Printer Friendly Page

Transcript Of An Interview By Deputy Foreign Minister Of The Russian Federation Georgy Mamedov To Public Russian Television

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

May 13, 2002

Question: What is the situation regarding the preparation for the summit?

Answer: It is now easier because after the first round of the talks very important high-level exchanges have taken place at the political level. Above all, the telephone conversation of the Presidents on May 7, as well as the visit by Igor Ivanov to Washington where he discussed issues with President Bush and had extended conversations with the Secretary of State. On the issues remaining over and above the Treaty and the Declaration we have clear-cut instructions on how to work towards looking for solutions. On the Vremena program on ORT channel yesterday the Secretary of State expressed considerable optimism saying that the Declaration and the Treaty will be signed and we share this optimism and will try to do everything we can.

Question: There are some controversial questions, for example, what will happen to the warheads: will they be stored or destroyed. Will that question be discussed?

Answer: All the issues will be discussed. We will follow through the whole range of topics, not only on the text because the negotiations are always broader than the text. There are three groups of issues: first are the ones that we are going to address in the concrete agreement (we hope it will be a Treaty). We are given ten years to accomplish that. We must clearly identify the goals, the perspectives and the mechanism. Another group of issues is issues connected with strategic offensive weapons which will not be solved in this concrete agreement, but mechanisms will be created for discussing and solving them. And a third group of issues is the issues without solving which strategic stability is impossible, but which, strictly speaking, are not issues connected with START cuts. This is above all, the issue of anti-missile defense. We will discuss these three groups of issues, and, I hope that on the issues that should be in the agreement (I repeat, we hope that it be a Treaty), we will reach mutually acceptable results, and we will report back to our Ministers, who, as you know, will meet in Reykjavik tomorrow.

Question: How are the negotiations proceeding?

Answer: The negotiations are proceeding with difficulty. First, because the topic is very complicated, and second, because there was a big break after START-2 after the American side decided not to ratify START-2, and thirdly, the new administration came along with its own approach. The new military doctrine, new plans of the building and use of nuclear weapons were published. Because Russia and the US plan their nuclear forces ten years ahead, and not one year, naturally, we too, had to analyze our plans considering new aspects in the approach of the American side, so, the negotiations meet with heavy going. But we hope that the agreement we are working on will work out, and if the Presidents approve it, it will not be the last. There will be other agreements in the field of strategic defensive weapons or, ABM systems.

Question: You said that the negotiations were sticky, complicated, but George Bush has indicated that we will go down to 1,500-1,700 warheads. What is the problem?

Answer: The positions were set forth long ago. Let me remind you that we were the first to set up this position in November 2000 before it became known who will be the next president of the US. Even as they were counting the bulletins in Florida, the Russian President Vladimir Putin made a statement proposing to the American side to cut the strategic offensive weapons to 1,500. After that the American side took some time for reflection. Then the US President made a statement in May advocating radical reductions of strategic offensive weapons. Then the ceiling of 1,700-2,200 warheads after ten years was reached. Thereafter, one of the most complicated procedures was to translate it into a legally binding language of treaties so that even after the Bush administration, after 2004 when a new President of the United States is, perhaps, elected, everything we agreed upon should be in effect so that it should be real agreements that are verified.

Question: The question of warheads is more or less clear. But what to do about carriers? Our Defense Ministry has accused the Americans of not going to reduce the carriers, unlike us. They, for their part, will simply refit their B-52, to carry precision weapons which does not mean a reduction of carriers because at any moment they can be refitted to carry nuclear weapons. Will the carrier topics be addressed?

Answer: The topic of carriers will constantly be at the focus of attention and this has nothing to do with the position of the Foreign Ministry, the intelligence and the Defense Ministry. We have a national position approved by the Russian President. Our position is simple, clear and logical. We are still bound by START-1 treaty signed in 1991 and it will be in effect until 2009. It describes everything in detail: what is to be done with carriers, when they should be refitted, when they should be reduced, etc. We want all these procedures of the Treaty which is in effect and which has been ratified, to be fulfilled and then there will be no questions between us and the Americans. So, we are conducting negotiations on how to integrate the START-1 provisions into the new agreement which we hope to prepare for the US President's visit.

Question: Does the Treaty being prepared for the summit contain a provision on the conditions on which this or that side can withdraw from the Treaty?

Answer: Of course, any international document of that caliber contains a point that reserves the right for any side to terminate the Treaty if its interests are threatened.

Question: Can there be any other reasons?

Answer: This is reason enough, as we see it.