U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a veteran of the U.S. government. He first became head of the Pentagon 26 years ago, and describes his current goal as using the professional and personal experience he gained earlier to better defend U.S. interests from new threats that are even more destructive than the previous ones.

Rumsfeld took part in the NATO summit in Prague, and went on to visit two of the new NATO member countries. Rumsfeld spoke to Yury Sigov about the main threats facing the United States and the possibility of military operations in the Persian Gulf.

Donald Rumsfeld: I just came back from a trip to Europe. In Prague I joined President [George W.] Bush and Secretary of State [Colin] Powell where we welcomed seven new nations that have been invited to join NATO. Later, I visited two of these countries — Slovakia and Slovenia. These countries are trying to adapt their institutions as they emerged after the end of the Cold War, and now they will be facing new dangers and threats that we never faced before — international terrorism and extremism.

The Russia Journal: Before the Prague summit, a lot of people were saying that, as an international military organization founded during the Cold War, NATO is an anachronism. After all, the former enemy, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, no longer exists. But NATO keeps taking in new members. Does this make sense?

DR: Some people really say that NATO is something irrelevant in this world. But, during these years, it has proved the opposite. More countries are seeking to join NATO; we are expanding our security cooperation with our allies. In Prague, we approved a new alliance-command structure and set up a joint task force in order to fight international terrorism worldwide.

Within NATO, we are closely cooperating on Iraq. We take this threat very seriously. You know, earlier, many years ago, I served as U.S. ambassador to NATO. In the times of the Cold War, I could never have imagined that one day our former adversaries would become allies.

RJ: Will the United States use military bases in Saudi Arabia in the event of a conflict with Iraq? The Saudi leadership, after all, has said it does not want to be drawn into a military operation against Iraq.

DR: You know that we have our forces based in Saudi Arabia. The relationship with Saudi Arabia has been good for many years, at least as far as I remember. We have durable and close relationships on a military level. Our military cooperation with foreign countries is different from nation to nation. Every country has its own sensibilities, we respect these things, and I hope that we have great prospects for cooperation with Saudi Arabia and its military.

RJ: By Dec. 8, Iraq has to present the United Nations with a complete list of any chemical or biological weapons it may have. If it does provide this list, what will the United States do — accept it, or go to war against Baghdad?

DR: I am not a factor in the consideration on what to do or what not to do with Iraq. The United Nations and the Security Council will decide what to do. As far as I know, they, the Iraqis, claim they don't have any weapons of mass destruction, so I presume their list will be very short.

RJ: Gen. Richard Myers, the head of the General Staff Joint Committee, has just visited Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Georgia. What was the purpose of this visit, and was there discussion in Tbilisi of joint U.S.-Georgian action in the fight against terrorism?

DR: Myers discussed with his Georgian counterparts a joint program of training troops in Georgia. It is under way quite successfully, and they, of course, also discussed fighting terrorists in the Pankisi Gorge. We have close cooperation with the Georgians; we are amazed at how successfully they have been trained. In Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Gen. Myers met their militaries and inspected our troops stationed there. We are absolutely sure that our cooperation with these three republics is going on extremely well, and we value their support of the United States in fighting international terrorism, especially in our operations in Afghanistan.

RJ: During the NATO summit in Prague, the United States sent telegrams to 50 countries asking for their help in the event of military operations against Iraq. Were any telegrams sent to former Soviet republics or to Moscow, and what response did you receive?

DR: Yes, our State Department approached 50-plus nations and asked about their possible contribution to the war on terror. Some nations have some concerns and special conditions on that. Some said they would help us if Saddam violates his promises. Some said they would help only if the United Nations approves the second resolution. And some envisaged participation only after the regime in Iraq is changed. But, look, there has been no decision yet on the use of force against Iraq, so we are just discussing a hypothetical option. I presume they would help us if we asked them.

But there is one simple fact to keep in mind. Just the possibility that force might be used was enough to get the international U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. Without that threat, it's entirely possible the inspectors couldn't have gone back to Iraq at all. What we decided to do was to make sure the Iraqi regime is aware of the seriousness of the situation.

RJ: The Arab press says the U.S. government approached a number of Arab countries for help in a possible war against Iraq and that some of these countries refused. Which countries were these?

DR: I don't think this information from the Arab press is correct. I believe that each country will deal with this request on its own. Some countries ask us to keep these contacts confidential, and I don't see why we shouldn't. We know exactly what kind of possible support they can provide us with, so it is fine with me if they don't want to reveal their intentions to the rest of the world or to the media.

And one more thing: I would be surprised if we got in contact on this issue with any country that would say no to us. And I wouldn't want my answer to this question to give any clues to the Iraqi leadership.

RJ: Will U.S. troops be ready for a war in the Persian Gulf if Iraq hasn't fulfilled the international community's demands to disarm by Feb. 25, 2003, as provided for by the U.N. Security Council resolution?

DR: We will do whatever we have to do in Iraq or anywhere else. We will be ready to do what our commander-in-chief and president requests, and you should not have any doubt about that.

RJ: Following the Prague summit, some C.I.S. countries said they would like to join NATO in the next round of new members. What kind of chances do they stand, and how would this be likely to affect relations with Russia?

DR: As I understand it, these countries would first have to apply to join NATO. Some countries have indeed expressed their interest in working closely with NATO, some of them are making efforts to strengthen their military, and I don't see anything bad in that. They are working on a joint program with NATO, and, at some point, we will decide whether we should issue an invitation to them to join us.

In NATO, we do that on a consultative basis, we have to have consensus that no one country could decide or block everything. I don't exclude the possibility that some day new countries from the region that you have mentioned may join NATO; it would be good for them. Russia is also closely cooperating with NATO. We have a joint council with Russia, and we are working together in the Partnership for Peace program, so our relationships on a military level are pretty solid and durable.