Text Only | Disarmament Diplomacy | Disarmament Documentation | ACRONYM Reports

Disarmament Documentation

Interview with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, February 15

Russian Foreign Ministry transcript of interview with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov published in abridged form in Le Figaro, February 15; Foreign Ministry transcript, Document 80-18-02-2002, February 18.

Question: President Bush of the United States recently declared the existence of an axis of evil passing through Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Russia maintains close relations with these countries. Do you see the statement of the US President as a reproach addressed to Russia?

Minister Ivanov: It is hard to say what guided the US President when he declared the existence of that axis. We believe that sticking labels on countries is a survival of the Cold War. We are now interacting within a broad anti-terrorist coalition. It shows that the international community is resolved to combat terrorism and other threats and challenges. The coalition will be durable if its actions are based on law. So, Russia comes out vigorously for strengthening the role of the UN in the international anti-terrorist efforts. We believe that any actions within the framework of the struggle against terrorism or other threats should be based on international law and the UN Charter. Unilateral actions, whichever side resorts to them, may deal a serious blow at international efforts.

Question: Do you see an axis of evil in the modern world?

Ivanov: We see the existence of an arc of instability. We stressed even before September 11 that international extremist terrorist organizations were, unfortunately, cooperating among themselves much more actively than the world community. We had information that we passed on to our partners. It showed that extremist terrorist organizations in Asia, the Middle East, in the Balkans and the Caucasus were interacting among themselves, training militants and rendering material assistance. So, an arc of instability emerged. These organizations had the backing of various states, as was confirmed after September 11.

Question: Pursuing the idea of the axis of evil, the Americans are accusing Russia of having helped Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Ivanov: Yes, such statements are sometimes made even by American officials. This is regrettable. We believe that the current level of Russian-American relations makes it possible to discuss this process seriously. They should not become the subject of a public discussion, especially since the American side has no proof. Russia comes out firmly for strengthening the regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and means of their delivery. This is our principled stand, and it applies to any state, including Iran. We do not merely say this, but we have in practice ratified the relevant documents, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty which the US, unfortunately, has not ratified. Russia has ratified all the documents connected with chemical and bacteriological weapons and scrupulously complies with its obligations. Moreover, Russia is ready not only to strengthen its export control regime, but to interact in this field with other countries in order to prevent possible violations. We have repeatedly told our American partners, if you have real facts, let us study them. If it is established that someone is breaking export control rules, these channels will be cut and the perpetrators will be punished with all the severity of the law. Six or seven bilateral commissions connected with export control were set up together with the previous US administration. They dealt with nuclear and rocket programs as well as dual-purpose technologies. These commissions were instrumental in addressing the concerns that arose. Their work is being renewed after a certain interval. We hope that the statements of American officials will be made not only at the US Congress, but also within the commission which will make it possible to study the facts in a professional way. We have also included the problem of non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons on the agenda of our cooperation with NATO. So, Russia is prepared to discuss it not only with the US, but in a broader format.

Question: Iraq is said to have had an official program for the peaceful use of nuclear energy and a secret program for developing nuclear weapons. The Americans think that Iran also has a secret program and that Russian help in the building of the nuclear power plant at Bushehr will help to carry out that program.

Ivanov: All the facilities of this kind existing not only in Iran but in other countries are put under IAEA control. The nuclear plant being built at Bushehr is also under IAEA control and the experts of that organization have not found any of the violations you have referred to. Before the crisis of 1998, all the questions regarding the nuclear program of Iraq were cleared as part of the activities of international inspectors. This was confirmed by IAEA experts. We cannot stop the progress of science and nuclear energy. Our task is to prevent it being used improperly. Corresponding international mechanisms play an important role in that.

Question: You have said that there is no proof of the existence of a military nuclear program in Iraq?

Igor Ivanov: A group of international observers led by [Richard] Butler worked on 4 files. They were the nuclear, rocket, chemical and bacteriological files. The commission has practically closed the nuclear and rocket files. Several questions remained over the chemical file and the main questions pertained to bacteriological weapons. After the commission left Iraq, there have been no international observers there. So we believe it is necessary to resume the dialogue between Baghdad and the UN Secretary General for the purpose of implementing all the UN Security Council resolutions, including those connected with the return of international inspectors to Iraq. At the same time Iraq must have a clear perspective for the lifting of sanctions. The activities of observers should not be an open-ended mission.

Question: What does it mean that the nuclear file has been closed? Does it mean that there were no nuclear weapons or that they had never existed?

Ivanov: At the time of verification there were neither nuclear weapons nor elements for their production. The commission faced two tasks in each area. The first task was to determine the presence of nuclear weapons and the second, the potential for their production. If such possibilities exist, they must be eliminated. ...

Question: September 11 marked a turning point in Russian-American relations. The Russian and American presidents have declared at their summit that they had buried the Cold War, but there is a lingering impression that rivalry continues between the US which is the superpower today and Russia which one day will regain superpower status.

Ivanov: We do not seek to go back to a bipolar world order. Such a world order has receded into the past and it will not come back. At the same time we believe that a unipolar world order should not be allowed to emerge. This is opposed by an overwhelming majority of states. In coming out for a multipolar world order, we believe that it meets the interests of Russia, the US and all the other states. On many fundamental international problems we are partners and not opponents with the US. And September 11 demonstrated it in practice. At the same time it does not mean that we have no differences. We have described as a mistake the US decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty, but we did not use that problem as a pretext for confrontation and we continue constructive dialogue to resolve the issues connected with the strengthening of strategic stability. Negotiations are underway toward binding agreements on radical cuts of strategic offensive weapons.

Question: Will it be a compromise between the ABM Treaty and START reductions?

Ivanov: It will not be a compromise, these are two different issues, two components of strategic stability - the defensive and offensive weapons. A dialogue also continues on ABM issues to reach possible agreements. In spite of Washington's move we have preserved the negotiating mechanism. One can move forward taking mutual interests into account. There are contradictions on individual issues, but it need not become a pretext for sliding back into confrontation. ...

Question: The US is present in Central Asia, NATO is expanding to the East, the US has unilaterally withdrawn from the ABM Treaty. Isn't there a feeling that the living space around Russia is contracting?

Ivanov: These are facts, but everything depends on how you arrange them. If they are arranged as you have arranged them, then there is logic to your conclusions and some people share them. But there are other facts that point in a different direction. In Central Asia we are fighting international terrorism together, we are conducting active negotiations with the US on strategic weapons reductions and we will try to complete them by the time of the US President's visit to Russia in May of this year. We are actively negotiating with NATO to create a NATO-20 mechanism in which we will take part in solving common tasks, including the fight against terrorism and non-proliferation of WMD. It is also a real fact. You can't paint everything white or black. Everything depends on which trend prevails. We want the trends that, among other things, meet Russian interests to prevail.

Question: After September 11 many said that the US needs partners. But now one has the impression that after the victory in Afghanistan it is concerned only about its own interests. Don't you share that impression?

Ivanov: ... What is an anti-terrorist coalition? It means voluntary participation of states in the fight against terrorism. We did not sign treaties or agreements or assume any international obligations. It was a natural impulse of states to take part in combating evil. Herein lies the strength of the coalition, but also a certain weakness. The coalition is fairly fragile and if somebody takes actions that are not shared by its other members, it may fall apart. Therefore we stress that in making decisions it is necessary to heed the opinions of partners and take them into account.

Question: So, America should not deliver unilateral strikes on Iraq or Yemen?

Ivanov: The actions against this or that state should rest on a solid legal foundation, above all, on the corresponding UN Security Council resolution. There are no other ways. Afghanistan cannot be a precedent. ...

Back to the Top of the Page