|
Disarmament DocumentationBack to Disarmament Documentation Selected French/Russian Comment on Iraq, March 24/27I. France'Law, Force And Justice': Speech by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, March 27'Law, Force and Justice', speech by Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister of France, to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), London, March 27; French Foreign Ministry website, http://www.france.diplomatie.fr. ... I am speaking to you at a decisive moment in our history. At a serious moment, when the United Kingdom is engaged in the military operations in Iraq. I naturally wish that this conflict finds a swift conclusion with the minimum possible number of casualties. And in this time of trial, I come to you in a spirit of respect, friendship and dialogue. With the clear awareness that your country is at war and your soldiers at risk, I come here to look to the future, beyond the current differences between our two countries. I believe that we will only overcome the current obstacles if we take a clear and frank measure of our divisions. I am certain that, in the troubled world in which we live, we need unity more than ever before. And I hope to show you a French vision that aims to build and re-establish dialogue. France and the United Kingdom have particular responsibilities as permanent members of the UN Security Council. They should exercise these responsibilities in pursuit of the same goal : international stability, security and peace. This implies working together to define the balance required for any international action : law, force and justice. ... Where were we ten years ago ? The end of the Cold War changed our world. Law was placed at the centre of international concerns. Its relationship with force was profoundly changed. For nearly fifty years, nuclear deterrence had guaranteed order. Both the West and the Communist world knew that the use of force would result in untold devastation on both sides. War would have meant the failure of deterrence and the unthinkable apocalypse. Yet, with the end of the Cold War, force came back as a policy option. It could be envisaged again, because its cost was no longer disproportionate. Yet it was rarely used. Because the assertion of Western values met with little opposition. Because the United States was moderate in its use of force. Indeed, it has always been true that only moderation makes power acceptable. As Thucydides remarked in ancient times: "We should be praised for being more just than our available power would normally imply". However, no international order can be based solely on what the powers-that-be want it to be based. Collective norms were hence defined to contain the use of force within the bounds of collective responsibility. This new order met with considerable success. It curbed territorial aggression. In 1991, respect for the rule of law and the use of force drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Any similar invasion would surely be met today with an immediate and forceful reaction from the international community. This order also brought assistance to the populations who fell victim to civil war, authoritarian regimes and natural disasters. Following the Gulf War, operation Provide Comfort stopped the flow of Kurdish refugees into Turkey and helped them to return to Northern Iraq. It paved the way for the right of humanitarian intervention and major UN operations: in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor and Sierra Leone. And not least, the new order helped define a set of standards that made force available to a law based on humanist values. Respect for the individual, the defence of freedoms, and the fight against poverty and epidemics were all given the force of law. Yet this balance between law and force did not solve all security problems. Firstly, it did not solve the question of Iraq's disarmament, other than with a policy of sanctions that hit primarily the Iraqi people. Secondly, it did not open up prospects for solving the regional crises threatening the world's stability: first and foremost the Middle East, which remains a prisoner of a spiral of violence and retaliation; but also the disputes in Cyprus and Western Sahara, and the crisis in Kashmir. In these regions, the promises of the new world order ran up against the complexity of religious and ethnic relations, the weight of history and geographic constraints. Moreover, the international community's support for this order gradually waned. The results obtained demanded considerable UN resources : in Sierra Leone, a country with 4 million inhabitants covering 71,000 square kilometres, 16,000 UN troops are needed to maintain what remains a fragile order. The limits of the humanitarian intervention concept have gradually started to show. It makes it possible to take action against a government's will when an imminent humanitarian catastrophe demands it. But it has also prompted concern among the emerging powers and could be criticized for being partial. Why take action here rather than elsewhere ? Who makes the decision to intervene, and based on what legitimate authority? The case of Kosovo reflects the complexity of these issues. We were faced with some disturbing realities in this crisis. The concept of humanitarian intervention was questioned for the first time. Some powers in the South feared it would allow the Western democracies to unduly encroach on their sovereignty. And Kosovo prompted contradictory criticisms from these same democracies: some objected to a premature use of force, or the interference of political leaders in the conduct of military operations. At the end of the day, the operation in Kosovo was a legitimate enterprise and a political success. But it was also a source of divisions. Some saw it as the first instance of a customary right to intervene on humanitarian grounds without a UN mandate. We, however, saw it as an exception, justified by wide support and the threat of an imminent humanitarian disaster. ... 11 September put an end to the emergence of a new world order. Firstly, the world entered the age of mass terrorism. We now know that the terrorist organizations will stop at nothing to spread their message of hate. Secondly, it changed the meaning of power: in a world where the weak can destabilize the strong, where ideologies flout the most fundamental rights, the use of force is not a sufficient answer. When the blade unites with new technologies, it side-steps the classic rules of power. Thirdly, it revealed the vulnerability of the United States, triggered a feeling of anger and injustice and led this country to change its view of the world. Attacked in the heart, America refocused its priorities on its own security, its own soil and its own population. These times of great changes call for a renewed close and trusting relationship with the United States. France is ready. We understand the immense trauma that this country has suffered. We showed unwavering solidarity with the Americans after 11 September and we share their utmost determination to tirelessly fight terrorism worldwide. Our military commitment in Afghanistan and especially our intelligence input illustrate this. Lastly, we will continue to work together on the major proliferation challenges facing us, especially in North Korea. Because they share common values, the United States and France will re-establish close cooperation in complete solidarity. We owe it to the friendship between our peoples, for the international order that we wish to build together. Over the last few months, some have wondered about France's reasons for its ways of going about settling the Iraq crisis. I would like to say loud and clear that our choices were not made against one country or another, but in the name of a certain idea of collective responsibility and of a world vision. We shouldn't underestimate the stakes here. We need to know by which rules we would like to live together: only consensus and respect for law can give force the legitimacy it needs. If we overstep this mark, could the use of force become a destabilizing element? We also need to know how to manage the many crises throughout the world. Iraq is not an isolated case. North Korea and other countries are raising new threats of proliferation. We must therefore give ourselves the means to deal with them. We had started defining a disarmament method together and this method was giving results. Lastly, we have a fundamental concern: how could we neglect the risk of increased misunderstanding between peoples? A misunderstanding that could lead to a clash of cultures. Isn't that the major challenge of the day? Is it unavoidable? We must find the right answers and fuel the spirit of dialogue and respect amongst peoples. In this respect we noted two elements that lie at the heart of UNSCR 1441: the international community is most effective only hen it is united; the international community is truly legitimate only when it shoulders all its responsibilities. Responsibility meant that the Council had to strive relentlessly to improve inspections in order to make the most of UNSCR 1441. We proposed reinforcing the inspectors' resources, adopting a stringent timetable for inspections, a speedy and focused work programme, and a short deadline for the interim report to be presented. Responsibility also meant that Security Council members should decide together what must be done. And that they should keep control of the process at every stage. That is why the Council could not endorse an ultimatum including an automatic use of force. Indeed it would have been outside the framework unanimously agreed on in UNSCR 1441. And it would not have been in keeping with the spirit of our work. Those are the simple reasons for the impasse in the Security Council during the last round of negotiations. In this context, France was continuously searching for a compromise. Throughout this process, France kept its options open, including the use of force, should inspections fail. The situation in the Council did not change even by one vote because most members felt the peaceful option had not been pursued to the full. Because the military timetable seemed to overtake the diplomatic agenda from January onwards. Because the very principle of inspections soon seemed to be called into question. Because the sense of a gradual shift in objectives from the disarmament of Iraq to regime change, or even the reshaping of the Middle East, no doubt increased the misunderstandings. ... Through the Iraq crisis, two different understandings of the world are coming head to head. They reflect different relationships between law and force, between international legitimacy and the defence of national security interests. According to one such understanding, democracy can be imposed from the outside. Having faith in the power of the law is therefore something of a delusion. International legal tools become constraints more than safeguards of international security. Some even say that the US would assume its responsibilities alone and thereby show its strength while Europe's position reflects its weakness. It also means that some governments might decide of their own accord to strike first given the scope of the threats. Self-defence then knows no bounds or constraints. But the limits of the use of force in Iraq and unclear political prospects for the country fuel many questions on the relevance of such an analysis. We live in a complex world. It can no longer be explained by series of alliances, as was the case in the nineteenth century or the Cold War. Today's world is about new threats - terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; about extremely volatile regional crises; about extremist and fundamentalist ideologies active across the world; about organized crime becoming a new means of financing and implementing these threats. Using force in this context will not solve the real issues. It may reveal new fault lines. We believe in democracy, just as the British and the Americans do. With the Magna Carta, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the US Constitution, our countries headed the democratic revolution. We are convinced that democracy needs resolve, conviction and a long learning period. We do not oppose the use of force. We are only warning against the risks of pre-emptive strikes as a doctrine. What example are we setting for other countries? How legitimate would we feel such an action to be? What are our limits to the use of such might? In endorsing this doctrine, we would risk introducing the principle of constant instability and uncertainty. We risk not controlling situations and rushing headlong into action. Let us not open a Pandora's box. How, then, can we act? Our own view is underpinned by a number of requirements. Unity: it is necessary given the complexity of our world. We can only uproot terrorism if we increase our police, judicial and intelligence cooperation. We can only respond to proliferation if we develop together an effective method. We must build on what we started doing in Iraq. We can only resolve regional crises if we start a constructive dialogue with all parties involved. Responsibility: all the countries are collectively responsible for increasing the security and stability of our world. Force is not a privilege some enjoy and law the alibi of others. We are all bound by the law. Legitimacy: it is the key to the effectiveness of international action. If we want to develop the right answers to the challenges of the modern world and to take appropriate measures - including the use of force - we must do so with the authority of collective decisions. ... We must now find once again the path to European unity and reassert transatlantic solidarity on the basis of those requirements. We must rebuild the world order shattered by the Iraq crisis. This is a goal for all Europeans - the fifteen current members of the EU and the soon-to-be members. However, it is a particular challenge for France and the United Kingdom, which have developed over time a different relationship with the US. Yet we are both concerned about the quality and strength of the transatlantic relationship, which we acknowledge as a stabilizing force in our world. The alternative is not between force and law. Force must serve the law. Force must be contained by the law to reverse Pascal's words: unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just. Asserting the primacy of the law is not an admission of weakness. It is a moral and political obligation, the prerequisite not only for justice but also for effectiveness. Indeed, only justice can guarantee lasting security. Conversely, if the international system is still seen as unjust, if force always seems to prevail over the law, if the opinions of the peoples are disregarded, then destabilizing factors will grow stronger, proliferation programmes will develop, power play will go on needlessly, and hostility towards Western democracies will be increasingly manipulated. We must now define our common goals. Firstly, we must fully disarm Iraq. A unanimous international community rallied around this goal. It must now be carried through by the inspectors. The UN must steer the process. More importantly, the UN must be at the heart of the reconstruction and administration of Iraq. The legitimacy of our action depends on it. We must come together to build peace together in a region rife with a sense of insecurity and deep fault lines. The fight against terrorism must remain our priority. We must pursue our cooperation, strengthen our exchange of intelligence and develop new tools to fight against the financing of terrorist networks. We continue to have a rich and ongoing partnership with the US and the United Kingdom on proliferation. This partnership must go hand in hand with the work we will conduct in the UN at the summit [of heads of state and government] proposed by France. We also suggest that European countries consult closely and develop a common analysis of proliferation risks so as to assess together the means to respond. We have started developing disarmament tools. They are based on a balance between force and law. Establishing a standing group of UN inspectors would give flesh to our hopes. All these challenges demand that we work together more than ever before to find a political settlement to the Middle East crisis. Because it is a fundamental crisis, because it is fuelled by a deep sense of injustice, we can only have lasting peace if it is justice-based. Such justice must meet the expectations of the Palestinian people and guarantee the security of Israel. Only justice can strengthen peace and law. All these goals can only be met if the UN gives the impetus. But they can be implemented within major regional poles. To be truly stable, this new world must be based on a number of regional poles, structured to face current threats. These poles should not compete against one another, but complement each other. They are the cornerstones of an international community built on solidarity and unity in the face of new challenges. The determination of European countries to develop a common foreign and security policy must reflect that. This determination shows our will to bring about a true European identity. An identity that all the peoples of our continent are yearning for. We wish to go resolutely down this path with the support and involvement of the United Kingdom. We have already covered much ground together in the field of defence. After the decision in Macedonia, we must pursue our projects: taking over from NATO in Bosnia and establishing a European armaments agency. A strong Europe will be in everyone's interest. It will strengthen the security of our world. ... 'We Shouldn't Imagine Iraq, Tomorrow, Being Some Kind Of Eldorado': Press Conference with Foreign Minister de Villepin, March 27'Press briefing given by M. Dominique de Villepin in London, March 27, 2003'; French Foreign Ministry website. Question: Can France's position on Iraq be explained by commercial reasons? Foreign Minister de Villepin: You mustn't rewrite history or distort the facts. Everyone knows exactly what France's situation is and everyone knows that at no time, obviously, has this economic and commercial issue carried any weight. Iraq is an infinitesimal partner for France in economic terms. That's the truth of the matter. As far as the future is concerned, I believe that we must turn our attention to the priority which is political reconstitution. To do this, there has to be a framework. France firmly believes, like the majority of the Security Council members, the majority of the international community, that the UN has to provide this framework, for security reasons, because we're going to need to ensure Iraq's unity, integrity and sovereignty against a national and regional background of very great tension. ... I believe we shouldn't imagine Iraq, tomorrow, being some kind of Eldorado and it being a case of sharing out her wealth. ... We shall first have to share the difficulties, put a lot of energy into sharing together this burden of ensuring Iraq's unity and the stability of the whole region. Question: Is France ready to accept the installation of a sort of American proconsul for a limited period in Iraq? Foreign Minister de Villepin: ... I believe we must first consider two questions. Today, can one country on its own aspire to rebuild or build peace in Iraq? All our partners on the Security Council, all our partners in the international community firmly believe that this requires action, efforts by everyone - no country on its own can rebuild that region which, I remind you, is one of those which are the most difficult, most dangerous, in which there is the greatest tension and largest number of fault lines. Take care! We are all aware of the fragile balance between the communities, between the ethnic groups in Iraq. To maintain this unity, there must be legitimacy. Only the United Nations has the necessary legitimacy. Question: What are people waiting for before resuming the Oil-for-Food programme for Iraq? Foreign Minister de Villepin: As you know, discussions have been going on at the Security Council for several days. We are all working to achieve a solution. France wants this resolution to be adopted very quickly, because this humanitarian...emergency is greatly exercising all of us. I believe that today all the conditions for taking a decision, for this resolution to be passed have been fulfilled. Let's not mix up the issues. This resolution must focus on the humanitarian problem, on the problem of the urgent needs we have to satisfy in that region. ... Question: How do you see, after the Iraq episode, relations between Europe and the United States? Foreign Minister de Villepin: It's a challenge for us all and it's certainly a huge priority for us all to do what's necessary to bring Europe back together. I firmly believe that the challenges confronting us are so important that we obviously have to work towards that unity. Clearly, the questions we have to consider today, be it a matter of Europe's foreign policy, defence policy, of a common position vis-à-vis Europe's future enlargement, are difficult ones. And we must together find the code of conduct allowing us both to respect everyone's positions and freedom and, at the same time, honour the commitments we make in the framework of this Europe. Even though common positions had been adopted we have seen a number of initiatives which have divided Europe. We must learn the lessons of this Iraq crisis and work together. We firmly believe, in the Iraq crisis, as in the other crises in the world - since we're not forgetting the existence of terrorism, other proliferation crises, regional crises like the Middle East crisis - that Europe can make the difference. If it's mobilized, Europe can make its voice heard. Europe aspires to be a unifying factor, a way to ensure understanding in the face of the world's problems and so we must fully shoulder our responsibilities, certainly not by acting against anyone and certainly not the United States. We believe in a multipolar world where there's no rivalry between the world's major poles, but, on the contrary, the concern for complementarity. But that requires everyone to think things through, learn the lessons, move forward with the conviction that we are stronger if we work together than if we act separately. 'What Changed At The End Of December, At The Beginning Of January, Is That A Military Timetable Was Drawn Up': Interview With Foreign Minister de Villepin, March 24'Interview given by M. Dominique de Villepin during the Complement d'Enquête programme on France 2 [television], Paris, March 24, 2003'; French Foreign Ministry website. Question: You were very influential at the UN [in the discussions on Iraq] - weren't you, in a way, a bit too active ? Foreign Minister de Villepin: First of all, we must look at Iraq in the context of France's view of the world. Obviously, for us the crisis in Iraq is a major proliferation crisis. There are perhaps weapons of mass destruction there, we can't accept the status quo and, with all the countries of the international community, we decided to use a method, the United Nations inspections, to eradicate this risk, find out the truth and abolish all these weapons should they exist. ... Let's never forget that it's one of the proliferation crises. There are others, North Korea, and there are other countries in the world - particularly in the Middle East - capable of being proliferant countries. Question: When I say that you were perhaps a bit too active, without rewriting history, was it necessary to drive the Americans to this failure and this defeat at the UN ? Foreign Minister de Villepin: I think one has to be accurate. ... France didn't oppose, didn't seek to oppose the United States. We defended principles, within a collective framework, that of the United Nations where, from start to finish, France had the support of the vast majority of States, as well as that of the majority of the international community. Question: But we can also see the Americans' bitterness at seeing how we pushed our political views and took the lead ? Foreign Minister de Villepin: Indeed, that's where we can ask ourselves whether had the issue been handled differently, a compromise could have been found ? What's interesting is that...[a proposal to set] a 30-day ultimatum which would have allowed us to do a bit more - the Canadian proposal - was rejected by the Americans. Chile's proposal referred to three weeks. Question: Yes, but we've also seen that you were sometimes extremely quick to reject American proposals! Foreign Minister de Villepin: There you're referring to the British proposal which came at the end, when the military agenda had already been initiated. The decisions had been taken and the aim was to package and present the ultimatum and the march to war. France wasn't the first to reject it, we did so on the Thursday. You have to remember that on the Wednesday night the Security Council, our permanent representatives in New York were meeting, and all the States, the great majority of the States rejected this presentation of the ultimatum. Why? Throughout the time the Security Council was dealing with this Iraq crisis in New York, there's been one constant: we've seen that the blueprint proposed by the United Nations, that of the inspections, was supported by the great majority of States and that it was working. And, and I want to stress this point, what changed at the end of December, at the beginning of January, is that a military timetable was drawn up, which began inexorably to be taken forward. ... Question: [President] Chirac is very well thought of [in the Arab world]... Foreign Minister de Villepin: At the heart of the French position, there has always been the concern about this division of the world, about these fault lines, about this problem of clashes between societies, between cultures and between religions. It's a problem for the world, going beyond the Iraq crisis. We're going to be confronted with all these crises immediately after the Iraq crisis. One of the very interesting elements of the US position right through this crisis is that we've felt that, gradually, her goal's been changing. At the outset, we were talking about Iraq's disarmament which is the international community's only legitimate goal. Then, discreetly, there was talk of regime change and then of reshaping the Middle East. Gradually, the rather subtle link was established [between Iraq and] 11 September and al-Qaida terrorism, which is, I believe, at the heart of the US attitude. As far as we know, there is today - and I believe that this is the feeling of all the world's major intelligence services - no proven link between the two. With a sleight of hand, we've moved from one to the other, but we shall have to bow to reality, we shall have to confront the Middle East regional crisis, we shall have to confront terrorism. ... Question: Everywhere, it's being said that, when we have to return to the UN, the Americans will be more than reluctant to do so. Foreign Minister de Villepin: But that isn't the question, they won't have the choice, any more than we will, any more than the whole international community will. Question: The UN without the United States, will that still mean something ? Foreign Minister de Villepin: But, it's clear today for everyone, including the United States and Britain, that the UN is the only legitimate authority. The United States needs the UN right away to cope with the humanitarian emergency. She will need the UN and all of us tomorrow to win the peace. We have to understand that in the face of these world crises, we need to come back together. ... Question: We've seen that the United States has formed a sort of ad hoc coalition with Britain and Spain. That's also a doctrine, so won't they move in that direction, saying that the UN doesn't work, so we'll do what we want to ? Foreign Minister de Villepin: That's clearly the temptation and the reason France has so firmly stuck to these principles is that there is certainly a temptation to resort to force. Indeed one could well imagine force being used in the future in other world crises. We think that force must be only a last resort since the use of force does indeed risk opening up the world's wounds. So we are sending a very important message - not France on her own, but the whole international community, the majority of the Security Council members - vis-à-vis our American friends. This is what friendship, an ally's solidarity is all about - when we don't share the same conviction, when we think that the analysis isn't altogether the right one, it's very important to try and find a solution. ... Question: Today when we see what is happening on the ground, we see that this war isn't really going as had been hoped - this evening for example, the Pentagon is asking Congress for an extra $62 billion - we feel that it's going to go on a long time. Are you pessimistic when you see that? Foreign Minister de Villepin: I fully concur with the analysis that the world's problems are complex. Yes, there are many threats, yes, what's going on is complex, and in this complex crisis there's no simple solution, no miracle solution, no magic wand to wave to resolve the problem in Baghdad and give us grounds for hoping for the immediate resolution of all the world's problems. Question: So you're saying that force isn't enough, that force alone can't do much. But the Americans say that the law on its own without force can't do much either. Foreign Minister de Villepin: It's clearly for that reason that, if force has to be used, it must be used in the framework of collective action. France has never said that force ought never to be used. From this point of view, groundless accusations have been made against France. We've always said - and this is the whole spirit of UNSCR 1441 - that there were two stages: we were trying to work with the inspectors so long as the inspections were working, we were continuing; then, if the inspections were no longer working, then the Security Council was to meet again and we would accept all the consequences, including a possible recourse to force. But we firmly believe that the international community can be effective, including in the use of force, only when it's united. Clearly, the United States, we hope, will win this war quickly, but when it comes to rebuilding peace, how can one imagine one country being able to do it on its own? ... Question: Vis-à-vis Europe, we're seeing the terrible destruction [the Iraq crisis has] caused : the British and the very hard things they said about us, the Italians whom you've lectured today through your ambassador about what they said at the European summit. There's not much of Europe left... Foreign Minister de Villepin: Europe has been built by bringing together our interests, through policies, the CAP [Common Agricultural Policy] for example. And, admittedly, over the years we haven't - since we can't do everything at the same time - paid enough attention to Europe's identity, its common values, the foreign policy, the security policy which, in very many respects, are embryonic. This is the Europe we have to build. We must move faster, we must establish rules and this is the whole purpose of the Convention on the Future of Europe chaired by M. Giscard d'Estaing whose members are trying precisely to find rules together. In the Iraq crisis, there has been the criticism of a lack of dialogue to reach an agreement, that isn't so much the problem, we consulted together; the problem is that that the agreed position wasn't respected. We saw this in the letters of the Eight, the letters of the Ten even though there had been a common position at the outset. ... II. Russia'We Will Continue To Oppose Attempts Directly Or Indirectly To Legitimatize The Actions Of Force Against Iraq': Statement by Ambassador Sergei Lavrov, UN Security Council, March 27'Statement by Sergei Lavrov, Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, at the Formal Meeting of the Security Council on the Iraq Question, March 27, 2003'; Russian Foreign Ministry website, http://www.mid.ru. Unprovoked military action has been taken against Iraq, a sovereign state and a member of the UN, in violation of international law and in circumvention of the Charter of the United Nations. Human casualties and destructions are growing, and the threat of a humanitarian, economic and ecological catastrophe is impending. The adverse consequences of this illegal military action are already having an effect on other countries of the region, on the Islamic world and on the general state of international relations. Russia together with other states had been making energetic efforts to prevent war and arrive at a political settlement of the Iraq problem. The unanimous adoption in November 2002 of SC Resolution 1441 in combination with other measures of influence on Baghdad had opened a real way for disarming Iraq by peaceful means in complete accordance with the UN decisions. Most regrettably, this possibility was ruined exactly when Iraq was ever more actively cooperating with the inspectors and when UNMOVIC and IAEA had presented to the SC their work programs, the implementation of which allowed for giving a conclusive and objective answer to the question whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not. The military actions of the US and Britain against Iraq in violation of the SC resolutions can in no way be justified. These countries were never able to furnish proofs of their assertions about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, about Baghdad backing international terrorism or, for that matter, about any threat emanating from Iraq for countries of the region or international security. Neither in the course of the military action have any evidences been found confirming those accusations. To all it is clear that the use of force against Iraq is being accomplished with the aim of changing the political regime in a sovereign state, which runs directly counter to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter. The entire course of events bears out the assessment made by the Russian leadership of the war in Iraq as a serious political mistake. The military action has already gone beyond the framework of local conflict. Not only the population of Iraq is suffering from it, but also that of neighboring countries. It has become a potential source of destabilization in the Middle East and in the world as a whole. The humanitarian situation in Iraq is cause for serious concern. We support the efforts being undertaken by the Secretary General in cooperation with UN humanitarian programs and funds to meet the Iraqi population's needs. Russia is making a contribution to these efforts. In cooperation with the governments of the appropriate countries and with the OHCR, measures are being taken to render humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees. ... I want to especially stress the necessity of complete compliance with the Fourth Geneva Convention, according to which the forces occupying the territory of Iraq are to bear responsibility for the solution of the humanitarian problems of the population in that area. Of course, all the parties should observe also all the other rules of international humanitarian law, especially those concerning the treatment of the wounded and prisoners of war, the protection of civilian persons, the preservation of life support facilities for the population and the prevention of the use of means of combat inflicting excessive damage. Taking into account the exceptional circumstances in which the Iraqi population has found itself, we are ready together with other SC members to deal also with the question of a temporary change of Oil for Food program procedures to satisfy the Iraqis' humanitarian needs in the situation where the international personnel of this program was evacuated because of the war. But we shall not support efforts to readjust the humanitarian program mechanism for the purposes of the military scenario. This is not a technical matter. For all the importance of the humanitarian problems there is currently no more urgent task than to try to stop the war and to get the situation back on the political settlement track in the framework of the Security Council. Most participants of our debate have come out in favor of this. Striving for this purpose, we will continue to oppose attempts directly or indirectly to legitimatize the actions of force against Iraq or to shift off the responsibility for them on to the world community as represented by the UN. It is from this vantage point that we will approach work on any decisions of the Security Council with regard to Iraqi settlement. The major principles that must lie at the base of this entire work were formulated yesterday by the Secretary General: they are respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Iraq, and the right of the Iraqi people to decide their own political future and exercise control over their natural resources. The Russian leadership is engaged in intensive contacts with a wide circle of nations, including the SC members, with a view to finding a political way out of the crisis. The objective conditions remain for this to be achieved. The potentialities of the UN are far from exhausted, and even supporters of a force-based solution acknowledge this. We are open for dialogue with all and are convinced that the differences on the Iraq problem should not become a cause for sliding towards confrontation in world affairs. For however the situation may evolve around Iraq, we cannot get away from the necessity to jointly search for effective answers to the new threats and challenges and to reinforce the UN mechanisms necessary for this purpose. The objective interest of the world community in a mutually beneficial collective solution of global problems cannot become hostage to the situation around Iraq. However on the extent to which we shall all be able by concerted actions to minimize the damage from the Iraq crisis, it directly depends in what kind of world we are going to live further - in a world based on the supremacy of international law or in the conditions of chaos and the arbitrariness of military force. 'We Are Telling Them As Partners: You Are Making A Mistake': Interview With Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov, March 27'Interview of Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Yuri Fedotov with the Newspaper Vremya Novostei, Published on March 27, 2003, under the Heading "The Iraqi Oil for Food Program Will Be Readjusted'; Russian Foreign Ministry website. Question: Yuri Viktorovich, it turns out that Moscow along with the international community forced Iraq to disarm [through an inspections process]. Yet the Iraqi leadership was saying - now we disarm, and the Americans will strike at us. That's exactly what has happened: we disarmed Iraq, leaving it exposed to the mightiest US army. Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: In the disarmament [area], only weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, chemical, were at issue. Missiles of more than 150 kilometers range [were also prohibited]. The international inspectors were to make certain that Iraq no longer had any such weapons. It had had them previously, but those were mostly destroyed in the early 90s. The inspectors were only to clarify vague points. Question: Now those missiles would come handy to the Iraqis. Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Only several dozen missiles of banned range were destroyed in accordance with the Security Council resolutions, so I don't think that the destruction of the several dozen missiles has had any drastic effect on the defense capability of the Iraqi forces. But from the viewpoint of the observance of international law it was all correct. Iraq was cooperating well with the disarmament inspectors. Perhaps, it should have cooperated as actively from the very beginning, but the cooperation developed along an ascending line. This has contributed to the formation of a broad antiwar coalition. It continues to act, insisting on an end to the war and on returning the situation into the channel of international law. Let us see how the military situation will develop. But we continue to speak out for a political settlement on the basis of international law through the UN Security Council. It is necessary that Iraq's future should be formed on the basis of collective approaches and decisions. Question: Do you really think that the US can be stopped? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: In the international community a negative attitude prevails towards the military action of the US and Britain against Iraq. The meeting of the UN Security Council these days, the open debate there - this is important. The Security Council has to give a political and legal assessment of the situation. Even if a resolution fails to be adopted at the Security Council, the assessment will be heard in statements. Question: And what is Russia's assessment? ... Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Our assessment is: these actions are illegal, violate international law and are a very big mistake. Question: Why is Moscow speaking of a mistake, not of aggression? After all, the UN gives a clear definition of aggression, under which the invasion of Iraq falls, doesn't it? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Yes, there is the definition of aggression in a UN resolution adopted in 1974. But both there and in the United Nations Charter it is said that the Security Council alone, and not each state separately, can drew the conclusion whether the action is aggression or not. We adhere to legal norms. Question: The US wants with the help of the UN to legally substantiate its actions in Iraq. Did it approach Russia for this? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: It did not approach us, but sent a letter to the UNSC. Its approaches, mildly speaking, are unfounded. We've also got lawyers, they have analyzed everything. We were ready for this discussion, it arises not for the first time. There are no UN resolutions on Iraq which would give grounds for the use of force without a special decision of the Security Council. And any actions without permission from the Security Council are a violation of international law. This is damaging to the prestige of a state. No one can ignore this: how you are going to look in the eyes of the world community. Question: Is it still important? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Yes, it is important to all. In the era of globalization - the more so. Question: The US claims that the Iraqis may use chemical weapons. So those weapons are there? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: The Iraqis have declared that they have no banned types of weapons. The position of Russia coincides with that of the UN Secretary General. It is that the work of the international inspectors has not been terminated, but suspended. Even if suddenly some types of weapons of mass destruction are discovered, the UN inspectors will have to draw expert conclusions. They alone can say what kind of weapons have been discovered if they are indeed discovered, and what is to be done with them. Question: So there is no full certainty that such weapons are absent there? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Full certainty never existed. The inspectors had no evidence that Iraq has them. But neither were there any grounds to clearly say that it hasn't. ... Question: Right on the eve of the war, the Iraqis had transferred a part of the amounts under contracts with Russians to the accounts of the UN, which had been in charge of the cooperation program with Iraq. What will happen with this money? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Yes, in a number of cases the Iraqis have already opened letters of credit under Russian contracts. Several Russian ships with cargo are at ports of destination, in Syria for example. The question arises how to get out of the situation by ensuring the interests of both the Russian suppliers and the local population, which must receive the humanitarian goods. Our companies were very active in Iraq. Last year alone they concluded 1.5 billion dollars' worth of contracts there. Most of them were realized. But there are problems with a number of recent contracts. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is actively concerned with this. Intensive consultations are currently under way in New York in order to develop a temporary technical mechanism for solving these problems. The question is not one of radically altering the Oil for Food program with regard to Iraq. It must remain, no one has canceled it, it has been established by the Security Council, and it alone will decide its fate. We will actively participate in the program. The US is also participating in the consultations on a technical readjustment of elements of the program. Question: So the Americans will not just throw us out of this program? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: They cannot do that. This is a humanitarian program of the UN. For those contracts the UN must bear responsibility. It involves UN accounts, they are not frozen by the Americans, unlike other Iraqi accounts. The humanitarian situation in Iraq arouses huge concern. And the economic and trade presence of Russia in Iraq is a factor that has always existed. Our companies have strong positions in Iraq. We will seek to keep those positions. Question: A number of our companies have incurred losses as a result of the hostilities. Through UN structures, is it possible to oblige the Americans to compensate for them? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: This question is also being worked at. The Ministry will do its utmost to get compensation for losses that may be incurred by Russian companies. ... Question: Were you indignant that the US had accused Russian companies of violating the international sanctions against Iraq? Why did the question arise now? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: It is hard for me to say just why the Americans brought those charges right now. But the fact remains. This question had been discussed for several months. The information had been checked by Russian agencies and interim answers had been reported to the Americans. Verification is currently continuing. But no one has ever in the whole period of sanctions accused Russia of violating them. For us this is a matter of principle, it is a very serious question. When sanctions are introduced, a special decree of the President of Russia is issued. Its violation is a serious crime under Russian laws. Question: So have relations cooled down between Russia and the US because of Iraq? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Relations between Russia and the US bear a very extensive character. Iraq is an important problem, but not the only one. We have many common things to do. I hope the present situation will not lead to a cooling of Russian-American relations. Our position is open and sincere. We do not hold an anti-American stance. We are telling them as partners: you are making a mistake, we are openly warning you that this may have the most serious consequences. Question: What kind of consequences? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: For security and stability in the Middle East. And Afghanistan is not far off, there remains the danger of a livening up of the activity of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Extremists will have new motives. Finally, it is the difficultly predictable consequences for the foundations of the world pattern. The striving to overthrow regimes by force, unsanctioned by the Security Council, could lead to a strengthening of the tendency for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Some countries can consider themselves in relative security only by gaining such weapons. This is dangerous. Question: The UN Secretary General has suggested introducing Blue Helmets into the zone of conflict. Is that realistic? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: We favor a solution of the Iraq crisis in the UN Security Council. There are many options. The international community has an experience in resolving conflict situations. Often peacekeeping forces were employed for these purposes. We have to wait and see how the situation will develop. Question: Why did our diplomats meet with Iraqi oppositionists? In Moscow and in Washington. Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Those were contacts at a low level. Diplomats conduct such contacts with all, this is their work, the usual routine work to obtain information. It carries no political signals. Question: The US and other countries are expelling Iraqi diplomats. May Russia yield to US pressure and expel the ambassador of Iraq, Mr. Abbas Khalaf? Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: Expel where? Question: I don't know where. Deputy Foreign Minister Fedotov: We indeed received such a note from the Americans. In accordance with international law, with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, these questions are decided by the country of accreditation, in this case - Russia. We have no grounds to declare the Iraqi diplomats personas non grata. 'A Substantial Threat To The National Security Of The Russian Federation': Statement by the Federation Council, Upper House of the Federal Assembly, March 26'Concerning the Military Action Against the Republic of Iraq', Statement by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, March 26; Russian Foreign Ministry website. The United States of America has since March 20, 2003, been carrying out aggression against the Republic of Iraq. These actions are in violation of the key provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and ignore international law and world public opinion. Contrary to the US leadership's statements, this military action is every day bringing new casualties, primarily among the civilian population. The economic and social infrastructure of the state is being destroyed, the ecological situation is worsening. And these are only the first results of the military action. Tensions are mounting in the Near and Middle East and the conflict threatens to spread beyond Iraqi territory. The realization of the unilateral action of force against the Republic of Iraq has done serious harm to the universally accepted principles and rules of international law, to the entire system of international security. There has been disrupted the unity of the international coalition, called upon to counter the main challenges to present-day civilization - terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the crisis around the Republic of Iraq and its adverse consequences present a substantial threat to the national security of the Russian Federation and its interests. The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation expresses profound concern over the dramatic course of events in the Persian Gulf zone and calls upon the US Congress, the UK Parliament and indeed all parliamentarians of the world to do everything in their power for the speediest possible termination of the conflict and a solution of the Iraq problem within the framework of the United Nations. The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation fully supports the well-considered and consistent line of the Russian leadership, directed to a resolution of the crisis around the Republic of Iraq by politico-diplomatic means on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions. The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation invites the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, to create a strategic crisis group with the participation of the representatives of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the Houses of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, ministries and departments and business and scientific circles to work out measures aimed at ensuring the interests of the Russian Federation in the Near and Middle East. 'Not Only Illegitimate, But Obviously Doomed To Failure': Speech by Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, March 26'Speech by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Igor Ivanov at Federation Council Meeting, March 26, 2003'; Russian Foreign Ministry website. I thank you for the invitation and opportunity to exchange views on such an acute international problem as the situation in Iraq. For six days now large-scale military actions are continuing there, unleashed in circumvention of the decisions of the UN Security Council and contrary to the rules of international law. As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has stressed, the Iraq crisis has gone beyond the framework of a local conflict and it is now a potential source of instability for other regions of the world. It is already becoming ever more obvious how far removed from reality are the attempts to present the military action against Iraq as a triumphal crusade to "liberate" the Iraq people with minimum casualties and destruction. Missile-bomb strikes of enormous destructive power are being dealt at Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. As a result of the massive bombings the number of casualties is growing, including among the civilian population. Historical and cultural monuments are being irrevocably lost. The infrastructure of the country is being destroyed, and the population is being deprived of electricity and water. The flow of refugees is increasing. Taking this opportunity, I would like to inform you that Russia has launched active preparations for rendering humanitarian aid to refugees who are arriving into the territory of Iran. At the first stage it is borne in mind to set up there a hospital for 5,000 persons with full support, and then two more hospitals and one camp for 5,000. In addition, it is planned to set up refugee camps on the territory of Turkey. At the same time, it has to be realized that if such, as now, powerful missile-bomb strikes continue, then a humanitarian, economic and environmental catastrophe can already be expected soon, with which it will be very difficult to cope. Other countries of the region may seriously suffer from the consequences of these catastrophes as well. All this once again bears out the well-groundedness of the assessment given in President Putin's statement of March 20, 2003, of the war in Iraq as a serious political mistake. That assessment had been dictated by the entire course of events around Iraq in the last few months and by the principled line which our country has been persistently and consistently pursuing in this matter. Russia together with other UN Security Council members did everything to prevent a force-based solution of the Iraq problem. We have held and continue to hold that there were no weighty reasons for the unleashing of war. No one was ever able to provide any convincing evidences that Iraq had been backing international terrorism. No one was ever able to prove that Iraq really presented a military threat to any state. At the same time the central problem of Iraqi settlement concerning weapons of mass destruction could well have been solved by peaceful means, through the international UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections. All the necessary conditions were created for that. Moreover, there was the real chance to make a political resolution of the situation around Iraq an important precedent for the solution of other similar problems in the interests of reinforcing stability in the world and advancing towards a just, secure and democratic world pattern. Unfortunately, this chance was not used because the United States and Britain had brought to the fore not the disarmament of Iraq, but a change of the political regime in the country. That approach runs counter not only to the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, but also to the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, in accordance with which the use of force by one state against another is possible only in self-defense. The international association of lawyers in Geneva specifically drew attention to this in its assessment of the military action against Iraq. Attempts are now being made retrospectively to find a legal justification for the use of force against Iraq, including by way of references to UN Security Council resolution 1441. I want in this connection to once again stress that paragraph 14 of this resolution excludes automatism in the use of force. The Security Council alone had the right to evaluate the degree of cooperation by Iraq with the international inspectors and to adopt a decision on further steps to resolve the crisis. The striving by force to impose this or that political system on a sovereign state is not only illegitimate, but obviously doomed to failure as well. Therefore it is only natural that the Arab states' leaders at the summit in Sharm El Sheikh stated bluntly on March 1, this year, that "the questions of Arab countries and the problems of development of their regimes are to be decided by the peoples of the region in accordance with their national and state interests, excluding external interference." The same thought was borne out at the LAS Council meeting on March 24, this year. The danger inherent in a force-based solution of the Iraq problem also consists of the fact that some wrongful acts inevitably entail others. How else can one assess, for example, the US demands that other states sever diplomatic relations with Iraq and expel Iraqi diplomats, as well as freeze the bank accounts of Iraqi missions? For, whatever one's attitude to the regime in Baghdad, it concerns a sovereign state which is a member of the UN. By the way, we have officially asked the US for information on what, in its opinion, is a legal ground for this kind of demands. We intend to come out further against attempts directly or indirectly to legitimatize the actions of force against Iraq or to shift off the responsibility for them on to the world community in the person of the UN. It is from this standpoint that we shall approach the consideration of draft resolutions which will be submitted to the UN Security Council in connection with Iraqi settlement. We also consider ourselves entitled to seek respect for the lawful economic interests of Russia in Iraq. Russia did nothing in the country that would run counter to international law. Our country was accomplishing economic cooperation with Iraq in strict conformity with the norms which were laid down by the UN Security Council in the sanctions regime. That was why we did not place our stand on the Iraqi issue in dependence on these interests and did not turn them into a subject of any bargaining. In addition, we will firmly demand that the statements of the US leadership that the natural riches of Iraq belong to the Iraq people should not be at variance with real actions. It is abundantly clear that the longer the military actions against Iraq [take], the more real the danger of adverse consequences of this crisis, including for the United States itself. Already the price of the unilateral action looks inordinately high. The unity of the UN Security Council and of the world community has been disrupted. A split has arisen in relations between the US and some of its closest European allies. There increases the danger of the situation getting destabilized in the Near and Middle East, as well as of a further radicalization of sentiments in the Islamic world. All this only plays into the hands of extremist forces, which are ready to take advantage of the Iraq crisis to reinforce their ranks and justify new acts of international terrorism. And such acts have already begun at different points of the planet. That is why we think there is currently no more important task than to try to stop the war as soon as possible and get the situation back on the track of political settlement within the framework of the UN Security Council. It is for this that we intend to strive most actively in cooperation with our partners and like-minded persons in the international arena. At present we are conducting intensive contacts with a wide array of states, including UN Security Council members, in order to find a political way out of the crisis. The objective conditions are still there for that. I shall recall that by decision of the UN Security Council international inspections in Iraq have not been terminated but temporarily suspended. The heads of UNMOVIC and IAEA have submitted a concrete program of action, the implementation of which will make it possible to solve the key question of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This would offer the possibility to return the Iraq problem to the Security Council and to carry on the mission which the member states of the Council have imposed on UNMOVIC and IAEA. The question of urgent steps in the humanitarian direction is acute. On the instructions of President Putin we have raised the question before the Iraqi leadership of humane treatment of war prisoners. Naturally we presume that the Geneva Conventions must be observed by all the parties. In our deep conviction, the UN potentialities in this crisis are far from exhausted. It is significant that even the supporters of the force-based solution declare an intention to return to the Security Council for solving the questions of the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. In order to resolve the Iraq crisis we remain open for dialogue and constructive cooperation with the United States. We altogether consider - I want to once again stress - that our differences with the US on the Iraq problem should not call into question the positive prospect of developing Russian-American relations. These relations have a separate significance as a factor of global security and stability. That is why, while not agreeing with some or other actions of Washington, we at the same time consider it inadmissible to slide to mutual confrontation. Seriously disquieting in this connection are the attempts by certain circles in the US to draw Russia into an "information war" around Iraq. This concerns, in particular, the groundless charges against our country that Russian companies had allegedly made deliveries of military goods to Iraq. As is known, President Putin in the course of a telephone conversation with President Bush recalled that the Russian side had repeatedly provided information about the absence of such supplies. I shall add that we most seriously checked the allegations of the American side, but no facts were established. We hope that our American partners will show a sense of responsibility and will not take steps which could do harm to our relations in the long term. For no matter how the situation may develop around Iraq, our countries cannot get away from the necessity to jointly look for ways of solving many global problems and to cooperate in the struggle against new threats and challenges. It is in the interest of the international community by concerted efforts to try to minimize damage from the Iraq crisis. On this directly depends in what kind of world we will all live in the coming years and decades - in a world based on the supremacy of international law or in the conditions of chaos and the reign of military force. In searches of an answer to this fundamental question a great role belongs to world public opinion, which in the vast majority has already spoken out against a force-based solution of the Iraq problem. Massive antiwar protests of the public are continuing all over the world. It is of fundamental importance to bring home to the world public the full gravity of the choice, before which the international community has found itself. I am convinced that dialogue and cooperation by parliamentarians can make an invaluable contribution to the assertion of such values as the priority of international law and multilateral cooperation. We hope for close collaboration with the Federal Assembly in these questions and for our part are ready to lend it all the necessary assistance and support. 'If The US And Great Britain Had Not Perpetrated A Military Attack On Iraq in December 1998...The Situation Might Have Been Different Today': Press Conference by Foreign Minister Ivanov, March 26'Transcript of Replies by Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Igor Ivanov to Questions After His Speech to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, Moscow, March 26, 2003'; Russian Foreign Ministry website. 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: 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: 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: 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 [the US-Russia] SOR [Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty], 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? ... 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. ... © 2003 The Acronym Institute. |