In an exclusive interview, Yury Sigov speaks with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov during his recent visit to Washington.

Washington – One of the first foreign officials to arrive in the United States for talks after the tragic events of Sept. 11 was Russia's Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

Ivanov is already considered a veteran Cabinet member after surviving three governmental reshuffles since being appointed to his post in autumn 1998, under then-Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov.

Insiders attribute his resilience to his refusal to participate in domestic political intrigue and his straight-down-the-line policy when it comes to lobbying Russia's interests on the international stage.

While in Washington, he spoke to The Russia Journal about his talks with U.S. officials and the future of Russian-U.S. relations.

The Russia Journal: What did you discuss with President George Bush and the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and what message did you bring from Moscow?

Igor Ivanov: The most important message I was able to convey to our American partners at these meetings is that Russia is ready for broad and multi-sided cooperation with the United States and with other countries in order to combat international terrorism. The events of these past days serve as a sort of new departure point in our relations, though it is hard at the moment to draw far-reaching conclusions.

We share the U.S. point of view that our countries are facing not theoretical, but very real security threats, and we are ready to work with the Americans to eliminate these threats.

RJ: Some U.S. political analysts say this degree of cooperation between Russia and the United States will be hard to achieve because Cold War stereotypes still prevail in Russia: America is perceived as an enemy and Moscow doesn't trust Washington.

II: After the Cold War ended, our two countries worked to eliminate the danger of global nuclear war. But at the same time, new threats have ap-peared that can have an explosive effect on the entire strategic situation in the world. As a result, democratic countries have found themselves unable to resist militant extremists, and are slow in res-ponding to these threats. All this means that countries feel more vulnerable today than they did during the years of bipolar confrontation.

The reason for this situation is the lack of approved international conventions that would enable us to foresee and act against the security threats that the globalization era carries with it. This includes not only international terrorism, but also organized crime, trafficking of nuclear weapons, drugs and so on. Both Russia and the United States realize that no country can fight these threats alone. Russia proposes creating a global system to combat these threats, and we are ready to discuss this issue within the United Nations framework.

The U.N. recently adopted a convention aimed at cutting off financial support for terrorists. If this convention was fully enforced, terrorists would have had fewer opportunities for organizing and executing their crimes.

RJ: To what extent is the U.S. administration likely to soften its criticism of Russia's policy in Chechnya in light of the events of Sept. 11?

II: During our talks we agreed that terrorists must not be allowed to feel safe and shouldn't be able to hide out in any country. Speaking of Chechnya, at the time when Che-chen rebels had attacked Dagestan, President Vladimir Putin immediately said that Russia had been attacked by the forces of international terrorism. Many people didn't pay attention to these statements at the time, but the ev-ents in the United States show that we were right.

It turns out that both the Americans and we know where the terrorists are hiding, where they train, where their bases are located, but we can't do anything about it. Why? Because there isn't close coordination between all the democratic states in this area. But now Moscow and Washington have every opportunity not just to fight terrorism through their own efforts, but also to give their bilateral relations an absolutely new foundation and quality.

This was the approach that came through above all during talks between Bush and Putin in Ljubljana and Genoa. This ap-proach will be continued during the meeting in Shanghai and Putin's first official visit to the United States in mid-November. What is important is that Mo-scow and Washington both realize that the era of confrontation between our two countries is over. We have to be quick in putting Cold War stereotypes behind us. It's time to build new strategic relations between Rus-sia and the United States.

RJ: U.S. officials have reacted very negatively to the Russian defense minister's statements about it not being possible for NATO troops to use bases on the territory of C.I.S. countries in the event of military operations in Afghanistan. What is Russia's position on this issue?

II: Russia and a number of the Central Asian C.I.S. countries have a collective security treaty. Some of its provisions are similar to corresponding NATO provisions in that Russia is committed to providing military assistance to C.I.S. countries subject to outside aggression. But this doesn't prevent C.I.S. countries from independently discussing potential cooperation, including military cooperation, with other countries.

In this case, the treaty would oblige these countries to hold consultations with their C.I.S. allies and work out which military groups, when, and under what conditions could be located on a C.I.S. territory. No C.I.S. country would open its territory to foreign troops unless it was clear about their mission, their specific aims and objectives and other nuances.

RJ: U.S. and British military planes are relocating to the Persian Gulf zone, close to the border with Afghanistan. What do you think about this?

II: I don't know where the U.S. military planes the media have reported on are flying to. Even if there are five or 10 of them, they won't be able to crush international terrorism or eliminate the threat itself. During our talks here in Washington, we made it clear to the U.S. side – and Bush is well aware of this himself – that the war against international terrorism will be long and stubborn. A single rocket or bomb strike, even if very precise and well-planned, won't solve the problem.

This is why we propose identifying very carefully and clearly our real, not theoretical, aims, studying all the possible consequences of launching strikes against Afghanistan, and having all democratic countries working together in this complex situation and coordinating our actions. We need to identify the roots and causes and the initiators of these terrorist acts. But airstrikes won't be of much use to us in this.

RJ: Has Russia agreed to take part in the coalition proposed by the United States to combat these modern threats?

II: I think the new strategic relations between Moscow and Washington could serve as a foundation on which to build this kind of coalition. We must also step up the dialogue between our countries on key international and regional issues. On the main issues, our ultimate aims coincide, after all. Our differences are only over what methods we should use to achieve these aims.

This goes for strengthening the non-proliferation regime for weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the Middle East and in the Balkans, and containing the threat now coming from Afghan-istan.

RJ: Will the events of Sept. 11 have any influence on the Russian or U.S. position regarding U.S. national missile defense plans?

II: We are still consulting with the United States on this issue and we have to find a mutually acceptable solution. I can assure you that we and our American partners have found a common language regarding this issue at the moment, and I think that consultations between our two government delegations will ultimately lead to a mutually acceptable outcome.