Meet the Press - 03.17.2002

 

NBC News' Meet the Press

Excerpt from NBC Transcript: 

Interview with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov

Department of Defense photo: Helene C. Stikkel

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov (right) with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at Pentagon press briefing, March 13

....

MR. TIM RUSSERT: ...The world, indeed, still a very dangerous place. But relations have improved dramatically over time with our former primary enemy, Russia. Earlier in the week, I visited the Russian Embassy and sat down with their minister of Defense, who had just met with his American counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon and with President George W. Bush at the White House.
       
Sergei Ivanov, welcome to MEET THE PRESS. As you know, as the world knows, last week the Nuclear Posture Review was leaked to the media from the Pentagon and I’d like to read you one paragraph from that: “Russia’s nuclear forces and programs, nevertheless, remain a concern. Russia faces many strategic problems around its periphery and its future course cannot be charted with certainty. U.S. planning must take this into account. In the event that U.S. relations with Russia significantly worsen in the future, the U.S. may need to revise its nuclear force levels and posture.”
       
And what we learned is that, in fact, the United States would like to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, but warehouse them, put them on a shelf, in case circumstances change, in case our relationship with Russia changes. Is that prudent thinking on behalf of the United States?
       
MR. SERGEI IVANOV: Well, good afternoon, Tim, and thanks for the invitation. I have to admit that, of course, part of which says that Russia has lots of problems on its periphery is true. Unfortunately, our neighbors are much more numerous than American ones. You have only two, Canada and Mexico. I always envied you in that sense. We have dozens of them, and not all of them are really quite all predictable. As for reducing nuclear capability, as such, particularly strategic nuclear capability, it’s a proper move, our both presidents have already agreed about that, and both Russian and American side are trying to devise a formula how to do it most effectively on a principle of equal security, transparency and legally binding document.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have said, if you put them on a shelf, they would not be “real reductions.”

MR. IVANOV: In that sense, yes, because the majority of the people in the world, I am convinced about that, think that reduction really means elimination. Elimination. Part of nuclear weapons should be eliminated because they simply get outdated and may become dangerous for the owner of those warheads or missiles to that end. But part of it may be stored; I don’t argue with that principle, well, out of hand, but the devil is in details, how much, how long and how quickly it might go back to operational and, well, jeopardize strategic stability.

MR. RUSSERT: But that is negotiable?

MR. IVANOV: That is negotiable, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: The CIA each year issues an annual report to Congress on the safety and security of Russian nuclear facilities. The most recent report says: “Weapons-grade and weapons-usable nuclear materials have been stolen from some Russian institutes. We assess that undetected smuggling has occurred, although we do not know the extent or magnitude of such thefts. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the total amount of material that could have been diverted over the last 10 years.” Is that accurate?

MR. IVANOV: No. Here, I can answer quite definite. Concerning weapons-grade material, there is not a single case that any Russian weapons-grade material have been stolen, sold or something like that. There were cases of isotopes, I think you call them isotopes, from the civilian energy sector, which some fools thought that it might be presented as a nuclear material and try to sell it. But that has nothing to do with defense, and I can assure you really point blank that Russian weapons system, plutonium is under a very strict government control.

MR. RUSSERT: Safe and secure?

MR. IVANOV: Safe and secure, absolutely.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Are you impressed thus far with the United States’ success in Afghanistan?

MR. IVANOV: That depends on what you measure as success. If you measure it as removing big groups or bandit groups or terrorist groups which are combined in thousands sometimes or marching the roads, well, in a paramilitary way, then, of course, United States have achieved a definite progress. The big groups are dispersed already. But if you analyze it, and we have a history of knowing what Afghanistan is, and from the very start, we told that people, not the American military, because they shared our realistic view from the very start, but the general public, they should be very overoptimistic. It will take years to dismantle the roots of al-Qaeda and Taliban from Afghanistan.

MR. RUSSERT: Years?

MR. IVANOV: Years, definitely, not months.

MR. RUSSERT: Russia lost 15,000 soldiers in Afghanistan; 35,000 more were injured. Why did Russia meet with such an awful outcome, when apparently, the United States has done it with relatively fewer casualties?

MR. IVANOV: It was not Russia; it was Soviet Union. That’s a big change. And why the Soviet Union did that, because the Soviet Union, at the time, was trying to impose military power on every square mile of Afghanistan. As far as I know, no foreign country which takes part in this operation in Afghanistan now has such an aim.

MR. RUSSERT: Osama bin Laden—at a news conference Wednesday in Washington, you said that you had absolute proof that Osama bin Laden trained many of the terrorists that are now operating in Chechnya, a province of Russia. Do you have any idea where Osama bin Laden is?

MR. IVANOV: I have no idea.

MR. RUSSERT: What’s your hunch?

MR. IVANOV: My hunch that he is—hunch. It is just a hunch, no background, no information sustaining that hunch—is that he is either inside or somewhere close to Afghanistan.

MR. RUSSERT: Still alive?

MR. IVANOV: Probably but...

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think he will be captured?

MR. IVANOV: I believe it. Sooner or later. Maybe in years, but still, he will be captured because I am convinced he should be captured, as well as many other terrorists, which you also mentioned have been trained in Afghanistan before and now in hiding, either in Chechnya or in Pankis Gorge in Georgia.

MR. RUSSERT: Numerous senior officials in Washington have credited Russia with sharing significant intelligence information with our government to take on terrorists. In fact, there are coordinating officers, officials, Russian, in Tampa...

MR. IVANOV: I know.

MR. RUSSERT: ...near the U.S. Central Command. Are those Russian intelligence officers down there working with us?

MR. IVANOV: They do. They are.

MR. RUSSERT: And cooperating?

MR. IVANOV: And there are lots of American intelligence officers in Moscow who are routinely, on a daily basis, attend the appropriate Russian services and get information.

MR. RUSSERT: As a former KGB official, how does that make you feel?

MR. IVANOV: Normal. Well, of course, psychologically, it might be difficult to adjust. I may remind you, we discussed this with Donald Rumsfeld, the idea that in the old times, we were looking for long-term agreements on arms reductions and we both thought that the only enemy is on the opposite side of the table. But as you said, we both change our minds. It’s the same with intelligence.

MR. RUSSERT: But we’re still spying on each other, as well.

MR. IVANOV: They do. But as far as I know, America spies not only on its former enemies, but also longtime allies.

MR. RUSSERT: And Russia also?

MR. IVANOV: I wouldn’t comment on that, I’m afraid but...

MR. RUSSERT: But let me turn to Iraq. In the Christian Science Monitor, there was this headline: “Russia rethinks its longtime support for Iraq.” And it goes on to say that Iraq owes Russia $8 billion in arrears, money they owed the former Soviet Union.

MR. IVANOV: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: And probably another $12 billion in oil export money for a total of $20 billion. And that there’s a growing calculation in Russia that they may be better off having Iraq without Saddam Hussein.

MR. IVANOV: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: Is that accurate?

MR. IVANOV: The figures which you have just pronounced, they’re accurate—the figures. But speaking about Saddam, I’m afraid you are slightly wrong. We don’t calculate in that sense. We calculate that there is—there might be a problem in Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. That’s why we support strongly the idea that a huge team of international monitors should go to Iraq. Should go there, investigate whatever they wish, finally have a clear answer, yes or no.

MR. RUSSERT: Unfettered access?

MR. IVANOV: Yes. And complete access. Complete access, of course. After that, the verdict, yes or no; if no, the sanctions should be lifted.

MR. RUSSERT: If yes, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, what happens?

MR. IVANOV: Yes. Yeah. Then we have to meet again and decide what further pressure should be applied on the government of that country.

MR. RUSSERT: Wouldn’t...

MR. IVANOV: But that’s a hypothetical. We have to first know yes or no whether weapons of mass destruction exist or not. As for ideas that—or some allegations that there are international terrorists who are hiding in Iraq or Iraq has been implement in sponsoring terrorism, I’m afraid that’s wrong. That’s wrong information. Terrorists have unfortunately other areas where they hide.

MR. RUSSERT: The Czechoslovakian government said that they, in fact, had confirmed ameeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, and Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague.

MR. IVANOV: Well, as far as I know, Mohamed Atta has spent many years in Germany and nobody accuses Germany as being—well, a sponsor of terrorism.

MR. RUSSERT: Would the world be better off without Saddam Hussein?

MR. IVANOV: Well, I wouldn’t comment on that because it’s—well, in our view, the problem is not with Saddam Hussein. The problem is with weapons of mass destruction. We have to finalize and get the final answer, yes or no, as I already mentioned.

MR. RUSSERT: If the United States decided that it was necessary to change the regime in Iraq, would, in fact, Russia support such a military operation?

MR. IVANOV: So far we haven’t been informed by the United States that they’ve made a decision to change. I hope that if and when such decision will be taken we will be informed.

MR. RUSSERT: Iran—why does Russia continue to assist Iran in development of nuclear weapons?

MR. IVANOV: That’s a myth, a myth supported for many years by Israel. I discussed our— well, general proliferation problems and our ties with Iran extensively with your national security council and minister of defense. Russia never supported Iran with nuclear or missile technologies. The only project Russia takes part in Iran is nuclear power plant in Busha which is under the auspices of international atomic energy.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you afraid of a nuclear armed Iran?

MR. IVANOV: Well, afraid is a word which is a bit—How would you put it?—theoretical or it’s a matter of feeling. I would say that I am afraid with proliferation as such not only in Iran, proliferation in countries whose governments or leaders doesn’t care much about the international laws, rules and even morals.

MR. RUSSERT: What should be done in the Middle East? How do you analyze the situation? Should the United States be more active in the peace process?

MR. IVANOV: Well, I wouldn’t advise United States policy on that to be more or less active but the Russian attitude is that the circle of violence has reached, I think, the level when something should be done. Some pressure, I think, should be put on both sides to stop, well, the acts of terror against Israelis, and by the way, lots of casualties are Russian speaking Israelis. On the other hand, Israel should stop this indiscriminative policy of killing women and civilians. I think United States, Russia, European Union and neighboring Arab states— Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, basically—should try and offer some urgency plans, at least to stop the violence of the present level, because I am realistic enough not to expect that the violence will disappear completely in a short period of time, I mean, months even or a year. But it should be stopped at the present level.

MR. RUSSERT: You met with President Bush. What were your impressions of him?

MR. IVANOV: He’s a visionary man, if I may say so. And he understands that—the times of Cold War is definitely over. And that both leaders should be bold and imaginative enough to try and maybe overpower the bureaucracy of both countries, which sometimes have its own vested interests.

MR. RUSSERT: He said your president was trustworthy.

MR. IVANOV: Yes, he did.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe President Bush is trustworthy?

MR. IVANOV: Yes, I do.

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, MEET THE PRESS is 54 years old. One of the first guests was Senator Joe McCarthy...

MR. IVANOV: I know that.

MR. RUSSERT: ...on this program who used to lean in and say, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?” I’ve always wanted to ask that question.

MR. IVANOV: I have been.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah. How the world has changed...