> BusinessWeek online
> March 14, 2003
> Moscow: "We Can't Accept Ultimatums"
> Russian Ambassador to the U.N. Sergei Lavrov on the "seriousness" of the
> consequences if the U.S. acts against Iraq without U.N. approval
>
> The intense diplomatic battle that has been raging at the U.N. is coming
> to
> a close. A vote may be imminent on a proposed British resolution declaring
> that Saddam Hussein has missed his final chance to comply with U.N.
> demands
> to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction unless he meets several
> final
> "benchmarks." They include announcing in Arabic on television that Iraq
> possesses such weapons and allowing dozens of scientists to be interviewed
> outside of Iraq.
>
> France and Russia have declared that they will veto any resolution that
> appears to authorize the immediate use of force against Iraq. BusinessWeek
> Senior Writer Rose Brady spoke with Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergei
> Lavrov, about his country's position and its possible impact on the future
> of U.S.-Russian relations. Edited excerpts of their conversation follow:
>
> Q: Do you think the U.S. has mishandled the diplomacy in the U.N. on Iraq?
> A: Each country has its own diplomacy, and each country has its own
> convictions.... [But] we've been saying that we can't accept ultimatums
> and
> the automatic use of force. We're convinced that disarmament can be done
> peacefully by continuing inspections.
>
> Q: Will U.S.-Russian relations suffer as a result of the differences over
> Iraq?
> A: I hope that U.S.-Russian relations are mature enough to survive crisis
> situations. Difficult situations have taken place in the past -- when the
> U.S. unilaterally abandoned the ABM [antiballistic missile] treaty, which
> we believe was a mistake, just as we believe that the expansion of NATO
> was
> a mistake. We said so, but we also said we did have other things to do
> with
> the U.S., and I think we managed to survive those two critical points in
> our relations.
>
> Q: How serious is this crisis for the international community?
> A: It's serious, no doubt, if the war starts in a situation when it isn't
> warranted because the real process on the ground in Iraq is progressing.
> You have only to read statements from leaders of the region to sense what
> the fallout will be and the very serious consequences [if force is used].
>
> The Middle East situation is deadlocked, and there's the rise of extremist
> feelings and actions. [There's the problem of] the Kurds. I hope everybody
> understands the seriousness of [the situation], and when a decision
> regarding this crisis is taken that we will all fully recognize our
> responsibilities.
>
> Q: If the U.S. and Britain go to war without the backing of the U.N., what
> damage would that do to the U.N. Security Council?
> A: This would certainly be against the U.N. charter, and this would be
> unfortunate. The charter clearly says the use of force is not legitimate
> unless authorized by the Security Council or in self-defense [after a
> direct attack].
>
> As far as the future of the Security Council is concerned, I don't think
> it's in danger. It's handling a dozen and a half peacekeeping operations
> in
> very crucial areas, and it's leading the international coalition against
> terrorism. The council is paying attention in practical terms to such
> issues as illegal drug trafficking, organized crime, and other issues that
> are of direct interest to all countries -- including the largest countries
> in the world.
>
> Q: What is your opinion of President Bush's new national security
> strategy,
> which endorses the notion of preemptive strikes to protect American and
> other international interests?
> A: This preemptive doctrine is very worrying. [Again], it certainly goes
> against the U.N. charter. The [international community's] priorities are
> going to be confused. The coalition against international terrorism will
> suffer, and other international efforts could [suffer as well].
>
> I hope that we all will [realize] that we need cooperative relations to
> fight common threats and challenges.
>
>
>