#9 - RW 273
Izvestia
September 10, 2003
LAVROV: AMERICAN CASUALTIES IN IRAQ PROPORTIONAL TO SOVIET CASUALTIES IN AFGHANISTAN All countries should unite to help Iraq return to normality
Author: Yevgeny Bai
[from WPS Monitoring Agency, www.wps.ru/e_index.html]

ALTHOUGH SOME STATES DON'T WANT TO INTERVENE NOW, BECAUSE THE US DIDN'T FOLLOW THEIR ADVICE, THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE MOST REASONABLE SOLUTION - BECAUSE THE SITUATION IN IRAQ HAS AN IMPACT ON THE WHOLE WORLD.

The UN Security Council is in the process of difficult consultations regarding the new resolution on Iraq. France and Germany were not happy with the initial draft of the US resolution. America made it clear that it was ready to reconsider some provisions in the draft.

Sergei Lavrov, the permanent representative of Russia at the UN, talks in this exclusive interview about the prospects for passing the new resolution on Iraq.

Question: In spring of this year, the US never reached an agreement with other countries - the Security Council members - and attacked Iraq alone. We all know the consequences. Currently, Paris and Berlin are again against the American resolution on Iraq. The question is: will everybody be happy if America slams the door again?

Sergei Lavrov: We have heard here the voices of those who couldn't forgive the Americans for disregarding the decision made by the UN. They were saying that the world had warned the Americans to keep away from Iraq and explained that the consequences would be disastrous. However, they never listened, started all this mess, so they should now settle problems themselves.

The trouble is, however, that chaos in Iraq causes an incredible headache not only for the countries that occupy Iraq. If the situation deteriorates, the whole region will blow up. The future of many regimes is at stake there. The security of the richest oil region is at stake.

Both Western Europe and Russia would suffer from the catastrophe in Iraq. This is why it is a politically irresponsible behavior to tell the Americans, "we have warned you, but you never listened to us, so now you can clear up your mess yourself." Hardly anyone is willing to resume the dispute now whether the war should or shouldn't have been started and whether Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction. This question is of interest for historians now. From the practical point of view, it is most important to agree that the half destroyed Iraq where anarchy reigns poses a threat for everybody.

Question: But can a common position on Iraq really be worked out?

Sergei Lavrov: There is such a possibility, if we proceed from the current situation in Iraq. The UN Security Council and most major states didn't support the war in Iraq. When active operations were over, resolution N 1,483 was adopted, which said: under the international law, these actions are qualified as occupation. A state that occupies another state is fully responsible for functioning of all major services in the occupied country, for providing security, law, and order.

So, what are we supposed to do? Should we leave everything up to "invaders?" The problem is that none of other states apart from those that are already there, especially from Arab countries, can just go ahead and join "invaders." Their position, the position of Russia, is such: if we want Iraqi to restore their sovereignty, let us not just speak openly about it, but let us work out a concrete program for restoring this sovereignty. Some kind of a "road map" for Iraq. This map will determine the period within which the transitional government and constitutional assembly should be formed, the Constitution and election of permanent Iraqi authorities, which the world will recognize, should be prepared.

When we have such a schedule, we will be able to say that its implementation will require security. Then it will be possible to talk about forming multi-national forces. In a word, we should discard current logic and assume a different approach to the problem.

Question: Up until now, most states were not very enthusiastic about the Americans inviting them to Iraq.

Sergei Lavrov: The situation in Iraq is deteriorating with every day. The other day, our colleagues from the UN, who used to be in charge of Afghanistan-related issues, made some simple calculations. It turned out that if we multiply daily American casualties in Iraq by the number of days the Soviet troops were in Afghanistan, the figure would be about 13,000. We had that many casualties in Afghanistan. This information showed everyone the scope of the Iraqi problem. However, it is impossible to provide security in this country until the schedule for restoring the sovereignty of this country is adopted and its time and phases are coordinated. This is what the late Sergio Vieira de Mello, the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, called for back in June. He said that this international organization should not just "keep an eye on" the preparation to elections and constitutional reforms, but actively coordinate these actions. If we do this, many countries will provide both money and divisions.

Question: Will Russia provide divisions of troops for Iraq?

Sergei Lavrov: The Russian government has said that sending divisions is out of the question. However, there are different ways to support Iraq's sovereignty. We take part in providing humanitarian aid for Iraq and our companies have resumed their work on a number of objects. I believe other forms of participation are possible, apart from the delivery of military forces. For example, the need for training Iraqi police officers is really pressing. Russia could render assistance in this sphere. Other states can contribute to ensuring security in Iraq following the same plan that is used in Afghanistan, where each country is responsible for a certain area.

Question: However, so far the discussion of the new resolution followed the former scenario. The US insists on its version, and France and Germany are turning down the suggestions being made by the Americans.

Sergei Lavrov: I keep in touch with colleagues from France and Germany almost on a daily basis. Honestly speaking, I didn't have an impression that they tried to arrange obstruction of this general concept, with which Americans agree as well. For example, everybody agrees that multi-national forces should discuss the restoration of Iraq's sovereignty. Everybody, Americans included, agree that the rule of the UN in Iraq should be more significant.

The parties often disagree on mere technicalities. The French, for example, believe that the Iraqi government should have all executive functions right now. And we think that we shouldn't come up with decisions, which Iraqis should make themselves - on a tribe or any other basis. The most important point is that all Security Council members realize that this resolution is not just another minutes, a sheet of paper for politicians to ground their actions on. This is a decision, on which the strategy of the world community in Iraq depends. This strategy has a fundamentally different base than the current one.

New York, Washington

(Translated by Natalia Dmitrieva)

CDI Russia Weekly #273 ~ Contents   •  Next