Transcript of Interview by Sergei Martynov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, to Reuters Agency

Reuters:

Sergei Nikolaevich, quite a number of different opinions are being voiced now that, after successful talks with Russia, Belarus may reject its attempts, its willingness to arrange a dialogue with the West. How valid are these assumptions?

Sergei Martynov:

First of all, I would like to say that the foreign policy of Belarus and its main vectors are not of an opportunistic nature and are not a weathercock.

Secondly, I would like to underline that it is wrong to contrast Russia with the European Union as vectors of foreign policy of Belarus. Figuratively speaking, the choice between Russia and the European Union is a myth which does not exist: there is no such choice and there should not be any.

Belarus has two most powerful neighbors. It is not the choice of Belarus; this is the choice, if I may put it this way, of geography, economy, history. Each of these neighbors is fundamentally important to us. Russia is our indisputable and main strategic partner, and the official visit of President of Russia Vladimir Putin that took place the other day has most vividly proved it. No one doubts that both Belarus and Russia will continue the course of the most profound and priority strategic partnership.

At the same time, the European Union continues to remain for us what it used to be: it is the community which has become our main export partner, we share the most extensive border with the European Union, we have to settle a number of problems jointly with the European Union, which are the matter of equal and important interest for both of us. These are the issues of stability of energy transit, security of strategic infrastructure. By the way, following the proposal by Belarus a special decision on the subject has recently been approved at the OSCE ministerial meeting. These are issues of transit, customs clearance, ecology, migration, crime, in other words, there are a lot of joint subjects and their importance is not diminishing, but growing. Therefore, Belarus, as before, intends to continue the course to develop and intensify the dialogue with the European Union to the extent where our partners will be ready to go.

Priorities in the foreign policy of Belarus are not changing, they are not opportunistic.

Reuters:

Many assumptions have been also voiced regarding the meeting between Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin, starting with that Belarus will allegedly repay Russia for energy supplies with its property, and finishing with that it will repay for the loan with its sovereignty. What is the real situation?

Sergei Martynov:

Such comments come from not very-well qualified interpreters of developments – it is another kind of a myth. The issues of any repayment, concessions were not even discussed during the talks between the heads of state. Belarus will repay for the loan as it is envisaged by its conditions, namely: precisely in time and precisely in accordance with the loan agreement – that is all about the payback.

In fact, the talks were not at all about concessions by Belarus and not about concessions by Russia, but, above all and primarily, about the confirmation of a profound and strategic nature of the relations between Belarus and Russia. The official visit of the head of the Russian Federation, and holding of the Supreme State Council meeting here on the threshold of presidential elections in Russia is nothing but the most serious political confirmation of the seriousness of intentions of the two states with respect to one another and of the importance of their relations for each of the partners. This was the core of the talks. If you read carefully the joint communiqué by the two presidents signed following the official visit, you will see the core of the talks. No hidden backstage diplomacy or deals had been foreseen and there were none.

Reuters:

Over the last year Belarus, I would say, has actively been trying to arrange the dialogue with the European Union, which had not been done during previous years. Some EU countries or some EU officials noticed that Belarus had made some positive steps in this direction. But, nevertheless, the EU says that Belarus has not met all conditions of democratization and that Belarus is not ready for a dialogue with the EU. How fair is this to your point of view, and should Belarus or will Belarus make any more steps, or will it wait for steps taken by the EU?

Sergei Martynov:

To my point of view, the logic of the argumentation you just mentioned is fundamentally wrong. Firstly, a dialogue between partners may not be based on preconditions, otherwise this dialogue will fail altogether, or will not be effective. Secondly, as I have already said, spheres in which we offer, I would like to underline the word “offer”, cooperation with the EU – are the spheres of mutual interest. Within these relations, we are not begging anything for ourselves, for Belarus. We offer cooperation in the areas which are of mutual interest, and the areas where there is an absolutely evident mutual benefit, and I have mentioned these areas – areas which, in principle, could be further expanded. Yes, we make no secret that Belarus is interested in deepening the relations with the EU. It is evident for the reasons of geography, economy, history; I have already talked about them. Yes, we are making efforts to have this dialogue fruitful. And you know that the dialogue has already been set in or is setting in on a number of just that kind of directions: energy, transport, transit, customs clearance, environment, etc. Therefore, logic of preconditions is the logic which may be hardly linked with reality and prospects for the future.

Reuters:

To continue the previous question. The EU has imposed a number of sanctions against Belarus: these are the “travel ban list”, the issue of trade preferences. Should the EU, to your point of view, revoke them or take some actions in order to nevertheless have a dialogue?

Sergei Martynov:

In fact, this subject is connected with your previous question, and I would like to emphasize here that over the last year by mutual efforts of both the EU and Belarus, a good groundwork had been laid in general for, let’s say, a sensible dialogue on an expert level on the substance of the subjects I have mentioned to you.

Therefore, the idea of putting forward preconditions to holding negotiations is unacceptable for us. Likewise, we do not dictate preconditions for the dialogue. This is what the dialogue is for: to increase gradually mutual trust in the course of the dialogue, to intensify gradually mutual cooperation, to gain a positive experience that will allow both sides to overcome the concerns that they have with respect to each other – this is the main value of the dialogue.

It is clear that the dialogue can be successful only if it is no one way traffic, otherwise, it is not a dialogue at all. Therefore, it is absolutely evident that the logic of any restrictive measures whatsoever: be it visa, or economic, or other sanctions – is the logic which will not lead to success. The EU is very well aware of that, and refrains from such policy of sanctions on a number of other vectors, and openly speaks about it. Therefore, on the Belarus vector, I think that it would be important to the EU to take appropriate efforts in order to gradually shift the current policy based on the logic not leading to the success, the logic that leads to the dead end, to some other, more open policy. As for us, the current policy of the EU is wrong, not because we don’t like it, but because it is not effective. And we rely on the processes we are now beginning with the EU in the framework of not a simple dialogue will finally result in the changing of logic, and the changing of logic will result in transformation in political issues.

With respect to what we would like to see in the framework of a mutual movement with the EU towards each other – these things are also very well known: abolition of the discriminatory restrictive steps, be it visa issues or issues of preferential regime. Of course, we would like to have a profound cooperation in those fields of the expert dialogue that has already been launched.

These issues, I underline one more time, are important to all – on both sides of the border with the EU. As I have mentioned, we want intensification and development of the dialogue from energy to customs.

Then, it could be extremely important to resume real negotiations on the accession of Belarus to the World Trade Organization, which in contacts with the EU are almost not developing now, while they are moving forward in contacts with other countries.

Of course, it is necessary to tackle issues of free movement of citizens since after our neighboring states have joined the Schengen zone the cost of a visa for Belarusian citizens to travel to neighboring states has tremendously increased to up to 60 Euros. And, I should straightforwardly say that it does not comply with either the declared policy of free movement and contacts between people or, after all, the principles of the Helsinki Act of 1975. Belarus, on its part, has repeatedly proposed to launch negotiations on the subject, but unfortunately, there is no Brussels’ consent to that yet. Is it right from a viewpoint of interests of people on both sides of the border? I believe it is not. I believe that the European Union has to make a bold, not a bureaucratic decision, not referring to some formal reasons, go on the path of such profound negotiations. Over the recent years we, from our side, have even made some unilateral steps towards, simplifying visa regime for the Europeans. Here is a real difference: we are simplifying, they are complicating. But we do not want to make casus belli of it: we just rely on political wisdom of the European Union, the readiness to take into account interests of its neighbors, interests of the peoples.

Reuters:

Sergei Nikolaevich, what is your prediction with respect to the relations with the EU for the next year: optimistic, pessimistic?

Sergei Martynov:

I try to avoid any unilateral qualifications. “Pessimistic”, “optimistic” – both are an oversimplification that should not be the nature of a professional approach. I would like to express my hope that both the European Union and we will continue this difficult process, and we will be guided by mutual interests in this process.