PRESS CONFERENCE WITH IGOR IVANOV
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

September 20, 2002

Esteemed Mr. President,

Esteemed Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to share my impressions of the talks held and of the results of the work of our delegation at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

As you know, today US President George W. Bush received the Defense Minister of Russia, Sergei Ivanov, and me. Also today, a telephone conversation took place between our presidents. So active a political dialogue between our states, including at the top level, vividly demonstrates the new level of mutual relations which is enshrined in the Joint Declaration on the New Strategic Partnership between Russia and the USA, signed in the course of the visit of the US President, Mr. Bush, to Moscow in May, this year.

Russia follows the principle enunciated in this document. Russia is interested in developing a constructive partnership, predictable relations with the United States of America. The development of just this kind of relations meets the interests of our two peoples, and it meets the interests of the international community. We are convinced that by relying upon these principles, Russia and the USA can jointly search for answers to new threats and challenges, to the regional problems still persistent in the world. It was important for us to hear from US President Bush that the United States also intends to firmly adhere to these principles in relations with Russia; which the US administration regards as a long-term strategic priority. Therefore, unfortunately, I'll have to disappoint those who in recent days have begun to speculate about a cooling-off in Russian-American relations. That simply isn't so.

Today's telephone conversation between our presidents, and the talks with the US President, with the Secretary of State and with the Secretary of Defense have once again convinced us of this. We attach special significance to cooperation between our two states in the fight against international terrorism. Essentially since World War II Russia and the US have again become allies, allies in the fight against this highly dangerous challenge to the world community. We have consistently stood up for preservation and strengthening of the broad antiterrorist coalition, set up after the tragic events of September 11 in New York and Washington. The chief power of this coalition lies in the unity of action of all its participants and firm reliance upon the UN Charter and on international law. On constructive cooperation between Russia and the US, which are the largest nuclear powers, the future of strategic stability in the world depends in many respects. That was why the Presidents of our countries took a decision this May during the summit in Moscow to establish the Russian-US Constructive Group for Strategic Security made up of Foreign Ministers and Defense Ministers.

The first meeting of this group was held today. We thoroughly discussed ways to implement the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed in Moscow. We examined the problems of transparency in cooperation in missile defense and a full range of nonproliferation problems, including the topic of the global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction, which had been considered at the summit in Kananaskis, Canada. I want to at once stress that Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov and I are satisfied with the frankness and substantive character of our dialogue and for our part are ready to continue that constructive work. In the same constructive spirit we will be looking for ways to solve the still-lingering differences. Anyway, I am convinced, and our American partners share this opinion, that after today's meetings many approaches, positions of each other have become clearer and this is very important. We have begun to understand each other better, to understand the positions of each other.

Among international problems it is needless to say that we paid special attention to the situation around Iraq. I want to at once stress that Moscow is strongly not only for the preservation, but also for the all-round strengthening of the regime for the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We will be working towards this goal, both in the framework of existing multilateral mechanisms and at the bilateral level. Guided by just this position, we consistently sought the unfolding in Iraq of the activity of international inspectors strictly in line with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. By joint efforts of the international community, where a key role was played by Russia and the USA, and, in particular, the remarks of US President Bush at the UN General Assembly, we managed to get the consent of the Iraqi leadership to the return of international inspectors to the country without any preliminary conditions. Now international inspectors can start working and give us an objective and comprehensive answer to the question of concern to us all: Are there in Iraq or not any programs for the development and production of weapons of mass destruction?

It is in the interest of Russia and the USA, it is in the interest of the whole international community for inspectors to return to Iraq as soon as possible and start their work. The UN Security Council will have to carefully see to it that these activities are fully consistent with the approved procedures and that for the inspectors there are no hindrances whatsoever. We believe that if the international community continues to act concertedly, we will achieve compliance by Iraq with both these and all the other resolutions earlier adopted by the UN Security Council.

An important question in the context of the fight against international terrorism is the situation on the Russian-Georgian border. We likewise thoroughly examined this question, both within the four-sided commission and as part of the talks which the Russian Defense Minister held in the Pentagon and in other power structures of the United States of America. Fostering an effective antiterrorist drive is the unconditional duty of any state under Resolution 1373, adopted by the UN Security Council. The duty, I repeat, of any state. As is known, the United States is currently rendering assistance to Georgia in the training of appropriate antiterrorist units. So it was important for us to hear the judgment from our US colleagues as to what dictates the position of the Georgian leadership: is this the incapacity to counter terrorists on its own, or the incapacity of power structures, or is it a conscious course toward actual connivance at terrorists to suit its own political aims. Using facts and concrete documents, we demonstrated to our interlocutors the threat posed for Russia by international terrorists who have entrenched themselves in the Pankisi Gorge.

Unfortunately, there are irrefutable facts showing that representatives of the official authorities of Georgia maintain contacts with these terrorists. Once again I want to stress that Russia has respected and continues to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia. No one planned or is planning to encroach upon its sovereignty. We are interested in developing good-neighborly friendly relations that for a long time characterized the relations between our peoples. The only problem which afflicts our relations is the problem of international terrorism. If the leadership of Georgia agrees to cooperate with us or itself destroys terrorists effectively on its territory, who pose a threat to the national security of Russia, then we won't have to use Article 51 of the UN Charter concerning the right of any state to self-defense.

As to other international problems, the US Secretary of State and I informed our colleagues of the work of the Quartet on the Middle East. Unfortunately, after the meeting of our Quartet in New York, whereupon there appeared definite elements of optimism with regard to a political settlement of the issue, new terrorist acts followed, with casualties among the civilian population. It is very important that we could retain the negotiation process within political bounds and would not allow terrorists to wreck the enormous work which has been done for peace in the Middle East and for stability in the region. Russia and the USA will further cooperate actively in the Middle East, just as we do, for example, in Afghanistan. We agreed to hold the next meeting of the Consultative Group in Moscow next year. Simultaneously we will be setting up mechanisms of working consultations for practical realization of the decisions which our Consultative Group will make.

Now a few words about the current session of the UN General Assembly. I had participated in many sessions of the UN General Assembly; but this was the most saturated one. We really managed in a short space of time to discuss the world's most acute problems and to work out concrete decisions on many of them. As part of the Ministerial Week, sittings of the UN Security Council were held on counter-terrorism and on African conflicts. A special GA plenary meeting was dedicated to the New Partnership for Africa's Development initiative. A ministerial meeting on Afghanistan took place. One can say that the proposals put forward by Russia for the creation of a global system of counteraction against current threats received a positive response among our partners. We will work actively together with our partners to promote this initiative. In a word, after work in New York and Washington we are returning to Moscow with a good package of agreements and practical decisions, in the domain of Russian-American relations and those elaborated in the course of the UN General Assembly. It is particularly important that these agreements are directed to promotion of strategic stability and global security. The main thing now is to try consistently to translate them into reality. And we, for our part, will be actively working in this direction. Thank you.

Question:

Mr. Minister, according to the US Secretary of State, existing resolutions concerning inspections in Iraq have serious deficiencies and to overcome them it is necessary to adopt new resolutions. What is your opinion on that score?

Answer:

As there will probably be other questions related to Iraq too, I would like to answer this question in greater detail and touch upon some other aspects of the problem.

First of all, I want to stress that Russia and the United States together with other nations stand up for Iraq's full compliance with all UN Security Council resolutions on Iraqi settlement. We together sought consistently the return of international inspectors to Iraq, who left the country in December 1998. We are together interested in having reliable and complete information on the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We think that the best way to have such information is the return of international inspectors with the objective of restarting their work. Our experience of the inspectors' work in Iraq shows that despite the complexities that used to arise, thanks to the work of the inspectors very much was achieved over the eight years in the field of the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. Approximately 7 thousand inspections were carried out; the inspectors' work helped clarify the situation relating to the missile and nuclear dossiers, and in significant measure with regard to the chemical dossier; questions that still remained open were mainly those connected with biological weapons. Therefore, we have accumulated a considerable experience regarding inspectors and the appropriate procedures for their fulfillment of their objectives. At present there has been formed a team of inspectors with Mr. Blix in the lead. Agreement exists that on September 30 Mr. Blix will hold consultations with representatives of Iraqi authorities to agree on the technical questions necessary for unfolding the inspector's activity. Then Mr. Blix will have to inform the UN Security Council, which he directly obeys, about the readiness to deploy the mission of inspectors. With regard to a discussion of this matter in the Security Council it will be clear whether any supplementary mandates or additional decisions are needed for the resumption of the inspectors' work. We understand the concern of the US administration and interest of the US administration in the effective work of the inspectors and that they shouldn't be hindered in any way. And we share these approaches. We are likewise interested in seeing that the inspectors work effectively and give an answer to the questions we have asked.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell and I agreed to continue to consult on this matter. We will carefully analyze the proposals of the American side for ensuring effective work by the inspectors. I want to at once stress because in the press over the last few days there have appeared various thoughts or speculations that Russia supposedly barred an American resolution in the Security Council. There was no resolution, either American or French or Russian, on this question, nor is there. We have held and continue to hold consultations.

Question:

In development of the same topic the following question. Yesterday Secretary of State Powel said that if a new strict resolution is not forthcoming, the US will block the return of inspectors. Was that discussed in the Group and how can it be done and what can you undertake in this connection? This is a technical question, and the second question is non-diplomatic: Will there be a new war in Iraq or not?

Answer:

On the first question. I told you in detail how the discussion of this problem had proceeded. Both the President and the Secretary of State felt that they would not like to allow a situation where the return of inspectors would be ineffective and their work would not permit removing the concerns with regard to weapons of mass destruction. I already said we are also interested in the utmost efficacy of the inspectors' work. How to achieve that, consultations are currently going on in the UN Security Council.

As to the second question, Russia has repeatedly stressed that it is necessary to use all of the politico-diplomatic means to solve this problem. And we have not only kept saying this, we are in practice doing it. War is always a last resort, which never goes without loss of life and grave consequences. And so I am convinced that the international community is interested in making the most use of political possibilities for resolving the situation.

Question:

A new strategic doctrine of national security, put forward by the administration of President Bush, has been published today; it presupposes the possibility of dealing preemptive strikes at countries posing a threat to the USA. How do you assess this document?

Answer:

I am not yet familiar with this document and I will hardly be able to share any final judgments on this document right now. But, in principle, I can say that Russia has always advocated and continues to advocate that any use of force against any sovereign state should be made only with the approval of the UN Security Council. This is clearly written down in the UN Security Council and all UN states should comply with it.

Question:

If inspectors return to Iraq and their work will again look like the now familiar cat and mouse game with official Iraqi authorities - in this case will Russia back US military action against Iraq?

Answer:

As I said, we have a considerable experience in the work of international inspectors; in the past too they had problems and we did find solutions to these problems. So if there arise any problems of which you're speaking, we can always return to the UN Security Council and can take measures which would ensure Iraq's compliance with its obligations. The Charter of the United Nations provides a wide choice of measures to get resolutions implemented.

Question:

You mentioned that Georgian officials have contacts with terrorists. Do you think President Eduard Shevardnadze knows of these contacts and objects to them or does not support these contacts? And the second question on Iraq. Could you comment on just how great, in your opinion, is the US leadership's determination to remove Saddam Hussein from power? As you possibly know, the chairman of the US intelligence committee, Mr. Graham, recently spoke against military action against Iraq, declaring that it is necessary to concentrate efforts against concrete terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

Answer:

We've handed over to the American side documents that prove contacts by individual representatives of Georgia's official authorities with terrorists. I want to stress that these documents bear a confidential character, and I wouldn't delve into their content at present. As for Shevardnadze, whether he knows or doesn't know about them, I would also not make any conclusions right now because I don't know. With regard to the second part of your question, we can only judge by official statements of US administration representatives, who have repeatedly stressed that the solution of the problem they think is a regime change in Iraq. As for Russia, I want once more to stress - we believe that a solution of the problem has to strictly fit into existing UN Security Council resolutions. Only on this basis will we be able to unite all states, international public opinion to achieve these objectives. If, however, everyone acts at his discretion then nothing will come of the inspections, and we have great doubts that the effectiveness of this work will be high.

Question:

During your present meeting with President Bush, did the US President ask Russia not to veto a future resolution which the US will submit on Iraq? And the second question. As you know, the US administration is currently developing a new preventive strike doctrine, to enable the state to carry out a preemptive strike for purposes of self-defense against potential adversaries. Is this doctrine applicable to the situation in the Pankisi Gorge; that is, will Russia be able to use similar provisions to this doctrine for solving the question on the Russian-Georgian border?

Answer:

With regard to the first question the US President very thoroughly and openly stated the US administration's vision of the threats that may emanate from the territory of Iraq, and how the administration envisions a solution to this problem. He stressed that he was interested in solving this problem jointly with the international community, jointly with Russia, as he had declared from the UN General Assembly rostrum in New York. At the same time the US President believes that unless a solution is found through the UN Security Council, it is necessary to act by methods which would allow for removing this threat. As to the resolution, I already said there is no draft of that resolution so far and this question was discussed only in general outline. As to the Pankisi Gorge, you know that Russian President Putin has declared that if terrorist actions against Russia from the territory of Georgia continue, then Russia reserves for itself the right, based on Article 51 of the UN Charter, to take action to put a stop to the activity of those terrorists.

Question:

Regarding the preventive strike doctrine being worked out. Can Russia make use of its provisions to resolve the situation in the Pankisi Gorge and will the US recognize the right of Russia to such action?

Answer:

Once again I want to stress that we did not discuss this question in the course of our consultations and to state my opinion would be premature. But in any case this kind of doctrines bear a unilateral character, and we guide ourselves by the provisions of international law, including the UN Charter.

Question:

What was the content of the telephone conversation between Presidents Putin and Bush? On whose initiative did this conversation take place and, since it occurred before your meeting with the President, were any questions discussed in its course relating to your meeting with George Bush?

Answer:

In the course of the previous telephone conversation on September 11 the Presidents had agreed to again continue the discussion of the Iraqi problem and of some other questions of interest to them. Therefore, I won't tie this conversation to our meeting. That it occurred is a mere coincidence. Events are developing so rapidly and it is important that the leaders of our countries feel the need to discuss and coordinate efforts so as to act in a common direction. You saw the press release of the Russian presidential press service and know that the Iraqi problem was discussed, along with the problem of the Pankisi Gorge and questions pertaining to the implementation of the agreements in the realm of strategic stability. The Presidents also agreed to continue the dialogue on all these problems during their next meeting, to be held in Mexico at the APEC summit this October.

Question:

Mr. Minister, you've mentioned that there are some definite problems with the current regime of inspections. In your opinion, what could be changed, in what areas could the regime be toughened and at the same time is it possible to define areas in which Iraq would be inaccessible to the inspection regime?

Answer:

In the course of the previous inspections several documents were elaborated determining the work procedures for inspectors. These documents remain in force and they presuppose visiting any facilities at any time. From our point of view, the leader of the group of inspectors should inform the UN Security Council whether these procedures are sufficient for work or something else is required, whereupon the experts need to discuss what is specifically required. The Security Council may have its own proposals on that score. So far consultations are only beginning. Therefore I can add nothing more to this.

Question:

Mr. Minister, according to the established opinion in Europe, it is President Bush who is the main initiator of potential action against Iraq. On the results of your present meeting with the President, can you somehow reassure the Europeans on this account?

Answer:

We discussed this question in the UN Security Council and were unanimous in the view that it is necessary to get the early return of inspectors. This was our common position and we together worked to achieve it. Here there are no differences either between Russia and the USA, or with our European partners, or with Arab, or with any other. It was our common position. I am confident that precisely because we had no differences Baghdad was forced to give consent to the return of inspectors without any conditions. And now too we have no differences in that inspectors must start fulfilling their functions as soon as possible and that they must fulfill them in full without any hindrance. It is very important that President Bush reaffirmed that at this stage he gives preference to collective efforts with the employment of UN mechanisms.

Question:

Over the last decade since the end of the Cold War it was repeatedly asserted that there existed definite mechanisms guaranteeing the nonproliferation of biological, nuclear and chemical weapons. Are these mechanisms still effective and do they apply to Russia's potential contacts with Iran and other countries?

Answer:

As I already said, Russia firmly stands up for development and bolstering of all the nonproliferation regimes. All the previously established regimes are surely operative. While I cannot speak for the entire world, I can do for Russia by reassuring you that we firmly adhere to all our commitments regarding observance of these regimes. At the same time we also realize that in violation of these regimes attempts can be made to develop and produce weapons of mass destruction. This is particularly dangerous now with the increased activity of international terrorism and various extremist groups. If weapons of mass destruction should get into their hands, that would pose a threat to all humanity. For this reason we stand not only for the preservation, but also for bolstering of the nonproliferation regimes. This topic ranks among the priorities of Russian-American relations, of contacts between Russia and NATO and of many other multilateral forums.

Question:

Igor Sergeyevich, according to media reports, your Georgian counterpart, Mr. Menagarishvili, has proposed establishing a trilateral commission for solving the problem of terrorism in the Pankisi Gorge. Did the United States approach you with that proposal and how do you treat this idea?

Answer:

We did not receive any proposals on that score. On the other hand, proceeding from the experience of the Soviet Union, I would like to say that when it was proposed to establish various commissions and committees to deal with issues, as a rule, that was done in order to avoid solving the issue. Neither committees nor commissions are necessary; a political will is necessary. If there is the political will, it will be possible to solve this issue without additional commissions.