China
Source: www.chinatoday.com.cn

The pandemic exposed the international political tensions arising from China's economic ascension and the dispute over more efficient governance models adapted to contemporary demands and challenges. One declaration given by an international authority figure brought this debate to the forefront of one of the greatest pandemics in the history of humanity: the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, speaking about the measures taken by the Chinese government to contain the epidemic of COVID-19, stated that the Chinese president had shown the type of political leadership that is expected from countries facing a public health crisis of such magnitude. And, while highlighting China's commitment to multilateralism and peace, he also said: "In fact, they (the Chinese) are protecting the rest of the world." Trump's reaction was soon to come and, in its wake, that of the new Brazilian extreme right-wing movement.

Since the USSR's dismantling, there was a belief that the liberal democratic model would inevitably expand across the world under the patronage and hegemony of the United States. This scenario was challenging due to three factors: the unexpected crisis of democracies in the 21st century; the emergence of communism renewed by China and adapted for competition in the global market; and, finally, the return of neo-Nazi movements in several Western democracies.

Democracy, communism, and Nazism represent systems of thought and modes of societal political and economic organization. These three ideologies are moving towards meeting at a crossroads that does not resemble that of the past.

This process was undoubtedly accelerated by the "America First" doctrine of Donald Trump, president of the United States. In the explicit defense of its national interests, the United States risks sacrificing multilateralism and deepening the crisis of legitimacy and efficacy of international organizations. Such an example would be the World Trade Organization (WTO); since 2018 Trump has threatened to pull the United States out of the WTO because his country has allegedly been unsuccessful in almost any trade dispute with China under the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism. Despite his complaints, statistics compiled by the Peterson Institute for International Economics show that the United States won more cases against China than the other way around. Following the disapproval policy on international organizations, the United States, in 2019, officially withdrew from UNESCO, claiming that the organization had taken an anti-Israel bias. More recently, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump announced the suspension of WHO funding and the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from the organization, arguing that it had failed to report the seriousness of the situation in the city of Wuhan, China, where the coronavirus outbreak was first reported. But there is another argument that justifies the American president's dissatisfaction: Trump accused the WHO of being "too focused on China."

The diplomatic crisis between the two major powers became evident when Trump, in the midst of the trade war against China, leveled the accusation of data espionage at the Chinese company Huawei through the infrastructure it sells to telecommunications companies. This crisis was compounded when Trump politicized the pandemic by calling COVID-19 a "Chinese virus," reviving Sinophobia in his country. Research published by Pew Research Center in March 2020 shows that about two-thirds of Americans now have an unfavorable view of China. That would be the highest negative rating since 2005.

What do these facts reveal? They reveal that the country that, in the 20th century, had once led an international order based on multilateralism, became the one mainly responsible for its disruption and instability. On the other hand, Europe's lack of more explicit assertiveness in its commitment to a multilateral and multipolar world is also another worrying factor. This is the moment for the BRICS to speak louder and for all nations in defense of multilateralism that can be translated as the defense of the democratization of the international system, and the defense for a greater participation of nations in the decision-making processes that concern the future of all humanity and not just a country.

The debate on governance models and the future of the international order is still ongoing. If the statement made by WHO's Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus mentioned at the beginning of the article may sound overly complacent with China, the fact cannot be ignored that the Chinese government has been sending medical supplies to over 100 countries, in contrast with the Trump administration, which has been accused of diverting medical equipment intended for Germany, France, and Brazil as well.

In this context of international organizations' crisis and the rise of ideological disputes that remind us of a new Cold War, BRICS must find solutions for these problems and try to continue to be relevant. When BRICS emerged more than 10 years ago, the five countries had a clear reformist agenda for international organizations. The challenge was mainly external to the BRICS group. Currently, the challenge is within the BRICS as a platform. The Brazilian government is not really engaged in multilateralism and brought to its foreign policy the ideological clash originating in the domestic arena. The alignment with the U.S., the insistence on joining the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), and ganging up against China put Brazil on a collision course not only with China but with the original idea of BRICS.

Of course, diplomats will deny these facts because this is part of their job. But the denial of the facts is another symptom of our time. It also seems clear that the political, diplomatic, and even academic discourse that pretends that none of these events are happening is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

However, over its more than 10 years of existence, BRICS has done something that could be its lifeline. I refer to the several forums and seminars that involve the most diverse sectors of society in the five countries. BRICS has sought to involve civil society in discussing this platform's direction and in defining its agenda. BRICS Business Forum, BRICS Youth Forum, BRICS Women's Forum, BRICS Legal Forum, and BRICS Seminar on Governance among others, have given BRICS vitality and sustained its legitimacy. In the current context of so much adversity, it is necessary to pay more attention to these forums. Besides, it is important to continue the Outreach Dialogues and BRICS Plus.

Considering the current context, I believe that the time has come for BRICS to support and sponsor a global agenda in defense of the international system's democratization, multilateralism, and the strengthening of international organizations combined with greater promotion of dialogue between peoples.

In conclusion, we need to escape these political pitfalls that drive the world into conflict, given that some governments in some countries are committed to an agenda for the destruction of multilateralism and the division of the world. To resume its original agenda, BRICS must reinforce its agenda supporting the multilateralism between states and peoples' unity.

China
Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn

The telephone conversation between Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Monday was not only a statement of close friendship, but also a reassuring gesture in a world that needs to get a grip.

In their exchange of New Year messages, the duo exuded confidence that they would overcome the current uncertainties wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic and also lead the world towards overall stability.

Indeed, China and Russia are kindred souls. Speaking earlier at his annual press conference on Thursday in Moscow, Putin noted that the two countries have "common interests in many fields." These mutual interests have informed and grown their strategic and pragmatic cooperation.

Over the past decades, the two countries have opened up their economies to global trade, utilizing their huge entrepreneurial potential that has at one time peaked in double digit growth. As they continue pursuing fast paced quality development, the duo is becoming first among equals in the world's leading economies.

Both are prominent members of the Group of 20 biggest economies in the world. The two are also members of BRICS, a group composed of the world's five major emerging countries. Their clout in these two forums cannot be gainsaid, as the G20 and BRICS carry more than two-thirds of the world's economy and population.

China has made its mark as the only G20 member that did not record negative growth because of COVID-19, and actually recorded impressive growth throughout the year, given the challenging circumstances arising from the pandemic.

Although Russia recorded negative growth, it is expected that its close trade relations with China will boost its economic fortunes in 2021.

In 2019, Russia was China's main trade partner, with the volume of export and import trade between the two countries estimated at almost $111 billion. China was the country's leading import origin and export destination.

Latest statistics from China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs show that bilateral trade between the two countries hit $88 billion from January to October this year. The main areas of trade between the two countries included agriculture, energy and cross-border e-commerce.

Further, the two countries recently launched the China-Russia Year of Scientific and Technological Innovation and extended the notification agreement for ballistic missile and carrier rocket launches for another 10 years.

At a time when the world is faced by the coronavirus pandemic, the developing world will benefit from more affordable and accessible vaccines by the two countries. China's vaccine has already been approved by some countries in the Arab world, including Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. Kenya and Morocco are some of the countries that have indicated they will order the vaccine.

Press reports in mid-December indicated that over 50 countries had ordered for more than 1.2 billion doses of Russia's now approved Sputnik V vaccine. The Russian Direct Investment Fund will work with partners in several countries including India, China, Brazil and South Korea to produce the vaccine for the global market.

Relations between the two countries is not only a great example of how great powers can coexist by respecting each other's space, but how they can positively and collectively impact the world.

It is an observation that was made by Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Wang Wenbin on Friday while commenting on their ties. "The two countries have also been firmly supporting each other in opposing interference and stigmatization, making them significant forces in safeguarding the stability of the global strategic pattern."

The pair has acted as a buffer against the bullying of weak countries by those who see themselves as global lords.

As members of G20 and BRICS, they have offered alternative markets and source of development assistance to developing countries. Their mode of diplomacy that seeks win-win cooperation and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries has also created an alternative voice in global decision making.

In his address in Moscow, Putin called for the lifting of sanctions for countries struggling with COVID-19. This echoed the sentiments of Zhang Jun, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, who on October 5 called for a complete and immediate lifting of unilateral sanctions on behalf of 26 countries.

With the strengthening of bonds between China and Russia, we expect to see a coalescing of more countries around them, effectively creating a potent force for global change.

Russia
Source: sputniknews.com

South Africa, a member of the BRICS bloc of leading developing nations including Russia and China, is relying solely on the COVAX syndicate for supply of its vaccines rather than buying directly from producers in both east and west.

South Africa may not receive supplies of COVID-19 vaccines until June despite paying hundreds of millions up front.

The African National Congress (ANC) government's failure to deliver vaccines in sub-Saharan Africa's wealthiest yet hardest-hit nation drew criticism from a group of leading doctors and academics on Sunday, including members of the SA Medical Research Council.

The government made a 327 million rand ($22 million) payment to COVAX — an initiative to buy an distribute vaccines to poorer nations, funded by Microsoft founder and world's richest man Bill Gates — just before Christmas, as a 15 per cent down payment on a 2.18 billion rand ($149 million) fee for supplying vaccines.

But the group argued a wealthy nation like South Africa should not have to rely on COVAX.

"It beggars belief that South Africa, against all reasonable expectations, finds itself in this group, since it is not a poor country," they wrote for the Daily Maverick website. "The stunning reality is that it has neither a secured vaccine supply nor a plan for mass inoculation in the foreseeable future that can withstand scrutiny", the signatories charged. "This portends for this country the worst ravages of Covid-19 in the year ahead."

And they dismissed claims by officials that early negotiations with producers might have obliged the government to buy ineffective vaccines.

"Public acknowledgement by officials that they didn't think it prudent to begin bilateral negotiations with vaccine suppliers, because they could not 'take the risk' of ordering vaccines in the event that they would not work, is shockingly disingenuous," they wrote. "An Advanced Market Commitment does not require upfront payment for the vaccine and commits the buyer to purchase vaccine only when it becomes available, at an agreed price and quantity." Six-Month Delay

President Cyril Ramaphosa admitted on Tuesday that COVAX would not be able to deliver until the "second quarter" of the year — anywhere between April and June — even while Russia, the UK, the US, Canada and the 27 European Union nations have already begun mass inoculation campaigns with several different vaccines.

"We are part of the first group of countries that will receive an allocation of vaccines from Covax," Ramaphosa said. "We have been advised that we should expect the vaccines in the second quarter of 2021." On New Year's Eve, Department of Health Deputy Director Dr Anban Pillay denied the government was putting more lives at risk by not buying currently-available vaccines directly from producers such as Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca — or fellow-BRICS bloc members Russia's Gamaleya Research Institute or China's Sinopharm.

"We have not delayed the procurement at all. We took a decision at the time we will go to Covax facility because Covax was purchasing vaccine from multiple vaccine producers, rather than taking the risk and going with one vaccine supplier," Pillay insisted. Neither Ramaphosa nor Pillay revealed which brands of vaccine COVAX would supply. The South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) has yet to approve any candidate vaccines against COVID-19 — even those now in widespread use in other countries. But the World Health Organisation (WHO) approved the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine for "emergency" use worldwide on December 31.

While a December press release from SAHPRA stated the organisation was relying on "work done by other regulators", CEO Dr Boitumelo Semete-Makokotlela indicated it was proceeding slowly out of concern for the "quality, safety and efficacy" of those products.

In a separate Daily Maverick article, columnist Dave Martin urged the government to make use of its membership of the BRICS bloc of leading developing nations to acquire Sinopharm's Sinovac jab.

"There is no logical reason our vulnerable people should have to stand at the back of the line," Martin wrote. "We have the money to buy vaccines – they are not expensive."

Russia is supplying fellow BRICS member Brazil with its Sputnik V vaccine, while India is producing the British AstrraZeneca jab under license.

South Africa has suffered more from the coronavirus pandemic than any other African nation per head of capita, with almost 29,000 deaths in the last year, despite being one of the wealthiest and developed countries on the continent.

The Gates Connection

COVAX was set up in 2020 by Gavi, an organisation founded in 1999 with $750 million from Gates through his charitable foundation. Gavi's funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has exceeded £4 billion since then.

Gavi, which "partners" with the WHO, UNICEF and the World Bank, claims to have "helped" vaccinate more than 800 million children in developing nations since 1999.

COVAX Managing Director Aurélia Nguyen worked for British pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) until 2011. GSK and French firm SanofiPasteur are also in the race to develop a coronavirus vaccine, but their formulation is only just entering Phase 2 of clinical trials, according to the WHO.

The stated goal of COVAX is to ensure vaccines are distributed "fairly and equitably" to all 187 countries in the programme, insisting healthcare workers should be prioritised for immunisation before others.

Nguyen told China's CGTN News that the organisation hoped to distribute 2 billion vaccines this year — far short of the 7.5 billion global population.

She claimed there would be a "very constrained environment in terms of supply." But the WHO summary shows up to 16 vaccines currently in Phase 3 trials, considered far enough advanced for "emergency" use in the UK, US and EU.

Allies Divided

ANC ally the South African Communist Party (SACP) appeared to back SAHPRA's slow-track approach in a statement on January 1 — while implying "corruption" might influence the purchase of vaccines.

"As our government continues on the quest to solicit the best vaccine suitable for our conditions, the SACP calls upon strict measures to ensure quality control on all phases of acquiring the vaccine, based solely on scientific reasoning," spokesman Alex Mashilo said. But ANC-allied trade union federation Cosatu condemned the government's "lethargy" in vaccinating essential workers, the elderly and those with medical conditions that put them at risk from the virus.

"We cannot afford to allow South Africans to die because of state lethargy," spokesman Sizwe Pamla said. "Government and the private sector need to produce a plan to ensure that all South Africans will be vaccinated."

China
Source: www.globaltimes.cn

Chinese President Xi Jinping said Thursday that he stands ready to maintain close contact with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in various forms in a bid to lead their countries towards deeper comprehensive strategic coordination and practical cooperation in various fields.Xi made the remarks when exchanging New Year congratulations with Putin, adding that in doing so, greater benefits will be brought to the two peoples and more positive energy injected into the turbulent and changing world.In his message, Xi, on behalf of the Chinese government and people, extended sincere greetings and best wishes to Putin and the Russian people.


Workers from China and Russia shake hands after the two ends of the Blagoveshchensk-Heihe highway bridge were joined together on May 31, 2019.Photo:Xinhua

Noting that 2020 is an extraordinary year, Xi said the Chinese and Russian people have helped each other and worked together in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, writing a new chapter of good-neighborliness and friendship between the two countries.In 2020, Xi said, the two sides launched the China-Russia Year of Scientific and Technological Innovation program, promoted the steady development of bilateral economic and trade cooperation under the condition of regular COVID-19 prevention and control, and achieved new progress in aligning the construction of the Belt and Road with the Eurasian Economic Union.China and Russia also jointly celebrated the 75th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War and the founding of the United Nations, demonstrating their firm determination to safeguard international fairness and justice, and making new contributions to building a new type of international relations and a community with a shared future for mankind, Xi added.Xi said he and Putin in the past year have had several telephone conversations, jointly attended a series of multilateral summits via video link, had in-depth exchange of views on China-Russia relations and major international and regional issues, and reached new and important consensus, which the Chinese president speaks highly of.


Chinese medical experts pose for a photo before boarding a plane at an airport in Harbin, northeast China's Heilongjiang Province, April 11, 2020.Photo:Xinhua

Noting that the upcoming year is of special significance to bilateral relations, Xi said the two sides, centering on the theme of celebrating the 20th anniversary of the signing of the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, will vigorously promote the idea of a lasting friendship between the two countries, and envisage and enrich the development of China-Russia relations in the new era.For his part, Putin extended his sincere New Year greetings to Xi, and wished the Chinese people happiness and good health.In the past year, the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination has been rapidly developing, Putin said, adding that the governments, legislatures and various departments of the two countries have maintained close communication.


Photo taken on April 2, 2020 shows Chinese government's humanitarian aid at the Chkalovsky military airport in Moscow region, Russia.Photo:Xinhua

The two countries, he noted, have also smoothly launched the large-scale program of the Year of Scientific and Technological Innovation and maintained high-level development of bilateral economic and trade cooperation despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.Meanwhile, the two sides have maintained close coordination and cooperation to jointly promote the settlement of regional and international hotspot issues, and work together within the framework of the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, Putin said.Noting that the next year marks the 20th anniversary of the signing of the China-Russia Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation, Putin said he believes that the two sides will continue to uphold the spirit of the treaty and jointly achieve fresh outcomes in Russia-China relations.On the same day, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin also exchanged New Year greetings.


Aerial photo taken on Feb. 17, 2020 shows a China-Europe freight train fully loaded with auto parts, mechanical facilities and garments bound for Moscow of Russia and Minsk of Belarus waiting for departure at Xiangtang railway port in Nanchang, east China's Jiangxi Province. Photo:Xinhua

In his message, Li said that China and Russia have made great efforts to overcome the impact of the pandemic and external challenges over the past year, and maintained the positive momentum in the development of bilateral cooperation in various fields.The two countries also successfully held the 25th regular meeting between Chinese and Russian prime ministers and reached many important consensus, Li said.Li said he is ready to further strengthen communication and cooperation with Mishustin, give full play to the coordinating role of the regular meeting mechanism with his Russian counterpart and promote a sustainable, sound and stable development of practical bilateral cooperation.For his part, Mishustin said he believes that the regular meeting mechanism will further help implement the goals and tasks set by the two sides and push the bilateral cooperation to a higher level in the new year.

China
Source: epaper.chinadaily.com.cn

China and Russia have maintained close relations in a challenging year, with experts describing high-quality cooperation in bilateral and multilateral spheres that has helped the two to weather the coronavirus pandemic.

On the trade front, the emergence of COVID-19 triggered a massive slump in trading volumes between the neighbors in January, the 2020 China-Russia Economic Trading Index Report indicated.

But with supportive policies and the Sino-Russian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era, trade between the two countries managed to recover from that rocky start to the year. Bilateral trade reached $25.35 billion in the first three months of 2020, a 3.4 percent rise compared with last year. The Chinese General Administration of Customs says that in September the figure was $10.22 billion, a rise of more than 7.8 percent from September last year.

The cooperation and mutually supportive policies brought in to counter the pandemic have been a highlight of the neighbors' relationship this year. In August, when the number of coronavirus infections in Russia began to grow again, China sent medical experts to Moscow at the invitation of the Russian government.

The 10-member group, including epidemiologists from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention as well as hospitals and medical institutes in the Heilongjiang province, visited hospitals in the Russian capital. Among the facilities they visited was the main hospital designated for COVID-19 treatment, Kommunarka.

Hao Huilong, leader of the team and vice-chairman of Heilongjiang Provincial Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, said the experts hoped their visit contributed to an improved COVID-19 situation in Russia.

Oleg Timofeev, an associate professor at the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, said the arrival of the Chinese team was a much-appreciated gesture of support and followed a visit by Russian medical experts to China in February, during the height of China's battles with the coronavirus. Timofeev said China and Russia share deep expertise in healthcare and on control of epidemics. Such expertise heightens the value of their work together.

Chinese Ambassador to Russia Zhang Hanhui said that at the outset of the pandemic, the authorities and diplomatic agencies of China and Russia established a mechanism for direct communication in facilitating the reporting on developments in the control and treatment of COVID-19.

Russia's State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR and China's Biological Science Center of the Ministry of Science and Technology were among organizations that established direct contact as a means of aiding cooperation on virus tracing, laboratory diagnosis and vaccine development, Zhang said.

On April 16, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin approved the use of hydroxychloroquine, a drug made by the Chinese company Shanghai Pharmaceuticals that had been best known as an anti-malaria treatment, for COVID-19 treatment. This approval came even though the drug was then not registered in Russia. Mishustin's order showed the unconditional trust that the Russian government places in China's medical capabilities, Timofeev said.

At present, the pandemic is making it difficult for the neighbors to implement some of the major bilateral projects that have been planned, Timofeev said.

But China and Russia can focus on preparing for new projects and pursue cooperation to this end, such as by staging online investment roadshows, holding events via video conferencing, and proceeding with feasibility studies into projects, he said.

Timofeev suggested that the two governments can increase financial and other support for scientific research institutes and universities under the 2020-21 China-Russia Year of Scientific and Technological Innovation, while enhancing cooperation in high-technology fields.

Frequent exchanges

In the military realm, the armed forces of China and Russia have maintained close relations, marked by frequent exchanges between personnel. Ninety-five soldiers from China's People's Liberation Army honor guard participated in Russia's Victory Day parade in Moscow on June 24.

In August, the PLA sent six teams and more than 260 soldiers to participate in the International Army Games 2020 in Russia. In September, Chinese troops joined with those from nine other nations for a week-long military drill, known as Kavkaz 2020, in southern Russia.

During a video link on Dec 15, Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu agreed that they would further build up strategic contacts and coordination between the armed forces of the two countries, improve the mechanisms of military cooperation, and expand interactions more broadly in order to confront the challenges to regional and global security.

In addition to the comprehensive framework of bilateral relations, Russia also maintains close communication with China under multilateral organizations, such as the Group of 20 industrialized nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The two nations are also key members of the grouping that binds Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa－known as BRICS.

Alexey Ivanov, director of the BRICS Competition Law and Policy Centre, said China and Russia intend to pursue joint solutions to economic problems, such as remedying global economic imbalances. This is especially needed while businesses recover from the upheavals of lockdowns.

As the global balance of power shifts, Russia is seeking to strengthen its already friendly relations with China. "The BRICS framework provides an effective platform for our countries to develop common decisions and to fight jointly the economic impacts of the pandemic," Ivanov said.

renqi@chinadaily.com.cn

Russia
Source: www.mid.ru

Question: What were the most important foreign policy events in the outgoing year? What was the main breakthrough, the main success and the main failure? Do you believe the international community has learned from the coronavirus pandemic? Has the world become more fragmented or, on the contrary, have countries become more focused on cooperation?

Sergey Lavrov: The outgoing year was complicated for international relations. It is hard to use phrases like "main success" or "main failure" when summing up the events of the outgoing year. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic was bad for international politics and diplomacy and caused a deep crisis in the global economy which is now in for a long and painstaking recovery. Mind you, the challenges and threats that were there before the pandemic, such as terrorism, drug trafficking and other transnational crimes, did not go away. Long-standing crises remained ablaze, and new hotbeds of tension arose.

Unfortunately, common problems, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have so far failed to move the international community to join forces in order to effectively overcome them. The main reason, and we have said this many times, is the unwillingness of a number of the US-led states in the historical West to establish constructive and equal cooperation with other international players. Our Western colleagues continued to use a wide range of illegitimate tools ranging from military pressure to information wars. They ignored calls by the UN Secretary-General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to suspend – in light of the worldwide humanitarian emergency – unilateral sanctions on supplying medications, equipment and food that are needed to fight the virus, including related financial transactions. President Putin's initiative on opening green corridors in international trade that would be free from trade wars and sanctions was not heard, either. Washington's course to continue discarding the global strategic stability architecture and arms control did nothing to boost optimism.

Under these circumstances, we did our best to reliably uphold our national interests and continued to promote a constructive and unifying international agenda, and work in favour of ensuring the indivisibility of security across all its dimensions. As you may recall, the hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh were stopped largely thanks to Vladimir Putin's personal efforts. We contributed to the political and diplomatic settlement of the Syrian crisis. We participated in international efforts to take the intra-Libyan confrontation out of the deadlock.

In order to improve the situation around the world, we maximised the potential of our chairmanships in BRICS, the SCO and the CSTO. We supported the implementation of various EAEU integration projects and the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

Sure enough, we continued to work energetically at the UN. In particular, the president of Russia put forward an initiative to hold a summit of the five permanent member states of the UN Security Council.

Despite the pandemic-related restrictions, we productively interacted with the vast majority of our foreign partners in Eurasia, Africa and Latin America, both bilaterally and within various multilateral platforms.

As a leader of the international healthcare industry, Russia has contributed to common efforts to combat COVID-19 and provided substantial assistance to the affected countries.

In 2021, we will continue to pursue a pragmatic and responsible foreign policy and contribute to forming a more just and democratic multipolar international order. As before, we will be open to mutually beneficial cooperation to the extent that our partners are willing to, and of course, with unconditional respect for Russia's national interests.

Question: You said that Russia should stop looking to the West. Does this mean that there will be the long-discussed turn to the East?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, I would like to point out that we do not look to anyone. Even though a larger part of Russians live in Europe, Russia is a great Eurasian and Euro-Pacific nation and one of the main guarantors of the UN-centric world order that took shape as a result of World War II. Our foreign policy is multidirectional and independent. We are interested in good relations with our foreign partners in all parts of the world without exception based on international law, mutual respect and consideration for each other's interests.

At the same time, we also take into account the tectonic shifts taking place in the global geopolitical landscape. The global political and economic focus is shifting from the Euro-Atlantic region to Eurasia, where new global centres are developing dynamically. Relying on their centuries-old traditions, they have acquired and are strengthening their economic and technological sovereignty. They are pursuing an independent foreign policy. It is on this basis that they have attained impressive results in many spheres. In this context, it appears logical that our policy of building up mutually enriching cooperation with Eastern countries, including Asia Pacific nations is long-term, strategic and does not depend on changes in the international environment.

Eurasia is not just a geographical region with huge resource potential, which can and must be used to the benefit of its peoples. It is also the most dynamically developing part of the world when it comes to the creation of new transport and logistics corridors, the improvement of infrastructure connectivity and many other forms of multilateral cooperation. Russia stands for harmonising the integration processes that are gaining momentum there. This is the objective of President Putin's initiative of the establishment of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Energetic efforts are being taken towards implementing it, including through the alignment of the development plans of the Eurasian Economic Union and China's Belt and Road Initiative.

Question: What do you think about the prospects of Russian-US relations during the Biden administration? Will they change? Will they turn around or continue to deteriorate?

Sergey Lavrov: Regrettably, we do not expect the slumping Russian-US relationship to improve in the near future. The anti-Russia hysterics in the United States does not leave any chance for a rapid return to normality. Our dialogue has fallen victim to domestic political strife in the United States, which is not solid ground for constructive cooperation.

Nevertheless, we are sure that there is untapped potential in Russian-US relations. It will not be easy to remove the obstacles, which have accumulated through no fault of ours, but we must keep working towards this. However, this will be impossible without America's political will.

There are many issues on the bilateral agenda, including topics of priority importance, which the new US administration will be facing, from the normal operation of foreign offices and humanitarian issues, to international security and strategic stability. We don't have to try to settle all of these problems at once; our cooperation can be based on small-step logic. We are ready for this, provided the sides act on the principles of good faith and respect for each other's interests, rather than on the US-centric international order imposed by Washington in the "might is right" spirit. We hope the new US administration will make a choice in the interests of the American people and will demonstrate reciprocal readiness for developing dialogue with Moscow.

Only in this case will the Russian-US relationship gradually return to a path of stable development. Of course, this will have a positive impact on international affairs, considering the special responsibility of Russia and the United States as the world's largest nuclear powers and permanent UN Security Council members for global stability and security, especially in this complicated period.

Question: Is there any hope that, under the new US administration, Moscow and Washington will manage to extend the New START Treaty in time? Is Russia ready to make any further concessions, such as suspending the development of advanced weapons systems? And why does Russia consider the US proposal on the verification regime to be unacceptable? Is there anything wrong with mutual verification of agreements?

Sergey Lavrov: One would like to hope that, just like Russia, the new US administration will consider it an obvious fact that the extension of the New START Treaty without any additional conditions, and preferably for the maximum five-year period stipulated by it, would meet the security interests of our two countries and the entire international community.

Judging by media statements, unlike our current dialogue partners, the team of President-elect Joe Biden is not interested in turning the New START Treaty into a hostage to its ambitions and trying to push for a priori unrealistic demands.

If that is indeed the case, and they still have to convince us that it is, there is still a chance that we will achieve an agreement to extend the Treaty before it expires in February 2021.

Regarding possible future cooperation with the United States in the area of arms control, and we urge the United States to engage in such cooperation, then any talks, if and when they begin, will yield tangible results only if the US party is ready to respect Russian's interests and concerns. This should be what our US colleagues call a two-way street.

Naturally, Russia is ready to contribute to attaining mutually acceptable agreements, drafted on a strictly equitable basis. At the same time, it would be so far premature to talk about their specific parameters. At this stage, it is important to note that we have informed the Americans about our vision of the framework of potential agreements presupposing the elaboration of a new "security equation" and comprising all significant strategic security factors as variables. This vision remains relevant.

I would also like to stress that no aspect of Russia's position presupposes a refusal to monitor compliance with possible future agreements. On the contrary, we have advocated and continue to advocate the mandatory presence of a monitoring component in any arms control agreements.

On the other hand, the verification regime should completely meet their subject and remit. We have failed to reach agreement on these matters with the outgoing US administration. Its verification demands far exceeded the boundaries of a hypothetical political agreement, advanced by the US party in conjunction with the New START Treaty's short-term extension. The US proposals stipulated verification procedures with regard to highly sensitive aspects of the nuclear weapons sector, which was seen as unacceptable by Russia.

Notably, they wanted to screen the potential of our non-strategic nuclear weapons, without moving to alleviate Russian concerns in this and adjacent areas.

We hope that the new US administration will act in line with more rational and realistic positions.

Question: Has Russia received any confirmation from the remaining parties to the Open Skies Treaty that they agree not to transfer data to the United States or open all their territory for inspection? What legal confirmation is Russia expecting? Does the Treaty itself serve as such confirmation? Or is it going to be de facto re-signed?

Sergey Lavrov: The Treaty on Open Skies does not contain direct stipulations that information received by observation equipment during flights is classified, or any restrictions on access to such information.

About 20 years ago, due to the growing terrorist threat, the signatories noted this inconsistency and in 2002, they adopted a corresponding decision of the Open Skies Consultative Commission. But that also has generalised phrasing.

Today, in connection with the US withdrawal from the Treaty, this is obviously not enough – especially now that we became aware that the US has required its allies to transfer the results of observation flights over Russia to the American side.

Taking into account this new situation, we demanded that the states parties to the Treaty provide some clear legal guarantees of the good-faith fulfillment of their obligations.

No, a re-signing is not on the agenda. It is enough to add more clarity to the legally binding 2002 decision. We have made such a proposal and are waiting for a response from our partners.

To be honest, the first reaction was kind of unclear. The Western countries did not seem to object, in principle, to the idea that the information I mentioned should not fall into the wrong hands. But at the same time, they hid behind legal casuistry and tried to convince us that the existing provisions are quite enough.

Equally vague was the response to our second demand to guarantee the possibility of performing observation flights over the entire territory of the participating states, also covering non-signatories' facilities located on it. And we have evidence that the United States would not like this very much and is trying to get its allies to hinder us.

Therefore, we warned our OST partners that halftones would be unacceptable here. If the remaining participating states follow the US lead, then a tough response from us will not be long in coming. We are ready to continue cooperation under the Treaty only on the understanding that in the very near future, all the remaining signatories will give us direct and firm legal guarantees of their readiness to comply with its requirements.

So far, we have not received any such guarantees, so the future of this Treaty is a big question.

Question: This year, the UN Security Council's arms embargo against Iran has expired. Are Moscow and Tehran making any specific plans to enhance military-technical cooperation? Are they talking about a possible purchase of Su-30 aircraft or T-90 tanks by Iran? Wouldn't this affect Russia's relations with some countries such as Israel or the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: At present, there are no restrictions on military-technical cooperation with Iran as far as the UN Security Council is concerned. Russia and Iran have every right to interact in this area. Russia's military-technical cooperation policy fully complies with international law and is pursued in full compliance with Russian export control legislation, which is one of the most stringent in the world.

I repeat: while implementing military-technical cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which undoubtedly has every right to ensure its own defence capability, Russia strictly adheres to its international obligations and is guided by the priority of maintaining stability and security in the region.

Russia
Source: www.mid.ru

Question: The pandemic has changed people's lives this year. However, instead of cooperative international efforts against the pandemic next year we will likely have a war of vaccines. Where does our strength lie? Will the pandemic become the touchstone for international relations? Who has reaffi