Weymouth: The U.S. wants Russia to stop selling technology to Iran that can be used to build a new ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe. What are you doing to stop the export of such technology?

Primakov: There are no deliveries to Iran from Russia which could lead to the creation by Iran of nuclear weapons or the development of long-range missiles. [The U.S. says it has] evidence that deliveries have been made through nongovernment channels. I must tell you that checks have been carried out, and they have shown that the charges fly in the face of reality. I cannot state that there are no experts in Iran from former republics of the Soviet Union who may be working in certain laboratories. But we are unaware that–if such people do exist–they were involved in the former Soviet Union in the development of specific types of weapon systems. We are building a nuclear power plant in Iran and are supplying that country with light-water reactors–the type that the U.S. is sending to North Korea. But Iran is situated next to our borders. We have no interest in Iran producing missiles or nuclear weapons.

Do you think Albright’s trip to the Middle East was successful? Is there a role for Russia in the Middle East peace process?

I do not envy Madeleine Albright–in the sense that she toured the Middle East in rather difficult circumstances. She did all she could given the situation, but no one expected big progress. I think that we can discuss the subject during our meeting in New York. This might be a prelude to a stepped-up role for Russia as a cosponsor in the peace process. There needs to be movement on the Syrian track; otherwise there can be no settlement.

How will Russia react if there is a NATO-led effort to arrest accused war criminals in Bosnia?

I believe that war criminals should appear before a war tribunal. But I think that arresting war criminals through the use of force is not part of the mandate of the multinational force. Such actions might result in clashes with the civilian population, and in huge casualties. And I wouldn’t rule out casualties on the part of the multinational force. How would the U.S. Congress react? It might urge the withdrawal of the American contingent of the multinational force. This is something that we would wish to avoid.

What do you think are the chances of the ratification of the START II treaty?

Both the minister of defense and minister of foreign affairs have been engaged in a very serious effort to have the ratification go through.

Are you linking ratification of START II to passage by Congress of the ““successor’’ treaty to the antiballistic-missile treaty, which would keep the ABM treaty alive?

Of course, the process of ratification [of START] would have more chances of success if we can finalize the problem of having the ABM treaty remain in force. This is key to further arms cuts.

If the START II treaty is not ratified by the Duma [the Russian Parliament], what is Russia’s view about moving to START III?

I still think that eventually the Duma will ratify the START treaty. I think that this will come about because that would meet the interests of not just the U.S. but of Russia as well. In addition, we stand for the immediate start of the negotiations on START III. When Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin met in Helsinki, they agreed on certain parameters for the START III accord. Suffice it to say that caps can be tentatively set for the warheads from 2,000 to 2,500, which is five times less than the amounts that our two countries had at the time of the cold war. I can tell you that Russia would be prepared to discuss even lower caps.

You are building a much closer relationship between Russia and China. Will China become a future threat to Russia?

I don’t think that China will pose a threat either to Russia or the U.S.

But you have created a very close relationship with China, haven’t you?

Yes, and we will push our relationship still further.

President Clinton often says he and President Yeltsin are partners. In foreign policy, where are the U.S. and Russia working together today?

I think that we can work in the interest of peace and stability jointly with the U.S. in many regions. In Europe, we can help create the architecture of European security. And what we have been doing has produced some results in Yugoslavia. Apparently, we could have done more jointly in the Middle East to stabilize the situation. The conflict on the Korean peninsula and the relationship between India and Pakistan [are possible areas for cooperation].

You say that no former Soviet republic can be invited to become a member of NATO. What happens if NATO invites the Baltic countries to join?

Then we will review our entire relationship with NATO.

Was NATO enlargement a mistake?

I continue to be opposed to NATO enlargement. It may create new dividing lines. No one has invited Russia to join NATO, and NATO would cease to exist if Russia were included and all the NATO countries had to assure Russia’s security.