Yevgeny Primakov, president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, agreed to an interview on current issues in domestic and foreign politics.
Question: Many observers believe that the terms of the new agreement on cuts to nuclear weapons are mostly favorable for the US, not for Russia. Is this true?
Yevgeny Primakov: I disagree with this conclusion. It is necessary to sign this agreement. Of course, this is a compromise. The US has given up its position of refusing to sign any agreement at all. To all appearances, Russia also has not turned its insistence on compulsory destruction of all dismantled nuclear warheads into an insurmountable obstacle to the signing of this treaty.
Question: How would you assess the results of the past eight months of the battle against terrorism?
Primakov: It's too early to judge if the anti-terror operation has achieved its ultimate goals. Much remains to be done. The Taliban is not neutralized yet, and it may resume its activities. However, there are two positive results. First, the events of September 11 showed that international terrorism has acquired new forms. Now it is a self-sufficient entity not connected with any particular state. Consequently, it is now impossible to trace international terrorists by traditional methods. It is impossible to combat terrorism by persuading any particular nation to stop funding terrorist organizations. Under these circumstances, it was extremely important to unite all forces against the mutual problem.
Second, US foreign policy is gradually evolving. Now the US is no longer as certain that its unilateral policies will be unconditionally supported by everyone. Most likely, the opinions of the Russian Federation and the European Union (EU) have played important roles in this. Even Britain, the closest ally of the US, opposes unconditional American dominance. As the Afghanistan war has shown, even a country like the US cannot achieve its aims on its own. For instance, it would have been impossible to mobilize the Northern Alliance so quickly. Without Russia's consent, the US would have been unable to use airfields in Central Asia for the military operation in Afghanistan.
Question: You've said that the US is giving up the idea of unilateral foreign policy. Is this true? The US media refer to an upcoming strike against Iraq as a settled matter...
Primakov: The number of nations included in America's "axis of evil" is increasing, I agree. But I don't think this means that these states will certainly be targets of the next US strikes. If the US does take such steps, these actions would not have any objective motivation. They would be a gross blunder by the United States.
Question: How would a strike against Iraq affect Russia, if the US does go ahead with this?
Primakov: In this case it will be extremely difficult for the Russian government to continue taking a line of complete solidarity with the US. But this question should be broader: how would this event affect the global situation in general? The main outcome of this move would be to break the international unity of support for combating terrorism. A strike against Iraq would not improve the US positions in the Arab world. On the contrary, the Arab and Islamic worlds will split. Most Arab and Islamic countries would be opposing the United States.
Question: You've said that the US does not have objective motives for a strike against Iraq. But the Americans claim that Iraq is again stockpiling chemical weapons, and is trying to make a nuclear bomb.
Primakov: One cannot rule out the possibility that Saddam Hussein may be attempting to acquire some weapons of mass destruction. However, the Americans will not manage to solve this problem by unilateral forcible methods. Moreover, this would exacerbate this situation. It is necessary to admit that not only Iraq but also some other countries are ready to develop mass destruction weapons. But it can't be appropriate to bomb all such countries. And who will determine which country may be targeted, and which may not? The only way of preventing global disasters and chaos is to have such problems resolved by the international community as a whole, not by one particular country.
As for Iraq, the West is also partly to blame for the situation there. It was quite possible to agree with Saddam Hussein on continuation of the international monitoring there. Now it is clear that Richard Butler, former head of the UN special commission, provoked many negative events. Even his own deputy has confirmed this.
Question: It is thought that Moscow has made many unilateral concessions to the US, but has not received anything in exchange. Do you agree with this statement?
Primakov: This is the approach of a haggler. Indeed, Russia approved the decisions of Central Asian countries to permit the US to use their airfields. Should we have compelled the US to give us something in exchange? It won't do to behave like this in politics. Of course, there is some risk here. I'm convinced that the US military presence in Central Asia should be directly connected only with the military operation in Afghanistan. If the US military intends to stay in Central Asia for a long time, this won't stabilize the situation.
Question: Do you believe that the US will really leave Central Asia after the end of the war in Afghanistan?
Primakov: I'd like to believe this. If America does not withdraw its forces from Central Asia after the end of the Afghani operation, this will make a great hindrance to the development of Russia's partnership with the US. Besides, it is necessary to count with the position of China. China is also not interested in the permanent presence of American troops near its borders. As for guarantees, we don't have any. However, nobody has absolute guarantees of anything.
Question: Rumors are circulating in the Russian media that the TV-6 channel is doomed. What do you think of these rumors?
Primakov: Of course that isn't true. But we are having some difficulties. Before a TV channel can start operation, it is necessary to resolve a number of issues. The main issue is who will be responsible for the channel's finances. There are two points of view on this account. Journalists want to manage this money all by themselves. The group of people funding this project opposes this. I believe it is necessary to find a compromise between these two positions. Sponsors should know how their money is used. And the journalists should have the opportunity to see to it that this money is spent efficiently.
Question: You've never concealed your negative attitude toward tycoons associated with the previous president. How are you getting on now with Roman Abramovich and Alexander Mamut?
Primakov: Actually, I don't even meet with them. But I'd like to note that I don't have any prejudices preventing me from cooperating with any particular person. The main point is that our cooperation should be useful for some business.
Question: You opponents claim that you may become either the senior censor or the dummy chairman at TV-6. What do you think about your role at this channel?
Primakov: I'll be neither a puppet not a controller. My role is to optimally minimize all obstacles encountered while TV-6 is being set up. Neither Arkady Volsky nor I will interfere in the editorial policy of the channel. We only want to help journalists overcome the crisis and create a truly popular television channel, independent of tycoons and the state. By the way, these statements will be set out in the contract that will be signed by Media-Socium and the journalist team. I hope this contract will correspond to four principles: stick to the facts, be objective, don't do any harm, and let your opponents express their views.
Question: The TV-6 journalists have many fears about you. For instance, they are afraid that you may try to change part of their team.
Primakov: Rumors about personnel changes are nonsense. I don't have any such plans. I think my relations with the journalists are quite normal. They have met with me in my office and seen my approach.
Question: It is also rumored that TV-6 cannot possibly become profitable, and therefore, many investors have left it.
Primakov: It sounds as if the channel were already functioning, and I were its manager. It is too early to talk about the channel's self-sufficiency and terms of reaching it.
Question: Some observers also claim that money from private investors will not be enough, and the state will have to pay the remaining sum for TV-6.
Primakov: If any more investors should leave TV-6, their places will be taken by other investors. We don't intend to obtain money from the treasury.
Question: There are rumors that you were not very eager to be involved in TV affairs, but the president just presented you with a fait accompli.
Primakov: But I've become involved in this business, so the matter is settled. And the president did not intervene in this affair. (Translated by Kirill Frolov)