H.E. Dr. Gints Apals:

I will try to be brief in responding to the list of question. First, I will respond to the questions from Deputy Olivia Mitchell. If a government wants to pursue an aggressive policy, the pretext is always at hand. I cannot really support the example she gave on the point of international law. I would find it difficult to conceive that the United States, Canada, Australia, Ireland or the United Kingdom would claim the right to defend the interests of English speaking people around the world only on the basis of their linguistic identify. Normally in international law, states have the right to protect the interests of their citizens, but the idea that any country could claim the right to protect the interests of the citizens of another country is a very difficult question and I cannot see how such an argument could be used against my country or neighbouring countries while remaining within the bounds of international law.