Question: How is the dialogue with the United States on counterterrorism going now? How successful is he? Is there any hope that the practice of face-to-face regular consultations on this issue can be resumed in the near future?
Answer: We are forced to state the absence of any progress on the issue of resuming the interdepartmental dialogue between Russia and the United States, which was carried out in 2018-2019 under the auspices of the foreign ministries and, according to our estimates, was very dynamic, useful and productive. The initiation of its suspension by the Americans under a far-fetched pretext can only cause regret. At the moment, we are not receiving signals for any change in the situation. Of course, it is difficult to consider the possibility of a full-fledged dialogue in the field of counterterrorism in isolation from the general context of bilateral relations between our countries. Nevertheless, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of such Russian-American cooperation and its objective necessity. Its stalling can be beneficial only to terrorist groups. However, this is not a one-way street, and political will on both sides is needed here. We have repeatedly said that Moscow cannot be more interested in dialogue than Washington, and we continue to adhere to this position.
Question: In December 2021, the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation for the Syrian settlement, A.L. Lavrentiev, said that Moscow was recording an increase in terrorist activity almost throughout the territory of the SAR. Does Moscow have information about the preparation of new provocations of militants using chemical weapons in Syria?
Answer: With Russia’s decisive contribution, international terrorism in Syria was decisively defeated. Now the security situation in general is controlled by the authorities of the SAR. However, despite their strenuous efforts, the country still has a high level of terrorist threat. One of the most resonant terrorist attacks in recent years was the bombing of a bus in the center of Damascus on October 20, 2021, which killed 14 Syrian soldiers.
As a rule, representatives of state authorities and law enforcement agencies, former members of illegal armed formations who have passed the procedure of “legal status settlement” and made a conscious decision to return to peaceful life become the targets of the attacks of the underground. Sabotage and attacks are being carried out on the objects of the socio-economic infrastructure of the SAR.
The favorite method of terrorists has become, as it was correctly noted, the staging of the use of chemical weapons in order to subsequently impose responsibility on government troops. We continue to receive regular reports on their preparation through various channels.
At the same time, in fact, we are most concerned about the current situation in the territories beyond the control of the authorities, in particular in Idlib, as well as in Trans-Euphrates and At-Tanf, where the illegal military presence of the Americans persists. A clear indication that the main threat of international terrorism comes from there was the recent US operation to eliminate the leader of ISIS Abu I. al-Kureishi in the Idlib de-escalation zone.
We can also recall the resonant attack at the end of January this year by the militants of the Islamic State on the Es-Sinaa prison guarded by the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces in Hasakah in the north-east of the SAR. As a result, several hundred dangerous terrorists were released. All these facts point to the need to restore the Syrian Government’s control over the entire territory of the country as soon as possible and to establish effective international cooperation with Damascus in the anti-terrorist sphere.
Question: Last August, the Taliban movement came to power in Afghanistan. The Taliban have repeatedly stated that they are ready to fight terrorists, but due to the freezing of financial assets, their potential is weakening. How do Moscow assess the state of affairs in this country now? Are there contacts between Russia and representatives of the Taliban to combat the terrorist threat?
Answer: We note the efforts of the new Afghan authorities to maintain military-political stability and security, as well as to improve the socio-economic situation in the country. In contacts with the new regime, we draw its attention to the importance of combating terrorist and drug threats emanating from Afghan territory.
The Taliban authorities already have positive results in the fight against terrorist groups in Afghanistan. In particular, in January 2022, the former leader of the Afghan ISIS terrorist cell, Farooqi, was liquidated, and a number of members of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir terrorist organization in Takhar province were arrested. And on February 6 of this year, at least 50 ISIS fighters surrendered to the Taliban in the eastern province of Nangarhar. We hope that the new authorities will continue to counteract the activation of terrorists in Afghanistan.
For our part, we are ready to assist in building up regional efforts to strengthen security within the framework of such multilateral mechanisms as the SCO, the CSTO and the CIS.
Question: In January this year, the CSTO promptly responded to the terrorist threat in Kazakhstan. But there are great fears due to the fact that terrorists may suddenly appear in large numbers in the Organization’s space. After the events in Kazakhstan, how much has this threat been minimized? Will there be further development of such scenarios and cooperation to strengthen the power structures of neighboring, friendly countries?
Answer: The situation in the fight against terrorism in Central Asia, where there are a significant number of “sleeping” cells of terrorist organizations, remains very fragile. This was clearly demonstrated by recent events in Kazakhstan, which in early January this year faced an unprecedented challenge to its statehood, security and sovereignty. Peaceful protests of a socio-economic nature were used by forces interested in the violent seizure of power. To do this, they needed to destabilize the internal political situation in the Republic of Kazakhstan. According to the law enforcement agencies of Kazakhstan, among the attackers were persons of foreign origin, as well as militants who had gained experience in foreign countries and “hot spots”. We are talking about the hybrid aggression of international terrorist gangs trained abroad.
The authorities of Kazakhstan, together with the promptly deployed Collective Peacekeeping Forces of the CSTO, managed to normalize the situation in a short time, restore law and order. The experience of a successful peacekeeping operation will be thoroughly analyzed, including to take preventive measures in case of attempts to repeat similar “plots” in other states of the CSTO area of responsibility.
We have no fears that the tragic events of January in Kazakhstan may be repeated.
We support the President of Kazakhstan K.-Zh.K.Tokayev, who intends to conduct a thorough investigation of what happened and punish the organizers of this inhuman attack on the country. It is also important to find and neutralize all the militants who may still be hiding on the territory of Kazakhstan. In addition, the country’s leadership has planned a number of significant reforms, including in the socio-economic sphere. This is a move in the right direction.
The effectiveness of the use of the Collective Peacekeeping Forces of the CSTO confirms the need for close anti-terrorist cooperation and coordination between the participating states of international organizations operating in the post-Soviet space. In this context, I would like to emphasize that the CIS, whose member states are united by strategic partnership relations, remains a unique and very effective platform for a confidential professional exchange of views and joint actions in the field of countering new challenges and threats to security. This, of course, is facilitated by the solid legal framework developed in the CIS (about 20 treaties) on countering terrorism, as well as the corresponding Program of Cooperation of the CIS member states for 2020-2022, which includes interaction with countries outside the CSTO.
Question: In your opinion, can the potential of the CSTO be used to combat the terrorist threat not only in Central Asian countries, but also in UN operations?
Answer: As for the use of the CSTO potential in UN operations, in accordance with Article 1 of the Agreement on the Procedure for the Formation and Functioning of the Forces and Means of the CSTO Collective Security System of December 10, 2010, the Organization’s area of responsibility is only the territory of its member states.
Question: Despite the difficult relations with the European Union, are there plans to hold consultations on anti-terrorist issues with both Brussels and individual EU members?
Answer: Counter-terrorism cooperation with the European Union has always been considered by us as a direction of international cooperation that has a solid unifying potential and mutual benefit for its participants. Despite repeated failures in our regular dialogue, Russia remained committed to the development of equal cooperation and advocated that this format should not become hostage to political conjuncture or volatile moods. However, we have to state that today such interaction is clearly unsatisfactory.
Following the results of the last round of Russia–EU consultations on combating terrorism, held in Moscow in 2019, agreements were reached to continue the dialogue in Brussels. Due to the spread of coronavirus in 2020, the meeting was postponed until the epidemiological situation improved. Since then, the EU colleagues have been in no hurry to formulate specific proposals on this matter.
It seems that our dialogue with the European Union on counterterrorism has once again been influenced by political “weather vanes”, despite statements from some high-ranking Brussels officials in support of the idea of its restoration.
For our part, we are ready to resume consultations with our European partners. We believe that such cooperation would be in demand in the context of the current significant transformation of terrorist challenges and would work to ensure the security of EU and Russian citizens. In addition, the exchange of assessments and information on terrorist threats on a global and regional scale would serve as a practical result.
As for cooperation on counterterrorism with the EU member states in a bilateral format, we maintain a constructive and regular dialogue with a number of states.
For example, last year there were meetings of the Russian-Spanish interdepartmental working group on countering terrorism (Madrid, May 14, 2021), the subgroup on countering terrorism, drug threat and organized crime of the Russian-German high-level working group on security policy (Berlin, September 2, 2021), the Russian-French working group on combating new challenges and threats (Moscow, October 19, 2021) and the Russian-Italian working group on combating new challenges and threats (Moscow, November 24, 2021). We hope that such consultations will continue this year.
Question: Did the talks between the Foreign Ministers of Russia and Chad give an impetus to resolving the problem of terrorist groups in the Lake Chad area? Are new agreements in the military-technical sphere planned between Moscow and N’Djamena? Is it planned to discuss this at the upcoming Russia-Africa summit or before it?
Answer: The Russian Federation maintains friendly relations with the Republic of Chad. Currently, this country is going through a difficult period in its history. Nevertheless, the dialogue with N’Djamena continues, as evidenced by the negotiations of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, African Integration and Affairs of Chadians Abroad of the Republic of Chad M.Z.Cherif, which took place on December 7 last year in Moscow. The foreign ministers discussed a wide range of issues of bilateral cooperation, including deepening political dialogue, strengthening trade, economic and humanitarian ties. In addition, the issues of countering the terrorist threat in the Lake Chad basin area were touched upon. Both sides confirmed their intention to continue cooperation on the anti-terrorist track.
The Russian Federation, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, supports the efforts of Chad, a member of the Sahel Five and the Lake Chad Basin Commission, in this direction. Bilaterally, we also assist N’Djamena in eliminating the terrorist threat, including through the training of military personnel and police officers. We are ready to consider the initiative proposals of the Chadian partners to expand cooperation in the relevant field.
As for the upcoming Russia–Africa summit, this event will be dedicated to strengthening cooperation between our country and the States of the entire continent and leading African sub-regional organizations in political, trade, economic, scientific, technical, humanitarian and other fields. Within the framework of this forum, there is no discussion of issues of military-technical cooperation.
Question: Which communication channels, multilateral or bilateral, are the most effective for dialogue on counterterrorism? Which multilateral platforms for contacts on this topic are currently being used most productively?
Answer: Both bilateral and multilateral channels are effective in their own way in working in the anti-terrorist direction. Regular interdepartmental consultations in a bilateral format are useful from the point of view of studying and understanding the national specifics of other countries in efforts to prevent and counter the threat of terrorism, as well as a substantive and frank exchange of experience and best practices in this area. At the same time, the practical interaction of the special services is aimed at exchanging data on specific persons involved in terrorist activities, detaining them and bringing them to justice.
Multilateral platforms serve primarily to develop common approaches of the international community to the fight against terrorism. The United Nations plays a central and coordinating role in these efforts. At the UN General Assembly (UNGA), states conduct a biennial review of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, agreeing on the relevant resolution of the UNGA (the latter was adopted unanimously on June 30, 2021). The UN Security Council pays close attention to the threats posed by terrorists in various countries and regions of the world, including as part of the work of its subsidiary bodies, such as the UN Security Council Committee 1267/1989/2253 on sanctions against ISIS and Al-Qaeda, as well as the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.
In addition, we are actively developing cooperation within the framework of BRICS, where we manage to reach agreement on common approaches and views on the fight against international terrorism. Thus, in 2020, the Anti–Terrorist Strategy of the “five” was adopted under the Russian chairmanship, and last year an Action Plan for its practical implementation was adopted.
Discussions on counterterrorism within the Council of Europe are also not losing relevance, where this topic, despite existing disagreements on other, more politicized issues, still retains a unifying potential on the pan-European agenda.
The key problems of counterterrorism are also discussed within the framework of the OSCE, which has considerable potential in this area. Over the past few years, the Russian side has successfully used the platform of the OSCE anti-terrorism conferences to promote our fundamental positions in counterterrorism and international counterterrorism initiatives.
However, at the moment we regret to state that this large-scale regional organization has proved unable to respond effectively to cross-border security challenges, including anti-terrorism, due to the unilateral approaches of a number of countries, the imposition of controversial non-consensual concepts that objectively undermine the modern international legal system and create dangerous prerequisites for interference in the internal affairs of States. In addition, we observe attempts to refocus the practical work of the OSCE on artificially protruding gender and human rights aspects, which cannot but affect its effectiveness.
Question: Oleg Vladimirovich, let me congratulate you on the Day of the Diplomatic Worker. At the Russian Foreign Ministry, you are dealing with anti-terrorist issues, and this threat is not abating. What qualities, in your opinion, are required by specialists, including novice diplomats, to work in this direction?
Answer: Thank you for your congratulations! By and large, the set of requirements for diplomats working in the direction of international cooperation in the fight against terrorism does not differ much from the generally accepted professional and business qualities that a diplomatic service employee should possess.
In addition to broad erudition and proficiency in foreign languages, primarily English, this is a deep understanding of the fundamentals of the domestic and foreign policy of the state, the tasks of the development of their country and its foreign policy interests with an emphasis on specific issues that each individual diplomat deals with.
Of course, the counter-terrorism track has its own specifics, which consists in close cooperation with the relevant ministries and departments, which in fact determine the main vectors of development of national policy in the field of combating terrorism and carry out practical activities in this area.
The task of diplomats in this regard is both to coordinate interdepartmental interaction with foreign partners and to promote Russian interests on multilateral platforms, including when coordinating anti-terrorist documents. Here it is important not only to possess the material, to know practically by heart the relevant UN documents, including UN Security Council resolutions, but also the ability to defend national positions, understanding the priorities of other delegations, the ability to find common ground between the approaches of different countries, which may be radically different, and compromise solutions. The possibility of developing common approaches of States in countering the common global threat, which is terrorism, largely depends on this.
