Olav BERSTAD: “We do not want to complicate the life of the average Belarusian, just the undemocratic regime”
Olav Berstad, Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Norway to Ukraine and the Republic of Belarus, was among the participants of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which was held in Kyiv for the first time since this organization was founded.
How does the West assess the way the forum was organized and its results? What role can Ukraine play in mending relations between Minsk and Brussels? The answers to these and other questions are revealed in The Day ’s exclusive interview with Norwegian Ambassador Olav BERSTAD.
What do you think about the recent meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE in Kyiv? How it was arranged?
“I think it was a great success. From the organizational point of view, excellent work was done by the Verkhovna Rada. I was present at several meetings, and I noted that there was a nice atmosphere in the hall. Everybody liked the atmosphere created by the hosts. But the results of the discussions are what is very important. And the mere fact that the Parliamentary Assembly meets regularly, that it exchanges opinions and builds relations and understanding across political boundaries among 56 member states is in itself very important. We should also not forget the contacts with the many partner countries, and Afghanistan’s first-time participation in this meeting. Everybody congratulated Ukraine on the perfect organization, which in my view brought the OSCE forward.”
What is your assessment of the Kyiv Declaration of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE?
“Such declarations are sometimes very long, they cover a lot of issues, and are not easy to read and understand. But the resolutions and the reports and discussions behind them express the main priorities and views of the Assembly. So this is what I mean, that discussion is in itself important; it helps you to know various views of colleagues in the parliaments with whom you meet regularly and establish personal contact. This time, I believe the discussion on energy security and Belarus ranked among the most important ones. There were many other issues covered in the declaration, but obviously the situation in Belarus was the most contentious. Belarus represents a big problem for strengthening cooperation in Europe, in the Eurasian and Euro-Atlantic context as well.”
Can you explain Norway’s attitude towards Belarus?
“Norway is very attentive to the situation in Belarus. We are in line with the EU’s policy, we support it, and we cooperate with the European Union in many ways on these issues. For instance, we cooperate with regard to Belarusian students, who are educated abroad. This is one of many practical ways of supporting Belarus. We also support the ideas behind the offer of the European Union in November 2006 on how to develop relations with Belarus, were Belarus to engage in democratization and respect for human rights and the rule of law. Belarus is not covered now by the EU’s comprehensive neighbourhood policy, but the European Union wishes to include Belarus on certain conditions. Norway recently developed its own action plan to engage Belarus on an increased number of issues, from a discussion of political issues to environmental and technical cooperation, so we are definitely among a large number of countries or groups with a well-expressed position.”
Do you think that the recent cancellation by the EU of trade preferences to Belarus will help develop Belarusian society, considering the friction between Lukashenko and Putin?
“There is a long tradition and experience in dealing with difficult international issues through sanctions or removal of privileges, which is one way to influence the policy of other countries.”
“Sometimes these sanctions work by themselves, sometimes they don’t. But they need to go in combination with other elements.
“There is continuing pressure on Lukashenko and his government. And the Belarusian leadership knows very well what is expected from it in order to develop relations with the European Union and other countries. The fact of occasional friction between Belarus and Russia does not change this basic policy.”
But Belarusian citizens will blame the EU, not Lukashenko, for losing the preferences, which will worsen their economic situation.
“If you remove privileges, as in this case, of course there is an unfortunate side effect that the interests of others may be hurt. On the other hand, everybody’s interest will be better served by changes in the Belarusian policy. Of course, we don’t want to make life difficult for the average Belarusian; we want to make life difficult for the undemocratic regime. And if steps are taken in order to improve that situation, of course, the situation of the average Belarusian will be improved.”
Maybe it would have been better from the EU side not to cancel the trade preferences but just leave in place the sanctions against the Belarusian leadership and to prohibit it from visiting EU countries.
“This is another dilemma. Many visa restrictions are already in place, and in fact this limits the level of contacts with people whom the EU and others, including Norway, want to influence. In general, I think it is unrealistic to expect a dramatic change in Belarusian policy because of the lifting of certain EU trade priviliges. I think that a more profound effect on the Belarusian society and economy will come from higher energy prices, that is, first and foremost, oil and gas from Russia.”
Who could be an advocate or mediator between the EU and Lukashenko?
“Well, I do not think a mediator is needed. What is needed, also in the view of the Norwegian government, is a positive movement towards democracy, human rights and rule of law; then the outside world will respond.”
What should Lukashenko do to improve relations with the EU?
“There is a short list of things that need to change. It is absolutely wrong not to allow free political expression, political discussion, and peaceful demonstrations, to restrict the creation and functioning of non- governmental organizations and to place other restrictions on basic human and political rights. It just means that the Belarusian leadership does not trust its own people, and this can only create problems in the long run. So, these elements need to be reversed. This is not an attack on Belarus, quite the contrary. Belarus has the right to define and develop the society, but this needs to be done in an open and free way. The Belarusian people do not exist for the sake of the leadership. It is the leadership that should exist and be elected for the sake of the people.”
Is there any evidence that Lukashenko is changing his approaches to these problems?
“I can’t say that we have noticed any changes in practice. However, we have noticed a number of signals coming out of Minsk, with new offers of cooperation and trade, especially with Europe. The question of energy and energy security has been highlighted by the Belarusian side. Everybody realizes Belarus’s importance in the transit network for Russian gas. But this cannot be used as a bargaining chip in order to soften relations with Europe. An underlying and very interesting issue is, of course, the relations between Russia and Belarus. Seen from the outside, there are many things that we don’t understand. But we have understood that the Russian leadership regards the Belarusian leadership as less than optimal. My theory is that the Kremlin clearly sees the Belarusian model as dangerous for the creation of a new and strong Russia. The Belarusian model has some good elements and is even popular among many average Russians, but basically it is a road to long-term economic and civic decline and isolationism. It cannot satisfy the desire to develop Russia as a great power and must be opposed. If there is a change in Lukashenko’s leadership, it is most likely connected with Russia’s “rejection” of his model by means of increased energy prices.”
What you think about Lukashenko’s contacts with Chaves and Akhmedinejad?
“This appears to be a desperate attempt to find friends. Of course, if one looks at the group of countries that frequently go to Belarus and conduct exchanges, these countries are not in the forefront of world development.”
Can Ukraine become a kind of bridge between the EU and Belarus?
“Well, Ukraine has certain aspirations in that respect. And personally I think there is some logic to it. Ukraine has different types of contacts in Belarus, which the EU, Norway, and many others do not. We are not looking for an intermediary. But to utilize Ukrainian resources and contacts from time to time, I think this is a good idea. It could be working on concrete projects, with municipalities, with regional administrations, with political forces, with non-governmental organizations.”
Does the Belarusian opposition have a strong leadership?
“The Belarusian opposition is somewhat fragmented. It is always difficult to assess the real strength of political forces when there are no fair elections, no free debate, free expression, or formation of free opinions. I have no doubt that Belarus is able to produce excellent leaders. But it is difficult to say who will be stronger when the situation changes. We know quite a few opposition leaders and they make an impression on us with their views and visions for Belarus. But in the end, it is only the Belarusian people in free elections that can judge.”
Do you think it would be useful if the EU supported such projects as alternative sources of information for Belarusian society?
“The EU is already supporting alternative sources of information, e.g., through radio broadcasting. These days, however, TV and the Internet are probably more important in this field than radio and traditional newspapers. Any free and democratic society has a mix of many sources of information and debate. When the Belarusian government puts limitations on information, it only means that they fear it. People travel abroad, they have Internet, telephones, they have films, and so on. It must be very frustrating for a government trying to limit access to information and to control the information when there are so many sources of information. One should also be aware of the strength of Belarusian propaganda. In Ukraine, in Russia, Lithuania, in the border areas, people can watch Belarusian TV and get the impression that life there is better than it is, more stable and predictable. So you can get the reverse effect by neighbouring citizens actually relaying back to Belarusians “information” with a positive twist from Belarusian state TV. This underlines the importance of broad and objective information everywhere.”
You have not yet presented your credentials to the Belarusian president. Why is that?
“The fault, if you wish, is on our side: delays in the paperwork. But now everything is in order, and I hope to present my credentials in Minsk after the vacation. I think Belarus is interested in expanding relations with Norway. And we too, keeping in mind our basic policy. With regard to Belarus, Norway is in line with the general policy of the European Union, the United States, and other countries. But as I said, we have now developed a specific plan, a certain framework, which enables increased contact and cooperation on the working level between Norway and Belarus. I think this will be my main message in Minsk, to express our readiness to work with Belarus and to strengthen cooperation if Belarusian policy also changes and develops. Norway has probably a lot to offer to a country like Belarus. After all, we are among the smaller countries in Europe, but Norway has a much more developed and sophisticated economy, international contacts, and trade, which should be of interest.”
As a representative of a NATO member country, can you say something about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
“Norway is a founding member of NATO, and NATO has served our security and cooperation needs splendidly. The enlargement of NATO is a natural process, enlarging the zone of stability and cooperation in Europe, based on free will. As seen from the inside, we cooperate for something; simply said: for a peaceful Europe, a peaceful world. As seen from the outside, it may look as if our cooperation is directed against somebody. In my view, this is based on old stereotypes from the time of a divided world and obsolete zero-sum thinking; that is, if something is positive for my neighbour, it must be negative for me. It seems that this erroneous opinion is gaining strength, and perhaps we need to explain better what NATO is, what NATO-Russia cooperation contains, what NATO-Ukraine cooperation means in practice, etc. - and why NATO exists after its main task during the Cold War has been fulfilled.
“I think we should strengthen our information and communication on this: what is it that makes NATO so enormously useful even today? It is a stabilizing element in an otherwise dangerous world. But NATO is not alone in dealing with security threats. We have the United Nations as the paramount security body, the OSCE, and other regional organizations. They all have strengths and limitations, NATO included. I don’t think the world would have been a more comfortable place without them; quite the contrary. NATO is now engaged in support of African Union activities in Sudan, in Afghanistan, in the Balkans. NATO support to international crisis management has overall been successful, but can only be cemented through economic and social development by a multitude of partners. We are very grateful for Ukraine’s active participation in NATO-led operations and regard this as evidence of Ukraine’s correct understanding of security threats in the 21st century, an issue not to be taken lightly.”
