Yesterday the head of the Russian MFA, Igor Ivanov, began a visit to Britain. The main theme of the talks is the situation around Iraq. On the eve of departure the Russian Minister cleared up the position of Moscow on this issue in a special interview. Simultaneously with Kommersant the British newspaper The Financial Times is publishing his comments.

Question: What is Russia's position regarding a possible second UNSC resolution?

Answer: The point isn't whether this will be a second or third resolution. What matters most is its content. We believe that in principle there is no need for a new resolution at present. We have the unanimously adopted resolution 1441, which is working, and on the whole effectively. There is resolution 1284, which, by the way, was passed on the initiative of the United Kingdom and the US and contains a good basis for the work of inspectors. Yet it does not mean that Russia fully excludes the possibility of the UNSC passing a new resolution. Should it be additionally required to support the efforts of the international inspectors, we will be ready to consider any steps, including the adoption of a new resolution.

On the other hand, it should be abundantly clear that if the aim of a new resolution is to directly or indirectly justify the use of force against Iraq, then Russia will not be able to let that resolution through. And we are saying this frankly, in the spirit of partnership lest nobody have any misunderstanding here.

You will ask me why Russia holds such a position. I shall explain. Russia has always stood for strict and complete compliance with all the UNSC resolutions on Iraq. And not only has just stood, but has firmly sought to ensure this. By the way, if in December 1998 the previous head of the international inspectors, Mr. Butler, had not recalled the inspectors from Iraq all by himself, whereupon the military action of the US and the UK followed, then, perhaps, today's crisis would not be there. That was why Russia worked for the earliest possible and unconditional return of international inspectors to Iraq, in the belief that through their work exactly we would be able to get a clear answer regarding WMDs in Iraq.

It has to be said that this our position up until recently was shared practically by all states, including in the UN Security Council. Resolution 1441, unanimously adopted by the SC, serves precisely this aim. Thanks to joint efforts (and here it has to be admitted that military pressure by the US has played a very big role) the inspectors in Iraq are working unimpeded. They have already done big useful work. Enough to mention the start of the elimination of the Al-Samoud-2 missiles. Mr. Hans Blix and Mr. Mohamed ElBaradei say there are today all the necessary conditions for the international inspectors to be able to fulfill their mission. These are all real facts, by which we must be guided. Based on these facts, Russia holds that in Iraq there remains the possibility of a politico-diplomatic settlement and that the work of the inspectors should be continued.

Now let us together analyze the logic and arguments of those who are refusing to rely on the work of the international inspectors and advocate a solution of force. As the inspectors' work began to yield real results, the supporters of a solution of force changed the focus of their arguments to saying that it wasn't actually the inspectors, but that Iraq should itself disarm and prove this before the entire world (although they themselves had pushed resolution 1441). Then followed the statements that the issue was not even about the disarmament of Iraq, but about a regime change in that country. And, finally, most recently there has appeared one more argument: a war against Iraq is needed in order to establish a democratic regime there and thus begin the process of democratic changes in the Arab world.

In this connection a legitimate question involuntarily arises: But what does all this have to do with the decisions of the United Nations Security Council? Is it that, while demanding that other UN members comply with UNSC resolutions, the Council members shouldn't act similarly?

I want to repeat: As far as the necessity to complete the process of the disarmament of Iraq is concerned, we have no differences in the Security Council. And this is a very important prerequisite for our joint actions, but in strict accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations.

Yet we cannot but be concerned about plans to impose democratic values upon entire peoples by force. This not only runs counter to the Charter of the United Nations, but is also fraught with dangerous consequences. The Soviet Union had its own deplorable record of imposing regimes of its liking and we all know the results. The forced "export of democracy" is likely to meet the same fate as the "export of revolution." Unfortunately, experiments of this kind bear very high costs, especially for those peoples on which they are conducted.

Attempts to forcibly dictate to Arab states, personifying one of the greatest world civilizations with an immensely rich culture and their own political self-consciousness, some or other models of a political system actually will only play into the hands of extremists acting under radical Islamic slogans, for they are just waiting to find a pretext to justify their terrorist activities in the eyes of the Muslim world and cause there a new surge of hatred towards America, Europe, countries of other civilizations. All this would directly contradict the aims, for the attainment of which the antiterrorist coalition was created.

Question: Under what conditions would Russia be ready to support the use of force against Iraq?

Answer: The use of force against a member of the world community is regulated by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. However, the UN Security Council can go for this only when no other ways are left to remove the threat to international peace and security. This is not the case with Iraq right now.

In our conviction, the politico-diplomatic resource so far is by no means exhausted. Russia will continue to work with Baghdad, seeking a drastic advance in clearing up the disarmament queries which UNMOVIC and IAEA have already made or are planning to. We believe that right now, our common efforts must exactly be focused on the support of the activities of the international inspectors.

Question: How serious, in Russia's opinion, are the current differences around Iraq in the United Nations?

Answer: The difference, and sometimes very noticeable, in the approaches to ways and methods of solving the Iraq question does exist among the member states of the UN Security Council. But to lay stress on the differences would, in our opinion, be wrong. We have a common goal - to have reliable guarantees that Iraq will never again possess a potential for WMDs and their delivery means. And so our position is based on the necessity to preserve unity of the Council, its ability to act and its authority. This is crucial for ensuring Iraq's unconditional and full cooperation in the disarmament area in accordance with the existing UNSC decisions, above all, with the unanimously adopted resolution 1441. We are ready to discuss the suggestions of our partners and to look for a way out which would meet the interests of the international community. In our conviction, a uniting platform should be further efforts aimed at resolving the question of Iraq's WMD programs by politico-diplomatic means.

Question: To what extent is Russia concerned by the possibility that the US will launch military action regardless of the UN decisions?

Answer: Figuring out the likely scenarios with regard to Iraq, we, of course, cannot rule out that scenario either. This is cause for serious concern to us. Russia, like other countries, is firmly against any actions which would be taken in circumvention of the United Nations Security Council, for they would have very adverse implications for the system of international relations and international law. That is why it is so important to keep the solving of the Iraq question with the framework of the UN.

Question: In what degree can military action against Iraq do harm to the Russian interests in the region?

Answer: Our interests in Iraq and in the Middle East as a whole bear a profound and long-term character. They did not arise yesterday or a year ago. Economic cooperation by the USSR and then Russia with Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Israel and other Middle East countries has existed for several decades. And I am convinced that cooperation with them will continue irrespective of the events occurring in the region.

Yet it is perfectly clear that the use of force against Iraq could not but have an adverse effect on the world economic conditions. Here not only the interests of Russia, but also of the US, Britain and many other states would be directly affected. And considering that the economy cannot be torn away from politics, to purely economic would be added problems connected with the struggle against terrorism, with the spread of WMDs and with the resolution of conflict situations in the world. In a word, the world would not become quieter and safer. So is it worth taking that risk?!

Question: Can the continuing differences in the UN, in Russia's view, do harm to its long-term relations with the US and the UK?

Answer: Different views on some or other issues is a completely natural matter even in relations between the closest allies and partners. But this should not be the cause of a confrontation or division between them. Now it is of basic importance to preserve unity in the global antiterrorist coalition, of which the countries of the Euro-Atlantic community are the core. Russia considers itself part and parcel of this community and therefore, quite naturally, is interested in further developing its partner relationships with the US and the UK. Only by enhancing solidarity shall we be able to give an effective answer to the common threats and challenges for our countries. Therefore I shall say frankly: we are concerned by the very tough statements recently being heard in the US and the UK against France, Germany and other countries which have different points of view. Now this is what can indeed do harm to our cooperation.

In addition, one should remember that Iraq is far from the only and, most likely, not the last crisis situation with which we will have to deal. We have a lot of work to do together within the framework of the UN Security Council, the G8 and other international structures. In a word, it is necessary to be more tolerant towards the opinions of each other, even if they do not concur in everything. For, we respect the point of view of the opponents within the bounds of the democratic process in our countries. So why should it be any different in international relations?

Question: Can the balance of strategic alliances in the world change as a result?

Answer: I think that the time of strategic alliances in their traditional understanding is irrevocably gone. Today on the global level there is no confrontation between individual countries or groups of countries. Nor is there the kind of "bloc discipline" anymore that in the past forced states to adhere to a common line, not infrequently against their own interests.

Simultaneously in international relations there has appeared such a powerful unifying factor as the necessity to counter global threats and challenges, which affect the security interests of the entire world community. This creates prerequisites for the formation of broad-based international coalitions which are directed to the solution of specific problems and not to the creation of a balance or confrontation with other states.

The most convincing evidence of this is the global antiterrorist coalition, which arose on the wave of solidarity with the United States following the tragedy of September 11, 2001. I think that it could well constitute one of the elements of a new global security system of the 21st century, of course, providing its foundation will be international law and the central coordinating role of the UN.