A political
analyst Aleksandr Klaskouski replies to the questions of the www.eurobelarus.info
Q: A lot of time has passed from the
announcement of the idea of the Eastern Partnership in July last year to its recent
adoption. Why did it take so long to make the final decision?
A: The
Eastern Partnership project per se is
in the process of elaboration. What would be the shape of this new programme,
so far, I believe is not yet clear to the European Union officials themselves. On
one hand it is a new step, an attempt to engage post-Soviet countries that find
themselves today in a situation of uncertainty (due to the fact that they used
to belong to the Russian sphere of influence that Russia still aims for today). On the other
hand, the European Union, shaken by the last year’s war in the Caucuses, realized
that if doesn’t take initiative in its hands and does not start playing a more
active role in that region, in the future it may face larger disturbances. Russia, given all its unpredictability and
imperialistic instincts is a source of worries for Europe.
Therefore
one side of the issue is a desire to stimulate the Belarusian authorities to
move towards reforms. While the other side of the issue, is a desire to find an
adequate concept for the programme itself, of the Eastern Partnership project.
So far only
the idea of the programme was voiced. Further on, individual bilateral plans
for each country need to be elaborated. The European Union will be putting
forward its conditions.
Q: What does the European Union
expect from Belarus?
A: All
issues under consideration are laying on the surface. Though it sounds nice
that we are being proposed to create a fee trade zone with Europe however so far it is impossible to
correlate these two economic systems. The Belarusian economy is still largely
based on the administrative tools while market reforms are inconsistent: one
step forward, one back. Until the moment Belarus enters the World Trade Organization
it doesn’t make sense to talk about the free trade zone with the European
Union. Certain conditions of economic nature and in the area of legislation
will be put forward.
A large
number of the Belarusian legislation also needs to be adopted to the European
Union standards. It is a huge amount of work. Moreover there are certain areas
where the Belarusian authorities are not eager to move forward. Therefore
perhaps a limited format for participation in the Eastern Partnership might be
chosen. On the one hand, Brussels will not be able to include ‘raw’
country. On the other hand, the Belarusian authorities as well are very picky
about the programmes.
They would
like to have pragmatic partnership in areas such as investment, migration, border
control and energy transit, i.e. in those areas that seem to be more or less
neutral in a sense that they do not demand certain measures to be adopted in
the area of the political liberalization. In the meanwhile, these processes are
interlinked and the economic regulations if implemented consistently would push
for changes in the political sphere. That is the reason why the Belarusian side
is rather cautious about such perspectives.
Q: The Foreign Ministry of Belarus positively assessed the inclusion of Belarus into the Eastern Partnership. Who benefits from it: official authorities,
opposition? Or common people?
A: It may
sound as a paradox, however entire country benefits from it. It seems no
feasible to divide between the benefits of the opposition and of the authorities.
It is a dialectic process. On the one side (this is the major argument of the opposition)
it will legitimize the regime, it will receive investment and credits. However
one should realize that new resources, new technologies will be coming into the
country, the Belarusians will have access to new jobs, new experiences, to the higher
standards of discipline. Contacts per se, opportunities to travel around Europe, experience the European lifestyle –
all that is of great significance already. On a large scale, this is a historical
event for Belarus and I am not afraid of sounding
pathetic. Indeed, so far, it is only a potential window of opportunities. However
it is a real break through. For centuries Belarus was at the crossroads between the
two civilizations and today it is being pulled from both sides: from one side –
by Moscow and from the other side by Europe. However perhaps it is the
beginning of the return to the niche of the European civilization that our land
belongs historically. It is worth seeing this historical significance for the
fate of Belarus. Some of the most radical opponents
of the regime should realize that their negative attitude towards certain
personalities should not be transferred to the issues of geopolitical and
historical choice of Belarus. It is due to the fact that leaders
come and go, while if Belarus gets involved into the European
context, it will be irreversible. The European Partnership may serve as an
anchor that will sustain Belarus and that at a particular moment will
assist it to stand against the creeping Russian expansion.
Q: Moscow initiated a powerful
counter game against the Eastern Partnership. What are the benefits and dangers
of such game?
A:
Naturally, Moscow is not in favour of the Eastern Partnership and the Russian
Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov while speaking in Brussels, in a soft
and diplomatic manner made it understood that “it is our territory canonically
and that the European Union wants to withdraw these countries from our sphere
of influence”. Indeed, Moscow due to certain frameworks of
international courtesy can not order Lukashenko not to join the Eastern
Partnership. I believe Russian will try to minimize the participation of Belarus in this programme. It is due to the
fact that out of six of the possible partner countries, Russia may apply effective pressure to a
minim of three of them: Armenia, Moldova and Belarus. For various reasons these three
countries are in strong dependence on Moscow. With regard to Belarus it concerns energy, economic and
now financial dependence…
One of the
fishing rods that Moscow is testing at the moment is the
recognition of the rebellious Georgian provinces. If Belarus recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia it may spoil its
relations with Brussels, as well as with Georgia, which has been invited to join the
Eastern Partnership. The President of Georgia Saakashvili has already stated that
if Belarus recognized these autonomies he
would not fly to Prague in case the Belarusian President is
invited there too. Therefore a collision is already being formed and thus Moscow wants to spoil entire ‘set up’.
Q: The leader of Belarus has his own interests in Russia and in Europe and is trying to play for contraposition
of Moscow and Brussels. For how long can he maneuver and balance?
A: Lukashenko
has no other choice but to maneuver. On one hand he feels danger from Russia and therefore seeks for support in Europe. On the other hand, he realizes the
cunning plan of Europe that has slightly voiced down its demands for democracy and for human
rights. However he also realizes that Europe wants to ‘take him in’ quietly. That is why there
were harsh statements from his side, “Solana and I had a very nice
conversation, there were no conditions put forward. And now we are being pushed
around again and they demand some unclear things from us…” To sum up, indeed,
Lukashenko will continue maneuvering…
At this
moment it is worth mentioning that this programme envisages relatively moderate
financing, i.e. only around 600 million Euro for six countries. In the
meanwhile Moscow can allocate a several billion credit by one decision.
Though not everything is crystal clear there, given that the Russian credits
signify enforcement of the financial dependence from it. With regard to the
European funds, it does not concern money that will be given to be put into
pockets. They only open a window of opportunities, first of all. Connecting to
the European market, to the prominent technologies and to the investment – all that
is in the perspective only. However it would provide with the incomparable larger
opportunities and would be measured by significantly larger sums as a result,
compared with these 600 million Euro. Therefore the current balancing in
between will continue.
I am
looking at the headlines every day: “Lukashenko between the hammer and the anvil”,
“Lukshenko in split”, “Lukahsenko in between two fires”, etc… They all contain
a certain level of dramatization, given that in reality, no matter how
paradoxical it may be, neither Russia nor Europe have a strong policy with
regard to the Belarusian issue.
The Old
Europe is looking at the unpredictable and impulsive Russia cautiously, they realize it may do
whatever it likes at any moment: either to attack Georgia or to cut down gas for Ukraine… Indeed, this Russia worries Europe.
On the
other hand, Moscow will always look cautiously at the
actions of the West and see a ‘catch’ there, i.e. as if it aims for its canonic
territories as Moscow perceives them. Given that these
contradictions are preprogrammed to last for a long time, for entire historical
period, there will always be a possibility for balancing in between, to play on
contradictions between the two centres of authority and to benefit from it with
some interest.
Indeed
there is a risk of slipping over there, given that balancing is always risky.
However, firstly, Lukahsenko has a lot of experience in that: he has been
balancing for 15 years already. And, secondly, there is no other getaway, due
to the fact that unfortunately current authorities have no ‘guts’ to distance
sharply from Moscow and to speed up the return to Europe, into the context of the
European civilization. Perhaps that would be the goal of the government that
will come next. However if the Eastern Partnership will contribute to the
preparation of the grounds for this possible Belarusian shift in the
perspective, it would already be a positive contribution.
Q: What is your prediction, whether
Lukashenko will be invited to the inauguration Summit of the Eastern
Partnership in Prague?
A: There
are more chances that he will be invited. It will be a different issue if an
invitation is made in such a form that the Belarusian leader will have to
reject it and send the Foreign Minister to replace him. Perhaps, tactically, it
would be better for Lukashenko not to go to Prague himself in order not to annoy Moscow. In that case vis-à-vis Moscow he will appear ‘clean’: so to say ‘I
did not sign anything myself…’ In the meanwhile the Eastern Partnership train
will gradually start moving and gaining speed. Perhaps it would be the optimal
scenario: to have one's cake and eat it too.
