welcome back here with our team reminder all the top stories disagreements between blades a bloc summit even before it starts with germany angrily rejecting the idea of debt sharing the move crushing the hopes of spain and italy two of the country's worst hit by the crisis. allies turning into anime's three out of four of pakistanis now think of the u.s. as the or foe anger has grown dramatically over civilian deaths from american drone attacks and a sow's unskilled insurgency triggered by the u.s. led war in afghanistan. and the rons exclusion from the upcoming international

meeting on syria cast doubt over the impact of the gathering which aims to find a way to and the country's bloodshed russia has insisted on the participation of tehran a key player in the region a notion firmly rejected by washington. as they have minds here and you'll be back at the top of the hour in the meantime we'll bring you our interview show spotlight with al green elf. hello again to welcome to spotify i'll do the album today my guest on the show is that you did it live on. the looks of issues that are dividing us i mean the people living in russia and people and wherever we watch television when we watch politicians speak on television we seek for answers to questions like for example is there still a compromise possible around the a.b.m.

missiles shield that the beauty of qatar building on the continent can for example what's the future of the you raise new nuclear program and all that fuss that's around the issue in the one another and issues of course syria and is there a possibility that russia and the west act together somehow to cope with the crisis as well to alter this and other questions my guest today is he going to give on the former russian foreign minister and he's also the president of the russian international affairs council a man who's very active today in building informal bridges between russian and foreign experts and the next. igor ivanov a prominent russian diplomat since joining the foreign ministry in the seventy's in spain saudia trade and diplomatic missions two decades later he was appointed the russian ambassador there mr bernanke reached the top of his diplomatic career in

the late ninety's when he was appointed foreign minister despite several cabinet reshuffle it's kept the procession for six years after leaving the diplomatic service we've driven off the head of the russian security council for three years and now here lectures in the russian foreign affairs university and has the international scales. meet. me. hello mr one of and welcome to our program hello. let's start with this is the u.s. in nero press on with their plans in europe they keep saying russia is not an enemy we do not see it is search our steps do not target russia but russia does not buy this why so why this is just why is it that these assurances are not enough for us to mishear them every day right. you see the issue of you are planting security has been central to any debate over the past several years. and.

in foreign affairs with extensive experience covering both the cold war and the post cold war periods. they've come to a common opinion about the reasons for our differences. it is the enduring distrust between our countries to share in the pretty key challenge now is finding a way to overcome it. we fear it could be even more dangerous than the distrust in the times of the cold war but almost in fact you could easily see the rationale behind the mutual suspicions of the past opposing ideologies confrontation between military blocs well today distrust is fed by different concerns is national discourse national so we have to articulate and overcome them we have had a number of debates involving extremely competent experts from russia the united states europe you all have extensive experience in both foreign policy and military

affairs. we all share a view that there is no need for any new institutions to shore up our relations but no need for any high level treaties because treaties alone do not guarantee trust. but they can only be fostered through some specific steps and through cooperation some specific areas. does not necessarily have to be something global it could be collaboration on mine a particular issues. and two we sit down together and start talking and looking for solutions we might not be able to develop a trustworthy relationship. but that they cannot happen overnight we need to start working now both what the. trust does not come on its own or some what we see the worst thing about this deficit of trust is that it gets passed on to further generations they are born with it even though they don't realize where it comes from. but if you said there's no need to say new

treaties there's an urgent need to build confidence because treaties a search may not be enough some say that the entire system of international law has collapsed no or is collapsing that was would you agree with that. or absolutely regrettably today we have a situation where international law has been evolving we studied in school that has been developing over decades and is based on the principles that used to be considered indisputable by all which that law is now getting different interpretations of our subways we see how international law is stretched time and again. on the one hand it has to do with the sad fact that the new generations of politicians are not quite competent i fear for me on the other hand life itself is changing and usually principles developed earlier and no longer consistent with the realities there's no international law just like any other branch of knowledge needs to evolve but we see. so what we need today is active cooperation in

elaborating new principles of international law that would serve as a framework for political decision making but so far the international community has failed to get down to this work. that it would be the platform of the un has before. well with international law is a separate branch of knowledge. the un is an organization that works according to international law or. international law is developed by relevant national and international institutions. let's talk about missile defense when we interviewed our military officials to logic their us partners have used the warned us of a first strike they see the european missile shield could be used as a source for a strike against russia or what did what are we still afraid of preemptive strike

by the west but i think that today this threat is rather overplayed but even it up us the spirit of that action is that it's the military that bears the bulk of the responsibility for the national security so i don't think the time in a position to argue with them but i was two points but in order to avoid having such a threat. with your beloved by threats of a first strike we need first of all you might understand under what circumstances when the first strike can be launched in second place you need to have some preliminary guarantees take some preventive measures that would rule out the possibility of one party catching the other off guard but i spoke to them because it's fair to assume just as much as we can be worried about a possible first strike the other side that's kind of the same concerns are still with that or so in order to root out this mutual suspicion over a possible first strike we need to cooperate. cooperation is the key here together

develop measures that would relieve this concern and the other this european missile defense system is certainly and the way to do it is to have joint military exercises music if you will the military of both sides cooperating. and will give you a simple example there were no negotiations in the area of reduction of strategic offensive arms for twenty years that's the. all sorts of reasons so i should tell you honestly that russia was offering to resume these talks because the proposal does not find support from the us when the money is that only that but as soon as both presidents came to an agreement which the new treaty was developed within the matter of ten months. that's because a political decision was made to the experts were given both the task and the timeframe. so the experts worked out an agreement. as of today this treatment is signed ratified and in force or what we got was a very specific example of not giving you any generalizations there are no empty

words there are more examples out there the question you need to have the same action for all other issues including missile defense. well first comes a political decision obviously then you have military cooperation but because it's the military who bears the responsibility for the national security of each state. then come relevant decisions that are put into practice. even and in this way along with others we will be able to overcome mutual distrust what was causing you mentioned that we're not getting any new treaties and more than that there's no some talk at all this wrestling over missile defense go as far as russia is withdrawal from the new start treaty or more of the wheat or do you think it would be hypothetically possible for russia to step out of the new start treaty you know that is sadly enough hypothetically everything is possible because any treaty gives

you an option to step out of it including unilateral withdrawal and we could possible in practical terms yes it's possible in practical terms as well we had to face such a situation when as you remember. in the early two thousand the united states unilaterally pulled out of the antiballistic missile treaty signed in one nine hundred seventy two. schuck regrettably it's possible but i think it would be a step back rather than a step forward to the probably got us of the reasons every time a security arrangement is violated the threat is expanding and never the other way around so i think that we need to do all we can invest all our efforts into the different security frameworks but i. must talk just recently about international law that every relationship needs to be based on a legal framework and that this is especially true of such a sensitive area as arms reduction i think it requires patience the political will

need to resist the temptation to take up the easy way stepping out of a treaty. that says easiest tearing a piece of paper. which of course. you've been involved in international politics for a very long time it may be just my perception but it seems to me that today's leaders are they are very young in the really lack the patients that you're talking about when you have the same question i can't say it's about being young on what's going to be and of the day wisdom does not necessarily come of age only some people can be both young and wise others can be older yet not so i want to store in this case that maybe down to the high pace of our century people want to get quick solutions quick results. you know but there are areas where you should results not possible. it's possible send the internet you want to a query get instant search results but it doesn't work this way in life in the u.s. they call it the microwave generation isn't people used to getting it right away i

was using. yes absolutely but that's not how it works in life sure that we see more of a life has become more complicated now. for instance the nuclear issue was on the agenda of a limited number of states certainly today the number of stakeholders has already grown and the worst that it may crow still lives. the scope of responsibility of the leaders of this that the in this case of russia up when we got to states. and our that's why it ago it's now the success of the negotiations between our states russia and america that will define the success of the global nuclear nonproliferation drive i did a lot of your will to fix he says he did iran the poor russian part spotlight will be back shortly after we take a break so stay with us. wealthy

british scientists are. sometimes right on. market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cancer for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. download the official antti application to your phone on my pod touch from the top story. life on the go. video on demand tease mine gold comes and already says feeds now in the palm of your. question on the dot com.

welcome back to spotlight i'm alan often just a reminder that my guest on the show today is eager he won the president of the russian international affairs council since you stepped down as foreign minister we are contacts with american in nato counterparts have been mostly unofficial and summits national but no to jump on that that has he been more successful in bringing your point across yes or understanding the other party during these informal meetings the moment then you stayed up with boldness that it was that. if. you will today both in the u.s. and in europe where we have many partners with a huge experience you personally they understand the boosting nuclear capabilities does not believed you anywhere. that i share with the world doesn't

guarantee security. just as the unrestrained nato expansion doesn't. just push the target. is a bust with those i've been trying to hammer home to our counterparts this with for a long time you're finally they seem to understand it may take a security doctrine or strategy of it doesn't need to have any state. long threats you would see terrorism nuclear proliferation organized crime. but there are. a lot of years on the police to boost. drug trafficking. cyber attacks or drug trafficking you simply can't fight these threats with a nuclear weapon or city you can't fight these threats with trunks and planes of course they're trying to make planes and nuclear weapons may come handy the need to be a sense of proportion that they. should not turn into

a senseless race if we see what they need and what is the root cause of the differences between the us as there was the other nato allies with the us says it cannot pay for your insecurity out of its own pocket while the european countries have slashed their military budgets in the face of serious question you economic and financial challenges are probably over because you cannot see does not make sense how the military spending at this level so we've got to do first need to understand where the threat is coming from and what the nature of the threat is right and then work out ways to respond with that with those who it was there were negotiations or the only way to understand the nature of the threat there was going to war ironically though most of the basic. treaties were signed in the times of the cold was there with the what was there was a. star that was out of fear it's not only fear there is another thing which is sometimes overlooked but as

a professional i think it could be as important as anything else that she was back then negotiations between the countries she ran on a permanent basis it both the us and the u.s.s.r. set up a dedicated delegations to work nonstop so what i would use task forces to stay young they would come over to moscow for two weeks video and travel back to geneva vienna or elsewhere because this was a continuous process as a diplomat i would say that you cannot reach any agreements without regard to negotiations. any agreements or arrangements of the fruit of negotiations because it took ten years to work out and signed the first nuclear arms reduction treaty helsinki final act two you spoke of it was signed after ten years of talks in fact all of them were very tough negotiations you go order that they produced a result in the stability of postwar europe rested on the principles set forth in the helsinki final act this is the power of

a fundamental basic treaty which you said it's useless to expand nuclear arsenals and there is another thing which seems useless at least to me and correct me if i'm wrong the u.s. is deploying a missile shield in europe which moscow says is directed against russia why on earth would they need a system to. refresh his submarines armed with nuclear missiles and that's where a first strike would come from the missile shield obviously would not help what is it a forge and. yes ma'am express my personal opinion just casual i would say that the missile defense system should tell us is currently developing. along with nato. has not been designed for a nuclear strike against russia always a threat to our country. but at least not at this stage. to share the american rationale. it's just the first partition i do not think that this is the original goal it's a good idea original target of the shield so unfortunately our partners primarily

the us did not take into account the concerns of the countries including some of their allies. but almost any military system and the defense shield is no exception as after could be at some point reconfigured made to work against your interests we admit that it could pose no threat at this very moment but we know that the system will evolve its capabilities will increase so after the third and particularly after the fourth phase the way it is implemented turning it into a formidable in-depth defense arrangement could potentially. that's an important reservation intentionally become a threat but unfortunately the military has to view at least until threat as a threat to this is why we need to take steps to prevent any threats including potential ones. which you've said reminds

me of the argument we're all these systems provide a force feeling of security making people mistakenly believe themselves immune the to churchill kind of system. that what somebody said yesterday only a few days ago that the europeans and the european missile defense network has become they were provisionally a parishioner. provisionally operation most immediately responded well known she had tested a new type of new intercontinental missiles that can penetrate any defense and i get countries nation nation that we knew were there know that we have these missiles russia stuff we think its concerns over european missile defense doesn't mean we're even in the dispute is over it will cover the word of this quite the opposite. there's something dangerous going on up as you have feared that over process. you know with will always come to me with new ideas. but sadly enough that i would if an idea doesn't move along a construct of the past it is bound to take

a destructive. or. difficult to say for sure just like. either side i'll choose now. there is one thing i can vouch for. the destructive scenario will bring about political nomic psychological and eventually military consequences to both sides share. if. the latter will hopefully not happen. but. this is why i believe this development will only do harm to everyone because we should choose a different direction to move along usually she should know. one more question mr even of it. will be hosting negotiations on iran's nuclear program next week. do you think russia can be expected to offer a tradeoff over iran's nuclear program he can for certain concessions with regard

to missile defense in europe but i mean. him about. it would in fact. them is little but these kinds of speculations. they do circulate sometimes it international conferences computer the large one i spoke out there today. it is difficult for me to understand why some piece leaves are suggesting russia is trying to trade something isn't that when diplomacy is about diplomacy diplomacy is about something different you cannot trade principles and it is a matter of principle here iran's nuclear program is by no means a bargaining chip which city us on the contrary it is a very serious issue poses a potential threat to russia and other actors including europe and the us. trading this issue is out of the question was near. russia has always been taking

a very active stance. and this stance is absolutely clear. yet some of our partners only think in terms as u.n. resolution of imposing new sanctions this is a primitive oversimplified approach to the problem is far deeper. we need to draw a line here as the train what iran has a vested right to it what it has no right to do on the meat but i want iran should be able to do what it is entitled to that is nuclear activities for peaceful purposes if this question is of national importance to iran i don't know a single rainy and politician with a strategic vision would give up on the nuclear programs that he had best like a national idea to them. of the right to ask that this is not a whim of some politician or a group of politicians. still should be a clear line iran is not allowed to cross. or stand up and this line has been

defined as it is incumbent upon international community members to take a war donated action in this respect. when the main global actors that is russia and the us s. . fail to agree on a common approach those who seek to breach norms and principles will naturally take advantage of it this is another reason why the us russia coordination is a substantial that i see so you. is backing the assad regime a matter of principle for russia just like the iranian issue but it's but actually what. i'm saying to you now yes there's two i have already articulated many times various international meetings is that of the rich a completely issue of syria is a larger deal not to be above assad's presidency but also a place i recently reminded my western counterparts. my the crisis in the balkans with. the bulk of that time i western counterparts to approach me because

you say russia plays a key role in settling the balkan crisis and she were. here when asked what the role of the church is about exactly how they would answer what do you have to go to belgrade persuade milosevic italy if you can read about them during the iraq crisis or they would also tell me i had a key role in settling the matter. visit to sane intelligence but also a sense. of what this simplified or even primitive approach as i would put it makes it impossible to solve any issues whatsoever the first thing to do in syria is to stop violence by the warring parties and russia is ready to help you get the picture second you need to determine what the transitional period will be like they don't want terms the transfer of power will take place. it is an issue of national . international concern what was the third thing sadly

is often glossed over by western counterparts than we do cash who will be in power in syria after this crisis mostly of the workers. cannot allow the libyans where after a violent overthrow of its leader the country was left seems to be to its own devices to take place in syria in the civil a portion of us while the libyan crisis is a domestic a fallacy with the situation syria may trigger an explosion the whole middle east wants out of europe even waters that are with thoughts of abusing the rest of the q thank you thank you very much for being with us and just to remind you that my guest on the show today was a good piano former russian foreign minister and the president of the russian international efforts the spotlight will be back with more first hand comment on what's going on in and outside russia until then stay on r.t. and take.