Igor Ivanov: We are satisfied with the high level, and richness of our political dialogue. Over the last two years nine Russian-British summits have taken place, a broad range of bilateral and international issues was discussed. During the upcoming talks in London we will review the state of bilateral cooperation but will focus mainly on international problems - primarily such issues as the fight against international terrorism, and other threats and challenges. Highly important is the exchange of views on questions of strategic stability, including with due regard for the talks we are now holding with the US, and the American government's decision to quit the ABM Treaty unilaterally.

There will be discussed an important set of questions relating to European security and cooperation. Active talks are being conducted with the European Union on the broadest range of problems - from trade-and-economic cooperation to foreign policy and security. We attach great importance to the upcoming exchange of views on Russia's relationship with NATO. Our two countries are members of the UN Security Council, so UN problems are also of concern to us.

Discussion of problems relating to the settlement of the situation in the Middle East, the Balkans and around Iraq will receive special attention. On all these issues we maintain constant dialogue, but personal contacts help to learn better the positions of each and other and consider them in our practical activity.

Question: Russia joined the international coalition to combat terrorism. Many, however, believe that Russia has not been sufficiently rewarded for this, and is not recognized by the US as the principal ally. How can you comment on this opinion?

Igor Ivanov: Russia had been faced with international terrorism long before the tragedy of September 11, so joining the international coalition was our natural reaction to the pooling of efforts to fight common evil. We long ago appealed for this. I want to recall that Russia had long since at various forums been drawing the attention of our partners to the threat coming from Afghanistan. We also raised this matter before our British partners, calling their attention to the fact that most of the heroin consumed here, 80-90 percent was coming in from Afghanistan and that it was best to combat this threat jointly. Unfortunately, our calls often did not meet with understanding from Western partners and some would interpret this as an attempt to divert attention from events in the Chechen Republic.

Several years ago Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke of the threat of the formation of a so called arc of instability from the Philippines to the Caucasus. Today the US leadership recognizes the presence of that threat, from the Philippines to Georgia. Thus, participation in the antiterrorist coalition meets our own interests. Russia has never linked it to any reward or compensation. At the same time we believe that the formation of the antiterrorist coalition is a new phenomenon in postwar international relations. The international community for the first time united in the struggle against the threats of the 21st century, as was the case in the years of the Second World War, when it had united in the struggle against Nazism. We feel that all the antiterrorist coalition participants should cherish this. Russia is actively and sincerely involved in it, and we have a right to expect that no one will exploit this to benefit unilaterally at Russia's expense. I am saying this not because we suspect somebody, in all actions there must be maximum transparency. All fears will be removed then.

Question: Early this year the US administration took a number of steps which were painfully received by Russian public opinion. I mean not only the ABM Treaty, but also other demarches. Do you think the US leadership understands Russia's concern?

Igor Ivanov: Certain moves taken by the US administration are incomprehensible to Russian society. Among them is the unilateral US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and the last nuclear review submitted by the Pentagon, which, in the classical spirit of the Cold War, lists Russia as a possible nuclear target. Of course, such facts in practice are inconsistent with the political statements that US President George W. Bush makes and which are recorded in the joint Russian-US documents concerning the new character of relations between our countries.

President Vladimir Putin has clearly declared that our country is interested in building a partnership and constructive and predictable relations with the US. We hold that this is important not only for our two countries, but for the world community as a whole. President Bush also speaks for building just this kind of relations. But political statements must be supported by practical actions. The issues of security are sensitive for the public opinion of any country, including Russia. Therefore our country has been closely following the Russian-American talks on the reduction of strategic offensive arms, as well as the negotiation process between Russia and NATO on the elaboration of a new mechanism of our relations. Their results should show whether we have really reached a new stage in our relations or not, and whether we have really turned the page of the Cold War. It is by these conflict affairs that the public will judge the real state of our relations.

Question: You were saying that Russia would like to build predictable relations with the US. But many in Europe are worried by the unpredictability of US policy. What do you think about possible unilateral actions by the US against Iraq?

Igor Ivanov: We cannot but be concerned by unilateral actions taken by whosoever, including the US. When we are speaking of predictability, highly important are transparency and mutual trust. If the US is making arrangements with sovereign Georgia about the dispatch of military instructors there to combat terrorism, then, taking into account the proximity of that state to Russia and the fact that from the territory of Georgia terrorists are operating against Russia, they should let us know and consult us. This does not hurt the sovereignty of either Georgia or the US.

Question: What do you think why the Americans did not consult with Russia?

Igor Ivanov: I think that the failure to do so was due to past stereotypes and underestimation of the sensitivity of both the situation in the Caucasus and this sort of actions for Russian society. Or maybe feelings of nationalism had operated in somebody. This could give rise to concern or suspicions among the participants in the struggle against terrorism.

Now as regards the situation around Iraq. The US and UK has been talking much about a possible use of force-based action against Iraq of late. In so doing they refer to the information that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and, possibly, their delivery means. We believe that if someone has such facts, then they should be submitted to the international community. And the Security Council should take a decision how to act in this case. No one has the right to act on behalf of the international community in circumvention of the UN Security Council. It alone is empowered to take appropriate decisions.

From our point of view, a unilateral force-based action against Iraq would even more complicate not only Iraqi settlement, but also the situation in the region as a whole. On the other hand, such actions would deal a serious blow to the antiterrorist coalition itself. I do not think anyone is interested in this. The chance of a political settlement is far from exhausted. We are actively working with the Iraqi leadership so that Iraq fully complies with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We regard the resumption of dialogue between Baghdad and the UN Secretary General as an encouraging sign. I want to stress that Russia firmly supports the nonproliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq should take a decision on the return of international inspectors who will give their opinion that there are no weapons of mass destruction or capability for their production in the country. In its turn this should open the way for lifting the sanctions on Iraq.

Question: It looks like the UK is ready to support a possible US action in Iraq. Consultations are being held on this issue. Will you try to convince the UK that it should not support the Americans' actions? Will you warn London of Russia's pullout of the antiterrorist coalition if an action is launched against Iraq?

Igor Ivanov: Of course, we will hold a thorough exchange of views on the situation around Iraq. I bear in mind to state our serious fears of the consequences of a unilateral US military action. In 1998 we tried to restrain the US and UK from military actions against Iraq. Regrettably, that failed and the military action did not resolve but complicated the situation. We hope that the US and UK do not make the same mistake again. At the same time, by joining our efforts, we will be able to achieve the main thing - implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions.

As to Russia's pull out of the antiterrorist coalition, it would hardly be expedient to issue any ultimatums at the talks with the UK. Once more I want to draw attention to the fact that we are participating in it based on our own interests. We have common positions with Britain on this, and hope to maintain them in the future. On the other hand, the high level of political dialogue permits us to speak frankly also of what we do not agree with.

Question: Don't you think that the situation in the Middle East will get out of control if the US launches a strike against Iraq? What can Russia undertake to resolve the situation?

Igor Ivanov: As I have already said, a unilateral US military action against Iraq would be a destabilizing factor not only in the Persian Gulf, but also in the Middle East. Evaluating the situation, we also take into account the opinion of Arab states. Therefore in Iraqi settlement it is necessary to act concertedly, as we do in the Middle East. Regrettably, there have been no real results so far. But it is encouraging that Russia, the US, European Union and UN are acting together under the framework of the Four. The Middle East resolution, adopted today by the UN Security Council, where Israel and Palestine are recognized as states which must live between themselves in peace, is an encouraging signal. This resolution was supported by all the members of the Security Council and received approval of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority.

We do not believe there is a need to put forward any new initiatives. There are enough initiatives on the negotiating table. The parties should realize that violence intensifies the tragedy. It is necessary by joint efforts to isolate extremists and terrorists and start the process of political settlement.

A second important element at this stage is strengthening the international presence in the region. Regrettably, mutual distrust between the Israelis and Palestinians have reached such a level that without international assistance, it will be difficult to get out of this impasse. Russia does not claim to play any special role. The parties should determine what the international presence should be.

Question: You are saying that Russia plays a special role in the Middle East. A million of your compatriots live in Israel. Why don't you use this factor to exert influence on the policy of Israel?

Igor Ivanov: In recent years the level of our relations with Israel has increased considerably. This is due largely to the fact that a large number of our compatriots live in Israel. Although they left for various reasons, the overwhelming majority of them regard Russia as their second homeland. Hence we are in favor of developing broad cooperation with Israel and are satisfied with its present-day level.

Russian relations with Arab countries are evolving also dynamically. This enables us to play an active role in Middle East settlement. Russia now enjoys the trust of both Israel, and the Palestinians and Arab states. Yet we are aware that - realistically - Russia alone cannot achieve progress in resolving either the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Middle East situation as a whole.

Question: Many people think that the Americans should be given an opportunity to resolve this crisis on their own. How do you feel about this opinion?

Igor Ivanov: We do not think the US will be able to achieve much progress in settlement by acting alone. We saw that in the period of activity of the previous US administration. Russia repeatedly suggested to the US: let us join forces in trying to reach agreements between the government of Barak and the leadership of the Palestinian National Authority. Some European and Arab nations offered similar help. Nevertheless, the administration tried to make it alone. You know the results.

We acknowledge the important role of the US in settlement, yet hold that efforts by the other participants, including Russia, can be useful. One has the impression that Washington is ready for such cooperation now.

Question: For historical reasons Russia cannot dispatch a military contingent to Afghanistan now. You are rendering the Afghans humanitarian aid. Do you think that in the future it will be possible for Russian servicemen to take part in the international peacekeeping force in Afghanistan?

Igor Ivanov: You have noted quite correctly that owing to the recent historical past Afghan problems are very sensitive for our country. Now we are rendering extensive aid to Afghanistan and we support the present Afghan leadership. At the same time Russia will not participate in military operations on the territory of Afghanistan. On the other hand, the Afghan leadership is interested in strengthening its armed forces as soon as possible and independently solving the problems of ensuring the country's security. We will help it with the creation of the Afghan army and internal security forces, including personnel training, with military equipment supplies and with the tackling of other problems.

Question: Recently you met with Hamid Karzai, the Head of the Interim Administration of Afghanistan. Do you think the present situation in Afghanistan is stable and can the Afghan government control the situation outside Kabul?

Igor Ivanov: The present Interim Administration of Afghanistan is pursuing a vigorous policy, aimed at inter-Afghan settlement, and basically controls the situation in the country. At the same time it is perfectly clear that antigovernment forces still remain in the country that are trying to use any complications, as we saw in the last few days.

At this stage international help to the Afghan leadership is of particular importance. Afghanistan should not be allowed to again become an arena of struggle between individual states or groups of states for spheres of influence. That would lead to a split within Afghanistan itself, and so Russia advocates that the international community should continue to lend assistance to the Interim Administration of Afghanstan led by Karzai, which has been formed by joint efforts under the aegis of the UN. Besides, if we want to see a united, stable state from the territory of which the threat of terrorism no longer emanates, then the international community should be helping Afghanistan for a long time.

Question: Do you think that a struggle for spheres of influence may unfold in the region of Central Asia? The Americans are creating military bases there for the short- or long-term. How is this being regarded by Russian public opinion?

Igor Ivanov: Public opinion has received with understanding the decision of some Asian countries to provide their territories for support of the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan. In the last few years the main threat to the stability of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan came from the territory of Afghanistan. Russia lent these nations aid in organizing counteraction against this threat. This was a real threat. It was these countries that could have become the first victims of the Taliban, and so their cooperation with the US and other Western countries in the antiterrorist operation on the territory of Afghanistan is natural and can cause no allergy in us.

On the other hand, Central Asia by virtue of historical, geopolitical, economic and other factors is a sphere of our special interests. And if we speak of the inadmissibility of a division of spheres of influence in Afghanistan, this applies also to Central Asia. But if some states wish to render the Central Asian countries assistance in their economic development, then this is a normal process in bilateral and multilateral relations.

Question: Are you worried by the possibility of long-term preservation of the US military bases in the states of Central Asia?

Igor Ivanov: Proceeding from the latest statements of the spokesman for the US administration, the US does not plan to station military bases in Central Asia for the long term. The question is, if there are bases, then what are they for? The answer to it will reveal as to whether that is in accord with our interests. Today the military presence of the US and other countries in Central Asia fits into the mainstream of our joint efforts to combat terrorism. We would like to hope for this in the future as well.

Question: What will be the reaction of Russia if the Baltic states are invited into NATO?

Igor Ivanov: First of all I would like to touch on Russian relations with NATO. Taking into account many circumstances, including the events of September 11, the world has begun to understand the reality that the international community should act together against common threats. It has been repeatedly stressed that NATO does not regard Russia as an enemy. Russia has likewise declared that it does not regard NATO as an enemy. We have a common enemy, therefore we should act together. This understanding found reflection, in particular, in the message of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, with its initiative for creating a new framework for the Russia-NATO relationship. This initiative was supported by a number of other leaders of the Alliance. The prime minister clearly formulated the task for us: to set up a mechanism where Russia and the NATO states would have an equal say on questions of mutual concern. We hold this approach timely and solely correct. If we succeed in creating such a mechanism - Russia is ready for this - then this could effect a major change in the Euro-Atlantic space. If we fail to create it and NATO follows its old path of mechanical expansion of the bloc, then this will not bring more security to either NATO or the countries that will join the Alliance.

Of course, we cannot ban any sovereign state, including the Baltics, from joining this or that organization. But if some decisions affect the national security interests of Russia, we will be forced to take adequate action. This is not a threat, but the defense of the lawful interests of Russia. It is also a sovereign state and has its own national interests.

Question: Is it possible to create a real, not formal, consultations and decision making mechanism in the Russia-NATO format?

Igor Ivanov: A consultative mechanism was created after signing the Founding Act in 1997. Today it is necessary to create a decision making mechanism. This proposal is contained in the message of Mr. Blair as well.

Frankly speaking, not much progress has been made at the current talks. This is so because not everyone gets over Cold War stereotypes easily. Some prefer to keep the old structures. But we are not losing hope that we can reach agreement by the meeting of foreign ministers of Russia and the NATO member states at Reykjavik on May 15, this year. For our part, we will do everything necessary.

Question: Will Russian public opinion regard better the admission of new members to NATO if Russia and NATO create such a mechanism?

Igor Ivanov: If a mechanism is created that makes Russia and the NATO members equal partners, then, naturally, many questions of European security will be regarded differently.