The Russia Journal

Yury Sigov spoke with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in Washington about U.S.-Russian relations.

WASHINGTON – Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov visited Washington last week to meet with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Their meeting came ahead of the summit between President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President George W. Bush from Nov. 13-15 in Washington and Texas, which is widely seen as the last chance for the two powers to reach an agreement on missile defense before the United States pushes ahead with tests.

But missile defense was not the only item on Ivanov's agenda with Powell, and the Russian foreign minister spoke to The Russia Journal about several issues, including the war on terrorism and bilateral trade.

THE RUSSIA JOURNAL: To what extent did the issue of international terrorism dominate your talks with Colin Powell, and was there a chance to discuss other, no less important, issues regarding our two countries' relations?

IGOR IVANOV: The fight against international terrorism was, of course, at the top of the agenda. We are allied with the United States on this issue, and this is heartening. The main task now is to define a common strategy and work out what we can do within a bilateral framework and what we can do together within the framework of international organizations such as the United Nations.

Of course, we also actively discussed bilateral issues that will be examined in detail during the summit between our two presidents. Our views have become much closer on some questions, but there is a lot of work for specialists to do on other issues.

RJ: How do Russia and the United States see post-war Afghanistan? Are there differences in opinion here?

II: During our talks with our American colleagues, we've stressed that force alone won't solve the situation in Afghanistan. We think the United Nations should discuss the post-conflict process in Afghanistan. We also think that the future government in Kabul should represent all ethnic groups in the country. At the same time, it should be a government with broad international support.

Colin Powell agrees with us that there's no place for the Taliban in a future Afghan government. This is important to us also because Afghanistan must not pose a future threat either to its neighbors or to the world as a whole.

RJ: Did you make any headway with Colin Powell on the missile-defense issue? The American press has suggested there's a split within the Bush administration, with Powell and Condoleezza Rice more inclined to compromise with Russia and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney taking a more hard-line stance.

II: It's not for me to comment on internal questions in the U.S. administration. All I can say is that we are very happy with the positive American response to our earlier proposals to make sharp cutbacks to our nuclear arsenals. We have been negotiating with Colin Powell as official representative of the U.S. administration, but whatever differences of opinion the Americans have among themselves, that is their internal matter.

We are, of course, continuing our dialogue on the issue. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is coming to Moscow, and on Nov. 10, Colin Powell and I will meet at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. Powell will visit Moscow in December. It looks as if we still have a lot of intensive work ahead of us on this issue, but consultations are going on actively, and this gives us hope.

Our common task is to cut back our nuclear arsenals, but we can do this only if we have strategic stability. Our approach hasn't changed: We believe that observance of the ABM Treaty and related agreements provides this stability. But at the same time, we could eventually work with the United States on various new models of strategic relations.

In any event, these issues will depend very much on the meeting between our presidents in Washington and Texas. We shouldn't try to hasten events – I can assure you that we are already building up positive potential on this question.

RJ: Are we likely to see any significant compromises on arms-control issues between the United States and Russia in the near future?

II: Let's first wait for the meeting between our presidents and not hurry events. Important bilateral agreements in international affairs often end up coming out of face-to-face meetings and informal discussions.

RJ: Did you get the impression during your talks that the Americans still don't fully trust Russia, or is Washington now talking to Moscow as an ally?

II: I think it's perfectly clear the ties between our two countries are strengthening and becoming broader. This is reflected in both international affairs and in bilateral relations. What we have now is not just a dialogue, but specific results. There's been progress in trade and real U.S. investments. I think this is a visible trend, and it's our job now to strengthen it and make sure it gives the results our two countries need.

RJ: Everyone knows that Russia hopes to reap some benefits from its support of U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Has Colin Powell made any specific promises to Russia in return for its support?

II: Russia isn't trying to bargain with America over what it can get in return for supporting the fight against terrorism. But I won't hide the fact that we do hope for improved bilateral relations, including better economic cooperation. How strong our relations will be depends on how much we can deepen our economic ties. We've already made noticeable progress here, and we hope to consolidate this in the near future.

I think our bilateral trade is growing at a good pace – it increased by 8 percent in the first half of this year. The Americans have begun investing more actively in Russia – they have invested $12 billion in the Sakhalin-1 project, for example. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium, in which American companies have a $2.5-billion share, has begun operation of an oil pipeline.

Russian and American companies have begun working closer together as part of the business dialogue that started between our two countries this summer. More and more companies, including quite a few medium and small businesses, are becoming involved in this cooperation. So there is progress, and we now have to develop it further.

RJ: Does this progress you talk about mean, for example, that the Americans might abolish the Jackson-Vanick amendment, which has hindered business between our countries up to now?

II: There's already been a hopeful signal from Washington. In accordance with the agreement reached between our presidents at the APEC summit in Shanghai, the Bush administration has begun consultations with Congress on abolishing the Jackson-Vanick amendment with regard to Russia. Obviously, we think this amendment is a Cold War relic, and abolishing it would open the door to real progress in our relations with the United States.

Of course, there are still plenty of problems our countries have to tackle in their economic relations, but the fact that we are now taking a constructive approach creates a much better climate for our bilateral relations overall.