ROSSIISKAYA GAZETA INTERVIEW
WITH SERGEY LAVROV,
RUSSIAN MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
February 28, 2007
Excerpts
[Unofficial translation from Russian.]
. . .
Question: Reports have appeared on news agency tapes that the Americans have actually selected targets on Iranian territory. It turns out that a new war in the Middle East is not far off? Or do you consider that Washington in regard to Teheran continues using the tactic of intimidation?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: Well, of course, it will be sad if in the Middle East, in a region adjoining Russia, a new seat of hostilities appears. In a situation when in Iraq things are getting worse by the day and when, as President Bush has publicly acknowledged, in Afghanistan the situation is degrading and the number of terrorist acts has increased many times over, as has the number of killed and wounded, to add to this one more hotbed will be extremely short-sighted. In addition, let us not forget about the explosive situation in Palestine and Lebanon.
We are convinced of the futility of attempts to solve any crisis by force, including, of course, the situation around Iran's nuclear program. At our insistence, juridically, the United Nations Security Council decisions that were adopted on Iran are clearly limited to economic sanctions. The Council's resolution cites the particular article of the United Nations Charter that expressly rules out the use of force.
I was recently in Washington and had the opportunity to touch upon this question at my meeting with President George Bush as well as in the talks with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I was told that the United States had no plans to start war with Iran. Of late the American leadership has been saying the same in public.
But we, of course, remember that earlier the US President, while stressing his commitment to a political settlement of the problem, would add that no options were ruled out. Recently Vice President Richard Cheney said it again. We are, of course, worried by the possibility of a force-based scenario. We are watching the US forces buildup in the Persian Gulf area. It was announced that at least one aircraft-carrier task force would be deployed there. In parallel the Americans are deploying elements of air defense in the zone. You understand, when such an amassment of manpower and resources occurs, this is always fraught with the possibility that an armed conflict might be triggered accidentally.
The President of the Russian Federation just visited Gulf countries: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan. After this I also went to the United Arab Emirates. The leaderships of all these countries are extremely worried by the prospect of the start of another war. I think that now all those who can somehow influence the situation are duty-bound to seek to keep it on the political track. This applies fully to the leadership of Iran as well, with which we continue to work persistently and from which we expect a constructive response to the offers for talks.
Two weeks ago Secretary of the Security Council of Russia Igor Ivanov visited Teheran, where he met with top Iranian leaders. He conveyed a message from the President of Russia. After this we received in Moscow the Iranian supreme leader's foreign policy adviser Ali Velayati. Consultations within the Six are being held right now these days with our participation, and Iranian representatives are in contact with the IAEA Director General.
Given the well-known, not exactly constructive position of Iran on the previous attempts to start talks, perhaps it will be incorrect to feel optimism over all this, but at least we proceed from the necessity to do everything to try and start talks as soon as possible.
Russia has suggested to our western partners that a detailed statement be made on behalf of the Six, re-emphasizing in it the invitation to Iran to begin talks. That possibility was discussed as early as December, when we were working on the previous resolution of the Security Council.
It would be a pity, an unforgivable thing, if because of a misunderstood prestige, because of intransigence on both side we missed an opportunity to use all the possibilities for starting such talks.
The situation around the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem shows that with the readiness to make a small step towards each other, and those were the steps made by Washington and Pyongyang, it is possible to resume the negotiation process.
Question: Do the latest contacts with Iranian representatives give at least the slightest grounds to assume that there will appear some new "little hooks" which it will be possible to pull? Or does there stand the wall?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: The US continues to insist on having it its own way and keeps refusing to waive principles. Washington is ready to sit down with Teheran at the negotiating table only after the Iranians "freeze" their nuclear program. Iran in its turn says: we are ready for talks, but without any preliminary conditions. We, Iranian leaders continue, have no plans to produce a nuclear bomb, but we do have the right to have a full nuclear cycle in accordance with the Nonproliferation Treaty.
To which we say to them: "Yes, but you have a little debt to the IAEA. For years you engaged in what seemed to be not prohibited activities, but experts from the IAEA got some questions in the process, as you did not inform them of those activities, although you had to. So answer them, close these questions. And then you're going to restore your full rights under the Nonproliferation Treaty." The Iranian colleagues again say to this that they are ready for talks without preliminary conditions.
As a result each remains of the same opinion. It was not by chance that I cited the talks on the Korean Peninsula nuclear problem as an example. For a long time the Americans had been saying that they would not tackle the problem of their unilateral financial sanctions against the DPRK until the talks were resumed. But after all the direct contacts made it possible to find a mutually acceptable, mutually respectful compromise. The talks have begun. I am convinced that a similar scheme can also be used to solve Iran's nuclear problem, given the wish.
A no-compromise stance can hardly be ascribed to the positive qualities of diplomacy.
. . .