Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov has conceded that Russia had come under pressure from the US to abandon nuclear cooperation with Iran, but had not yielded. Interviewed by Akram Khuzam on Al-Jazeera TV, he said that Russia would continue cooperating with Iran and that two new nuclear reactors would be built. Touching on Chechnya, he said that Western reports of cleansing operations were merely a figment of the imagination and these operations have not been carried out for at least a year. On NATO he said that Russia did not view the organization as an enemy but this did mean that there were no specific dangers in the expansion of the Alliance. Russia, he added, had no intention of joining this organization. The following is an excerpt from the interview:
Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel Television in Arabic, an independent television financed by the Qatari Government, at 1905 GMT on 21 January carries its recorded "Today's Encounter" discussion programme presented by Akram Khuzam in Moscow; date not given. This episode's guest is Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov.
[Khuzam] Your Excellency, the minister. The whole world is currently preoccupied with the Iraq issue and military and political officials are wondering, will war break out or not? What is your opinion?
[Ivanov] I am pleased to be given the opportunity before this large number of viewers to give an interview to this well-known television station, which is developing dynamically. This is my first opportunity and therefore I will begin by saying: May peace be upon you. If we talk about Iraq, then this is of course a complicated issue. You might perhaps think, as the viewers will know, that not everything here depends on Russia. The Russian position was adopted a long time ago and I can safely say that it has crystallized and I think that this position is adopted on a sound basis and is easy to explain.
Danger of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is real
If we talk in general about the danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, this danger undoubtedly does exist in our current stage. This danger is as much a concern to Russia as it is to the United States and a number of other countries, including, in my opinion, the Near East and Middle East countries and the Arab World. It is a serious issue that could undermine the entire strategic stability and also undermine the ability to predict the shape of the contemporary world. The attempts to possess such weapons do exist and in my capacity as defence minister I say in a very responsible manner that we take note of such attempts. But I am saying this in general terms and theoretically speaking and as a background to this subject...
We therefore believe and Russia believes that unilateral measures, especially military measures, should not be taken against Iraq under the current circumstances and the reality of today. I am not afraid to say that the majority of countries in the world share this position and we are not alone in this. We are still convinced that the inspectors must submit a preliminary report, as it has become clear now, on the 27th of this month. We support the idea of the continued work of the inspectors in Iraq, if necessary...
[Khuzam]While you say that this war should not be launched and that the Security Council must adopt a special resolution, the United States and Britain talk about the possibility of launching a war against Iraq. Many are asking about what Russia would do if the war broke out.
[Ivanov] I think that many countries in the world and also Russia would express their negative position towards these operations. If we assume in theory that a wrong and [word indistinct] step were going to be taken, Russia would of course follow developments in the situation. Russia would also not merely defend its national interests, especially its economic interests, but would do its utmost in coordination with all the countries that share our position to alleviate the consequences of war.
[Khuzam] Let us move on to Iran. We notice that the level of military cooperation between Russia and Iran has recently reduced somewhat. Is this due to pressure by the United States or the pro-Israeli lobby here in Moscow? What is your opinion?
Cooperation between Iran and Russia continues
[Ivanov] This has not happened in the case of Iran but there were attempts at exerting pressure, yes. This is obvious but I do not wish to go into detail because many know about that and I have talked about it many times. Iran is an independent and sovereign country and is not subjected to any sanctions and in the meantime Iran is committed to all international treaties and controls. For example, Iran is a member of the IAEA and all the other treaties. Since the beginning of 2000, Russia abandoned all the restrictions to which it had been voluntarily committed in the past in the field of military and technological cooperation with Iran. This is except for those commitments which we pledged to honour and which Iran deliberately kept in place within the framework of international obligations.
Talks are taking place and I can frankly tell you that all the requests that the Iranian side submits for supplying it with weapons are nothing more than defensive weapon systems. We do not feel that we are under any restrictions here and everything now depends on certain commercial talks because Russia, contrary to the Soviet era, conducts all its foreign trade activities principally on the basis of its trade interests. We do not export arms for free or on credit as we used to do in the past with the aim of supporting our political missions."
[Khuzam] The talk about cooperation with Iran is limited to cooperation in the nuclear field. It is said that as a result of pressure from Israel and the United States, Russia has reduced this cooperation, given that I know that there are American and German companies working there specifically in this field.
[Ivanov]Yes, I know that and it is true and this also happens with Iraq and not only with Iran. Permit me to slightly disagree with you. There has been no retreat or apprehension or reduction in our completely legal cooperation with Iran in the field of nuclear energy. When we signed those contracts, we came under some political pressures from the United States. I wish to emphasize that this happened in the past but I would like to point out that we did not give in to that pressure. Two nuclear reactors will be established. One of these reactors will be inaugurated as soon as the equipment is installed and this means, in practice, it is in the phase of no return. Rest assured that no changes would take place after that. When we are told, in an attempt to exert pressure upon us, why are you building nuclear reactors in Iran since those [Iranians] have a great deal of oil and gas? I reply to them by saying: Listen, we did not ask you when you held talks to build 20 nuclear reactors in Iran. This is therefore an operation of double standards.
[Khuzam] Your Excellency, the minister. The issue of Chechnya is the main focus of world media attention. Several Russian defence ministers promised that the issue would be quickly resolved and even President Putin also promised that when he came to office, but no-one can see light at the end of the tunnel. The operations are continuing and the violation of human rights by the federal forces is also continuing in Chechnya. What is the way out in your opinion?
Settlement process in Chechnya will take some time
[Ivanov] I would like you to understand that the settlement process in Chechnya will take some time and this is very understandable. There are several aspects to this settlement. If we talk about the military aspect, the main task, which is principally at hand, lies in cutting the channels of the supply of money to the terrorists, including the international terrorists, in Chechnya. All the terrorist operations that are carried out inside Chechnya are paid for in advance. Every action that the fighters or terrorists carry out has a price and we have documents that prove this and I presented them to the media on several occasions.
Sums of money amounting to millions are transferred to Chechnya from abroad and regrettably the largest part of this money comes from the Arab World countries and I do not understand the secret behind this. A number of countries from this region have traditionally good relations with Russia and the leaders and politicians of these countries announce their endeavours to promote these relations with Russia in its capacity as the heir to the former Soviet Union. At the same time and wittingly or unwittingly, enormous amounts of money are collected in these countries and sent to Chechnya. International terrorists are hiding in the UAE and Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Excuse me, this is a policy of double standards. But I have told you about the first task. The second task is of course drying out the sources of weapons and also money from inside Russian territory because the world of crime also finances terrorism. It is not only terrorist attacks that take place in Chechnya. There are also attacks by bandits who kidnap citizens in order to demand ransoms that would afterward be transferred to finance the fighters."
Cleansing operations in Chechnya - a figment of the imagination
The third task, which is perhaps the most important, is the political settlement process... As regard the cleansing operations that the West talks about a great deal, these are merely a figment of the imagination and these operations have not been carried out for at least a year. Yes, the criminals sometimes hide in residential areas and yes, they have accomplices there who help them hide and make contacts. In this case, the federal forces and not only the army because there is the Ministry of Interior and the federal security commission, carry out specific operations. For example, they go to a house because they know there are criminals inside it and if they come under fire from that house, the military personnel and I mean here the forces in general return fire. This happens in any civilized country and we will also respond in this way afterward. As for crimes, crimes and violations do actually take place and there are cases of crimes committed by military personnel. At the moment, there are 46 criminal cases against military personnel who committed one kind of crime or another, including murder. Courts have passed sentences in 11 murder cases and these sentences have taken their legal course. At the same time, I cannot say that the crimes that are committed by military personnel are of a collective nature because I do not have any proof or facts.
[Khuzam] Allow me to move on to the issue of NATO. Everyone knows that it has become close to your borders. I personally know that NATO, according to what is written in your military ideology, is regarded as a major threat to Russia. At the same time, we see that several politicians and at the highest levels do not give any significance to NATO as a danger as is the case in that military ideology. They argue that there is no need to escalate the climate with NATO and that there should be cooperation with it. Will you write down in your new ideology that it is a partner and does not pose a threat to Russia's security?
NATO not an enemy, but there are dangers in its expansion
[Ivanov] No, the things you have mentioned will not be written down in the military ideology. But at the same time, the old ideology, which is not exactly old because it was endorsed when I was working in the National Security Council in 2000, did not stipulate that. It did not stipulate that Russia has this or that enemy or mention names, as was the case during the days of the Soviet Union. In general, the theory of the axis of evil is unacceptable to us and we categorically reject that although we, as is the case with the United States, have serious questions and causes of concern with regard to some countries. But I will not talk about that because your question was about NATO. We do not describe NATO as an enemy but that does not mean we do not see specific dangers in the expansion of the Alliance. President Putin previously talked about this on several occasions and described the expansion process as a mistake.
It seems to me that NATO has started to realize today that the world has changed. Official statements are of course made to the effect that Russia is not an enemy of NATO but NATO remains until now essentially a military organization. Russia does not have any [?intention] to join this organization and the truth has to be said that NATO for its part does not plan to invite Russia to join this military organization. On the basis of what I have said and these realistic calculations, I signed the document of the so-called Russia-NATO council, which is known to everyone as the 20-countries agreement. It was written that NATO and Russia essentially cooperate in the field of the new threats and challenges that do not infringe on the essence of the military organization, makeup, or planning of both sides. What will happen later? We say that only time will tell because the mechanism of the 20-countries agreement itself has only been in force less than a year. On the other hand, let us recall in an objective manner what has happened to NATO and inside NATO after the 11 September incidents. It is not a secret that Russia was able to provide a greater deal of support to the international coalition, and not only to the United States, in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and there is a principled difference between that and the support that all of NATO extended."
[Khuzam] Your Excellency, the minister. Since we are talking about cooperation with the United States, the Americans recently invited you to cooperate in the field of the missile defence shield. You also recently announced your intention to build a new system causing a major stir and raising the question about where would Russia obtain the money to accomplish such a project. It has also been asked whether you will actually cooperate with the United States, which has defined the countries of the axis of evil comprising countries that are your friends."
US missile shield - not a threat to Russian security
[Ivanov] As regard the issue of the anti-missile defence system, we described the United States' withdrawal from the anti-missile defence treaty last year, which was signed in 1972, as a mistake and we condemned that move. But we have to understand that we live in a realistic world and ultimately the treaty itself includes a clause that stipulates the right of any side to withdraw from it. In general, the treaty contains such a paragraph that permits withdrawal for some reason... To confront these threats, there is in our opinion the nonstrategic antimissile defence system, that is the antimissile defence system in the theatre of military operations, which is regarded to a great extent a solution to the problem. Many countries in the world agree with us that there is no need to establish a global antimissile defence system because the cost of such a project is unknown and also whether this is technologically possible to achieve. The last thing I want to say is that we do not consider the US plans to establish their own system as a threat to our security because we have several methods to penetrate the antimissile defence system. In general, this issue does not worry us very much.