Question: In the early 1990s you supported the anti-Iraqi coalition led by President Bush Sr. Today Russia questions the decision of President Bush Jr. Why?
Answer: There is a major difference between the two situations. In 1990 Hussein launched an aggression against a small country, Kuwait, and occupied it. It was a challenge to the international community, which was only emerging from the Cold War era. The situation today is completely different.
We did suspect that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Such threat to peace must be ruled out and it is the task of international inspectors to do this. They have drafted several reports saying that they had not found such weapons in Iraq and that the Iraqi authorities show a desire to collaborate with them. Russia and other countries took a correct stand by demanding that the inspections should be carried on and Iraq disarmed peacefully. The UN Security Council should have taken harsh measures only if it were proved that Baghdad had the prohibited weapons and Hussein had refused to liquidate them.
I am convinced that this war is a gross political mistake of the USA. It did not rally a majority in the UN Security Council and acted contrary to the UN Charter, delivering a painful blow at the UN and international law. The Americans are giving a bad example. It has been reported that Turkey is sizing up possibilities of getting control of the oil-bearing Iraqi Kurdistan.
Question: One political scientist suggested a term for this, international totalitarianism.
Answer: A good term. While erasing a totalitarian regime in one country, the Americans are at the same time creating a totalitarian regime on the international scene. The USA has delivered a strike at its relations with allies and partners and all those who supported it after the September 11, 2001 tragedy.
Question: Everyone wants to know what will happen after the war. It is true that the war dealt a heavy blow at the UN but many people think the UN has long become obsolete.
Answer: The UN must certainly be reformed. In my opinion, the UN Special Commission on Iraq has been working too long. I have talked with its leaders several times and made suggestions to them. We must admit that the process has been drawn out. But this is no reason for destroying the UN. The Americans complain that the UN cannot do this or that. But who is hindering its work? The USA is. It does not pay its fees and, most importantly, wants the UN to dance to the American tune, disregarding the interests of other states and global problems.
Question: What do you think about the future of Russia-US relationship?
Answer: I believe that our president is doing well and calmly. While maintaining friendly partner relations with the USA, he also calmly and with good reason points to Bush's mistakes in the Iraqi crisis. Germany, France and China are acting in the same balanced manner, pointing to the need to maintain normal relations with the USA irrespective of current developments. We should carry on this substantiated policy.
Question: Do you support Vladimir Putin's domestic policy? What is your opinion of the first three years of his presidency?
Answer: I think we have approached the line beyond which the implementation of major modernisation programmes begins. Conditions for this were created during Putin's term. I have a positive attitude to his work. I must admit that when Vladimir Putin appeared on the political scene, many people did not believe he would do much. He was a new man; we hardly knew him. But in the past three years he showed that he has character, ambitions and ability to learn. On the whole, Putin is a president. Has he made mistakes? He certainly did. But one should be a president to know how difficult this job is.
I think that personnel issues are at the top of his agenda now. The stand he takes now is very important for the formation of the new parliament. We need upright and competent people in the State Duma; there is certainly a shortage of them. Besides, I don't think the government fully understands what the people expect of it. The high rating of the president means not only the evaluation of our achievements but also the level of public expectations. The president must not allow the country to move by inertia; it must be hauled out of the crisis and on to the right way. This calls for breakthroughs.