PRESS BRIEFING WITH IGOR IVANOV
RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

March 26, 2003

Question: Igor Sergeyevich, don't you think that a certain stereotype has taken shape on the issue of disarming Iraq? Nobody is looking for mass destruction weapons in the US, Britain or Israel. How did the idea arise that it was Iraq, of all countries, that should be disarmed?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: The background to this issue is known. Iraq perpetrated aggression against the neighboring state of Kuwait which was condemned by the international community. Corresponding resolutions of the UN Security Council demanding the withdrawal of troops were passed with regard to Iraq. One of the resolutions demanded the disarmament of Iraq so that it should not in the future pose a threat to its neighbors and to regional security. It dealt not with disarmament in general, but with destruction of WMD that Iraq possessed and had used, specifically, in the course of the war with Iran. That resolution was passed by the UN Security Council and it needs to be complied with. We backed it. And today the Russian position is that violation of the WMD non-proliferation regime by Iraq or any other country contradicts our interests. If WMD begin to spread all over the world it would pose a threat, including for us, especially if such weapons fall into the hands of terrorist, extremist and nationalist organizations. You remember that terrorists in the North Caucasus have already threatened to use chemical weapons against civilians.

Russia comes out for a stronger WMD non-proliferation regime. Accordingly, Russia has voted for the destruction of WMD in Iraq. For eight years international inspectors had worked in Iraq. A significant part of WMD has been liquidated there. Capacity for the production of nuclear weapons, significant stockpiles of chemical weapons and means of WMD delivery were declared to have been liquidated. So, the international inspectors had done a considerable amount of work. If the US and Great Britain had not perpetrated a military attack on Iraq in December 1998, thus interrupting the activities of the inspectors, the situation might have been different today. As a result of that military action the activities of inspectors were interrupted for four years.

At the end of 2002 the mission of international inspectors was resumed with the active participation of many countries, including Russia. From reports presented by the international inspectors that work might have been completed within several months with a report to the international community that there are no WMDs in Iraq and even if it had any, they have been liquidated and there is no potential for its reproduction. As the activities of inspectors progressed towards a positive result the US and Britain stepped up their military preparations, which confirms that they were interested not so much in disarming Iraq as in establishing their control over that country and the regime as a whole.

Question: It's unclear why we call this action vaguely as "military intervention" and not an aggression. Why do we avoid such assessments?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: The assessments contained in our statements clearly characterize the actions that have been taken. At the same time it is up to the UN Security Council whose session began today to give legal assessments. The UN Security Council should provide the legal assessment on the basis of existing resolutions. As a Minister I must respect international law and in our assessments we will look to the UN Security Council.

Question: How do you account for the fact that along with the so-called historical principle when we decided to back all the exporters who did not dodge customs duties, the principle of geography has also crept into economic policy? The US has a nearly 80 percent quota of the 1,050,000 tons of poultry meat allowed for import into Russia. What is the attitude of the Foreign Ministry?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: The worst outcome would be the development of the war in Iraq into economic, information and other wars. Russia is interested not in confrontation, but in constructive interaction and cooperation, including with the US. While taking a tough critical position with regard to the actions of the US and Great Britain we have not interrupted and will not interrupt our relations with these countries. The Russian Agriculture Minister will visit the US in May to discuss the topic you have just raised. As for geographical distribution, we live in a market economy and we should be guided by its principles. We should buy where it is most advantageous. Spreading certain differences on concrete issues to trade relations can cause us damage.

Question: Igor Sergeyevich, what is your vision of the problem of unity among Arab world countries? We often speak about the Islamic factor in foreign policy. Why has the Arab League behaved in a somewhat controversial manner on the eve of the war? What actions is it taking now?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: There is no unity within the Arab League. The reasons for this are many. It is connected with history, with the character of the regimes, with economic factors and political priorities. Nevertheless, of late in the context of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the war in Iraq an internal consolidation has occurred within the League. For example, for the first time the Arab League has come up with a Middle East settlement initiative proposed by Saudi Arabia.

Differences within the League will persist owing to many objective factors. But today there is an awareness in the Arab world that Iraq is only the beginning of the process. Unless certain obstacles are erected here, such unlawful actions may take place with regard to other countries. It helps to overcome the differences. The fact that today the UN Security Council has been called at the initiative of the Arab League, with the only abstention of Kuwait which has lent its territory for the deployment of the coalition forces, speaks volumes.

Question: To what extent can the actions of the US and Britain be described, according to the UN documents, as the actions of war criminals?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Some lawyers in Western Europe are beginning to suggest that. It is hard for me to say how this will be followed up.

Question: Let us imagine a situation in which the US and Britain agree to cooperate with Russia, Germany and France in the settlement of the Iraq crisis. How do you see post-war settlement?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: There can be several scenarios. I don't know which of them will be implemented. Let us think back to the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. After it became obvious that the action was meaningless, the parties sat down at the negotiating table and managed to achieve political accords which stopped the war, even though they did not quite satisfy us.

In the situation around Iraq the following variants are possible. First, and this is obvious, the issue must be brought back to the UN Security Council. It is necessary to put settlement on a solid legal basis of the UN Charter and the corresponding resolutions of the UN Security Council. This is the first mandatory condition for the start of political settlement. The second step is to define the situation in which we will be and to adopt corresponding measures. If an international factor for the maintenance of security is required, as is the case in Afghanistan, it will be necessary to send international forces for the maintenance of security that would report to the UN Security Council. If it is necessary to solve humanitarian problems and to solve the issues of economic reconstruction corresponding mechanisms should be worked out within the civil component that should also be accountable to the Council. Thirdly, international inspectors must complete their work pertaining to WMD. As to what the UN Security Council member states will choose this is a subject for negotiations.

Question: Obviously, the US is pursuing its ends in Iraq. To what degree, to what limits are we going to be strategic partners with the US? When could it become clear that our strategic partnership is under threat?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: I think it is in the interests of Russia and the overwhelming majority of states in the world to create a world order that would not permit a repeat of the actions which we are witnessing today in Iraq. A lesson should be drawn from any, even the biggest tragedy. What does it mean to break up partnership? Two options are possible: either to expand international legal cooperation, strengthen its legal foundations so that they would be more difficult to violate even for such a powerful state as the US, or to slide into a confrontation, to divide the world into opposing blocs on whatever principle. And that would be a repeat of the Cold War, only still worse. Does that meet the interests of Russia? It is my deep conviction that it does not. What meets the interests of Russia is the development of multilateral cooperation and the involvement of all the states, even those that are violating international law today, into these processes. This is our strategic line.

Question: The UN Security Council session is beginning. What will Russia support and what will it oppose at this session? Obviously, the UN is in crisis. Does the Foreign Ministry have a plan for reforming the UN? In particular, what do you think about the idea of enlarging the number of UN Security Council members?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: The session of the UN Security Council will have an open character. A large number of states will speak and put on record their position that reflects the broad public opinion against the war with Iraq. Then in the course of the debate the possibility will be determined for the UN Security Council to take this or that decision. One should not forget that the two states which at present take part in the war are permanent Council members. They will veto the resolutions that they deem to run counter to their interests. Achieving corresponding decisions will not be an easy task. The Russian position is clear. First, an immediate end to hostilities. Second, bringing the issue back to the UN Security Council. Third, continued efforts of the international community toward political settlement on the basis of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

As for the reform of the UN and the Security Council, the need for it is evident. The world and the balance of forces have changed. Such a reform is necessary. The question is that it should get the support of an overwhelming majority of the UN states. Failing that, the UN will be split. Negotiations have been going on for many years. A working group for reform has been set up. Russia is convinced that the UN Security Council should be expanded so that it should reflect more realistically the alignment of forces in the world and the representation of states in the solution of world problems. At the same time there should be limits to the enlargement so that the Council could remain an effective working body. Our suggestion is to increase the number of UN Security Council members to 20. We have already expressed support of some candidates for membership of the Security Council. These include Germany, Japan and India. The leading G8 states as well as representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America should also be represented. I do not rule out that the current events may accelerate the process of reform. So far it has been going on very slowly. We support the need for reform in order to make the UN more effective.

Question: Why isn't the US making war on Saudi Arabia? Some of its nationals took part in perpetrating the terrorist acts on September 11, 2001? And how realistic is the creation of Kurdistan?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: We have repeatedly stressed that terrorists have no religion or nationality. The fact that people originally from Saudi Arabia took part in the terrorist acts on September 11, 2001 does not mean that the country supports terrorism. One cannot identify the state with those of its nationals who commit crimes. Actions with regard to this or that state can be undertaken only on the basis of the resolutions of the UN Security Council which determines the degree of threat coming from this or that state to the maintenance of international stability.

The creation of Kurdistan is unlikely at present. I don't think that anyone today supports the breakup of Iraq. Even the coalition forces come out for preserving the territorial integrity of the country because the breakup of Iraq would trigger a chain reaction that may destabilize the situation not only in the region, but on a broader scale.

Question: The Federation Council yesterday appealed to the State Duma challenging its decision to link the issue of Iraq with the ratification of SOR, asking it to consider the issue because we believe that the treaty is in the interests of Russia. What is the position of the Foreign Ministry and what do you do in your work with the State Duma in order to persuade it not to make this mistake?

Do you know that a woman, Russian citizen, on a Kaliningrad-Moscow train was beaten up by Lithuanian borderguards for trying to travel with an old-type passport? Has the Foreign Ministry taken any measures with regard to Lithuania?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: SOR meets Russian interests. We had discussed it for a long time at various levels. In the opinion of the Foreign Ministry, the document must be ratified. We will press for its ratification. At the same time it is not the best moment psychologically for putting it up for ratification. If we wait a little and bend all our efforts to stopping the war we will be able to attend to this issue later. And I appeal to the Federation Council members in advance to back the ratification of this document which is important for our security.

Kaliningrad remains a complicated topic. A round of talks with the representatives of the EU and Lithuania ended in Brussels yesterday. Unfortunately, the representatives of Lithuania took a position that diverges from the agreements achieved in the course of Russia-EU summit. Together with other agencies we are exerting vigorous efforts to make sure that our citizens could travel to and from Kaliningrad unobstructed. A very complicated process is underway. We meet with understanding on the part of the EU and with a tough position on the part of the Lithuanians. We will continue the negotiations. On each such case we make corresponding representations to the Lithuanian side.

Question: Why weren't the mechanisms offered by other political institutions such as "the twenty" pressed into service? Why hasn't Russia initiated a meeting of the G8?

The resolution proposed by the International Affairs Committee contains a proposal to set up a strategic group including the President's Administration, the Security Council, representatives of the Federation Council and the State Duma, various ministries and agencies, scientific circles to work out a set of measures aimed at securing Russia's interests in the Middle East. What do you think about that proposal?

Foreign Minister Ivanov: Our main efforts were concentrated on the work at the UN Security Council because only the Council can pass decisions that are binding. The decisions of the G8 are of a recommendatory character. It is through the UN Security Council that appropriate decisions should be sought. Other organizations take an active stand on the situation around Iraq. The nonaligned movement has spoken out against the war, just like the Islamic Conference Organization and the Arab League. The issue of the Iraq war is being addressed, in one form or another, by all these organizations. But the only body that can take binding decisions is the UN Security Council and our efforts are concentrated on work within its framework.

As for the proposal regarding the creation of a strategic group, we are open to any cooperation in any form. Not only the President or the Foreign Ministry but also broad public circles must take part in the search for a way out of the crisis. What matters is not the form, but the real proposals that will contribute to our practical activities.