PRESS RELEASE: FOREIGN MINISTER IGOR IVANOV ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM MEDIA AND INTERNET

Foreign Minister Ivanov: First of all I would like to thank the management of Interfax for this joint initiative. I think there is no need to speak about the importance we attach to the task of better informing our public and the public abroad about the position of the Russian Federation on topical international problems. This is an important task in the work of our Ministry and we are appreciative to Interfax for the close cooperation in implementing this initiative.

Let me tell you frankly, I thought there would be more questions. 300 questions in a month and a half is not all that many. This may be due to one of the two reasons. Either the public here and abroad is well informed or else the initiative has not evoked enough resonance. This format can speedily provide people with answers to questions that interest them.

Regarding the first question about Iraq. Is there a scheme for the solution of the problem of Iraq in which Russia would play a crucial role without the use of force? I think such a scheme exists of course. It has long been in existence. It is contained in the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council which have all the necessary elements for a political settlement. Our position does not have anything that goes beyond the existing Security Council resolutions. On the contrary, Russia strictly observes the resolutions that were adopted with regard to Iraq, and there are several tens of them.

The main one among these resolutions is the one dealing with mass destruction weapons. There are many problems that are touched upon in other resolutions. These problems have to do with internal issues in Iraq, the relations with the neighbors. But the problem that potentially can pose a threat to regional and international stability is the issue of weapons of mass destruction. This is the question that needs to be answered, does Iraq or does not Iraq have mass destruction weapons? The answer to that question is contained in the corresponding resolutions of the UN Security Council which envisage the sending of international inspectors to that country so that they should provide a professional answer to this question. That is why throughout the period since December 1998 when the previous inspection mission was suspended -- how it happened is an issue for a different meeting, but we believe that that mission had been interrupted in violation of established procedure, without the approval of the UN Security Council -- nevertheless Russia has constantly sought the return of the inspectors. It is very important that due to coordinated efforts of the international community in which Russia played a leading role we have secured the consent of the leadership of Iraq to the return of international inspectors without any preconditions.

So, there is the possibility, there are all the conditions for the inspectors to return, to start their work and to answer the question that is of concern to everyone, does Iraq have mass destruction weapons or not. This is the peaceful way for the settlement of the situation Vladimir Volfovich is asking about.

I think Russia has played and is playing a most active role to make sure that this peaceful way is implemented. We hope that the UN Security Council will manage at an early date to work out a resolution that would allow to reinforce the mandate that international inspectors have, so that they would promptly leave for Iraq. Russia which believes and has always believed that no additional resolution is needed for sending inspectors from the legal point of view, has taken into account the opinion of other Security Council members and has agreed to work on such a draft resolution. But it should have one goal: to strengthen the mandate of international inspectors so that they could effectively fulfill their mission. We hope to reach such agreements at the Security Council soon that would make it possible to pass such a resolution and, by passing it, pave the way for the return of inspectors to Iraq.

Question from the floor: Jack Straw said that Great Britain and the United States reserve the right to proceed single-handed. How will Russia act in this case?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I would like to stress that there is no official draft resolution in the Security Council. So, to speak about the approval of what has not yet been submitted to the Security Council would be premature. Various unofficial consultations and discussions are being held. But I repeat that not a single draft resolution has been submitted by anyone to the Security Council. After the drafts have been tabled, it will be possible to speak about how the work would proceed and to what extent they are acceptable or not acceptable. Before that, there have only been prelimimary consultations.

Secondly, you know that yesterday and the day before yesterday open hearings were held in the Security Council on the subject area of Iraq. If I am not mistaken, those hearings were attended by representatives of about 70 states and all of them spoke out in favor of seeking a political solution on the basis of the appropriate resolutions of the UN Security Council. The international community was thus unanimous in that this is the road which can lead to the solution of the problem without complicating the already complex situation in the region and in other parts of the world.

That is why we hope that all will heed this unanimous opinion of the international community. We are open for the most constructive interaction within the UN Security Council and with the United States and Great Britain and with other members of the Security Council in order to find a political settlement of this situation.

That is why it makes no sense to talk about "if". There is the United Nations Charter and all the members of the United Nations and the more so the permanent members of the Security Council must explore the Charter of the UN.

Question from the floor: It was said that the possible resolution must rule out conditions that are patently incapable of implementation. What conditions could they be?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I don't think I need to explain to you what "automatic use of force" means. There were rationalizations to the effect that the first resolution, and it must be the first and the last one and must contain a provision which would say that in the event of Iraq's non-compliance with the provisions of this or other resolutions any measures can be used, including the use of force in regard to Iraq.

We believe that if the resolution is adopted, if the work of the inspectors starts and if during that work problems arise these inspectors will have to report to the Security Council. The Security Council will have to examine this issue once again and if it is deemed necessary to take firmer measures, all the way to the use of force, only then the Security Council will be able to take such a decision.

As regards conditions that cannot be fulfilled, you know that I would not now list them because in some of the preceding variants which have unofficially been discussed there were contained elements that went beyond the framework of the previously adopted resolutions. One of such examples, for instance, concerned the dispatch of a military contingent to ensure security of the work of the inspectors.

Iraq is responsible and it undertakes the commitment to ensure the safety of the work of the inspectors along with the obligation to allow the inspectors access to any facilities. And the dispatch of any military foreign contingent is a requirement that goes beyond the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions and does not contribute to the performance of the mission of the inspectors.

In general, the situation which is developing is somewhat paradoxical. While over the past several years the international community demanded, and urged Iraq to accept international inspectors and Baghdad remained deaf to those calls, now the situation has changed. Now one continuously hear from Baghdad calls for inspectors to come but the inspectors are not coming, they are waiting for a certain resolution. It is necessary to get out of this situation. And as regards the work of inspectors in general, during the eight years of the work of the inspectors hey have done a large amount of work over the preceding period, up to December 1998. The nuclear dossier has been closed to a large extent thanks to their work. The disarmament dossier has practically been closed. A large amount of chemical weapons has been liquidated. And a large amount of experience has been accumulated. All this is kept in the archives of the United Nations, the inspectors visited the presidential facilities have been visited. It is important that all this be implemented in practice so that no artificial hurdles be erected to the work of the inspectors. And as to how they should work, they are perfectly aware of this.

And according to statement by Blix, who addressed the Security Council, they are prepared to start working without delay. While they did not go out, they did not lose time for nothing. They were making preparations, they have about 200 highly qualified specialists, specifically trained to discharge this mission. The main thing is to give them the opportunity to go and begin to work. This is what we are working for.

Question from the floor: How long will the mission of the inspectors last?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: This will depend on the reports submitted by international inspectors. The international inspectors, and now this has been clearly registered, are an auxiliary body of the Security Council. They are not some independent entity which can operate at its own discretion. The Security Council must approve their program of work and regularly listen to them, every six months if I am not mistaken and, based on the results of those reports, the Security Council must determine in what way and to what extent the mission has been fulfilled. If for instance, the inspectors report that these dossiers are closed, the system of monitoring has been set in place, the decisions will be appropriate. But at the same time it is perfectly clear that this mission cannot be without specific deadlines. It must have some reasonable parameters in terms of time.

. . .

Question from the floor: President Putin said Russia was not bargaining with America over Iraq. How did Moscow state to the United States its concerns regarding economic aspects of relations with Iraq?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We have never concealed the fact that Russia has real and serious economic interests in Iraq. These interests did not develop today or two years ago. These interests developed over decades of cooperation between our two countries. Most facilities, including in the oil sector were created with the help and the direct participation of the Soviet Union and our companies. So of course we have interests there. I don't think this is a secret. Therefore, we have not had any confidential negotiations with Washington on this. We say publicly that today we are talking not about trade but about the need to solve the problem by political methods, the problem of Iraq. The sooner we solve this problem, the sooner we resolve the crisis, the easier it will be to solve economic problems.

Not only Russia works in Iraq, but there are also many other countries, European countries and many companies. As far as I know, although it is prohibited, US companies work there through proxies or intermediaries. I think that the earlier we settle the situation around Iraq, everybody stands to gain from this, and not only Russia.

But when we say that we have to solve problems with political means, not military, we do that not because we want to salvage some of our interests there, but because we are perfectly aware of what the consequences of a military operation can be. The consequences not only for the area of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, but also on a wider scale. The fact is that today this will undoubtedly only play into the hands of the extremist forces in the world, including the Islamic world who will try to take advantage of this to justify their terrorist crimes. There can be no justification of terrorism. But it is natural for those organizations to take advantage of any situation in order to perpetrate their crimes. This is not theory, this is practice. And every day we come across this practice in different corners of the world.

. . .