23 December 2002 00:00
RUSSIAN DEPUTY MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGY MAMEDOV INTERVIEW WITH THE NEWSPAPER VREMYA NOVOSTEI, PUBLISHED ON DECEMBER 23 UNDER THE HEADING "'AXIS OF EVIL' - A PROVOCATIVE PHRASE"
2642-23-12-2002
Iraq, North Korea and Iran are the three states causing US anger these days. Georgy Enverovich Mamedov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for issues of strategic stability, at the request of Vremya Novostei special correspondent Katerina Labetskaya, comments on the situation around these countries labeled by the US an "axis of evil."
Answer: The phrase "axis of evil" is extremely unsuccessful, even provocative. It has engendered many problems, frightening a number of countries. Russia surely can feel calm, never allowing anyone to blackmail itself under any circumstances. And all know this. But what about a little state which is being told that it is almost part of the biblical forces of evil that have to be fought until their full destruction. To use the words of the song, "I know of no other country" where officially (as in the USA - Ed.) a law would be passed to change the leader of an independent state. One can hardly expect passivity from the countries included in the "axis of evil." Trying to do something, they, naturally, may violate some international agreements. But to accuse them of provoking the entire crisis is unfair. Responsibility should indeed be borne by those who are unfolding the campaign of intimidation and by those who because of this consider themselves entitled to violate international agreements. We do not recognize such a right and we have issued many statements. Not all were "warmly embraced" by some of our partners. Russia's principled stand stems from the protection of its national interests. What counts most is the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). For, all these regional crises are very close to our borders.
Question: All are intently watching Iraq. What is the position of Russia?
Answer: The statements by Hans Blix and ElBaradei (the head of the UN commission to disarm Iraq and the head of IAEA, respectively - Ed.) are evidence of the effectiveness of their work and of the possibility by peaceful means exactly, via generally adopted civilized arms control to solve the problem and provide guarantees that there will be no prohibited weapons in Iraq.
Question: Are we satisfied with Iraq's report on its weapons? Are there any gaps or omissions in it?
Answer: No one is ever completely satisfied: there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. There are questions which have yet to be answered, but no one had in fact expected that a single document would answer everything. That's what the inspectors are there for. If they have a question, and they are hindered from getting an answer, then this is a breach, this has to be prevented. But so far there are no complaints against the Iraqis that they hinder the inspectors' work, according to Blix and ElBaradei. That's what matters! The statements by US officials that they've learned little new or that there are gaps - now that had been predicted. Such is their position. I hope that it is prompted not by the search of a pretext for war, but by a desire to just exert pressure on Iraq, to make it cooperate better. I hope so because at the presidents' meeting in Pushkin we asked the Americans bluntly: "What do you want these inspections for? To have a pretext for a strike?"
Question: You asked precisely so?
Answer: Approximately. "No. We want to disarm Iraq preferably by peaceful means," the US president answered us. How it will be - we'll see. But that such responsible statements are made by the highest-placed state official is also important.
Question: How do you evaluate the situation with the DPRK?
Answer: To blackmail North Korea with its difficult economic position is counterproductive, dangerous. Russia promotes dialogue, encourages the creation there of joint ventures, the construction of a railway between North and South. This is the right policy. To call someone part of an "axis of evil," try to intimidate him and then charge that after such intimidation incautious statements are made, as they were made by Pyongyang, seems to me incorrect. Here I disagree with my friend John Bolton, who said to my question in this regard whether he was pleased by what had happened: "Yes, I am." I told him: "There you're wrong. This is very dangerous. You forgot the Korean war and the incidents in the demilitarized zone, where your own servicemen were killed." People's memory is short, and so we have to concern ourselves with strategic stability.
Question: The Americans are interested in our assessments of the Korean situation?
Answer: Not always, but often. And we sincerely share them. It is in our common interest that nuclear weapons should not appear on the Korean Peninsula. Meaning the absence of nuclear weapons in the DPRK and in South Korea and in the US forces on the territory of South Korea.
Question: Does the 30,000-strong US military contingent in South Korea have nuclear weapons?
Answer: The Americans say it hasn't. The official US policy, though, is to neither confirm nor deny their existence.
Question: Russia is also being accused of nuclear cooperation with Iran...
Answer: The Americans say: "We are against the development of nuclear weapons in Iran." We answer them: "So are we. But you as a party to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT Treaty) forget about your obligations to help develop peaceful nuclear power production." The NPT Treaty not only prohibits nuclear weapons development, but also encourages cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear power production. Russia is ready to provide all the guarantees, to cooperate with the IAEA and to work with Iran in such a way that the spent nuclear fuel that will be supplied there returns back, so that it is impossible even secretly to make from it any components of nuclear weapons. By the way, the Iranian foreign minister has invited inspectors to visit the two nuclear facilities that had supposedly been photographed from space. Let the specialists have a look; they are neither Russians nor Iranians, but Anglo-Saxons entertaining no particular liking towards Iran.
See interview with Mr. Georgy Mamedov on US missile defense plans and on the problem of arms control in tomorrow's issue.
| 
RUSSIA IN FACTS