M.B.: Thank you so much. I would like to move on from the details to the bigger picture. Do you think that trade in between the Soviet and the Western countries had an influence on the development of Perestroika and Glasnost in the Soviet Union? Was there a relationship, you think? Did trade play any role in that development in the Soviet Union?

S.L.: Well, Perestroika is a special period in our history. And to say that it was connected with international trade, yes. It is true. Because there was actually the decision to limit the principle of state monopoly of foreign trade, and to give to parties to more actively participate in international trade. That was very important, of course. But, in my view, now it is a history, but in my view, more important was political aspects which influenced that development in Russian political situation. But of course, in my view, all aspects are important when we talk about historical developments here, and cultural aspect was also very, very important in that respect.

M.B.: Trade and arbitration, I imagine, must have been difficult during the Cold War?

S.L.: Yeah. And I said that this decision with Americans to have arbitration in Stockholm was a very important aspect in this way. Yeah. To say: “Well, let’s have arbitration in New York.” “No, no, let’s go to Moscow” or otherwise. That was very important to find something as development in commercial relationships between Soviets and Americans at that time. It was very, very important, indeed.

M.B.: Because even during the Cold War, trade relationships still flourished in between Russia and the West.

S.L.: Yeah. Because it is a necessary aspect for development of each country. And this new system of economic sanctions against Russia is something terrible, I say, unjustified and legally incorrect, because such things may be adopted by the Security Council of United Nations. That is what is called sanctions. Otherwise, what is these sanctions adopted by European countries and United States are contrary to the principle of normal international trade, and in my view that is inappropriate way. And it is bad for both sides. Of course, for Russia, and for other countries. And I hope this situation will be overcome.

M.B.: Is it fair to say that without arbitration there can be no trade, and without trade there can be no friendly development?

S.L.: Well, that is too strong. Foreign trade can develop without arbitration, and before arbitration appeared there was foreign trade in old time between countries. Without foreign trade, arbitration would not mean anything if it is arbitration for commercial disputes, of course, that is true, but I would not put that so strong. I agree that arbitration is important for foreign trade. That would be in my view the most appropriate appreciation of the role of this institute.

M.B.: I’m thinking about the philosophical question that it is a friendly way of settling disputes. That disputes will always occur when people interact, and trade, and you could solve those issues either by force or by negotiations. Reconciliation.

S.L.: Yeah, of course, that is, indeed, the friendly method of settlement of disputes, yes. I believe it is the most appropriate, not by force, of course, but by arbitration. And with the idea that arbitrators make awards which are impartial. Which can be adopted as impartial.

M.B.: I would like to ask a question about a specific case. And you answer if you like to, but you don’t have to. But I’m curious about the dispute which arised when the American new embassy in Moscow back in the ’80s supposedly were wire-tapped, and there was an issue for arbitration. Do you have any comments on this, or reflections on this?