The world has come up to the anniversary of September 11 with serious contradictions. Ever more often, the United States is trying to impose on partners, in particular Russia, the rules of conduct in the world arena. Vremya Novostei special correspondent Katerina Labetskaya asked Vyacheslav Ivanovich Trubnikov, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and a former SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service) head, to assess the prospects of the coalition in the context of the differences now revealed between the US and Russia.

Question: Won't the attempts by Washington hawks to dictate the terms to partners in the antiterrorist coalition lead to a collapse of the partnership and the cooling of relations between Russian and the US today?

Answer: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (vice president, secretary of defense and deputy secretary of defense - Ed.) aren't the US. In the US there's President George Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, my good colleague in talks within the Russian-US working group. Therefore I do not associate the statements by individual members of the American leadership with the state position of the United States. Besides, the question "Who's not with us is against us" was raised exclusively within the framework of the antiterrorist coalition.

Yes, in fighting terrorism we, undoubtedly, will be together with the Americans. And the US not only in words, but also in actions recognizes the important role of Russia as a participant of this coalition. But to be together in the antiterrorist coalition does not mean to have all states toe the line on all problems of international life. There occurs a surprising mix of notions. The fight against terrorism and the situation around Iraq are absolutely different things, just as the problem of a return of UN inspectors to Iraq and the problem of a change of Saddam's regime. And it is this mix that cannot but cause serious concern in Russia.

The stubborn wish by some members of the US establishment to solve the problem of Iraq by force places the antiterrorist coalition's unity in real danger. One does not have to go far: the latest statement of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder very explicitly delineates the stand of Germany. Even if the UN Security Council approves the use of force against Baghdad, Germany will not participate in the implementation of this decision. That is, each state has the right to define its stand. In the case of the US and Germany they will find themselves on the different sides of the barricades.

Question: So the Security Council may give consent to a strike at Iraq?

Answer: Russian diplomacy is exerting colossal efforts to prevent things from reaching this point. The potential of the world community is strong enough to convince the US leadership of the need to use fully all of the politico-diplomatic levers of influence on Iraq. This potential is far from exhausted. With each passing day the consistent position of Russia's leadership is winning over ever more representatives of the world community. Both in Europe and in the Arab world.

We are actively working with Iraq's leadership because the ultimatums from this and that side only strengthen the positions of the hawks both there and there.

Question: American military bases have appeared at the southern borders of Russia as part of the antiterrorist coalition. Does this not create threats to our security?

Answer: The Taliban regime in Afghanistan with the active participation of Al-Qaida posed a real threat to our Central Asian neighbors and to us. Some people were clearly aware of this, some didn't fully understand it, and some even tried to find a common language with the Taliban in order to ensure their own security. And today, as a result of the antiterrorist operation, Russia's security has been greatly bolstered. Moreover, a definite reserve has been created for the future. If it all proceeds consistently enough, we are in a position to even enhance our security in terms of the narco-threat. This is a serious problem.

Both terrorism and the narco-danger in this region are so intertwined that I would not undertake to divide these two threats. We are ensuring security not only as a result of these military actions, but also by consolidating the Collective Security Treaty existing in this area and through our active participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Uzbekistan and China, both not parties to the treaty. That is, we are creating a system which can serve as a reliable guarantor for our security in the south. A number of internal steps also serve these purposes, including the provision of a serious legislative base to deal with the problem of migration and question of citizenship.

The appropriate law has been adopted, but it has yet to be seen how many pluses and minuses it will have when it starts to operate in practice. Nevertheless, as of now, the security of Russia in comparison with what it was eighteen months, even a year ago, has been considerably strengthened.

Question: Then, perhaps, the military presence of the US and other coalition partners in Central Asia has exhausted itself and it can be supplanted by a partnership with regional organizations?

Answer: Thus far, because the counter-terrorist operation is not yet over, the presence of the Americans and Western partners who are involved in this operation in the Central Asian republics is only natural. Especially as it is based on the appropriate bilateral agreements between the US and the countries of its present-day military basing.

In particular, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, to a certain degree Tajikistan; certain services are being provided by Kazakhstan. They are sovereign states, and the being there of non-regional armed forces is a problem of these countries. They themselves will have to set the limits, the scale, the time parameters of the stationing of the foreign military in their territories. The position of Russia is explicit - we clearly associate the time for completion of the basing in Central Asia with the time the counter-terrorist operation is finished in Afghanistan. Within the Russia-US Working Group we have a clear understanding (and this has been sounded) that the period of stationing will be limited to the period of the counter-terrorist operation in Afghanistan.

Question: How long will it take?

Answer: I wouldn't set any timeframe at present. To this day, even the problem of bin Laden has not been solved. Is he alive or dead? In Afghanistan its own security system still has not been created. Its creation will take lots of time. Far from being reduced, the area under narco-crops has increased, unfortunately.

Kabul controls itself only. I mean the transitional administration of Karzai. Attempts to enhance Kabul's influence on the provinces meet at times with stiff resistance from local field commanders, governors of provinces and leaders of ethnic groups. For this reason it is very hard to say just when the Afghan campaign will be completed.

General Tommy Franks, who is in command of this operation, told me: "Mr. Trubnikov, when everything began, it seemed we would manage in a year. Now I can't say when this operation will end." I believe him 100 percent, as a man who also wore the shoulder-straps in the past. To figure out the period of time for completing the operation is not simple. Therefore our Central Asian partners will, naturally, determine the time parameters themselves. But those who are part of the Collective Security Treaty will do so by agreement with the other participants.