THE QUESTION THAT I EITHER START OR FINISH EVERY INTERVIEW IN THE SOVIET UNION, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND FROM THE SOVIET POINT OF VIEW, WHAT IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE US AND THE USSR ABOUT?

What kind of conflict do you mean?

THE COUNTRIES ARE OBVIOUSLY IN CONFLICT. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IS THE CONFLICT ABOUT?

You know this... it is not by chance I just put here the question, because I would disagree with you. I do not consider that our countries are in conflict. And you know, if we will look at our relation and the state of affairs between our countries, our national interest does not contradict each other in any part of the world. Of course our interests are different due to political, ideological orientations. But I do not see so much conflict of interest. There is some kind of, how to say, precious going on, but in general, our interests are the same. And our interests are the same if we will look in the world in the new perspective. In the perspective of interdependent world. We live on the same planet. We are the passengers of the same outer space ship, and like all other passengers we should behave properly in order to provide the safe flight of this ship in the ( ). So in this understanding of living in interdependent world makes us much more closer, and makes it necessary to overcome certain differences which arrived as I say due to political or ideological orientations. But I personally do not see the conflict of interest. And looking at the Soviet-American relations I consider that of course they consist both of elements of cooperation and elements of the struggle. But in my mind today, in the new world, the cooperation should prevail over the struggle. And the struggle itself should take a new form. It shouldn't be not political or ideological struggle. Rather it should be competition. And I see all the good opportunities that our relation should become the partnership relations between our countries. As far as I understand in American practice not all partners like... love each other, but still they how do you say, work and cooperate very successfully. So I do not see much of the conflict of interests.

WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF CONFLICT, WHICH SHOULD BE TURNED AROUND? WHERE DO YOU SEE THOSE AREAS THAT NEED TAKING CARE OF?

I think that actually all areas in the Soviet-American relations needs a new approach. A new approach from understanding our position as I see it as passengers of outer space ship. First of all this is area of disarmament and arms limitation, and in this area we have made a very important move now. For the first time in history we have obtained the agreement, which would deal with the physical liquidation of nuclear weapons. Previously, you know, we just spoke about disarmament, called different measures as disarmament measures. But it was not really a disarmament. It was arms limitation, arms control. And now, for the first time in history we have a measure of nuclear disarmament. This is one field. There are certain, how to say, and difficulties in this, with regard to the regional situation in the different parts of the world. But...

CAN YOU ADDRESS THOSE?

Yes, but as I see it today there is opportunity to deal successfully with all regional conflicts and regional situations. And you know, now our country has taken the political decision to leave our troops from Afghanistan, and the timetable has been established, 12 months. And this president of Afghanistan has said that if the conditions will be favorable from the viewpoint of non-interference. So the timetable could be shortened. So it opens the opportunity for political solution of Afghani situation very soon in the nearest future. But it also provides opportunity for dealing with other situation. And here for example, I am very much optimistic with the pattern of behavior our countries have developed with regard to Irani-Iraqi war and the normalization of the situation in the Gulf area. We work in unanimity. And we consider that the mission of the Secretary General should be supported in this area. That the war should be stopped, and there should be withdrawal of the Navies from the Gulf area, and how do you say, substitute them with the United Nations forces. I see as a good sign the attitude which has been taken for example by the United Nations by the way on a consensus basis with regard to the Central America. Here, too, the process of national reconciliation, of course, it's in a different way from Afghanistan. It's also developing. And here too, all or both our countries could contribute to this process of national reconciliation. I think there is a very urgent need, and there is also an opportunity to work for the comprehensive solution of the Middle Eastern situation. The process is development. I saw also the opportunities to work constructive towards the solution of the situation in South Africa. In other words, in all regional matters, how to say, this theory of conflicts of interest can be overcome very easily if we will become to deal constructively in a serious way in all this areas. Of course some more should be done in such areas and economic relations. Here, it's a... how do you say, open field of productivity. I think the trade relations between our countries is on much more lower level that it could exist. And we should also... here also to overcome certain stereotypes, to stop, you know, playing with so-called strategic goods, some of that is nonsense. There is no real obstacles for the development of relations in the bilateral field. In other words, in general, with the Soviet-American relations there is a good opportunity to start to build them in a new way. As I said, in partnership way. But for these purposes, maybe... This is very important, and I spoke once when I was in..., it is very important to overcome you know, the image of the enemy of each country, and to start to think new.

IN THIS CONTEXT THERE WAS SOME ANXIETY, LEGITIMATE OR NOT, EXPRESSED IN EUROPE FOLLOWING THE AGREEMENT FOR "DECOUPLING" OF AMERICA'S COMMITMENT TO EUROPE AND SO ON AND SO ON. WHAT CAN THE SOVIET UNION DO ABOUT REASSURING THE EUROPEANS?

You know, we are not going to break the existing relations of Europe with other countries with the United States. And we accept it as a part of reality. Anyhow the European process, which is successfully developing since the Helsinki final act includes the United States as a part of this European progress. And we're never -- the cooperation between all European countries as well as United States and Canada is taking place this process is developing very successful. This is not our intention to decouple the other. Vice versa, our intention to make European relations developing in the directions of improving the whole situation, not only on a military/political level, but on all other level, through the channels which has been established in Helsinki. The channels which include the active participation, also of the United States and Canada.

NEVERTHELESS, WHAT ABOUT REASSURING COUNTRIES LIKE FRANCE AND GERMANY AND SUCH WHO ARE THE MOST ANXIOUS ABOUT SOVIET INTENTION?

You know, our intention has been manifested very clearly... very clearly, I think, and not only in the words. The words are also important. We've made a number of statements. But I think what is more important that the words has been supported by our practical deeds. We made a number of very practical suggestions, to show that we are not going to liquidate the medium-range weapons and the shorter-range weapons in order to open the way for dealing with other weapons. Our intention, for example, is to start a very serious talks on the drastic reduction of conventional armaments and conventional armed forces. We have proposed to NATO countries to liquidate the armed forces and armaments by 25 percent by the 1990. So our proposals are on the table and we're waiting the answer on the western side. And by the way, I would like tell you that together with the discussion of these matters, we are ready to discuss the tactical nuclear weapons which are less than five hundred kilometers, which are not yet prohibited, but as far as I understand, NATO is not ready to deal with this matter. So our intention with regard to Europe, to level down the military confrontation as low as possible.

WOULDN'T THAT ALSO INVOLVE POTENTIAL CHANGES WITH SOVIET UNION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER SOCIALIST COUNTRIES OR OPENING, LET'S SAY, GERMANY'S? DO YOU ENVISION SOME KIND OF A PROCESS, A POLITICAL PROCESS OF SOME SORT?

You know, as I see it, the political process should develop like the military process, all other process, along the lines which has been determined in Helsinki. So in Helsinki it was acknowledged the reality of Europe, the inviolability of its frontiers and the necessity to develop the dialogues between all countries of Europe, without any exclusions. And we are strongly supported to this Helsinki Final Act. I will tell you, Helsinki Final Act, this European process, for us serves as a kind of, you know, model how the relations between different countries could be organized without detriment to interests of any particular participant of this program.

I AM NOT AWARE THAT THE HELSINKI ACCORDS AND THAT THE HELSINKI PROCESS IS NOT, IN FACT, A VERY LIVE ONE.

Very live. You are absolutely...and it brings practical results and it brings the results, you know, in the military field now. We have a very elaborated system of the confidence building measures. But what is very important, it is very resultive in the field of the human contacts, in the field of developing on the relations on humanitarian field. This is very important and we can see that it is very important that all the countries should put their own national legislation on human rights in accordance with the Helsinki Final Act. It's helped to set a certain pattern to which all the countries should follow. There is also, how to say, very lively development on economic field and we are going to go, to go further. And I can see that, you know, there is a certain dialectic of development of the European relations. The deeper the understanding going between the European countries, the deeper trust exists. The more volume is possible to obtain in all fields of the relations. And I think Europe could serve as a kind of a good example and that's why it is very important, very important to understand that, how to say, all the apprehensions which are riding. And of course, nobody could prohibit the apprehension. Apprehension could arise. But if apprehension is arising they should be answered in a very direct way.

THE FRENCH, THEY'RE REEMPHASIZING RELIANCE ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS. GOING THROUGH THEIR PROCESS OF MODERNIZATION.

You know, I will tell you from our own experience, and our own... in our own country we are very involved in the process of Perestroika. We understand how difficult that the new things should be established as a part of the life. It's very difficult to change the political thinking, the political approach. And of course, certain people are so much strongly connected with this doctrine of nuclear deterrence that they could not see any other alternative to this matter. Some of the people, you know probably do not understand still the reality that is. The other people probably are closely connected with certain military-industrial interests. The reasons could be different. But you know, the adherence to the nuclear deterrence sometimes prevents the peoples to see the reality. And to see that there is another opportunity to provide the basis of relations between countries. Not through the military means, but through political and legal means. And this is the only acceptable way in our nuclear space age, I would say it.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ABM TREATY, I ASSUME THAT YOUR FOREIGN OFFICE ALSO PUT A COUPLE OF GOOD SOVIET LAWYERS ON THAT TO REREAD THE TREATY AND THE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS.

You know, I will tell you, within the foreign office always pays much attention to the legal readings of the document. And of course, our lawyers are also participating in different negotiations and so on. But for us there is only one reading of ABM treaty, the reading as it is in its initial text. And we attach much importance to the fact that it has been told, you know... it has been agreed actually that the treaty of 1972 should preserved in the form as it was accepted. For me, you know, I have a legal education also. For me sometimes it sounds a little bit strange. You know, broad and narrow interpretation. From legal point of view there is also one, there is only one interpretation. How to say, interpretation which is incorporated in the treaty. Probably, I am a little bit traditional with this way, but at least according, you know, to all the theories of international law you should adhere to the document, to the document as it is, as it was concluded.

ONE MORE. WHAT KIND OF ACTIONS AS A SOVIET WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES? LET'S SAY IN ADDITION TO NEGOTIATING IN GOOD FAITH THE NEXT AGREEMENT. WHAT KIND OF MORE GENERAL REACTION. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE FROM THE UNITED STATES SO AS TO REASSURE THE SOVIET UNION?

You know I think is very important questions. Now when we are trying to change our relations for the better we should look how to find the answer to this question. You know, personally as a man who has been involved for many years in the Soviet-American relation, I think that the matter of primary importance for us, to have some kind of policy and strategy of trust or confidence building, we should take a very strong actions to do away with the image of enemy, which has been created, I would say, on both sides. And we should start to change our thinking and our image of each other. To think in terms of partners of each other. And here the question is arising, how to achieve it. So you couldn't just say it one day that we're just starting partner. This is not enough. What is really important in order to create a new image, an image of partners, to start making practical deeds. And practical deeds are very important and not only in disarmament field, though this is how to say, the main directions. And here, I think the main break... practical breakthrough has been made. Practical deeds are also needed in all other areas in regional conflicts, in human rights, in economic affairs, in ecological affairs. In other words it is necessary to start to work. To put aside, you know, this polemics, and to start business-like approach, businesslike approach which was always trademark of American style in politics and all other affairs. So I think this business-like approach, joint deeds, will help us to do away with this image of the enemy and to start to think about each other as human beings, as partners in the same big business, in the business of survival of the whole world.