INTERVIEW WITH IGOR IVANOV
RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

March 4, 2003

Question: Will Russia be prepared to use its veto power to block a unilateralist US attack on Iraq?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: To be honest, I'm surprised why such attention is paid to this issue of veto - whether there will be veto or not. The Russian suggestion is entirely something else. Over the recent time, we, on the contrary, have been trying to achieve unanimity in the UN Security Council because only unanimity will provide success in the solution of the Iraqi problem. If you remember, Russia has made a lot of efforts to make sure that inspectors returned to Iraq. When such a decision was reached we believed that there was no need for a new resolution. Nevertheless when the USA and Britain suggested a draft resolution, in order not to break the unity of the Security Council, we agreed and Resolution 1441 was voted for by everybody.

In short, all this time we have been looking for solutions which would allow for joint actions in the solution of the Iraqi problem because this is where we see guarantee of success. In the past Iraq often used differences in the Security Council. If we preserve unity, that would be the best guarantee, I think, that we will solve the problem of Iraq.

Question: How would it be possible to achieve unity at this point?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: There are various approaches in the UN Security Council. One approach, and Russia supports that, and the majority of other members of the Security Council that the solution of the Iraqi problem has to be achieved through political means. There are others who believe that political opportunities have been exhausted and that force has to be used and such a position is reflected in the draft resolution submitted by the USA, Britain and Spain.

We believe that there are opportunities for continuing political efforts and we are continuing to work at the UN Security Council in order to persuade our partners that it is necessary to continue the work of the inspectors and to look for a political solution. At the same time, too, there are limits to our flexibility.

Today to opt for military action when there are still all possibilities to solve it politically with the use of inspectors, we believe it would be a mistake. We are saying this to our partners and we warn them against this mistake so that our partners would not commit it. And of course, Russia, if somebody should take such a decision to go to war against Iraq, Russia would not support such action.

Question: And if those in favor of the resolution get nine supporting votes, would Russia use its right of veto or abstain?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I don't like to speculate and to cast about theoretically because I rely on facts. But I can say that Russia will not support any decision which would directly or indirectly open a way to war against Iraq.

Question: But you don't exclude using your veto?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I do not rule anything out because the right of veto is the right which can be used by any permanent member of the UN Security Council, including Russia, and if this is necessary, Russia can resort to using this right.

Question: Denis Mikhailov from Russia asks you to comment on presumptions that Russia will abstain from using its veto during the voting in the Security Council and that the principledness of its position is only explained by its trying to get more benefit out of such tactics.

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I regret that such a question has arrived from Russia because in our country everybody must know that we are pursuing very consistent policy over the duration of the whole crisis. We don't speculate, we don't trade in anything, we don't do any behind-the-scene games. We have a clear aim which was set from the very beginning, and that is to achieve the full disarmament of Iraq. For that Russia has already done a lot. And we believe that it is possible to achieve such an aim. That is why the Russian position involves no games. I believe that in the current situation - a critical situation - to abstain is not a position which Russia could take. Russia has to take a clear position and we are for a political settlement.

Question: But it does seem as though Russia is in something of a difficult position. It is one thing to threaten to use the veto, it's quite another to actually use it and see the UN split as a result.

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Why do you believe that Russia is in a difficult situation? Aren't those who want to introduce a resolution in order to justify the beginning of a war in a difficult situation? Indeed, they are opposed by the overwhelming majority of the world's nations. I think in a difficult position are those who are now, through various ways, including through a second resolution, trying to find justification for actions which currently have no justification.

At the moment, I repeat, there are all the opportunities to settle the Iraqi situation through political means. But there are those trying to pretend that there are no such opportunities and to submit a resolution which can really lead to a split because the majority in the UN Security Council at the moment are for political settlement. That is why I think that those who are submitting such a resolution are in a difficult situation.

Question: Are you coordinating your efforts with France? Should we expect Russia to follow France's lead?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Over the last two days I spoke on the phone with all the members of the UN Security Council, including US Secretary of State Colin Powell and the foreign ministers of France, Britain, Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Syria and the others, that is, with all the 14 of my colleagues. This is not one group against the other group. I repeat, we want to use the opportunity to the maximum in order to work out agreed actions on the Iraqi settlement.

Yes, with France or with China, where I've just come from, we have very close positions. They are very close because they are based on a political approach to the solution of the Iraqi problem based on the full and strict compliance with the respective UN Security Council resolutions. Tomorrow I will be in Paris. This is a scheduled visit, just as the visit to London. We planned for this visit several months ago, and we have come here not because of the Iraqi problem, although, naturally, it will in large measure be devoted to the Iraqi problem. And of course, we will discuss the Iraqi problem with France, too, as well as with many other Security Council members.

Question: You say France and you have very close positions, but does this mean that they are identical and that both countries will act in the same way?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: You know, every country is sovereign and independent, and at the end of the day it decides by itself as to how to vote. We are not discussing issues of voting, we discuss our approaches and our positions. As for our positions and approaches, they are very close or identical. As for voting, every country takes its decision independently.

Question: Do you think it is possible at this point to avoid war and seek a diplomatic solution? What is your view of the so-called Canadian compromise, that is, putting off a decision until the end of March?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I think that a war can still be avoided, although with every day it is more and more difficult. This is reality, which we have to take into consideration. However, I repeat that until there is at least one chance - at least one percent of a chance to avoid a war, diplomats have to keep working, especially since every day we see new evidence of real progress in the disarmament of Iraq.

I think that the Canadian proposal - we haven't discussed it yet - goes altogether in the direction that we can understand and support. Its meaning is to give the inspectors an opportunity to continue to carry out their mission. It's very hard for me to discuss the timeframe - it could be a month or two - experts have to determine the timeframe. I'm not an expert in chemical or biological weapons. I do not know how long it will take to carry out an analysis of some chemical elements or chemical samples.

This is why we insist that Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei should present at the March 7 meeting of the UN Security Council a clear plan of work with a list of specific questions which have to be answered. It could be 10, 20 or 100 questions, but they have to be clearly defined. And the dates have to be defined by which answers could be given to such questions. Then the world community will have a sort of plan of action which we could submit to the Iraqi authorities, and we could insist on its implementation. So far, what we have asked Iraq to do, it has complied with, from overflights by spy planes and briefing of scientists to agreement to destroy al-Samoud missiles. This means that when we put a question clearly, we can achieve an answer. This is why the inspectors have to formulate clearly their plan of action and the timeframe for its implementation. Then the world community will have a strong instrument of pressure on Baghdad.

Question: So, could you support this Canadian proposal, postponing any action till the end of March?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I said that we are ready to give a positive consideration to the very idea of the Canadian proposal. As for dates, we cannot define dates without knowing the opinion of the inspectors. The inspectors have to say whether they will have enough time by the end of March or whether they will need three or four months. They have to say that, and based on the opinion of inspectors we will take decisions.

Question: What will Russia do if the US does invade Iraq despite a Russian veto or Russian objections?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: First of all, I want to stress anew that if the USA and those countries that act together with it decide to launch a war against Iraq unilaterally, in circumvention of the UN Security Council, that would be a serious mistake. Of course, that would have serious consequences.

Honestly, I wouldn't like to answer this question because someone may think that I have reconciled myself to a war. But I continue to believe that there are still a chance, although a minimal one, to avoid a war.

However, I will answer your question. Any war, whatever its character, has to end, and the faster this happens, the less suffering and devastation it causes and the fewer negative consequences ensue. So, if a war does break out, then Russia, together with the overwhelming majority of nations, will insist on stopping this war and returning the settlement of the situation onto political tracks, through the United Nations Organization.

Question: This question is related to the previous one: if the US goes ahead with a unilateral attack on Iraq, will Russia put up a defense to protect Iraq?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: At the moment we are for a political settlement of the situation around Iraq. And we will continue to use only political methods in order to stop a war and to return the settlement process onto political tracks.

Question: Where does Russia's strategic interest lie, with Europe or with the USA?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Russia's strategic interests are both in Europe and the USA, and of course in Asia. Our foreign policy has got several facets: we have a real interest in Europe, and relations with European countries are one of the priorities in our foreign policy. Of course, we are interested in developing partnership relations with the USA, and we're convinced that those differences we have or may have in connection with the Iraqi situation will not affect the further development of our relations.

And the third important direction in our foreign policy is our relations with nations of the Asia-Pacific region, including China, India, Japan, Indonesia and many other countries. Indeed, a large part of Russia is in Asia -- Siberia and the Far East -- and they are interested in developing trade and economic cooperation with Asian countries.

Question: Do you agree that Russia's biggest problem is dealing with China? The current issue with Iraq will be over soon but China will remain.

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Today, in the conditions of globalization, relations between states are so intertwined and interdependent that it is very hard to say that it is possible to develop relations with one region, for example, and to sideline relations with another.

We are developing relations with all the states which are ready for that and where we have a real interest. We have a real interest in relations with the USA and with China. I have just come back from China. It is important that the new Chinese leadership, which has just taken over after the 16th Congress of the Communist Party of China, has reaffirmed the continuity of mutually beneficial relations with Russia. This fully coincides with our policy line. The Russian-Chinese relations will undoubtedly continue to develop, and this, I'm confident, meets the interests of international stability.

Question: Do you feel there is any remaining Cold War adversity in the US, which is, perhaps, why you chose to ally yourselves with France?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We didn't choose any alliances. I think that the remnants of the Cold War are in this question and not in our actions because some people continue to think in the categories of alliances and blocs. The Cold War is over and together with it the military-political blocs and alliances.

Today France and we share common positions. But this doesn't mean that France is no longer a US ally, or that Germany is no longer a US ally. This is a mistake. Quite the other way around, the point of the new situation after the Cold War is that every country can openly declare and uphold its political position. But this should not be seen as something directed against another nation. For example, our position on Iraq shouldn't be seen as a policy which is hostile to the United States. We are partners, and we warn our partner against a mistake. We don't want Washington to make such a mistake that would have grave consequences, including for the interests of the USA itself.

Question: Has your view of the USA changed as a result of the way it is handling Iraq?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We have stressed time and again that the development of relations of partnership, constructive and predicable relations with the United States is our strategic course. At the same time we have always understood very well that on this path we can have differences, even serious differences, for example, differences on the ABM Treaty. You know that Russia was for the preservation of the ABM Treaty, but the USA unilaterally left the Treaty. But we managed to continue the dialogue, preserve it and carry it further.

Iraq is a serious exam for us, of course. If we manage to pass this exam in such a way as to avoid damage to bilateral relations, I think, both Russia and USA will show by this, both to their people and to the international community, that we are rising to a qualitatively new stage of cooperation. In any case this is how Russia will act.

Question: But if you say you don't want your relations with the USA to be affected by this crisis, how do you intend to influence the US position?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: The strongest mechanism we have is the policy of persuasion. We are carrying on a continuous dialogue, primarily at the level of the presidents of our two countries, and also at the foreign minister and defense minister level. We have very many channels for dialogue, and through this dialogue, using arguments, we're trying to put across our point of view. I think that it is by using political arguments rather than force today that one should prove one is right. We do have opportunities for this, and we're trying to make the best possible use of them. True, it is not always that we're successful, but even then we shouldn't give up the dialogue, and we intend to continue a vigorous dialogue with Washington.

Question: If your country were to veto the second UN resolution, would that reflect public opinion in Russia and would this be a turning point in Russian foreign policy?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I would make two points about public opinion in Russia. First, the overwhelming majority of the Russian public is opposed to the war in Iraq, and I take full responsibility for this statement. Recently I met all the political factions in the State Duma, and all of them subscribed to President Putin's policy against a war in Iraq.

On the other hand -- and this is also very important -- there is virtually no anti-American feeling in Russia. There were no rallies with anti-American slogans. But it should be admitted that if the USA unilaterally begins a war against Iraq, of course, this would influence Russian public opinion, of course, and provoke discontent in our country. However, our strategic interests, I repeat, are in developing relations with the USA, and I hope that through joint efforts we will manage to overcome the difficulties which are now objectively cropping up.

Question: So you're saying that public opinion is supportive of this policy, so will Russia use its veto powers or abstain?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I have already said that for Russia in such a serious question like the crisis around Iraq, to abstain is not a position which we should pursue. Russia is not indifferent to how this problem is tackled and that is why Russia is not likely to abstain. Russia will take a definite stand.

Question: Will you use the right of veto?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I have already said that every permanent member of the UN Security Council has the right of veto. Russia has this right, and if the situation requires this, Russia will of course use its right of veto as an extreme measure in order to try to avoid the worst-case scenario.

Question: Is Russia's stance related to the fact that it used to cooperate with Saddam Hussein in the past, and also with Iraq's debts to Russia?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Russia has got economic interests in Iraq. Indeed, for many decades we have been cooperating with Iraq in the economic field. However, our position on the Iraq settlement is determined not by the economic interests that we have and, of course, would like to preserve in Iraq, but primarily by the interests of international security and stability. And our economic interests in this case are not the determining factor, they're not top priority. Our top priority is the interests of preserving peace and security in that region.

Question: Is Moscow ready to offer Saddam Hussein asylum in Russia?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: There are various speculations on this score. I would like to make an official statement that Russia has not offered asylum, is not offering asylum and will not offer such options either to Hussein or to leaders of any other states because we believe that this would be interference in internal affairs. Those in favor of a military solution today have virtually stopped saying that Iraq should be disarmed -- they talk much more today about the need to change the regime in Iraq and to establish a democratic regime there as the starting point for the democratization of the whole Arab world. This goes beyond any UN Security Council resolution on Iraq. A question arises as to who has authorized anyone to establish democratic regimes in other countries, even if they would be called democratic regimes?

In the time of the Soviet Union we had some experience when we tried to establish regimes loyal to our country and as you know this experience had a very sorry ending. We would not like this "export of revolution" to be succeeded now by the "export of democracy" because those peoples which will be subjected to such experiments can pay dearly for them.

Question: Russia's main problem today is the war in Chechnya. Why then are you opposed to a war in Iraq in view of Iraq's alleged links with many terrorist organizations?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: To begin with, in Chechnya we're not talking about a war, but about a political settlement of an internal problem - there's no war in Chechnya. What's happening in Chechnya is the fight against international terrorism and, in parallel, a process of political settlement. On the 23rd of March there will be a referendum in Chechnya on a new constitution, then there will be presidential and parliamentary elections. And we're convinced that the process of political settlement will keep growing stronger.

At the same time Russia is an active participant in the international anti-terror coalition and we will cooperate actively with other countries in fighting international terrorism anywhere. We believe that terrorism has no justification. Terrorism is not linked to any religion or any nation. Terrorists are criminals against whom people must fight, and Russia will always side with those who fight against international terrorism.

Iraq is a different matter altogether. The solution of the problem of Iraq is based on the UN Security Council resolutions which must be complied with. What is at issue in Iraq is completion of the process of disarmament, that is, the destruction of the prohibited types of weaponry. This is what we are seeking, and we believe that this can and must be done -- but through political means.

Question: What consequences should North Korea face if they continue to violate international agreements?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: There are several aspects to this issue. First, Russia is for the non-nuclear status of the Korean Peninsula. Second, Russia favors strict compliance with the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Third, Russia believes that all the nuclear programs, in this case in North Korea, must be put under the control of the International Atomic Energy Agency. At the same time we believe that the DPRK's security interests must be respected. Therefore, in putting forward demands in connection with control over nuclear programs, we must also solve the problem of the DPRK's security. This is why we believe that direct dialogue is necessary between North Korea and the USA. As for Russia, for its part and together with China, South Korea and Japan it is prepared to help such a dialogue.

Question: Do you think Russia will become a world superpower again? If so, when?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Russia favors establishing a multi-polar world in which all states, big and small, would have equal rights and in which the interests of every state would be respected equally. For that it is necessary to strengthen the UN, to ensure respect for the UN Charter and international law. If we manage to create such a multiple, democratic and secure world order, the very concept of superpower will lose its meaning.

Question: Coming back to Iraq, what do you think will happen in the UN Security Council in the next two weeks? Will there be a vote?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I can only tell you what I will do. I will continue to work 24 hours a day seeking a political way out of this crisis, both at the UN Security Council and outside it, on a bilateral and a multilateral level. I'm convinced that my colleagues will also be doing that.

On the 7th of March we will have a meeting of the Security Council at which we will listen to new reports from Mr. Blix, UNMOVIC head, and Mr. ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and on the basis of their reports we will suggest further actions. Namely, Russia -- and I think that Russia will be supported by many other members of the Security Council -- will demand that international inspectors continue their work in Iraq on the basis of a specific plan and with specific dates in mind. I can hardly say what Washington or London will do. Maybe, while I'm holding talks, my colleague, Mr. Straw, will tell me about that. But I can only tell you what I'm going to do, and I've already said it.

Question: Do you think that Russia and others could delay or block the voting next week?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: It seems to me that a vote on the draft resolution submitted by the USA, London and Spain would not benefit the search for a political settlement of the situation around Iraq. I will be honest with you, I believe that it would be advisable not to put this question to a vote. On the other hand, I did not sponsor or author this draft - at the end of the day it is up to the authors of this draft to decide whether it should be submitted to a vote or not.