic of engagement. Be it in Iran, be it in Syria in the past, when Syria was isolated from the main scene of the Arab community. We've seen Hamas having been isolated after it won free and fair democratic elections. We have seen the attempts to isolate Hezbollah in Lebanon which brought nothing good to this country. So as a matter of principle, we are against isolation. We are for engagement. At the end of the day, the Iranian issue can only be resolved through engagement. And that's what the three-plus-three group reiterated a month ago in its statement, that we need an approach which is based on a step-by-step logic and reciprocate logic. So I think that we should act on Syria no less responsibly as we all act on Yemen. No one is pulling Yemen into the security council. By the way, no one lifted the finger when the presidential office was shared by the rebels in Yemen with the president almost being killed and with the top government officials and parliament officials who have been on the premises also wounded Syria. No one can bend this. I mean that the security council individually several countries did. But now in the United States, Europe, Russia, UN, Gulf Cooperation Council, everyone is saying, well, you must sit down and talk to each other. You must discuss this road map. I think the Syrian situation is absolutely deserving the same, the same trip. Even in Libya, things are moving in the same direction after the failure of the reliance on military solution alone. Foreign Minister, you came to Washington with part of the Quartet meeting. I told you it was a difficult session yesterday. Would you be willing to share some of your perceptions on this and how you see this unfold? I wouldn't say it was a difficult session. First, the wine was very good. And there was no disagreement on the methods of principle. The fact that we didn't produce a statement doesn't mean we disagreed and just abandoned the effort. Our experts continue to discuss it and they would take some time no doubt about this. But we have the same desire. This is the predominant desire to see Palestinians and Israelis returning to the negotiating table and beginning to talk. To talk substance. Yes, starting, as it were, with the borders and security, but very clearly spelling out that Jerusalem refugees, water and other final status issues would be discussed in the context of the eventual comprehensivity. And we know what Israel thinks. We know Palestine thinks. And I don't believe that the gap in their positions is really insurmountable. At least we, as the quarter which is accepted as mediated by the parties, by the United Nations, by the international community in general could produce a position which would basically achieve the following things. First, it must not deviate from the existing broadly accepted, universally accepted legal basis in the form of Security Council previous resolutions in the form of the Arab League Initiative, the Madrid Principles, the roadmap. This is the foundation. And two, the position to be presented by the quarter soon should reflect the specific demands by each of the parties. Everyone says sit down and talk about preconditions. Israel believes that Palestinian insistence on the settlement freeze is a precondition. Palestinians believe that when Israel says we would discuss without any conditions but your state would be demilitarized, we would protect your airspace and we would protect your waters and we will keep our military in the Jordan River valley. Palestinians say that's something from somebody who says no preconditions. But we understand how crucial security is for Israel. We also understand how crucial a statehood is for the Palestinians. And the exercise yesterday was not intended to hecticly produce something which could be used to tell the Palestinians you see you have this from us you shouldn't go to the United Nations there is no need to go to the United Nations. I wouldn't support this. It's their country, it's their right. But of course we talk to the Palestinians to Fatht al Hamas and have made all Palestinian infections after they deal with Cairo on the pre-establishing of the Palestinian Union to Moscow, I met with them they all say we want negotiations we want 9 to 6 to 7 borders including Hamas which means which implies the recognition of Israel the recognition of Israel's right to exist we shall not ignore these things we shall not continue the logic of isolation we shall not be maximalistically demanding the quotient criteria must be adopted tonight before anything else happens they are moving towards this criteria they accepted the Palestinian unity on the basis of the platform of the Palestinian Liberation Organization which recognizes Israel so I think it's the famous problem it was half full, it was half empty but it is not just a casuistic terminology it's an issue of crucial importance and we must not neglect even the minimal progress in the right direction so we received the member of the Fatht leadership a few days ago in Moscow who confirmed very strongly that the U.N. exercise is not going to be the substitution for negotiations so it all depends on what you say in the resolution that you want to adopt but in a nutshell we agreed tomorrow that we see things very closely that we all believe that what President Obama said on May 19th is a basic statement from the United States and that it should be incorporated in the common position with the language to be to be fine tuned with the participation of the European Union United Nations in Russia one issue that certainly has been of great conversation here has been Russia's accession to the WTO and certainly the American Administration is supportive as is the European Union however there are some real hang-ups with regard to the U.S. and the U.S. Congress particularly Jaffes and Banningham could you speak a bit to what Russia can do moving ahead assuming that America cannot back the WTO accession cannot back it but cannot ratify the compliance well if the United States would not ratify I mean if Jackson-Venek is there the Americans cannot enjoy the regime which Russia would provide to other members of WTO but they can't in the Russian market that's dancing so it's their loss well I think so they know but I mentioned WTO's thinking in my introductory remarks we are very close we thought we were close a year ago last September actually in 2006 we signed the Bush administration the final deal bilaterally only to see it re-signed last September new and new things are popping up and the same is true with the European Union position we finalized our bilateral negotiations with the EU back in 2004 that was one of the first events when I became minister there was a Russia you signed in Moscow by a deal on WTO only to see the re-signing last year so if we gain our partners I understand that this is an important thing because it's about money it's about access it's about your producers and negotiations are very tough maybe tougher than on the start treaty because everyone understands that there would be some commercial some financial consequences but when our minister of economy was here a few days ago they negotiated with the American counterparts almost everything is closed now it's about pork meat and the partners with whom she negotiated they can use the expression you are 20,000 tons of pork meat away from WTO why don't you it's really funny I think we should turn to the audience first I made a mistake I failed to recognize the best thank you colleagues if you have a question why don't you go to the microphone questions no statements I'll cut you off thank you so much my name is David I don't think it's so can somebody let's bring this mic over we know it works make sure we got that okay thank you my name is David I'm from Washington I'd like to call up on WTO it was a turnaround of negotiations in Switzerland a couple of days ago where Georgia demanded international monitoring on trade what is Russia's position and do you believe that this issue will be resolved with Georgia thanks if we all concentrate on WTO rules and do not go beyond those rules on politics yes it's very much doable and we responded positively to the Swiss proposal to mediate the Russian Georgian discussions to finalize the WTO issues and the Swiss produced a paper for the Georgians and us to consider we think the paper is logical it's right because it does not deviate from WTO agenda pro the customs control on the Russian borders can be transparent this is what the Swiss suggested and this transparency can be ensured the way which satisfies everyone I don't want to go into the details but if politics don't interfere it's not very difficult to could I ask people to turn off their cell phones and put it on silent stun Bill Nitsa, please work up to the microphone Mr. Foreign Minister Bill Nitsa, I'm a small business man who used to work on Arctic issues among others at the EPA and I'd appreciate your perspective on the proper international regime for development of the Arctic with particular reference to sustainable development of natural resources freedom of navigation for commercial vessels and avoidance of military conflict particularly regarding submarine forces of the various countries perhaps you could also comment on the Arctic Council and the law of the sea convention well actually you answered your own question the international regime for the Arctic exists this is the international law of the sea convention this was very unambiguously stated by the Arctic 5 the 5 coastal states Russia, US, Canada Norway and Denmark when we met at the ministerial level in Greenland in May 2008 and produced the new declaration of the Arctic 5 this was very strongly reiterated by the Arctic Council at 8 members already we don't see any problem in the Arctic which could not be resolved through the existing mechanisms and on the basis of the existing international law in the form of the international law of the sea convention we prove to this if anyone needed the proof was the negotiation conclusion and ratification of the Russian Norwegian treaty on delimitation of the Barents and the North Sea and that's basically it sustainable development of natural resources is first of all the responsibility of the Arctic states we don't avoid cooperation with these countries who are not members of the Arctic Council and only last May 2 months ago the Arctic Council met and adopted the rules of the game as far as the non-members participation and various projects is concerned this I mean the criteria to become an observed has been spelled out in so many details and observers can easily participate in development of natural resources they can enjoy the freedom of navigation including to bring to ship oil and gas through the northern sea route observers can of course participate in research, scientific research and other activities we don't see any problem in the Arctic which was required in the delimitation and this is the position of the Arctic Council members so it's really about cooperation thank you next question Arshad Mohammed of Reuters Minister Lavrov on Iran after the Iranians unwillingness to take up the Tehran research reactor proposal and after the lack of success in the round of talks in Istanbul could you sketch out for us what kind of diplomatic initiative what kind of engagement you think is likely to draw the Iranians into a serious discussion about their Iranian military program well first on Tehran it's not a substitute for the solution of the Iranian nuclear issue but it's an important thing which if resolved would serve as a very important confidence building President Medvedev together with President of Kazakhstan met with President Ahmadinejad on June 15 in Astana in the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit and we sensed the readiness of the Iranian leadership to resume negotiations including on the Tehran research reactor again it's about engagement and it's about negotiators to be guided not by the wrongly understood prestige considerations but by the substance and the substance is very important and we need not to say well we'll wait until they blink we have to be more creative and more inventive on the Iranian nuclear issue in general which also fits into the approach I described Secretary of the Iranian Security Council Mr Jalili some time ago addressed the letter to Khatig Eshtam the High Representative of the European Union suggesting that Iran is ready for the adoption of negotiations but not mentioning among the subjects the Iranian nuclear issue itself which is of course not what we all need but Khatig Eshtam sent a reply to him on behalf of the 3 plus 3 group which said yes we are ready to negotiate and she explained that every single candidate including of course the most important thing for us the Iranian inclusion but the Iranians they must know whether the negotiations are just to resolve the questions which are still remaining with international atomic energy agency and if this is the case whether the 3 plus 3 will deliver on our previous commitments that you resolve all the problems you restore the confidence and the natural nature of your nuclear program and you would be a normal non-nuclear member of NPT enjoying all the rights if you fulfill all the obligations you will enjoy all the rights which includes the right to enrich just to be frank about this but the Iranians keep asking questions whether the western participants of the 3 plus 3 really are really sincere and whether they are not having a different agenda which is not limited to non-proliferation tasks but is about isolation of the regime and then eventually the regime change if not the use of force which was mentioned so many times by so many people in 2 or 3 countries we have been trying to make sure that some sort of a roadmap and the 3 plus 3 proposals delivered to Iran couple of years ago is discussed and last November we suggested to our 3 plus 3 partners and on paper describing an approach which could be described as action for action Iran makes a step towards implementing the requirements of IAAA and we do something in return to lowering the to make the pressure of sanctions lower then Iran makes another step which I wanted to make a very spontaneous kind of game it's being considered now it's taking some time but most of our partners including Europeans and Americans promise to look into it and to see how we can use it I have a question Good morning I'm Maciej Pisarski, Polish DCM here I'd like to thank Mr. Minister for a very interesting presentation and since this even has a strong European touch let me ask a question about Russia-EU relations Poland is holding an EU presidency these days and we certainly hope very much that during this presidency a new framework between Russia and the EU will be established and more specifically we would welcome any actions, moves towards signing a new partnership cooperation agreement with Russia also developing the holistic EU-Russia Partnership for Modernization project and also we would like to see progress in the Russian initiative to include the whole in the framework of facilitated travel restrictions under the small border movement I would like to ask Mr. Minister how do you see the prospects for achieving progress in this field Thank you very much We certainly have high expectations for the Polish presidency we have been talking to my colleague and friend Radek Sikorski a lot during the first half of this year on bilateral issues but also on Russia-EU cooperation as you know we have been in agreement with Poland for quite some time on the small border travel between Kaliningrad area and the adjacent areas of Poland after very huge efforts we managed to cursory the commission and Brussels that the entire Kaliningrad region should be included in the small border travel scheme and now we are helping you to cursory Brussels to agree that the comparable area of Poland including that would be covered by this deal I think we will succeed and I think we must succeed under the Polish presidency we also hope that another neighbouring state Lithuania would also accept the same scheme of the same principle and if Russian-Polish deal would be endorsed that will create precedent not for everything else but for Kaliningrad area because of its unique geographical location on the new basic treaty we have been progressing very well but now we are stuck because the EU side wants to have the chapter on trade and economic cooperation and investment to be spelled out in so many details we believe that all this would be known and would be clear after we become WTO members and that at this stage we have a framework as far as trade and economy and investments go and then after we know on what specific and exact conditions would join the WTO it would not be too difficult to have a separate additional agreement between Russia and the EU spelling out the WTO regime but also adding more because we agree with the Brussels that we would have a more liberal trade and investment regime between Russia and the EU compared to what we will get under WTO of course this also involves the customs union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan so it's not very easy but for this reason I believe it is important to make this new basic agreement legally binding but a framework agreement to be addition detailed, elaborate agreements after the big one is adopted we also partnership formalization it's a very promising project not only we have signed the deal between Russia and EU but also more than half of the EU members signed bilateral deals with us on modernization in developing in practical terms the framework agreement between Moscow and Brussels on visa visa 3 regime negotiations are progressing we are now finalizing discussions on an exhaustive list of steps to be taken by Moscow and by Brussels and EU members and when these steps would have been taken the visa 3 agreement would be signed and they just met for another round and the agreement as they reported is 99% ready on this list of necessary steps and of course we want a crisis management agreement with the European Union it's also in a very advanced stage of negotiations EU just signed a crisis management agreement with the United States we cannot just copy it because we have some specific features including geography but I hope under Polish presidency it would be really possible the only thing which I'm sorry about is that after the Lisbon Treaty all summits in the EU are held not in the presidency capitol but in Brussels okay I've got three colleagues to questions I'm going to ask you each ask your question in order I'm going to put the burden on you and then we will wrap up next question thank you I'm Katie Fox I'm from the National Democratic Institute which is a non-governmental organization I want to ask Mr. Lover at the beginning of your remarks you said that one of the very important things in today's world is democracy and the rule of law and you stress that you met internationally as well as domestically could you expand on what you meant for them please go ahead and sit down no question from the European Institute for your very forthcoming presentation I wonder if you would elaborate a little bit coming out of the Russia NATO Council on the question of missile defense do you think the way forward is in technical fields or is there something in the form of consultation and reassurances that could open the way to progress on a timetable that maybe you'll give us a hint about your expectations hello Mr. my name is I'm from France 24 TV channel yesterday's quarter meeting was the last high level meeting before the vote in September at the UN what do you think will be the consequences of the vote at the UN and the Palestinian state and what might be the result of the vote according to you on democracy and the rule of law I think it's obvious that if we all want each and every country to be based on the principles of democracy and on the basis of the rule of law we should not forget our obligations internationally democracy in international relations means the principle embodied in the UN chapter one country one vote it's called sovereign equality of states and the rule of law means that international obligations must be respected and must take the preference of the national legislation and this is not always the case and this is wrong on the NATO Russia council missile defense you know that's the position of our western partners in NATO Russia just like it's the position of US negotiators in our bilateral dealings it cannot be to the detriment of the Russian security you have potential which would not be compromised by the design we have so don't have any suspicions start practical technical cooperation with us and you will see for yourself that this is not against you our response is very simple first we agreed both with the United States in 2009 and with NATO Russia participants in 2010 to start by joint common analysis of the situation and then on the basis of the analysis to move forward to decide on the concept and architecture of the European missile defense system because it's after the agreement on how we perceive threats that we would be able to discuss geography of location military means necessary to intercept potential missiles flying in the direction of Europe and so on so to they're not even giving us a benefit of the doubt as far as our intellectual analytical capacity is concerned so this is not really what common work means we're being told no no no we can discuss it with you yes we agree to discuss it with you but this is something which we already decided so why don't you just sit down and calm down and start cooperating with us we cannot start this practical cooperation until we have an agreement consensus on the concept and architecture of the missile defense we want the legally binding firm guarantee assurances whatever you call it that the missile defense project in Europe and elsewhere actually for that purpose should not create any threats and risks for the strategic stability which is based on strategic parity we also want to discuss jointly the criteria which would be applied to ensure that the declared goal of the missile defense is really respected and followed and the declared goal being to address potential threats coming from outside the Eurotlantic region and those criteria should be geographical should be military technical military people know how to discuss these things lastly on the quoted I don't think the quoted was the last high level meeting if only because we would all be in New York for the general assembly and I'm sure we would have time to consult again I didn't mention when I was touching upon the quoted answering the previous question it's a pity that we convened so late because Russia has been proposing to have the ministry with meeting of the quoted in March I was considering and then it wasn't possible for one member of the quoted the same thing happened in April it's good that we met yesterday and we still have some things to be finalized and our experts as I said are working on that and then they would report to us and the second thing which I think we should have done is to invite the League of Arab States to the quoted meetings of its Secretary General it's a very experienced diplomat Amr Musa is now presidential candidate in Egypt but Nabil El-Arabi who was my colleague in New York some ten years ago and then he was the member of International Court of Justice he is now the Secretary General and we wanted to invite him because it's very important to have the air of input in all these exercises which would also be international especially since the Palestinians have brought the previous position last year where they agreed to come back to try to come back to negotiations they had this position endorsed by the aeroplane and they would certainly consult the aeroplane now so it would only be helpful for the search of the practical solutions with the aeroplane especially since some time ago they quoted the principle that we should do such meetings we've come to the hour ladies and gentlemen this has been what I expected a professional, thorough candid and challenging morning and I'm grateful for it let's welcome and thank the Foreign Minister