INTERVIEW OF RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS IGOR IVANOV, PUBLISHED UNDER THE HEADLINE "IGOR IVANOV: YOU NEED TO WIN WITHOUT DECEPTION" IN ROSSIISKAYA GAZETA ON JULY 25, 2002

Unofficial translation from Russian

Question: Russia has intensified its efforts in Middle East settlement. What can we do and what generally can be done?

Answer: In the first place I think that the events of the recent period, of the last two years - since September 2000 - show that no one can do anything alone.

It is thanks to this understanding that the quartet arose: Russia, the USA, European Union and UN. In the course of joint consultations all have drawn the conclusion that it is necessary to combine the efforts of countries and organizations which most actively participate in the quest of a solution.

In so doing the Quartet does not at all claim a monopoly in solving the Middle East problem. It is open for cooperation both with Arab and with other states. Say, a program for the economic reconstruction of Palestine is now being prepared. Japan, Norway, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank are actively joining in. The Quartet is generating ideas and trying to combine the efforts of the international community. It is necessary to tackle three tasks in parallel. First, it is security issues, which is equally important for Palestine and Israel alike. Therefore, we assisted in every way the resumption of contacts between the security services of Israel and Palestine. Moreover, the Quartet is actively carrying out work in order to render the Palestinian administration assistance in reorganizing the security services, in creating a unified security system controlled by appropriate government bodies.

Of course, we in no form can justify terrorism. In no form can we justify the actions of suicide bombers, as a result of which dozens, hundreds of innocent civilians, children are killed. But in parallel with the ensuring of security there must go the process of solving humanitarian and economic questions in the Palestinian territories. It is necessary to lead out Palestine from a state of hopelessness - both political, from the standpoint of the formation of its own state, and economic. The more jobs there will be, the fewer will be those wishing to take up automatic rifles and bombs.

At the end of August the task force which the Quartet has established with the participation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as of Japan and Norway will prepare specific proposals for reconstructing the economic infrastructure in Palestine.

And the third thrust, most complex is political settlement. Complex because there are mutually excluding positions here. On the one hand, Israel, the leadership of the Palestinian Autonomy and the international community all favor holding democratic elections in Palestine. The Palestinian leadership has announced that early next year, it is ready to hold such elections. But for the elections appropriate conditions are needed. One of them is liquidating the occupation. In the conditions of occupation to speak of any democratic elections is difficult. How to separate these mutually excluding circumstances so far is unclear.

Encouraging signs have appeared in the last few days. I talked with Andrei Vdovin, our ambassador at large. He phoned me from Gaza, where the negotiations were being held, where he met both with Palestinian leaders and with Israel's representatives, who had struck up contacts and had begun to discuss real issues. And suddenly - the night air strike by Israel at residential neighborhoods in Gaza City. Of course, this plays into the hands of those who would like to return everything to a stretch of forced-based solutions. Yet a force-based solution, this the United States, Europe and Russia all recognize, is impossible. The solution can only be one: the existence of two sovereign states - the Israeli and the Palestinian - within internationally recognized and secure borders. If for Israel the security of borders is in the first place, for Palestine it is internationally recognized borders, because so far they actually do not exist.

Question: And the Arafat problem remains?

Answer: The United States has made its stand explicit: it is disappointed with President Arafat's activities and considers that the Palestinian people should better have another leader. This is the opinion of the United States, it has a right to define its position.

The position of the United Nations, European Union, Russia and the overwhelming majority of other states is that it is a matter for the Palestinian population - to elect its leaders. At the start of next year, elections will be held. If Arafat is elected - so it will be Arafat. If another is elected - it will be another. By the way, I want to recall that in 1986, Arafat did not appoint himself. He became president as a result of the elections recognized by the international community.

The new elections will be held according to democratic criteria, with international observers watching. If we recognize these elections, so we will recognize the one who as a result will be elected by the Palestinian people.

But today we cannot take a pause and wait for the elections. Today we must speak to the one who really represents the power structures there.

Question: You said that in the conditions of occupation it is impossible to hold democratic elections in the Palestinian territories. But neither is it possible to hold them in the conditions, when terrorist organizations are practically legally operating there.

Answer: It was by no chance that I began with the security question. The issue is precisely about creating, within the time left before the elections, a security structure which could isolate extremist groups and guarantee a free expression of the people's will.

Question: Why is Russia not raising formally the question of its entry into the European Union?

Answer: We are not raising the question of entry into NATO either. One has to proceed from a real analysis of the situation. The European Union has not only an economic dimension, but there is also a political dimension and, probably, there will be a military one as well. To speak today of integration, bearing in mind only the economic criterion, is unrealistic.

By the way, it is not clear that the European Union will survive the present stretch of enlargement. Look how many problems there are, for example, with Poland. The major ones of them are agriculture and manpower. Its entry is being repeatedly postponed.

I worked in Spain, when the process of its entry into the EU was going on. It took Spain ten years to adapt. And take Russia with all its problems!

And then, one has to figure out what would be beneficial to Russia and what disadvantageous, you need cold economic calculations. This concerns both the European Union and the World Trade Organization.

I am not sure that membership would give us more than would a broad partnership without any artificial barriers.

Question: How do you assess the situation in the Commonwealth of Independent States?

Answer: We fully recognize their sovereignty and, accordingly, build with them relations as with sovereign states. Simply some states are nearer, others farther. Not only geographically, but also politically.

I think that the CIS played a very important role at the first stage. It did not allow a "crumbling" to the extent that commencing a return process of integration would have been rendered impossible. Even though this process is proceeding very painfully and in a complicated fashion. The countries have gone in their development so different ways, that today integration is not coming easily at all.

At the first stage the CIS amortized some problems and conflicts, and preserved a common space, at least political.

Today more concrete tasks exist. The leaders of the CIS have proposed that Russia head up a working group and prepare proposals for optimizing the activity of the CIS bodies for the next summit, which will be held on October 7 in Chisinau.

It is necessary right now - since the experience is there - to look what works and what does not work. And to gradually sift away everything that does not work; and to single out the most important thing. After all, the economy must be in the center of our cooperation. And we believe that it is necessary to further strengthen and develop the Eurasian Economic Community.

It is a viable organization which can really tackle the questions facing our countries.

The CIS is a kind of contour. Within its framework, we see integration processes that are various-speed and various-level ones, proceeding in different formats.

Russia and Belarus, for example, have decided to go further and created a Union State.

In any case, to stop the integration processes is very difficult. They all the same will develop. For we are operating in a single market, in a single economic space.

Question: How did the President's recent meeting with ambassadors pass?

Answer: The speech by the President at the conference of ambassadors is displayed on the presidential web site, so that the text is well known. Of course, it was political tasks that were set in the first place - from the standpoint of defining the place and interests of Russia in the international community. But in development of this a whole variety of concrete directions is designated, and the economy, support of Russian business is one of the priorities. Today we already have a fairly mature business and there are powerful companies already which can fully compete with large Western firms. They do not need at all the kind of support and assistance that, say, was necessary in the times of the Soviet Union, in the conditions of a monopoly of foreign trade. What is needed today is professional, but even more - political support, and so the importance of the foreign affairs agency is increasing. Our companies can hire any lawyers and economists, but political support can only come from the appropriate state structures. The President all the time keeps these questions in his field of vision. It is no coincidence that the President of Russia and the President of France meet and speak of an "airbus."

This is a normal phenomenon.

Question: And you too have to be "occupied with business"?

Answer: Yes. Today the embassies aim, in the good sense of the word, to lobby for projects. Say, a tender is going on in some country or other. And here much depends on how actively the political levers are applied. Therefore we have very close relations with most large companies operating both in Russia and abroad. Naturally, we cooperate with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade as well. The question then follows how to carry out the optimization of our resources, I mean personnel and financial resources. In order not to duplicate each other, we must find forms which would permit pooling the small resources we have available and using them effectively. I think we jointly with the Economic Development Ministry will find a solution.

The question is not whom this or that economic structure will be subordinate to - the Economic Development Ministry or the MFA. Of course, the Economic Development Ministry must determine the ideology. It elaborates approaches to the economy, to trade, to other matters relating to foreign economic activity. But abroad there must be a single fist, unified coordination. So it is the ambassador who must coordinate the entire work: he is the top official representing Russia's interests abroad, he is appointed by a Presidential Decree.

Question: The MFA is a conservative structure. Are the diplomats themselves ready for these new functions?

Answer: Today many questions lie on the borderland of various agencies. Therefore in our embassies there are the representatives of various structures: the ministry of agriculture, ministry of the economy, the ministry of finance, and so on. That's a normal form.

Question: How do you assess the activity of the state structures which have been charged with carrying out an audit of the property abroad and organizing its management?

Answer: In accordance with a Presidential Decree there are two agencies which are today responsible for our property abroad. The MFA is responsible for the property which belongs to the embassies, the consulates general and the consulates. Here we have a complete audit, a full card-index. And for no other purposes, except those which the diplomatic missions are required to perform, can we use that property. The second part is all that which had been used by dozens of ministries and agencies and which is now under a single roof united by the Presidential Administrative Department. It is presently carrying out big work on the passportization of all this property - whether immovable property or land property - so as to further determine how to use it rationally. This is a very complex job, and it is not yet over. At issue is precisely how to use it rationally rather than sell. I believe that our property abroad cannot be sold. For you will have to buy later at two or three times the price, as we have repeatedly experienced, in Israel for example.

Question: This entire story with the firm Noga. Things have gone to absurd extremes - we cannot take our planes to air shows.

Answer: This question is not mine. The Ministry of Finance is concerned with these questions. I can state my point of view: it is necessary to find a solution to this problem. What kind of solution, that's a matter directly for those who conducted and are now conducting the talks. But that a legal solution has to be found, is absolutely unquestionable.

Question: You have repeatedly spoken in favor of adopting a special law on the diplomatic service. How relevant is that?

Answer: The MFA, the diplomatic service has its own specifics, and the majority of the states which are active on the international scene have separate laws on the diplomatic service. Reflected in them are the specific features of the agency and the many questions relating to the social protectedness of the diplomats. We want that the diplomatic service would be attractive, that not those who cannot find a job somewhere else, but highly professional lawyers, political scientists, economists would be coming to the diplomatic service. The moral factor is, of course, high, it has been preserved and is working in our Ministry, but it has to be supplemented with protectedness. A diplomat must, just as another government employee, know that, by performing his functions, he will have an appropriate compensation for that.

Question: Previously of MGIMO it used to be said that it was an institute for "sons." But now do the same MFA staff members harbor a wish to fix their children a place at MGIMO?

Answer: In the middle of the 1980s, with the start of the perestroika, some people got an idea of fighting against nepotism, against protectionism, including within our agency. I have no son, but if I had I would like him to follow in my footsteps. I would only welcome that. We have a museum open, The History of the Diplomatic Service, and there is a very interesting photograph there: next to Troyanovsky, our ambassador to Japan, stands a small boy, aged 10-11. Later this boy became an outstanding diplomat and also an ambassador to Japan. What's bad about that? On the contrary, it's good. You are being brought up in this environment, you feel much of what it is impossible to feel from the outside. It's another matter that no exclusive conditions should be created for the children of diplomats, that they must enter as equals. The children of many of our diplomats are studying at MGIMO. And not only those of diplomats, but also of staff members of other government structures.

One time, in the first half of the 1990s, MGIMO graduates were drawn to commercial and banking structures. But in the last four or five years the situation has changed, and they are looking to join the MFA. We annually take on 100 to 130 people, a half of them from MGIMO, the other half being from other institutions of higher learning, such as Moscow State University and the Foreign Languages Institute. And now for entry into the MFA there is a serious competition - three to four persons for a place. So that we are having a serious replenishment, there goes a lively cadre rotation.

Question: How do you explain the heightened interest?

Answer: In the civil service salaries are never higher than in commercial structures - either in our or in any other country. Therefore the overriding consideration is prestige. And interest in the profession. An added factor is the marked step-up in recent years of the foreign policy activity of Russia, the enhancement of our role in world affairs. But in parallel we are taking action also to deal with matters of the financial security of our staff. Abroad, I believe, our diplomats have a decent living pay.

Question: In the Soviet period you were an ambassador to Spain. If we compare that period and the present day: when was diplomatic work more interesting?

Answer: I think this work was always and remains interesting. The most complex was the period after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Complex because you were receiving almost no instructions while the representatives of the leadership at times made diametrically opposed statements. And it was necessary to look for a solution which would meet national interests.

Today, of course, the situation has radically changed. Today coordination is complete. Today there is a President who defines foreign policy. But at the same time, of course, there appear new challenges. It is necessary to find and determine the new place of Russia on the world scene, taking into account all the factors - both internal and international. And, of course, here a lot depends on how professionally and competently the diplomats will formulate their proposals.

All diplomatic services of the world are experiencing a shortage of highly professional cadres. This is understandable. Today, diplomacy is having to tackle quite a few new, "not traditional" problems for it: from ecology to outer space to the struggle against terrorism, the drug business and other present-day threats and challenges.

Against the general background, Russian diplomacy looks quite worthy. In all the major negotiations our diplomats are professionally upholding the interests of Russia. And this professionalism is being noted and recognized by our partners.

Our diplomatic corps today number about 3,000, more than half of them working in the representations abroad.

In its overwhelming majority the system of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is formed from professional diplomats. By the way, it takes no less than 12-15 years to train a diplomat who could independently conduct talks and perform other functions. Therefore we pay considerable attention to work with young people. The cadre policy of the MFA enables us not only to tackle the tasks of the Ministry proper, but also, when required, to provide other state structures with specialists in international affairs. Our diplomats are successfully working in the apparatuses of the Government and the Federal Assembly.

There are quite a few of our colleges in the Presidential Administration, primarily in the Foreign Policy Directorate, which is headed by a career diplomat, Sergei Prikhodko. A diplomat also heads the Presidential Press Service - Alexei Gromov.

All of them remain in the cadre reserve of our Ministry and form a part of the big MFA family.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also given a start in life to many Russian businessmen, who today successfully manage large companies and banks of the country, and to journalists writing on international affairs. There are diplomats also among the deputies' corps.

All of this is the exact convincing proof of the fact that only a person with a profound and many-sided knowledge and a broad world outlook can be a contemporary diplomat.

Question: You are soon going to North and South Korea. Is there a kind of shuttle diplomacy ahead?

Answer: These visits are planned as part of a broader tour of Asian countries. After the visit of President Putin to North Korea the process of inter-Korean settlement markedly intensified. Actually Putin's visit opened up a very important stage of international recognition of North Korea. Then followed a string of establishment of diplomatic relations, including relations with the European Union. Our approach is as follows: North Korea should more actively integrate into regional international processes. This will also be a step towards inter-Korean settlement. We have always welcomed the dialogue between South and North Korea. Recently an incident took place in the Yellow Sea, which has somewhat complicated the contacts between Seoul and Pyongyang. We feel that it is necessary to do everything - and Russia for its part is exerting efforts for this purpose - so that the dialogue should not be broken off but, on the contrary, expanded. This is important both for us and for our neighbors, for the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.

Of course, as in the case of the Middle East, we do not claim a monopoly role in relations with North Korea. We consider that a dialogue should be established between Washington and Pyongyang and between Tokyo and Pyongyang. All the concerned states should actively participate in this process.

Question: You have a special role, the role of a kind of mediator...

Answer: Not exactly a special but surely an active, initiative-laden role. We do not cross anybody's road. If somebody wants to participate in this process as actively, we will only welcome that. We told both Washington and Tokyo about it.

By the way, my deputy Alexander Losyukov has flown to Tokyo for the resumption of consultations on a peace treaty. We have always advocated that this dialogue should not be broken off. Unfortunately, for a whole variety of reasons these consultations were not held for almost a year. Now we are resuming them and it is important that Tokyo should also take a constructive stand. I hope that then will follow the visit of the Japanese minister of foreign affairs to Russia in October this year, about which we have preliminarily agreed, in order to continue the negotiations on the whole range of bilateral relations, including on a peace treaty. And this will create the necessary basis for a subsequent top-level meeting.

Question: Another deputy of yours, Alexander Saltanov, has gone to the Persian Gulf region...

Answer: He will hold consultations in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. Among other things, questions of settlement of the situation around Iraq will be discussed. Iraq now is the most vulnerable point. There are all the signs that the Americans have become more active. I think that some movement may start in the Security Council in order to prepare public opinion for a dangerous turn of events. We, however, believe that the politico-diplomatic potential for resolving the situation around Iraq is far from exhausted yet. And it is necessary actively to conduct work both with Iraq and with other states so as to attain, on one hand, the full implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions, which would guarantee that in Iraq there are no weapons of mass destruction, nor potential for their production, and on the other - Iraq must have the prospect of lifting of the sanctions. These are the two sectors in which it is necessary to work. And we are working. It would be very important that Iraq would in the immediate future accept international observers, who could in accordance with the existing Security Council resolution fulfill the amount of work which would confirm the statements of the Iraqi leadership that Iraq really has no weapons of mass destruction, nor any programs to develop and produce such weapons. And this positive finding of the commission would open up the way to the lifting of sanctions on Iraq. We believe that only diplomatic means offer a way out of the impasse, in which, unfortunately, Iraqi settlement has been in recent years.

Question: Are there politicians with whom you love or, on the contrary, not love to meet?

Answer: You do not choose with whom to meet. You conduct talks with all with whom you happen to negotiate. It's another matter that after some talks you come out with one mood, after others - with another. And the task is not to show this mood. Of course, with somebody it's more pleasant to conduct talks. And not only because he all the time says "yes." With a difficult partner it is also interesting if he is a real professional, not merely an obstinate person who does not wish to listen to you and does not wish to adduce his arguments. It is always pleasant when you have conducted talks with a difficult "opponent", partner and got what you had wanted. Because he often does not know what tasks you set, because they are sometimes invisible. And when you in the course of a complex polemic had your way then, of course, you experience an internal satisfaction. And with those who are not particularly receptive to your arguments, who avoid polemics, you all the same have to talk, there is no alternative. Today the intensity of contacts has increased so much that, of course, it is better when you develop with your partners, apart from official, some kind of a personal relationship as well. But that is by no means necessary. Unfortunately, it so happens that you are forced to say not only pleasant things, but also those rather unpleasant. And when your partner and you have an established relationship, this is a good "amortizer," you understand each other more quickly.

There are specific principles which should never be broken. In the first place you should never let up the partner even if you diametrically disagree with him in approaches. You should never misinform him. You will place him in an awkward position, and in a day you are to meet with him again. There must be normal partner, gentleman's relations. If this develops into a friendship - well, that's good, but it's another matter.

Question: Thank you for the interview, Igor Sergeyevich.