Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much for your patience, not just this morning,
but over the last couple of days. We're very appreciative and particularly grateful to
Sergey Lavrov, who stayed extra time from what he had originally planned, hoping we'd
finish sooner, and this gave us additional opportunity to be able to work through some
of the issues. I especially want to thank the cooperative
effort of Sergey Lavrov, who has worked hard, and his entire delegation, including teams
of the world's foremost chemical weapons experts who have joined us here for the important
discussions that we've had over the last two days.
Two weeks ago, President Obama made the decision that because of the egregious use of chemical
weapons in Syria against innocent Syrian citizens, women and children, all indiscriminately murdered
in the night - it claimed the lives even of people trying to rescue people - he believed
it was critical for the world to say, "No more." The President made the difficult decision
that after multiple warnings, it was his decision that the time had come to take military action
to deter future use of such weapons. But he also made the decision that we needed to take
time to enlist the support of the Congress and the American people. And I have no doubt
that the combination of the threat of force and the willingness to pursue diplomacy helped
to bring us to this moment.
But diplomacy requires willing partners. And I want to thank President Putin for his willingness
to pick up on the possibility of negotiating an end to Syrian weapons of mass destruction.
His willingness to embrace ideas for how to accomplish this goal, and his willingness
to send Foreign Minister Lavrov here to pursue this effort was essential to getting to this
point. And I want to thank Sergey Lavrov for his diligent efforts and the efforts of his
entire delegation, who worked hard and in good faith to overcome difficulties, and even
disagreements, in order to try to find a way, through tireless efforts, to get us where
we are today.
I also want to thank Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of France, with whom we've partnered
and consulted, as well as Foreign Minister William Hague of the United Kingdom, both
of whom will meet with me in Paris on Monday in order to discuss the road ahead.
For nearly 100 years, the world has embraced the international norm against the use of
chemical weapons. And the principles that the United States and the Russian Federation
have agreed on today can, with accountable follow-through, allow us to expedite the elimination
of Syria's chemical weapons. Providing this framework is fully implemented, it can end
the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people, but also to their neighbors,
to the region, and because of the threat of proliferation, this framework can provide
greater protection and security to the world.
We said at the outset that to accomplish our goal, this plan had to produce transparency,
accountability, timeliness, and enforceability. It must be credible and verifiable. If fully
implemented, we believe it can meet these standards. The world will now expect the Assad
regime to live up to its public commitments. And as I said at the outset of these negotiations,
there can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the
Assad regime. I thank Sergey Lavrov for his efforts to try to guarantee the genuine aspects
of this framework.
So let me just outline specifically where we are, and the steps that the United States
and Russia have agreed to take under this framework.
First, the scope: We have reached a shared assessment of the amount and type of chemical
weapons possessed by the Assad regime, and we are committed to the rapid assumption of
control by the international community of those weapons.
Second, specific timelines: The United States and Russia are committed to the elimination
of Syrian chemical weapons in the soonest and safest manner. We agreed that Syria must
submit, within a week - not in 30 days, but in one week - a comprehensive listing. And
additional details will be addressed regarding that in the coming days.
Third, the unprecedented use of Chemical Weapons Convention procedures is an important component
of this framework. We have committed to use extraordinary procedures under the Chemical
Weapons Convention for the expeditious destruction and stringent verification of Syrian chemical
weapons.
Fourth, verification and monitoring: In the interest of accountability, the United States
and Russia have agreed that the Syrians must provide the Organization for the Prevention
of Chemical Weapons and supporting personnel with an immediate and unfettered right to
inspect any and all sites in Syria.
Fifth, destruction: We have agreed to destroy all chemical weapons, including the possibility
of removing weapons for destruction outside of Syria. We have also reached a side agreement
on methodology.
Fifth, finally, consequences - sixth, excuse me: Our agreement today strengthens the OPCW
- the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons Executive Council decision to use
the Chemical Weapons Convention extraordinary procedures in order to ensure full implementation.
It also provides for UN administrative and logistical support to the OPCW for inspections
and destruction. In the event of noncompliance, we have committed to impose measures under
Chapter 7 within the UN Security Council.
Ultimately, perhaps more so than anywhere in the world, actions will matter more than
words. In the case of the Assad regime, President Reagan's old adage about "Trust but verify"
- "Doveryai no proveryai", I think, is the saying - that is in need of an update. And
we have committed here to a standard that says, "Verify and verify."
But I also want to be clear about the endgame here. If we can join together and make this
framework a success and eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we would not only save lives,
but we would reduce the threat to the region, and reinforce an international standard, an
international norm. We could also lay the groundwork for further cooperation that is
essential to end the bloodshed that has consumed Syria for more than two years.
What we agreed on here today could conceivably be the first critical, concrete step in that
direction. The United States and Russia have long agreed that there is no military solution
to the conflict in Syria. It has to be political. It has to happen at the negotiating table.
And we, together, remain deeply committed to getting there. From the beginning, President
Obama has repeated again and again there is no military solution. We must find a political
solution through diplomacy.
Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have long talked about the importance of creating the conditions
for a political settlement that implements the Geneva 1 communique. We will very soon
be meeting again. We've agreed to meet on the margins of the UN General Assembly with
Lakhdar Brahimi in order to try to advance these two linked, parallel efforts. And we
have no illusions about the challenges ahead.
The United States and Russia have not always seen eye to eye; that is known. And we still
don't see eye to eye on everything. But we will not lose sight of the fact, together,
that the implementation of this framework, which will require the vigilance and the investment
of the international community and full accountability of the Assad regime, presents a hard road
ahead. Ensuring that a dictator's wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass,
we believe, is worth pursuing and achieving. And President Obama is determined that we
work hard in the days ahead to travel a path of conscience, and to achieve our goals. And
we know that President Putin and Sergey Lavrov are committed to that endeavor.
Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, I would like
to join to - for your patience. And I'm not going to interpret the documents that we have
just agreed on. They are going to be submitted. Everyone will be - it will be possible for
everyone to look at them.
I just want to state that it's a decision based on a consensus and a compromise and
professionalism. And we have achieved an aim that we had in front of us, in front of our
presidents when they talked on the 5th of September, on Friday, in the margins of the
G-20 in St. Petersburg, and that later was announced, just not long ago, on the 8th of
September, in - on Monday, and the aim is to resolve the solution to put under international
control the arsenals of chemical weapons in Syria.
And today, I think in record times, we have an agreed proposal. I would like to state
that this is a proposal that should gain - judicial form, a low form, but we cannot overestimate
it.
I would like to thank all our American partners, especially John Kerry, for a constructive
work in the course of which we could - the rhetoric that was not related to the - our
negotiations, and to concrete - on the professionalism and to put under international control of
the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal, and for the furtherance of its destruction.
And the parting point was the decision of Damascus to join the OPC - the Convention
on Chemical Weapons and the readiness of Damascus to be committed - its obligations to the formal
entering into force of this convention after 30 days. And this convention and the obligations
by the Damascus - will start implementing its obligations much in advance. We have agreed
on the mutual steps that our delegations are going to do in - within the organization,
OPCW, according to the procedures of it are enlisted in the CWC, that permit operatively
and without any delays, without any difficulties, to resolve the objectives of destruction of
chemical arsenals.
We hope that the members of the Executive Committee of the OPCW will share our approaches,
the Russian approaches and the American approaches, and to adopt a decision on measures about
the chemical weapons in Syria.
We also agreed that we need the support of the activity of OPCW and the Security Council
UN, especially on the matters that go beyond the OPCW. And I would like to mention a very
important thing of ensuring the safety of work of inspectors. In our proposals, we noted
that the main responsibilities will bear the Syrian authorities. But not only them, also
other Syrian parties. The opposition should respond to not creating threats to international
personnel. And of course, the international personnel must gain the necessary authority.
So, this is - all has to be, in detail, worked out. But the most important thing is the responsibility
to - not to put into threat of the personnel is the responsibility of every party, without
exclusion. And we also agreed that any violations of procedures that would be approved by the
Executive Committee of the OPCW concerning the arsenal of chemical weapons, as well as
any facts of applying these chemical weapons, would be looked in the Security Council. And
if they are approved, the Security Council will take the measures - required measures,
concrete measure - and we have agreed on that. This agreement goes with those decisions that
have been achieved in G-8 in Lough Erne in June of this year, and in these decisions
it's underscored our common approach of non-admissibility of the chemical weapons - of use of chemical
weapons by anyone, and the necessary information available to the Security Council.
And of course, in these approaches agreed on, there is nothing said about the use of
force, not about any automatic sanctions we - as I said, all violations should be approved
in the Security Council convincingly. And we understand the decisions that we have reached
today is only the beginning of the road. And I have said about it, this fact, to a complete
resolution of the objective to put under control and elimination and destruction of the chemical
weapons in Syrian Arab Republic.
And we proposing - making our proposals, we are intent, with our American colleagues,
to work jointly, especially in the framework of the Executive Committee of the OPCW, where
we - and with other members of this organ - have to translate this document with any
dual - possible interpretations, logical - legal form, legal language. And this agreement,
which needs universal mechanisms, insurance - but we have agreed on it in very brief time,
and we - and it shows that when there is a voluntary - that where there's a will, when
we have intent of the states, when we have friendly relations, Russia and the United
States can get results on the most important problems, including the weapons of mass destruction
problem. And the successful realization of this agreement will have meaning not only
from the point of view of the common goal of liquidating and destructing all arsenals
of chemical weapons, but also to avoid the military scenario that would be catastrophic
for this region and for the international relations on the whole.
And here, with my colleague John Kerry, we have strictly approved our commitment of the
regulation situation in Syria. We had talks with Lakhdar Brahimi, where we discussed the
way we can, as soon as possible, to move from the deadlock these negotiations the way that
the Government of Syria is doing. We've done and we've said it, and the opposition will,
without any reservations, should participate without any preliminary intentions to participate
in the Geneva Conference according to the communique of 2012.
And we have discussed and we have both read about, probably, about the statement made
near the date of this possible - of this meeting. Russia wanted to make it in September, or
even earlier. Probably the day will be in October. But the most important thing is that
all parties are present on this conference, not with some special reservations, special
conditions, but the way that the Syrians should decide their fate by their own - only on that
important objective.
And this - I would like to know the support of our opinions by many countries, but all
the countries of the world. Representatives of France, Great Britain, have been mentioned
by John Kerry. We are ready to work with them and the Security Council.
But today, I would like to thank the countries of (inaudible), high organization, of cooperation,
and many other countries for their forceful support to the approach of regulating the
problem of chemical weapons in Syria only by peaceful means. And I hope that today's
meeting permits the - to go on with this work, so not frustrate their hopes. And I would
like to say that the resolution of the decision on chemical weapons in Syria will be a big
step on - to achieve an important step to make a free zone of weapons in the Middle
East. And Russia and the United States agreeing in - within the conference OPCW are coordinators
with the UN, should convene such a conference. It should have taken last year, but it is
- delayed it unfortunately, between going to - strictly and to - coming to what we have
agreed on. And last year, by consensus, we wanted to make this happen in 2012. 2012 has
passed, but we consider it's impossible, when everybody who has influence on the parties
for - the parties that should participate in such a conference, they should influence
on the coordinating states so that important objective, which also has an important meaning
of nonproliferation, will be resolved.
Thank you very much for your patience. We are waiting for your questions.
MODERATOR: The first question will come from Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.
QUESTION: Yes. Good afternoon. And if - Minister Lavrov, if I could beg your indulgence to
please give at least part of your answer in English, could we get a couple of specifics,
please? When is the first inspection? Is there a deadline for that and for further action?
I heard you say, Secretary Kerry, that it would be as soon as safely possible. But what's
your idea of the view of when that might be?
And, separately, can you reconcile what I thought I heard you say, Secretary Kerry,
about a Chapter 7 resolution with what Minister Lavrov said about taking this - that this
removes the threat of the use of force? Is the threat of the use of force within the
Security Council still an option here? And is U.S. military action separate from that
still an option? Thank you very much.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) As for the question that you posed to me,
I hope that the interpreters who are working here - they are highly - the interpreters
are of high level. Therefore, I will continue to speak Russian.
I would emphasize once again that the documents that you will see for yourself, you will be
- we will have this opportunity to read the documents, and they do not need any additional
interpretations. Everything is clear in these documents. And these documents cannot - the
documents of direct effect - these are Russian and American proposals, and they should be
considered first and first of all in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. After
this organization and its executive council adopt corresponding decisions, we will tell
you exactly when the first inspection will start, and when these inspections will end.
In these documents that will be distributed today, you will see those terms that our experts
consider reasonable and simultaneously expeditious that would allow - professionally ensure security
of the process of placing under control and elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons.
As for your questions to John Kerry, before he touches upon this question, I would call
on you to read very attentively our arrangements and what we are going to be guided by. In
the Security Council, we decided to support in the Security Council those decisions that
will be adopted in the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to develop
additional measures of picking up these activities that would reflect this specificities of the
competencies of the Security Council, and we also agreed that we will expect full implementation
of the requirements provided by the OPCW based on the corresponding convention. And in case
these requirements are not implemented or in case anybody will use the chemical weapons,
the Security Council will take measures under Article 7 of the Charter of the United Nations.
Of course, it does not mean that every violation that will be reported to the Security Council
will be taken by word. Of course, we will investigate every case, because there are
a lot of false information, pieces of information in the world, and we should be very cautious
about every fact. And when we are sure, 100 percent, then we in the Russian Federation
will be ready to adopt new resolution of the Security Council to embed the measures to
punish the perpetrators of this violation, and it's nonsense to continue the speculations
on the matter today.
SECRETARY KERRY: So let me, as Sergey did, comment on both sides of it, if I may. First
of all, there are timelines in here, and it's an ambitious goal, and the inspectors must
be on the ground no later than November. And the goal is to complete the destruction and
removal - and/or removal by halfway through next year, 2014. That is a stated goal within
this framework.
In addition to that, there is - there are requirements in the framework, which you will
see, that automatically take noncompliance and/or some question of deviation from the
framework will go to the Security Council for debate as to what measure might be implemented.
But there is an agreement between Russia and the United States that noncompliance is going
to be held accountable within the Security Council under Chapter 7. What remedy is chosen
is subject to the debate within the council, which is always true, but there's a commitment
to impose measures. That's the language, will impose measures commensurate with whatever
is needed in terms of the accountability. We think that's an appropriate process and
-
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Should, should.
SECRETARY KERRY: Should. And as Sergey knows, under any circumstances, there would be a
debate in the Security Council, even now. So there's no diminishment, there's no diminution
of option. And it's impossible, obviously, under these circumstances, to have a pre-agreement
as to what that specific sanction might or might not be for circumstances that we don't
even know yet. Our hope is that we have a tight enough regimen that is agreed upon,
as we have said, in the extraordinary measures that we have laid out.
We have actually agreed on the new process, on a more vigorous process, and a more defined
process - for instance, the unfettered access of inspectors that is not in normal CWC procedure.
But it will be embraced through a UN resolution as part of the process that exists here. So
we have high anticipation that, as I said, if fully implemented, this will have an ability
to be both verifiable, accountable, and the world will make its judgments as we go along.
Now with respect to the question of the use of force, first of all, the President of the
United States, under our Constitution, as Commander-in-Chief, always retains the right
to defend the United States of America and our interests, and he always has that right.
Even as he asked Congress to approve, he retained a declared and understandable time-honored
right with respect to his power as Commander-in-Chief. But the President also said he wanted to find
a diplomatic solution to this. Now the potential of a threat of force is clearly one of those
options that may or may not be available to the Security Council, and a subject to debate.
Everybody knows the differences of opinion about it. But depending on what Assad does,
that possibility exists either within the process of the United Nations, or as it did
here, with a decision by the President of the United States and likeminded allies if
they thought that was what it came to.
I think the President sending me here and directing me to work with my counterpart,
Sergey Lavrov, as President Putin sent him here, indicates that both presidents believe
the preferred route, which I think is the preferred route of most of the citizens of
the world, is to find a peaceful solution to these kinds of conflicts. And that's what
I think we have worked in good faith to try to do here today.
MODERATOR: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) (Inaudible), Kommersant newspaper. I have a question. If you have
agreed about the quantity of chemical weapons, the volumes, and where it is going to be destroyed,
on the Syrian territory or in a third country, and who's going to pay for that? Thank you.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) On those documents - sorry, on the question,
in the documents you are going to receive, they have the evaluations of our expert, estimated
evaluations, by the final conclusion on these issues as well as others will adopt the organizing
council of the organization. And the document have a common approach of the terms of the
procedures and the volumes, but I would like to reiterate that this should be agreed in
the framework of the OPCW and in the executive committee framework. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Let me just say that we have agreed, as you will see in the documents,
on a basic assessment of the numbers and types and locations - we have agreed between us,
and that's a very important point here. Because we expect the Assad regime, obviously, in
its declaration, to show the candor that we have shown in reaching that agreement.
With respect to the issue of destruction, there is a clause in which we agreed that
we will contribute resources, including finance to some degree. We have a certain amount of
budget for this kind of purpose. And we will seek, in the process of the UN and in the
effort to have a global commitment to this, help from many other of our international
partners. But we're convinced the urgency of this will be a test for the international
community's commitment to the Chemical Weapons Convention and to the importance of restraining
chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
So I think the global community will participate in this, can be achievable. As to where it
is destructed, the experts really need to make determinations about individual weapons.
Some can be destroyed on the site, many cannot, and that's something that will have to be
part of the CWC process that will be contained in the extraordinary procedures that we have
called for.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) As far as who is going to pay, I think that
you heard that there were countries who were ready to pay for the war, and I'm sure that
there will be such countries, perhaps not the same countries, who will be ready to finance
the peaceful solution of the problem.
MODERATOR: The next question will be from David Lerman of Bloomberg.
SECRETARY KERRY: We're going to send Sergey to talk to them and make that arrangement.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Mr. Secretary?
SECRETARY KERRY: Yes.
QUESTION: David Lerman from Bloomberg. Sir, just five days ago in London, when you first
floated this idea publicly, you seemed to dismiss it at the time by saying Assad would
never do it and, quote, "It can't be done, obviously." My question, sir, is how did the
impossible suddenly become possible? And why is it credible to think that you can send
these inspectors in on the ground in the middle of a civil war?
SECRETARY KERRY: Sure.
QUESTION: And, as a practical matter, if you really want to get thorough, verifiable inspections
in all corners of the country, don't you have to stop the fighting first?
SECRETARY KERRY: Let me answer both questions. I purposefully made the statements that I
made in London, and I did indeed say it was impossible and he won't do it, even as I hoped
it would be possible and wanted him to do it. And the language of diplomacy sometimes
requires that you put things to the test, and we did.
Sergey and I have been talking even three days before that about this very concept.
We had two phone calls on the Thursday and Friday before it. And I got a phone call very
quickly from Sergey saying let's see if we can take this and move, and he talked to his
president and they talked - our presidents talked in St. Petersburg, and the rest is
history. We're here.
So, obviously, I would hope and always hoped that we could have removed those weapons,
and we wanted to. But we didn't know whether or not this could be given the kind of life
it has been given in the last 48 hours. So, it just didn't make sense to raise a concept
that hadn't yet been put to the test or agreed upon or worked through. I'm pleased that President
Putin took initiative, and Sergey took initiative, and President Obama responded, and we're here.
And so the question is, "So where do we go from here, and how do we build on this," which
I think is really critical. Now, how do you do this, quote, "in a time of war"? Well,
look, this is logical. One of the reasons that we believe this is achievable is because
the Assad regime has taken extraordinary pains in order to keep control of these weapons.
And they have moved them, and we know they've moved them. We've seen them move them. We
watched this. And so we know they've continued to always move them to a place of more control.
Therefore, since these weapons are in areas under regime control predominantly, Sergey
raises questions that maybe the opposition has some here or there, and absolutely, fair
is fair. Both sides have to be responsible. If they do, that also - and that may present
a larger challenge. But those of us who have been supporting the opposition have a responsibility
to help create access there, and the regime has responsibility where we believe the - the
measure - in fact, we believe the only weapons are - ought to be accessible because the Assad
regime controls the access.
So in point of fact, it shouldn't be in a contested area, largely because they've been
working to keep it out of the contested area, and that is the sort of silver lining, if
you will, in - with the way in which they have contained these weapons. So it's our
expectation that with the cooperation of the international community, with adequate contribution
of protection forces and of people to go on the ground, if the Assad regime is prepared
to live up to its word, we should not have a problem achieving access to their sites.
And that will quickly be put to the test.
MODERATOR: (Via interpreter)
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) And the last question (inaudible). I have two short questions with
your permission. Secretary (inaudible) first, if it is possible, could you please clarify?
Yesterday in the hall of the hotel we saw Kofi Annan, very respected politician, and
we would like to know what were his proposals. He came here with some proposals and he told
that he went into the meeting with you two presently.
(In English) This is the same place, same building where, four years ago, Russia and
the United States pushed their reset button. So after that conversation with Mr. Lavrov,
do you think our countries might reset our relations again?
SECRETARY KERRY: Well -
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Yeah -
SECRETARY KERRY: Go ahead.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Please, (inaudible).
SECRETARY KERRY: No. I think, as I said in my opening comments, we've had some differences
here and there on certain issues. But we've also worked together cooperatively on many
things. And Sergey Lavrov and I have never stopped talking. We have consistently been
prepared to try to work to deal with issues, and that's why we did Geneva I, and that's
why we're here now with respect to this initiative.
Now, on larger issues, on Iran, Russia and the United States cooperate. On North Korea,
Russia and the United States cooperate. On WTO, we cooperate. On START Treaty, we cooperate.
On the reduction of nuclear weapons, we've been cooperating. We just had a 2+2 meeting,
which means the two Secretaries of State and Defense meeting their counterparts from Russia
in Washington, even in the midst of all the other hurly-burly about issues, and we had
a very constructive meeting in which we laid out an agenda to continue to work on weapons
of mass destruction, to continue to work on trade, to continue to work on other issues,
even the issues that, in the press, get elevated into this question of reset, no reset, et
cetera.
So I think - I hope Sergey feels the way I do - there are things we disagree on. But
big nations, powerful nations, leaders, cannot afford to get caught up in the small things.
And President Putin, to his credit, despite real disagreement with our policy, despite
a disagreement with where we were heading, reached out and tried to continue the dialogue.
So I would say look for the glass being half-full rather than half-empty, and let's see how
we proceed from here.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) president?
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Can you wait a second for me to answer the last question? (Laughter.)
Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: This is what I've been doing for the last couple days. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) Speaking about the meeting with Kofi Annan,
as far as I understand, John also met Kofi Annan. Kofi Annan does not have any official
position, official post, but is really extremely important and distinguished politician. He
is a member of the so-called club of the "Wise Persons," and he participate in the Foundation
support of UN created by Ted Turner and his wife not long ago with him - was in Moscow,
and we also met. And it is clear that after - he stopped to become special representative
in Syria, and his powers were transferred to Lakhdar Brahimi.
Kofi Annan, as a political animal, as he usually say, he cannot forget about this, especially
taking into account that, as a personality, he takes care (inaudible) to avoid wars in
the world, and to have more stability. And he is really personally concerned with the
matter. And when we met with him, he just asked me to tell me how we see the situation
and how do we manage to agree on the fact - it was almost in the evening, and it was
understandable that we were very close to the agreement, and we told about this agreement
today. And soon in the future, we'll see legally binding documents in The Hague and in New
York after this.
And I told you very sincerely that we are very worried with the attempts to frustrate
any efforts aimed at calming down the situation at - avoiding certain and removing certain
aspects of the Syrian conflict, including the efforts that were taken together with
John today. And I told him that in the middle of our talks.
At the most crucial moment, we just saw on the screens of the television the message
that Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, talked to some women in
some club for women that the report of the inspectors who investigated the accident that
happened in Ghouta on 21st of August will be presented on Monday. And he cannot reveal
the substance of the report, but he will tell that the chemical weapons were used. And after
this, we saw on the screen and Ban Ki-moon said that Bashar Assad - confirm that Bashar
Assad committed crimes against humanity.
And then it occurred that there was some film production and there was false information
and they were not related together, all this information. And he took into account the
assessments were made by an independent commission that was created here in Geneva, this independent
commission on Syria. And the members of this committee, they just mentioned the crimes
against humanity, but the distinguished television channels just showed everything, and he showed
everything, and he showed the information that Bashar al-Assad committed crimes against
humanity. And if it's - it was not just a full mistake, because the meeting was closed,
and if it's not - if it was not just a joke, but it was just an attempt to frustrate our
meeting here in Geneva together with John Kerry, and they did not manage, thank God.
But anyway, the use of chemical weapons and the alleged use of chemical weapons should
be investigated based on sincere facts. Everybody says that on the 21st of August, that the
regime used these chemical weapons. But first of all, we should - everybody should wait
for the conclusions of the report to determine whether the chemical weapons was - were used
or not. But all these conclusions will be considered together with all other facts who
could do this and why, to determine what happened, really, on 21st of August. If we are speaking
a lot about the reinforcement of the role of the Security Council, let's respect the
Security Council. Let us not try to predetermine what will be the procedures of the Security
Council. Let's wait for the experts' report. And there are a lot of facts on the August
21st events and what preceded these events.
And I talked to Kofi Annan and he supported me. It is necessary for the group of experts
headed by (inaudible) extensive comeback to continue the investigation of other facts
that were included also in the mandate of this group of experts. And I am also very
concerned, and Kofi Annan also knows about this - I talked to him - that there is ground
to suspect - to have suspicion that the report that will be presented on Monday - somebody
tries to correct, to adjust, and to shift to someone's side, as compared to what was
written by the inspectors, and to be ready - that the Secretary General decided that
Mr. (inaudible) will participate in the work of the Security Council personally. And all
the questions that the Security Council will have will be addressed directly to him. And
I beg your pardon that I was talking so long about all this, but Kofi Annan really was
interested in many aspects, and I shared with him at least part of our concerns.
As for the question that was posed to John Kerry, I would like to support his words,
to join his words, and I told him in introductory remarks that such agreements, such arrangements
as we have today on the most difficult and complicated issues, and if this arrangement
is not still law - it is not approved in the corresponding structures, but this is a Russian-American
initiative. And without being too modest, when we work together, usually we manage to
mobilize in support of the majority of the - even full international community, all the
efforts. And it shows how important it is for us to go beyond some things that some
people try to make most important things in our relations make - try to make them as obstacles
in our relations, some suspicions or some concerns that are created artificially. I
could say that presidents, during their meeting in Los Cabos last year and during the meeting
on the margins of other multilateral fora, always emphasize the intention to continue
cooperation in the international arena.
Now, on the bilateral level, yes, we have joint goals to achieve peaceful settlements
to make Syria circular and peaceful, where all ethnic groups of - all religious groups
have their rights, but we have differences in the understanding of methods. But here
in solving the problem of the chemical weapons in Syria, we found common grounds. And we
should do the same in all the issues on - as far as on Monday in Vienna, the General Conference
of the IAEA will start, and a very important agreement will be signed during this conference
related to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It is very important, from the point of view
of its obligation, and we have several more agreements that are also important, including
the agreement on drug trafficking control, and we have created the hotline between the
security councils of our countries on the issue of cyber security, information security,
and by the visit, expected visit, of President Obama.
We have the statements of presidents ready on the talks that we have been - the economic
area cooperation, and on the long-term development of U.S.-Russia relations. This visit was cancelled,
but I'm sure that the fact that the negotiators laid the correct foundation of this work - this
will not disappear. And next time, during next meeting of the President - and perhaps
it will be in Russia - these documents and other documents that we able to agree on will
be signed. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: (Inaudible), you could be a senator. (Laughter.) Anyway, do we have
any more? Are we finished? We're finished.