would be the beginning of a very slippery slope and will bring us to the libyans in the area which we cannot afford anymore and the region cannot afford the security council was once expended only in the category of nonpermanent members and now. after several decades of the council functioning in the unchanged composition there is a very strong movement towards expanding its membership to better reflect the. pluralism of the of the world community with wrongly in favor of this we are convinced that the developing countries and the first of all the new economic and financial leaders in the third world countries like india brazil for example that they must be represented in the security council and we would be in favor of making them new permanent members. provided of course the decision is taken

to create a new permanent seats because this is the biggest split in the united nations russia is convinced that this type of division can the do resolve by. not with medical vote but there must be consensus searching it would be very unfortunate if the reform of the security council he's voted through because this would split the membership and those who. would vote against. and impose the reform in their eyes they see the expanded security council would lose legitimacy not gain legitimacy and more legitimacy is what we all want and that's why the council should be more representative but in any case while we are working very thoroughly to reach this general agreement on the reform we believe that. india

certainly deserves. to be to be prominent member of the security council like you said russia is permanently blocking attempts of some of you and security council members to pass a resolution for that would allow an in a foreign intervention into syria but do you think a military action could still play take place going around the un like it happened in case of iraq. well not only in case of iraq but also in case of the former yugoslavia yes it is possible and you just cited one example there are some others but i also feel that those who would like to interfere in the syrian crisis they don't want to do this without some kind of legitimacy or at least i would some kind of an action in the united nations which could be used to justify this as being legitimate some people would like very much

the internationalize this situation and to expand the violence beyond the syrian border set them said being made to specially in cases when the refugees have to flee syria because of the disproportionate actions by the government forces but on the other side the opposition the armed groups of that position which are several which which are not united on this single comment they also reason except the bull methods absolutely contrary to international humanitarian law. they can cause the just. the staging terrorist attacks and that it's very disheartening that our western call digs in the security council start that they refuse. condemning terrorist attacks in syria saying that yes there is ms bed but you must take into account the overall context of what is

going on in syria and why people resort to terrorist attacks it's absolutely unacceptable and this logic we will might lead us if we follow this logic might lead us to a very dangerous situation not only in the middle east but in other parts of the world if. us and the west would begin to. qualify terrorist as. bad terrorist and acceptable terrorists. one more reason that arises time to time that could actually ok the foreign intervention in syria is possession of chemical weapons do you believe that syria will use chemical weapons or is this another pretext for invasion i don't believe syria would use chemical weapons it would be political. suicide for the government if it if it does every time we hear rumors or pieces of information

come to surface that the syrians are doing something with chemical weapons and we double check with ripple check we go directly to the government and we get all the time to get the very firm assurances that this is not going to be used on the any circumstances. information is which correlates with the information then eric and seven the stand that the latest. reports about some movement of the chemical weapons were related to the. steps that they can by the government to concentrate the chemical stuff which has been dispersed. in various locations into two sites. to make sure that that is absolutely protected and it is also accept that by. everybody including western

colleagues the europeans and americans that the biggest threat. in this situation is. the probability that the rebels might take hold of chemical weapons and therefore when while recognizing these are now western friends say but still the responsibilities with the syrian government even if the rebels they called it it's a very strange logic because at the same time. it was a very people encourage rebels not to negotiate with the government but to continue fighting and giving them arms money and moral and political support so it's a very controversial position. in general the logic of those who say no negotiations with us it is really very controversial and very

dangerous because well they're not justifying what the government is doing they have been making a lot of mistakes have been using force disproportionately the security forces clearly were and are prepared to face the public. protests and the protests in the cities and in the villages they have been threatening you know to call into foreign aggression not to keep law and order a civilized manner but their position is provoking the government as i said resorting to terrorist attacks taking hostages and also introducing into this conflict the stick there in their mansion which is very dangerous it is already reverberating in the muslim world. arab governments. and be. ethnic and confessional sic their income position of syria is

so complex that if. the chaos. there it was all over the region but coming back to the present situation if people who say no negotiations with us and if they believe that. he's. in whatever form is number one priority then they must understand that for these job political goal of theirs they would have to pay the price but the price in the lives of the serious of the syrian civilians. will priority number one is not somebody who's head. of violence and of the bloodshed and if they say that they want to save syria and to save syrians then they should join us and should. leave the old those who are fighting inside syria to stop doing

this and sit down to negotiate without any preconditions and the fate of us that must be decided by the syrian people not by the i would say there is. a part of the syrian opposition. that can sense. the story.

if. he is easy to. please. the news if she could leverage or two mccurry was able to build on the old most sophisticated robot which all unfortunately doesn't give

a darn about anything tim's mission to teach music creation a wife should care about humans and worry that this is why you should care only on the r g dog call. russia would be so much brighter. about someone from post impressions. who's from stock totty dot com. but.

russia has been heavily criticized in the west for blocking their time so the united states and its allies to get things right in syria do you think that if

russia has handled it differently from the very beginning let's say a year ago convinced assad to step down then thinks would be different in syria we are not in the business of for regime change and some of the. regional players were suggesting to us why don't you tell president to leave we will arrange for song. safe haven for human. my answer is very simple. if indeed those who suggested this to us have this in mind they should take it directly to president that's why shall they use us as postman. when the crisis that two thousand and eleven in the august few months after the crisis started it was russia who suggest that. that the security council react and there was a statement adopted by consensus which contained all the right things that everyone

must stop fighting and that the dialogue must begin then we supported the arab league plan. indorsed the arab league observers to be sent to syria and the game worked very thoroughly was damascus to accept them. unfortunately the mission was aborted for no good reason it was aboard that exactly at that in december two thousand and eleven they submitted their first report to the security council which was rather on the objective site and which was not putting all the blame on the government only but also describing the atrocities and mis. doings by the by the opposition groups then the arab league aborted the mission and then the un observers were deployed and as the relative calm started to be to be seen. not sustainable but still some signs of

stabilization. brought to be as the un observers then there was an upsurge of provocations in the areas where the un the deserve a small working and the purpose was very obvious to us the purpose was to create a situation which would be unbearable for for them to continue and that was. achieved so they left as well and then of course in june last year in june this year. in june two thousand and twelve in geneva there was a action group initiated by kofi annan our very strong support because we for quite some time had been suggesting that the key i would cite the players meet and try to see whether they can reach a common approach to creating conditions. in which the syrian parties would be

negotiating their own future without outside interference with managed to agree on this on this sequence. stop fighting the point and to look at doors. let them negotiate become position of the transitional governing organ this organ while keeping the state institutions should prepare for elections and should draft a new constitution. and we say fight this is consensus let's let's stick to it let's send this message very strongly. in sync and to all of those who are fighting the less than france who just signed this document said no this is not enough we have to have a security council chapter seven resolution and we have to have some addition to this scheme saying that our so there's a lot but this is not what we agreed so. our tradition is when we

negotiate something and when when we agree on something we respect the agreement unfortunately those of our partners who negotiated with us in geneva probably have different habits and we still feel that the negative effect of this. so the geneva scheme is absolutely. actual today. who was appointed to replace kofi annan and reiterated that it is the basis for his activities we are in favor of unifying that position and after the geneva meeting we have been insisting that all of those who have influence on the opposition groups should help unify it on the platform of the geneva communiqué and so we have been sending the same message to the government and opposition guys this is the basis do what the geneva communiqué suggests it's in your interest down and negotiate. but the meeting which indorsed the syrian national

coalition. and which was supported by the by the west an important regional players adopted also declaration which there is that the main goal of the position is dismantling the toppling the regime and dismantling dismantling its institutions a direct directly opposite to what the geneva communiqué said i understand that no one is talking to their position regarding the need to be a bit more realistic and regarding the need the void. positions which are basically ruining the country they chose the claimant of patrick miss out on turkish syrian border is that part of solution and why are they really targeted at well first we understand of course the concern of turkey and of all other countries who are continuing to receive syrian refugees it's

a burden. under any circumstances and of course the situation is quite tense the opposition. in the region in the syrian regions border in turkey. it's quite active probably trying to trigger some. cross border activities and then. having the international community you know revolt against the border violations incidents happened and the cross border fire which took place several times. we. were raising this issue with the syrians and we believe that what they explain to us is credible this was not intentional be able to chase the opposition groups who were taking them and then fleeing. and we immediately suggested to the turks and

the syrians that we might help to create a direct communication line so that in real time they can check whenever and then said that they explain. the syrians were a good it. said that they do have their own channels of communication. and then this issue of petraeus was raised we recognize the right for turkey to think about its own security and the right of turkey to use for this purpose the international arrangements which turkey has in that particular case nato membership. and we accepted this as a given. on the other hand the more military hardware you accumulate in one place. the more risk you have that this had

a very one they would be used. as for the. purpose of this deployment yes i read and hear that some experts believe that if it is intended to prevent any. syrian crossfire. band it could be positioned to be different and that it is in the business to be positioned some people say it is quite. useful to protect the. american the radar which is part of the american missile defense system that building codes in the threat from iran. if this is the case then it is even more risky i would say because this multiple purpose deployment. could create additional.

temptations iran rather than syria well that's what that's what some people say. the configuration as it is being presented in the media it. really looks like it could be used against their own you know syria is not the only issue between america and russia first think obama did when he got reelected is that he signed the so-called magnitsky that would sanction russian citizens and some russian officials what does it tell you about the new state of the russian u.s. relations with britain about my health but i don't think this was the first thing about one of the first was reelected this was inevitable when. the senators saw the guardian and some other censored use this idea that it was clearly. to create catch twenty two for the administration because that ministration was moving the removal of jacksonville.

amendment with the support of quite a number of people on the hill. and this was absolutely obvious that the ricans want it because it was rushed obsession to w. . keeping jackson very it would be depriving the american companies of the benefits of. membership of the russian federation so they had to do this. anyway and then the republicans i think decided that to have this trick and to hinge the jackson very. removal on magnitsky act which was at that moment i think most. than against president obama because as for the russian citizens who have been included on that list and they haven't

seen that it's still. not published. if they want to prevent russian citizens they don't like the united states they can do it without their look at their hands without any show. if they want to freeze the assets of anybody they can do this just going to the court and presenting evidence. again without any show without any public relations. campaigns but they believe that one of the achievements probably as the ministration present that it's teachers for the last four years one of the achievements was the reset with the russian federation and they want to hit obama exactly. in this reset think. it's unfortunate because it makes. domestic politicking. dominating the international agenda and dominating. in the minds of many

almost every single issue is happening between russia and the united states and which is much much more. comprehensive and complex than just the human rights interpretation by the american senators well remember the off record conversation that obama and mediator had and obama promised to be more flexible right after elections but from what you're saying how how how much flexible can he really be or allow himself to be with this republican opposition in congress well i think that's the peculiarities of the american system and in a congressman can freeze consideration of. very important issues just because the beef from his particular state is not being admitted one can through another for the senate the reasons and. the

issues of global importance could be just frozen because of the. interest of one single state in the united states. and the interest having nothing to do with the substance of the issue in question. so sometimes these issues of huge importance like the you know the israeli palestinian conflict and the need to settle it being kept was there just for years and years. because of the peculiarity of the american electoral cycles we would prefer. to approach international issues on the basis of the. merit and on the basis of the crying need to do something together that was out looking back at your domestic politicking interests. city level precious foreign minister thank you very much for this interview thank you.

deadly rivals for decades. if you had fifteen thousand people killing each other in any other country there would be diplomats there would be mediators. self-imposed out costs from society i will cut myself am i going to tax my brother understand my one time immediately i am going to eventually attack the cause of my anger and my frustration the anger. the traitor

well into the top of the world. two of the most violent gangs in the us history. is just all model kill or be killed with colors matching the national flag. but this country uses violence when it reaches and then it legitimizes the violence they are made in america on the oxy. it.

plumbs. plumber mission and free accreditation free. for charges free arrangement free risk free studio types free. download free blog plug in video for your media project a free media. tom.