29 March 2024, Friday, 16:51
Support
the website
Sim Sim,
Charter 97!
Categories

Linas Linkevicius: Release of political prisoners is a high priority

Linas Linkevicius: Release of political prisoners is a high priority

Lithuania’s Foreign Minister shared his view of the relationship between Lithuania and Belarus.

On April 16, when Aliaksandar Lukashenka received letters of credential from the Lithuanian Ambassador, Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius met with editor-in-chief of the website charter97.org Natallia Radzina for an exclusive interview.

- Mister Linkevicius , you have had a very interesting career. You are a trained engineer, but you started as a correspondent of Tiesa newspaper. What made you become a politician?

- It just happened this way. In the beginning I was of course an unprofessional politician, but when I was young, I had joined the team of Algirdas Brazauskas before he became the president. I worked in a parliamentary group, we were preparing for the elections to the Seim. I was elected a deputy of Seim in 1992. And so I remained in the politics. Afterwards, when the previous minister of defense resigned, I was appointed to this post, to my own surprise, because at that time I was only 32 years old.

It all looked like a gamble. We had neither funds, nor experience to establish armed forces. Frankly speaking, it was very hard. But once you survive such a trial, accept a serious challenge, you will succeed. As it always happens in life, there was a range of occasional happenings. But I don’t mean to complain, it was very interesting.

- Twice, between 1993-1996 and 2000-2004, you were the minister of defense of the Republic of Lithuania. In other words, you saw Belarus before and during Lukashenka’s rule. How did the relations with Belarus in the military sphere develop during these years? I remind that since 2001, Belarus has organized large-scale training sessions with Russia to protect “the western borders”.

- Our relations were not very dynamic. I was directly in touch with one colleague from the Belarusian ministry. Several times your prime minister came to Vilnius. Maltsau was the defense minister; today he is the secretary of the Security Council. The first time we met was on the day when you changed your court of arms and flag, in 1995.

There were some formal talks, but no active connections. On the whole, we have no contact in any other sphere than business and economy. We need channels for contact, and that is why I am an upholder of the dialog. I believe that we should talk to everyone, and even to those with whom we argue and disagree - if you want them to change.

There is another way: to build a wall and wait. But this is far too big luxury. Personally, I do not intend to wait for any country-member of the Eastern Partnership, not only for Belarus. Each of the six countries has its files and dossier, its very individual intentions and purposes. But we cannot wait because we’re just losing time and geopolitical opportunities. We need to talk.

Another question is with whom and how we should talk. The more channels we have, the more opportunities we get to deliver the idea to the people; not only the opposition and NGOs, but to officials, too, even though we disagree with them on many questions, mildly speaking. And probably it will be like that tomorrow. But in order to change something, we need a dialog.

I had a feeling that in the military sphere there was an intention to talk. When I was working in NATO in Brussels, I was in Minsk twice. We organized seminars, and officers from your Ministry of defense came to the seminars and took part in discussion with great enthusiasm. I don’t know when we’ll see the effect of it, or what effect it will give, but it was a good thing.

And this is our goal. We cannot impose a lifestyle; we cannot introduce new rules of the game. Belarus will do it itself. But we can answer your questions, tell you about the news from the spheres you’re interested in, share our experience.

During the four months I spent in Minsk as an Ambassador, I realized that we can achieve a lot if we follow this way. By the way, the people of Belarus had a most positive impression on me. They are more open, smile more often, are easier to approach. We, Lithuanians, are more reserved.

- You were Lithuania’s representative in NATO and North-Atlantic Council for many years. What are the main advantages of your country’s membership in this organization?

- The main advantage is the guaranteed security. In 1990, we restored our independence. It was difficult to accomplish with the army of another state on our land. There was a discussion: Where should we go? As far as I remember, the variant of keeping neutrality was the most popular. But the visit of NATO’s Secretary General Manfred Wörner to Lithuania in 1992 made us think: What can we actually do by our own? A population of 3 million people, no particular resources – we had to choose our way. Yes, psychologically the neutrality scenario was more attractive, especially after the war in Afghanistan where our and your guys were sent to die. But then we realized that if we want security, not an imitation of one, we need allies.

The choice was plain simple: the center of attraction from the East, where we had already been, or NATO. And so on January 4, 1994, President Brazauskas in a letter to Wörner expressed the will of all parliamentary parties to join NATO. 10 years passed before we could actually join this organization, but it became the guarantee of our security.

Each time I speak on that topic, I say: choose quality, take your niche and accept the common rules. In football, nobody needs 11 forwards of goalkeepers. You can choose a segment and, using this capacity (qualitative, not quantitative), achieve your goal.

We are still a young member of the Alliance, but we don’t feel second-rate despite the modest scale of our country. And the most important thing is the guarantee of security. As examples show, vacuum can only exist in physics. In politics, it is filled immediately.

The head of Lithuania’s Defense Ministry with the editor-in-chief for charter97.org

- According to many western ambassadors, Belarus is a difficult country to work as a diplomat. The KGB is watching them. In 2012, you spent less than half a year on the post of the Republic of Lithuania’s ambassador to Belarus. What is your impression?

- Can we skip this question? (Linkevicius  is laughing)

- It is a great reply. My next question is if Lithuania’s politics regarding Belarus will change with the new government.

- There will be no radical changes in the strategy. There are nuances, and there is a tactic. The tone of the dialog may change. But in general we are not inventing a wheel; as an EU-member, we follow the common rules that we vote for. Personally, I see that we can work more on some nuances, but it will not change the strategy.

- Can there be a compromise between democratic principles and economic interests?

- I often think about it, and I don’t like when interests win instead of principles and values. Unfortunately, in this world this tendency is quite obvious. It is bad, there should be a balance. We cannot talk only about the values, but talking only about the interests is cynical. Let me ask you, what is more important: transit Belarusian goods in the harbor of Klaipeda, or political prisoners? Both are important. And one problem cannot be solved at the expense of the other.

We must do everything in our power to decrease the number of political prisoners in Belarus. We always raise this issue, privately and publicly. The EU’s position is clear; it is the tactics that can differ. Even economic connections impact the situation. Despite some passionate words that we received together with a couple of “Molotov’s cocktail”, the goods turnover between Belarus and Lithuania doesn’t change. The work is being done, which is natural for neighbors. The common sense should prevail. Lithuania is not the only party interested in Belarus’ using the harbor of Klaipeda. Belarus needs it, too.

The relations between Lithuania and Belarus on the one hand, and the European Union and Belarus on the other, should be more constructive and effective, and this is exactly what some can use as an indirect tool of pressure. Not the other way around. If we build the wall, I don’t know what we will get. When we are trying to punish someone, a vacuum filled by the other party is created. Our other neighbors are alert and use it at once. We need a well-balanced approach to avoid sacrificing principles and values. For me personally, the release of political prisoners is a high priority.

- During the “Snow meeting” in Trokaj you said that the U.S. is a close ally of Lithuania. The IX International Belarusian-Lithuanian economic forum is held on April 17-19 in Lithuania. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions against Belarusian enterprises and urges the European Union to follow this example.

- I am glad that this forum is held. As far as I know, from the Lithuanian side it is organized by the Confederation of Industry Workers. It is a private organization that represents interests of our industrial sector. Belarus and Lithuania have common economic goals, let’s face it.

- In this regard, head of the Freedom house David Kramer passed his condolences to Lithuania…

- This process needs a creative approach. Extremities should be avoided. Economic connections are another way to influence the development of the situation. Of course, it won’t solve everything, but I believe that it can improve the environment and enable us to affect the negative agenda, including the questions that we cannot solve. That is why our view of this situation should be moderate. A joint forum is an opportunity to discuss the economic cooperation. Why not? Partners will meet to discuss the opportunities of the Klaipeda harbor.

- But the U.S. is convinced that the European Union should join the economic sanctions imposed against Lukashenka.

- Target sanctions have a direct effect on their objects making these people unable to travel freely, while economic sanctions should be very thoroughly weighed to be really effective. I have heard that some members of the opposition talk about it; I think Milinkevich is one of them. I heard it even when I was in Belarus and met with some representatives from the opposition who also doubt that the sanctions are reasonable. It means that we should not understand everything literally. By the way, speaking about target sanctions against specific officials, the EU doesn’t always share the U.S.’ position, and one could speculate why.

- Whom do you mean?

- I don’t want to talk about it right now, I will tell later.

- Do Lithuanian businessmen realize what risks doing business with the Belarusian dictatorship implies?

- Not really and not always. We explain, talk to them, but business is business. They are responsible for their actions. The task of our embassy and economic counselors is to tell, to explain, because there can be different examples. Some businessmen are glad to do business in Belarus, they’re lucky. But as or some other investment projects, there are problems that are still unresolved. Our task is to explain to the businessmen what risks they are taking. Unfortunately, today in Belarus there are no favorable conditions for doing business.

- The summit of the Eastern Partnership will be held in Lithuania this autumn. Today we witness a real fight for securing a spot for head of the Belarusian Foreign Minister Uladzimir Makiei in the summit. Makiei is one of those who organized the massive repressions of December 19, 2010. In your view, how appropriate is it to invite this person to the summit in Lithuania?

- It is not time to talk about it yet. The summit is an important event. We work actively with many partner-states. Great attention is paid to Ukraine; I am going to Kyiv in the near future. And it is not yet decided who will get the invitation. Everything will be coordinated, because this is the summit in Vilnius – not the Vilnius summit. Representatives from Lithuania and the EU will invite participants. Personally, I would like to see Belarus represented on the summit, but it depends on the political climate and dynamics of the events in the country. If there are not enough positive signals, it’ll be sad, but such is the reality. There’s little time, and yet, we have time till the end of November. We’ll see.

The Eastern Partnership is the only way to show the European choice, to show the countries that this is the choice they should keep to. By the way, personally I would love to see Belarus (I’m not speaking on behalf of the Belarusians) as a part of Europe not only geographically, but in its lifestyle and choice of values. We cannot make it happen, but we can help and support this course through the Eastern Partnership. We want Belarus in the European family, and we should use all the tools available.

- You have repeatedly said that you are an upholder of the dialog with the Belarusian powers. But Europe has already made numerous attempts to talk to Lukashenka, and they resulted in the repressions of December 19 and tortures of the political prisoners. I was in prison myself and I was tortured. Don’t you think that a new attempt of dialog is basically a reward to those who tortured us?

- I know that you have been tortured… It is crucial to make the dialog not a reward, but an incentive to transform and come closer to the European values. If it is a reward, then it’s gone wrong. We shouldn’t do that. I’m not mentioning any names that you’ve asked for, but let me just say that in Belarus, there are partners that can and should be talked to. The question is, on what level.

- After the presidential elections of 2010, many political activists had to flee from Belarus to Lithuania. Vilnius and Warsaw are often called “capitals of the Belarusian opposition”. What is your opinion about it, given that because of the difficult political situation in Belarus the flow of Belarusian political refugees will only increase?

- Let me give a broader reply to your question. I am very happy that so many different organizations come to us, not only Belarusian and not only the European Humanitarian University and the House of Human Rights. The Konrad-Adenauer-House, Forum Syd from Sweden, Freedom house, International Republican Institution and National Democratic Institution from the U.S. and many other organizations work here. It means that Vilnius is a good place. I don’t want to speak separately about the Belarusians. We are an open city, and our country is democratic and free. I am happy that different political organizations are comfortable in Vilnius. I don’t see a drama here. My approach is not aggressive, on the contrary, it is open and democratic.

- Literally today, on April 16, Lukashenka received letters of credential from the Lithuanian Ambassador and said that he has high expectations from Lithuania’s presidency in the EU. He said that he is not a dictator and that he counts on a dialog with the EU. What should Belarus and Lukashenka expect from Lithuania’s presidency?

- Let him speak for himself. I honestly want to see Belarus in Europe. I hope we’ll find the gears to impact the situation positively. We cannot focus on only one aspect, whether it is a person or a dogma. We should view the process openly.

You’re right, I often say that we should be faithful to our values. But there is much potential for cooperation. I believe in it, and I also believe that only a dialog can impact the situation. It may be possible to impact the situation without talking, without communicating, even with those who disagree with us, but it will take too much time. Time is not our ally; nor is it yours, I believe. So we’ll find a way only if we are very active. There should not be unrealistically high expectations from Lithuania’s presidency. Let’s act in a decent and appropriate way. If not us, who else can be the concerned neighbor of Belarus? Lithuania should become Belarus’ “window” to Europe, both geographically and practically, but only Belarus itself can decide whether this window should be used.

Write your comment

Follow Charter97.org social media accounts