|
Interview by
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus
Sergei Martynov
to “Los Angeles Times” Newspaper
March 16, 2006,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belarus, Minsk
Los Angeles
Times:
I think you are
already quite aware of the article that I am pursuing. We came here because,
ironically, Belarus is a pretty small country, and yet we have president of
my country commenting about it. Obviously, there is something bigger at
stake here. Could you comment on that?
Sergei
Martynov:
To answer your
question I would first say that yes, Belarus is not a large country, but it
is indeed an important country, which sits at a strategic crossroads in
Europe. This is one of the reasons for this attention.
And we I say
“at a strategic crossroads”, I have in mind a couple of things. First of
all, if you, for example, take a ruler and apply it to the map from Berlin
to Moscow, it will not go through Kiev, Riga or Vilnius, it will go through
Belarus.
Another issue
is that Belarus carries a lot of strategic transit. We carry 50% of the
Russian oil exports bound for Western Europe and 20% of its European-bound
gas exports.
On top of that,
we are the country which has a very independent foreign policy. Not many
countries afford, as you know, an independent foreign policy. When I say
“independent”, I mean independent from Washington, Brussels or Moscow.
Foreign policy decisions of Minsk are made here in Minsk, not in other
places.
We also have a
very strong-minded president who is a strong personality, which attracts
attention worldwide. And we have probably an unusually strong economic and
social record after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which also attracts
important attention because we achieve it in what may be called an
unorthodox way, not according to IMF recipes.
The attention
you mentioned, which is international, we welcome, to the extent that it is
a benign attention. When it comes to foreign financing of political
processes inside the country, we, as any other country in the world, do not
welcome that. We don’t welcome that in the same way as the United States
does not welcome it, in fact prohibits it, according to the federal laws. So
we do the same. So, benign attention, again, is welcome.
Los Angeles
Times:
Do you feel
that there have been attempts to influence the outcome of the election by
outside forces?
Sergei
Martynov:
It’s correct.
You need not hear it in the interview, you
can read an article in the “New York Times”, which says a lot about that.
Los Angeles
Times:
And you are
referring to the activities of the National Democratic Institute?
Sergei
Martynov:
And others,
among others. I refer to foreign financing of political and electoral
processes in Belarus, which is inadmissible by the laws of any country. In
fact, it strikes me as strange that the United States institutions which are
financed by the US congress and government are engaging in activities, which
is prohibited in the United States proper.
Los Angeles
Times:
Basically, what
they say, what these countries and organizations say, when you ask them
about this, they say that “we are definitely not involved in any kind of
political activity. We are, you know, supporting democratic process,
promoting independent media, teaching political parties how to develop and
how to campaign". Is this kind of activity prohibited as well?
Sergei
Martynov:
Let us make
things clear. First of all, it is unfortunately not true that some of the
countries you mentioned support only a “process”. They indeed made public
their views on particular candidates, either expressing their dislike of a
particular candidate, in this case the incumbent president, or their
preference for a particular candidate from the opposition, which in itself
is an interference. Which is not allowed in the normal, civilized
international practice.
Secondly,
activities of institutions, NGOs could be different. Let me quote from the
United States law which says, “A foreign national shall not direct, dictate,
control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making
process of any person such as corporation, labor organization, political
committee or political organization with regard to such person’s federal or
non-federal election-related activities”. So, a very wide definition.
Anything related to electoral activities is prohibited from foreign
involvement and financing. This is exactly what institutions like National
Democratic Endowment do, or try to do in Belarus.
And, thirdly,
if an NGO, including an international NGO, engages in fully transparent,
fully legal according to the Belarusian laws, and beneficial from the point
of view of the country activities in Belarus, they are welcome to do so.
This is the answer to your question.
Los Angeles
Times:
You mentioned
at the beginning of your first answer, in general, the sort of strategic
assets and values that exist with Belarus that naturally merit the
international interest. But, specifically, when George Bush says that he is
attempting to advance the cause of democracy and freedom in countries like
Belarus, former Yugoslavia, Iraq, the rest of the Arab world, do you really
take him at his word that really what he is trying to do, or are there
specific United States’ interests at stake in a place like Belarus? Which is
the true agenda behind this talk of democracy as this?
Sergei
Martynov:
First of all,
we, of course, respect the achievement of the United States in democracy
over the 200 years of democracy building in your country, although I have to
observe that this democracy is not flawless, to put it mildly.
You asked me
about the real agenda behind that. I can assume that there can be some
strategic issues, which are also pursued by the Unites States worldwide.
In particular,
I could assume that speaking of this region, the United States may be
interested in bringing countries of this region closer to Euro-Atlantic
axis. It is public knowledge that those who are within the Euro-Atlantic
axis are countries which are, to put it mildly, heavily influenced by the
United States. So, probably, bringing these countries under such influence
could be one of the elements, issues of this agenda you mentioned.
Secondly, I
believe it is a declared goal of the United States not to allow or to
prevent the emergence of an entity in the area of the former Soviet Union
which will be in a position to challenge the United States. This is of
course a strategic goal.
Belarus as well
as Russia are countries which are working to have an important integration
structure in this area. We are not trying to resurrect the former Soviet
Union, it would have been stupid and unrealistic, but we would like a
meaningful integration in this geography which will be and should be no less
successful than integration in the west of Europe. And we have all the
resources and abilities to achieve such a success. And, probably, countries
like Belarus who are proponents or engines of such integration deserve
special attention from Washington, which is the case with Belarus.
Los Angeles
Times:
Speaking of
that, it seems like this Russian-Belarus union has been something that has
been talked about for quite a long time, and yet the practical progress in
it has been quite minimal. How do you see this union progressing? What form
could it achieve in the long run, including the talk of possibly having a
single currency?
Sergei
Martynov:
To start with
the second part of the question about what form it could achieve, I would
emphasize that Belarus is all in favor of tight and deep integration with
Russia, as well as with other countries of the region. It is not only
Russia. But independence and sovereignty of Belarus are non-negotiable. So,
we are talking about integration of independent states, not about merging
one state into another state. That’s not the goal. It will not happen. Full
stop.
You are not
right that the union with Russia, between Belarus and Russia, did very small
progress. To give you a very simple and, in my view, a very illustrative
example, I would mention trade between Belarus and Russia. Belarus is
trading partner number two for huge Russia, and it’s only 10 million people.
It’s trading partner number two for Russia. We yield only to Germany. Our
trade with Russia is larger than China’s trade with Russia. It’s about 18
billion dollars. None of the other countries of the former Soviet Union has
such a trade with Russia. And this trade increased, I believe, five times
over the last 10 years.
Los Angeles
Times:
You are talking
about the two-way trade, right?
Sergei
Martynov:
It’s a two-way
trade. So this is a direct and very important result of this integration
effort.
Other areas. We
are very close to having a common tariff with Russia for third countries. We
are about 90% of the way in forging uniform harmonized tariff regime as
applied to third countries. And it’s not only on paper, it works. And these
90% of tariffs do work already for third countries, which is a huge
achievement in itself. Because, if you would look at another integration
structure in this area, which is Eurasia Economic Community, then there you
have the share of common tariffs of only 45%. So we are twice as large in
this area as they are.
The movement of
goods, people, finances, and services between Belarus and Russia is free. We
have what is called the four freedoms, which is actually the goal of this
union. We look now to try to achieve equal conditions for our economic
agents, both Russian agents here in Belarus and Belarusian in Russia, to
have equal conditions. That is our goal.
Of course, we
are looking at full freedom of not only movement of people, but also equal
access to health services, equal access to education, equal taxation, equal
social services for citizens of both countries on the territories of each
other. And we are making important advances in this respect. For example,
about two months ago in Saint-Petersburg our two presidents signed four or
five major agreements on equality of treatment between the citizens of two
countries.
So, we are well
advanced in this union, and not only on paper, not just in terms of treaties
and agreements, but in real life terms. You get on a train in Minsk and you
go to Moscow, and nobody asks for your passport, as you go between the two
countries. It’s an achievement also, and an indication of a
real union.
We are also
talking about the needs to have more integration in areas, above all like
energy, transportation, military cooperation, and science and technology
cooperation. These are areas which offer themselves as priorities in our
building up of the union.
In terms of
joint currency or single currency, this continues to be a goal, but, in our
view, this should be like a roof on top of the house. We need first to build
all the walls, and then we need to put the roof. So the currency will come
as the roof, not as the foundation.
Los Angeles
Times:
Obviously, the
entire world’s attention was fixed on Ukraine. They have an agreement, and
he is probably going to come back and visit us again some time in the
future. Belarus in the past has had serious conflicts with Russia over gas
pricing, and it has recently undertaken discussions aimed at having
reasonable price for gas, getting some kind of order. How do you see
long-term energy pricing stability for Belarus, given that, at some point,
most people believe that Russia is going to have to go to market pricing for
its gas for everybody, and it’s going to be a part of the world trade? And
the fact that all those agreements for gas issue has been talked about. As I
understand it has not been signed yet.
Sergei
Martynov:
Of course this
is a very important issue of, what you might call energy security of the
country. You are right we are enjoying preferable prices for gas from
Russia. For oil we pay world market prices to Russia. And, of course, we are
not naïve. We do not expect that this will continue forever. It is obvious
to everybody in Belarus that prices for gas will gradually increase, and at
some point in the future Russia will come to trade in gas, including
internally, at world prices.
For us, the
major issue is not so much the price for gas as such, but the issue is
whether we get gas at the same price as Russian economic agents (companies,
firms).
As long as the
price for gas in Moscow and Smolensk is the same as it is in Minsk, it is
acceptable. And this is a reflection of what I mentioned to you before. We
are working to have equal conditions for our enterprises in Belarus and
Russia.
We understand
that over time these prices will be going up, and up, and up. It’s okay, our
economy will be in a position to gradually accommodate that. Conceptually we
are prepared towards that. We are working, of course, with Russia within the
structure of our integration effort to have what we call “energy balances”
up to year 2020, where we could see how much gas and oil we are going to get
from Russia. This is also an element of security.
At the same
time we work to decrease our dependency on supplies of energy from Russia.
In particular, the government has set a goal in five years time to decrease
our dependency on energy imports from Russia by 25% by investing in
alternative sources of energy and local fuels.
Looking at the
problem of energy security, we see it through the prism of a comprehensive
set of measures, not just negotiating with Russia, but an overall set of
measures.
Los Angeles
Times:
Do you plan to
sign the gas transit facility agreement with Russia?
Sergei
Martynov:
There are
ongoing negotiations on the gas transit facilities, and that’s about all I
can tell you.
Los Angeles
Times:
In the long
run, you know, I am not an economist, but while you have been enjoying this
very beneficial trade relationship with Russia, a lot has been due to high
energy prices and the fact that there is a lot of money in the Russian
market to buy Belarusian goods. But the analysts that I have talked to say
that is not a reliable thing to depend on in the future for two reasons.
Number one: at
the moment Russia has so much money that they are able to look around the
world as a shopper for goods, and the cheapest goods available at the
closest looking.
Number two: oil
prices do go down. They no longer have all this pricing. Belarus will be
well advised to think about European markets. It raises the question of
potential vulnerability of the Belarusian economy.
Sergei
Martynov:
Basically your
analysts are right, and if you would look at the trends in our trade, then
you would observe that the ratio of exports going to Russia, on the one
hand, and to the European Union, on the other hand, was consistently
changing over time. Initially Russia was this big, and the European Union
was this small. Last year the European Union accounted for 44% of our
exports. And Russia accounted for about 40%. So there is already a balance
between two markets.
By definition,
if we sell to Europe successfully, it means our goods are competitive. So we
are already in that market. And I could also add that we had aggressively
tried to attack other markets like Southeast Asia, China, the Gulf
countries, and even Latin America. Recently, we started selling agricultural
machinery to Argentina. We, for example, provide about 50% of microchips to
the Southeast Asia market.
So we are not
only in Russia, we are in other places too. But we would very much like to
continue to have a very solid presence in the Russian market. It is
natural. And even if and when the Russians
have less money, going back to the point of the analysts, it should be
cheaper for them to buy in Belarus than to buy in the United States.
Los Angeles
Times:
And one last
question on Russia. When we were talking about international interest in the
Ukrainian elections, Russia was very much criticized for having been
perceived to have played too big of an interfering role in those elections.
Have you sensed that Russia has taken anything like more than just a close
interest in your elections?
Sergei
Martynov:
I am not
prepared to comment on the Russian or any other’s position on a third
country like Ukraine. In terms of our relationship with Russia, I can tell
you that we have an excellent relationship between the two countries,
between the two governments, and between the two presidents. Full stop.
Los Angeles
Times:
This strays a
little bit to the economic sphere, but it very much ties into what we were
talking about, the nature of the Belarus’ economy. It is said you have had
very little progress in moving to the market economy. Is this still a goal
of Belarus to move to the market economy?
Sergei
Martynov:
You have to be
clear about the terms. You say “very little progress”. Progress, in my view,
should be measures by issues like percentage of growth of GNP, percentage of
growth in real incomes of the population, percentage of accessibility of
schooling, health services, etc. All of this shows extremely important
progress in Belarus over the last 15 years. And that has been achieved
because we did not rush into what has been called shock therapy of the
economy.
We are adepts
of a different style of reform. Not just a slower reform, but a different
type of reform. So in 15 years, we have achieved very important progress. We
are the first country in the former Soviet Union to break through the 1990
GNP level, and we are now at 116% of 1990 GNP level, the pre-collapse level.
For your information, Russia is at about 80 to 85%, with all the oil prices.
Ukraine is probably at 60 to 65%, and Moldova is probably at 30 to 35%. This
is to indicate what real progress means.
This does not
mean that we are married in a deadlock, so to say, to this particular type
of economy we have. Recently we had a major congress here in Belarus on
discussing the views and concepts of the next 5 years of the country. At
that congress the President indicated that the resources of this mode cannot
continue forever. And we have to tap into the resources of small and medium
entrepreneurship. And the government is working on exactly this now. But we
are going to do it not in a shock therapy way, but in a gradual,
level-headed manner, as we did before. We hope we are going to be as
successful as we were before.
Los Angeles
Times:
That is a small
and medium entrepreneurship. What about big factories, oil refineries?
Sergei
Martynov:
It’s very
simple. If the oil refineries which we are having now are bringing golden
eggs to the country, why should we dispose of them to anyone else? One
point.
Second point:
if a small or middle enterprise grows into a gigantic enterprise, it’s
welcome to do so. The government will be happy to see it. This is our
approach.
Los Angeles
Times:
The tendency of
large state-owned companies is usually not a mater of growth. They are
usually not very efficiently run. And for the most part the conventional
wisdom it that you cannot really grow an economy without investments. You
have the issue of the young people who are talking about going out into the
streets on Sunday, some of them, who say, “It’s fine. My farther has a job
at that factory, and his grandfather had a job at this factory, and my
father's brother has a job at that factory. But the factory is now at full
employment level, and I have a brother and a sister, and we have nowhere to
go to work. How do you deal with this issue?
Sergei
Martynov:
First of all,
our big enterprises are growing at a very fast pace. For the last eight
years, the GNP growth which is produced basically by these huge enterprises
was each and every year anywhere between 6 and 10% annually, all the time.
If we would look at industry, it would be 15 to 20% annually. This is more
than impressive. If you would look at the pace in the United States or
Europe, it would be 10 times lower.
Unemployment in
Belarus is 1,5 per cent. And we are growing. We have too little working
hands to fill the vacancies. So no trouble for young people to find jobs,
and well-paid jobs in this country. In this country emigration is much
smaller than immigration. People, including the youth, prefer to stay in
this country. Other people come to live in this country, because this is a
nice country. So, they need not worry about that. And they do not basically
worry about that.
Real incomes
grow at about 15% annually for people. Especially if this is a young
educated professional, he or she will get much more than average salaries.
And we are
speaking about involvement in the world, we are a very open economy. We
trade with the whole of the world. If you check the ratio between our
foreign trade volume and our GNP volume, and this is called the indicator of
the openness of the economy, we are within the top 10 countries in Europe in
openness of the economy.
We welcome
foreign investment, but we do not welcome it at any price. If we would put
up tomorrow one of our oil refineries for sale, there will be people
queuing, probably, up to Paris and London to buy it, but we are not doing
that, because it works fine. If they wish to invest in a new production in
Belarus, they are welcome. And so far we were on our own very successful in
raising investment for this country. What we achieved for 15 years, which I
mentioned to you, we did probably 90% on our own investment.
We welcome
foreign investment. But we are not going to crawl and beg for it.
Los Angeles
Times:
Do you see
Belarus eventually as a member of the European Union, or that’s just another
goal?
Sergei
Martynov:
This is not a
goal for the moment, because strategically speaking, the European Union
cannot offer us now what our eastern vector offers us, in terms of oil, gas,
prices, markets, etc.
We have a good
constructive relationship with NATO. We don’t believe NATO is a direct
military threat to Belarus. We want to have good neighborliness relations
with NATO, and NATO is in our boundaries. We cooperate with NATO on issues,
which are of mutual interest via the partnership for this programme. So we
have a constructive meaningful relationship to the extent which corresponds
to their interests and our interests.
Los Angeles
Times:
If there are
demands from within the opposition and within some conservative circles in
the United States, that if these elections are not fair, the international
community should retaliate with economic sanctions and expanding visa ban
for Belarusian officials….
Sergei
Martynov:
First of all,
in my view it is unnatural, to put it mildly, that well in advance of the
elections, people in Washington and Brussels have already made their verdict
on the elections. It’s laughable.
On the
sanctions issue, of course any country has the right to govern its own visa
policies. But it’s also strange that the EU and the United States try to
limit travel of people from Belarus. What about the Helsinki commitments
about the freedom of travel? Are they afraid about Belarusian officials
traveling in Europe and the United States? We cannot understand that.
If they would
adopt such a measure, most probably we will respond in kind. We are a nation
which respects itself.
If we are
talking about economic sanctions, then I can tell you these sanctions
generally don’t work, worldwide, nowhere. And it will hurt people. If the
United States and Brussels want to hurt people, it’s another story.
Los Angeles
Times:
The top foreign
policy issue in my nation’s attention is, of course, Iran. It’s well-known
that the level of cooperation between Iran and Belarus increased, that,
according to German intelligence, Belarus’ scientists were actively helping
Iran in enriching uranium. The United Nations is going to have to decide in
the very near future how to handle the Iran issue. Can you tell me, what is
Belarus’ attitude to this?
Sergei
Martynov:
A couple of
things I would like to mention in this respect.
First of all,
we have a very good relationship with Iran. Iran is a friendly country and
an important market for us. We don’t see why we should stop working in the
Iranian market.
Secondly,
Belarus never ever in its arms trade violated the United Nations sanctions.
Iran is not under sanctions.
Thirdly, I
cannot comment on any speculation, including German intelligence sources.
They never report it to me.
Fourthly,
Belarus is one of the major proponents and supporters, and, in fact,
contributors to the non-proliferation regime in the world. When the Soviet
Union collapsed, Belarus was the first of the Soviet Union nuclear heir to
say that we don’t want the nuclear arsenal that we had. And it was largely
on our initiative that Lisbon protocol had evolved at the time. So Belarus
is a major factor in non-proliferation in the world.
And, lastly,
our position specifically on the Iran situation is very simple. Iran has the
right to do anything which is allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Full
stop.
|
