Foreign Minister Ivanov: I think there is no direct link between the facts you've mentioned. Indeed, relations with the new US administration began in a complicated way. But if we look at history, practically with any new US administration relations in the early months were complicated. Evidently this is linked with many factors, including with the American internal reality when a radical change of the entire state machine occurs and time is required for all the fitting in, and the elaboration of definite principles of mutual relations.

But in spite of a number of bellicose statements of the new administration, the Russian leadership showed restraint and took up a clearly defined position. We immediately declared a continuity in relations with the US. All the things of positive value that have been amassed in relations with the previous administrations, we want to preserve and develop. The transitional period should not be filled by a vacuum. We want a constructive dialogue and predictable relations. If you look at our statements, you'll see that we began with this and did not react to the provocative statements that aimed to start a confrontation. If Russia had taken this path, all would have lost. This could have led to an aggravation of the international situation as a whole.

I am not sure that the antiterrorist coalition which formed up after September 11 could have been created under these conditions. Of course, it was created not only thanks to the position of Russia. In the US, including from President George Bush, restraint was shown. After a short period a telephone conversation between the Russian and US presidents took place, and the decision was made to turn over this complex page and to start a serious substantive talk on the problems of concern to both countries and the international community.

The dialogue began, and it is continuing. I am certain that in spite of the unilateral US withdrawal from the 1972 ABM Treaty the dialogue will go on. A negotiation process alone can solve the existing problems. We cannot stop now and adopt the pose of one "offended." We will be discussing this question, but in another format. Maybe we will succeed in working out new agreements which will replace the ABM Treaty in a different format, in another dimension. The most important thing is to carry on the dialogue and to find agreements which will not weaken, but reinforce strategic stability. This well considered stand of the Russian leadership, and of Russian President Vladimir Putin has gained recognition on the part of the overwhelming majority of states. I think this is a good guarantee for consolidation of international stability as a whole, which Russia is trying to achieve.

The anchor: Regarding strategic stability. There have been reports of late, from both American and Russian sources, that during the first visit of George Bush to Moscow it is planned to sign an agreement on radical cuts in strategic offensive arms. Some present this as a US move to accommodate Russia. They say that Putin raised this question before the US administration. Understanding was reached that all of this must be attested, including checks and inspection. How true is this information? Is there really an intention to conclude an agreement on strategic offensive arms in May-June during George Bush's visit to Moscow?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I would like to note at once that the agreement was reaffirmed between our Presidents that defensive and offensive arms should be regarded as interconnected. Our line with respect to strategic offensive arms has been consistent. We have implemented the START-1 Treaty, and ratified the START-2 Treaty. Moreover, we have handed the US a draft of a START-3 Treaty. Russia is not to blame for the START-2 Treaty not coming into force.

At the same time we believe that the talks on a radical reduction of strategic offensive arms ought to continue. Russian President Vladimir Putin back last year declared the levels which we are ready to accept - 1,500 nuclear warheads and below. It is very important that during Putin's visit to the United States its administration also indicated its stand - between 1,700 and 2,200 nuclear units. Thus, we have reached close positions. Simultaneous agreement was reached during the visit that verification and arms control levels and mechanisms should be fixed.

I want to say at once that there are forces in the US dead set against work on these accords. Their logic would appear simple: why should partners conclude any treaties and agreements. Let's just believe each other. You make cuts, we will - and be friends. This simple logic may convince someone of something, but in modern civilized society it is necessary to build international relations on a firm legal basis. If we want world security to be stable, it must rest on strong legal norms - on the UN Charter, the principles of international law and treaty mechanisms which would permit confidently building policies in the field of security. That is why it is necessary to get existing agreements at the political level embodied in appropriate documents.

I hope in January we will begin concrete substantive talks on all these questions. We are interested in reaching those agreements by the visit of US President George Bush in the middle of next year. On the Russian side, at least, the readiness is there.

The anchor: You have been regularly communicating with your American colleagues, with Colin Powell. Do you have a feeling that with the end of the operation in Afghanistan the US interest in Russia may slightly decrease? I am not saying that the Americans will cease to regard us as an important factor of international politics, because that is impossible. But the need for Russia which in the US was fairly palpable, will pass, and the Americans will distance themselves.

Foreign Minister Ivanov: First of all, I would like to recall that the Presidents held their first two meetings before the tragedy of September 11. They clearly formulated how to build our relations. Remember the celebrated phrase of George Bush in Ljubljana about inviting Russian President Putin to his rancho? Moreover, when correspondents asked: "But can the President of Russia be trusted?" he responded, "If I did not trust Putin, would I have invited him to my rancho?"

And it was exactly the clear and unambiguous reaction of Russia to the tragedy of September 11 that reflected the Russian leaders' approach to relations with the United States. Therefore the completion of the operation in Afghanistan, from our point of view, should in no way be a U-turn in this direction or that in our relationship.

What have the reaction of Russia to the events of September 11 and our participation in the antiterrorist coalition shown? They have borne out the correctness of the position which Russia had upheld and pursued, and have shown that the threats and challenges with which the international community has been faced - be it international terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking or the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - bear a transfrontier and international character. They affect not just one or two countries, although in a particular region they can manifest themselves more aggressively. These are global problems, and the international community will be able to counter them effectively only together. I think this is a good sign that in response to the aggression of September 11 the international community was able to rally and form an antiterrorist coalition. It is a sign that there is a growing understanding in the world of the need for solidarity at critical moments. It is to be hoped that everyone will draw lessons from this step and will strengthen, not destroy the cooperation.

The anchor: An acute question is now arising. A debate is going on in the United States as to which country is next in Operation Vengeance. There are many indications that Iraq is being regarded as a possible target. As far as I know, there exists a powerful group within the US administration, around Donald Rumsfeld, that believes it is necessary to take advantage of the situation in order to finish off Saddam Hussein as a potential threat to America, Iran and Israel. I know that even Tony Blair is terrified by such a prospect. How will Russia behave if the US does launch an operation against Iraq?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: The Afghan episode cannot be carried over to other countries and regions automatically. Afghanistan is a special case. What happened in Afghanistan? Actually the extremist terrorist Taliban movement forcibly seized power in the country. They removed the lawful government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, usurped power and committed excesses, creating in the country's territory bases for terrorists. It is well known that we have always supported, as has the overwhelming majority of states, the lawful government of Rabbani, which now with international support has been able to oust the Taliban and come to power.

The struggle against international terrorism does not bear a one-off character. It will be long and continual. Furthermore, the military component here is by no means predominant. In the first place, a legal basis is necessary. All states should have a single criterion as to whom to regard as a terrorist, what is a terrorist organization, and what the legal bases of combating this evil of the 21st century must be. It is necessary to work out criteria for the struggle against the financing of terrorist organizations, to shut down - in the conditions of international openness - the possibility of movement of those who support terrorists or participate in such organizations. This is a big, complicated, multipronged work, which requires enhanced coordination between states and the various institutions of states.

At the same time we once again stress that terrorism cannot be identified with any particular country or people. This must be a well-considered, pinpoint policy. Acting in an insufficiently well-thought-out manner, it might turn out to be just the opposite effect to that desired.

There must be very convincing facts confirming that a particular state supports terrorism or covers it in some manner. Moreover, any actions can only be taken by the international community if authorized by the UN Security Council. There can be no two ways about it. If unilateral actions were taken against any state, they would undermine the established antiterrorist coalition.

We must cherish the solidarity which has now shown itself within the international community in order to counter terrorism, and not take any steps that might inflict harm upon this solidarity or indirectly help terrorist organizations. It is perfectly clear that the greater the split in the international community - the more room there will be for terrorists' actions.

The anchor: The New York Times, assessing the situation around ABM, has noted that during Vladimir Putin's talks with Donald Rumsfeld in Moscow the Russian President said: "You want of us a flexibility on the ABM Treaty which throws it down the drain." May it not happen now that the US will be demanding of us a flexibility on other issues which will throw our other interests down the drain too? The Americans are already reproaching us that we have blocked the resolution on toughening the sanctions around Iraq. We are closely cooperating with Iran, which is confirmed by mutual visits. Will they not ask a similar surrender on these issues as well?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Such speculations are appearing not only in the American, but also in the Russian press. They are tied to some moves or other. Considering that at the end of the year we sum up its results, I periodically return to the events which took place during this time.

Take our decision on the closure of the naval base in Cam Ranh or the radio-electronic center in Cuba. We were accused that this was almost a deal, and that we had made concessions. With full responsibility I declare in all our actions there were no concessions or backstage deals. We were guided only by national interests and took our own decision. No one can cite an example where we would have made concessions to the US to the detriment of our national interests.

Take Afghanistan from where the threat came for Russia. Therefore the creation of the antiterrorist coalition and the actions against the Taliban meet the interests precisely of our own security. Within the coalition we are dealing with our tasks: to prevent terrorists from penetrating into the territory of Russia.

The question of Iraq was considered in the Security Council three times. The resolutions were adopted unanimously, including the last one. Here there are a number of accumulated problems that we have inherited and on which ways need to be found to untangle them. There is no common position. Differences exist between the allies. This is a normal phenomenon. The search for an optimal decision is under way, one that should strictly accord with the resolutions of the UN Security Council. On the one hand, international control has to be established, and we were sure that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction. In no way Russia is interested in violating the regime for the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, Iraq should have a clear prospect of the lifting of sanctions. They cannot be eternal. For us these two questions are inseparable: a resumption of international control and the lifting of sanctions. Unfortunately, so far this position, despite the fact that it does meet with understanding, does not have appropriate support. Therefore all the decisions hitherto adopted bore an interim character and were for the most part aimed at preventing a deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Iraq. We continue a vigorous dialogue with Baghdad and with the UN and with the members of the UN Security Council in order to find a way out of this deadlocked situation.

The anchor: Two weeks ago you were in Brussels at a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council of Foreign Ministers. There are sufficiently divergent reports. For example, Reuters said the NATO nations, especially the US, took a step back, compared to the proposals which George Robertson had brought to Moscow. They say Robertson, based on the letter of Tony Blair, offered Russia equality and even a right of vote in questions of peacekeeping outside NATO's zone of operation, the struggle against international terrorism, and so on. At the same meeting the American delegation said the position had changed and thus far they shouldn't go. Thus the tough wing of Donald Rumsfeld had seen to it that the participation of Russia in the Twenty was again only consultative. No qualitative movement in NATO relations with Russia, from the US point of view, is in sight. The creation of yet another body "for talk" is expected. What is true and what is not, and what is your forecast?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We are now at a new stage of the creation of Euro-Atlantic security structures and conducting talks with both NATO and the European Union. This is a complicated task, which should not be oversimplified. Here there can be no simple decisions. There exist many factors which have to be considered. The stereotypes of the Cold War cannot be eliminated overnight. Therefore sometimes decisions taken at the political level "get sunk" on a practical plane. And this concerns not only the NATO nations. In our country there are those who would not like to develop partner relations with NATO. It is necessary to consider and analyze all of this and then move ahead as the sides are ready. There should be no trying to run ahead of time, as we stated in Brussels, but neither should we lag behind. Advancement in just this way can produce the most effective result.

We declared that a new mechanism is required. It has to presuppose that Russia along with the 19 NATO nations should participate on an equal basis in the discussion, elaboration, adoption and implementation of decisions. This will then be not "19+1," but "20." It will be not consultations, but cooperation. That mechanism is now being worked out. I think in this regard, a landmark decision was adopted in Brussels, because for the first time it was said not "19+1," but the mechanism of the "twenty." This is a fundamentally important political decision.

When Robertson came to Moscow for consultations, he did not have a ready position. Different points of view were expressed. Note was taken of the message of British Prime Minister Tony Blair where the position of Great Britain is reflected. Also the viewpoint of Italy's Premier Silvio Berlusconi, and the positions of Germany and Canada were sounded. It was the task of Robertson to state these positions and hear the point of view of the Russian side. Russian President Vladimir Putin very clearly stated what we want, of course, given the readiness of the opposite side.

In Brussels a discussion took place exactly around these different approaches. The joint statement recorded the willingness to create a new mechanism in the format of the Twenty. This is a fundamentally important step forward. Also, the areas were defined where this mechanism can operate for the purposes of joint cooperation. It was precisely US Secretary of State Colin Powell who came up with a constructive stand and backed up the creation of the Twenty.

The anchor: There have been reports that during the discussion by Putin and Bush of the parameters for cooperation against the Taliban the US gave an oral pledge that the Americans are not interested in keeping the military bases in the territory of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. The position of Russia on this issue underwent change. Initially there was the statement of Sergei Ivanov that use of the territory of the republics of the former Soviet Union by the Americans was unlikely. Then the situation slightly changed. Do you think the US military presence there will continue?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Our position was stated by Russian President Vladimir Putin: these are sovereign states and it is up to them to define within the framework of bilateral relations with the US the degree of cooperation in this operation. This position was observed throughout. We respect the decision of the leaderships of the Central Asian countries on how they are to build relations now and for the future.

At the same time, as correctly noted, assurances were given that after the completion of the military phase of the operation in Afghanistan, the United States does not intend to keep its military bases in the territory of these states for the long term after the tasks set in Afghanistan have been accomplished. We hope that it will act in line with this position.

The anchor: A meeting of leaders of the NATO nations will be held in Prague in November 2002 and the decision will be taken on the Alliance's expansion. The question is how many countries will be admitted. There is a popular point of view in the US political circles that this will be a "big snowball" - nine countries at once. Can the NATO expansion complicate our relations with the West? Or with the current positive trend in our relations the NATO expansion will only be yet another not quite significant episode?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We proceed from several assumptions, which we stated to our partners. Russia cannot prohibit this or that state from joining an international organization. At the same time we believe that the logic of the development of events in the world and in the Euro-Atlantic space dictates not the creation and strengthening of closed groupings, but the expansion of cooperation. Therefore from our point of view the continuation of the mechanical process of NATO expansion would be a wrong step, which would lead not in the direction of strengthening European security, but would be contrary to the integration trends gathering momentum in the Euro-Atlantic space.

We consider that it is necessary to develop processes which unite, not disunite states. Thus we cooperate with NATO and with the European Union and within the framework of the OSCE, which is beginning to get out of its profound crisis. It is necessary to use the existing mechanisms in common interests, and not against whosoever. From this point of view a mechanical NATO expansion can hardly strengthen anyone's security. Therefore the Europe-wide tendency for the consolidation of security should run ahead of the simple mechanical expansion of NATO. If, however, we fail to develop the trends in which Russia is taking an active part and many Western countries are interested, this will not reinforce Euro-Atlantic security.

The anchor: With whom you have better mutual understanding - with Madeleine Albright in the past or with Colin Powell now?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: A diplomat does not select partners for himself. I developed a good relationship with Madeleine Albright. At least, I cherished it. Now I am developing a very good professional and personal relationship with Colin Powell too. I value his openness, honesty, straightforwardness. He clearly states his positions. In this sense it is very easy to work with him, because you know what to expect from the man. On my part, I try to reciprocate.


___________________________________________________________
© Publication of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.