Laurynas Kasčiūnas: Every second rich Lithuanian has business in Belarus

• 12.08.2013, 13:52

The EU does not know the consequences of a "dialogue" with the Belarusian regime.

The head of the department of political analysis of the Lithuanian center of East-European research is convinced that the EU doesn’t realize what an attempt new “dialog” with the Belarusian regime can lead to.

Today it is crucial for the EU to avoid old mistakes, because engaging in a conversation with Lukashenka has never given any results (probably, only negative), Laurynas Kasčiūnas believes.

According to him, all that the Europeans want is to gather the Eastern Partnership at one table in November to discuss geopolitics and economics; at the same time, Kasčiūnas is convinced that Belarus has already started to abandon the initiative.

The political scientist has given an interview to charter97.org.

- Belarusian head of MFA Uladzimir Makiei has visited Brussels. In your opinion, does the EU contradict its own principles: what is the point of the sanctions if they can be lifted so easily?

- Those in the EU who are responsible for making decisions are getting more and more convinced that the sanctions (even if we use the term “limiting measures”) give no actual result, particularly when the object of the sanctions can choose an alternative direction of integration. For the political regime of Belarus, Russia is the way to compensate for the losses suffered in the relationship with the EU, even if it happens at the expense of political independence. And hence, there is an opinion that the sanctions result in Belarus’ giving in to the impact from Russia. That is why today we witness the beginning of a new wave of “reload” in the relationship between the EU and Belarus.

In this context, the Belarusian foreign minister acts as a sort of a platform (channel for a dialog). But I am not sure if any decision-maker in the EU has a clear understanding of what the new wave of “engaging” Lukashenka can lead to, and what the purpose of these initiatives is.

It is particularly important to avoid repeating same mistakes. During the last 10 years, the EU has made many attempts to interact with Lukashenka, but these attempts have never given results, because the Belarusian president has been using relations with the EU only as an opportunity to strengthen his negotiating points with Russia. Will these lessons be taken into account this time? Time will show.

- In your opinion, how strong is the economic lobby of cooperation with the Belarusian regime in the EU? As we see today, despite the criticism from Poland and Lithuania, the economic turnover with Belarus is growing. Who and what stands behind the “dialog”?

- Naturally, business always looks for opportunities. It adapts to different rules. And of course, there is nothing bad in that. On the other hand, when in exchange to the possibility to grow, business becomes a tool in the hands of lobby of political regimes and is acting in different directions in its country – then we have a serious problem.

Let’s have a look at 20 richest Lithuanians: every other of them has some form of a business-project in Belarus, but do all of them participate in Lithuania’s foreign politics as lobby? - Definitely not. On the other hand, there is natural dependence. For Klaipeda harbor and Lithuanian railways, transit from Belarus is crucial. But this is a natural dependence, not some specific group of lobby. Trade and economic flows between Belarus and Lithuania are growing, because the broadly promoted route via Russia’s northern harbors avoiding the Baltic States proved to be economically unreasonable. Probably, there are lobbying groups that favor Belarus in every EU country, but their capacity cannot be compared, for example, to that of the structures that represent Russia’s interests.

- They say that isolation remains the EU’s strategy regarding Belarus, and that the EU tries to convince Belarus to join the Eastern Partnership’s discussion while not promising anything. On the other hand, dialog is being discussed. Hasn’t the EU learnt anything from the experience of the latest “dialog”?

- As I have already said, a certain attempts to engage (in a political dialog) are being made. But I don’t believe that someone has a clear understanding of possible consequences. Nothing is clear but the short-term objective: to gather all countries-partners of the EU at one table and give a strategic evaluation to the geopolitical and economic situation in the region, key challenges, successes and failures of the Eastern Partnership. In my view, engaging in a new dialog has only short-term objectives. I do hope that this new stage will not replace the question of release and rehabilitation of the political prisoners on the agenda. On the other hand, today we hear voices saying that it is easier to solve the issue of political prisoners in a dialog.

- What impact can a positive outcome on Ukraine of the Vilnius summit have on Belarus?

- There will be no direct impact on Belarus. On the other hand, if Ukraine succeeds in signing the agreements on association and free-trade zone with the EU, it will undermine functionality of the Eurasian toll and economic union promoted by Russia. Without Ukraine, this structure is incomplete, which can cause erosion of this integration project. Belarus’ dependence upon the EU will also be affected, since membership in this organization means that Minsk can no longer even theoretically take part in one of the milestones of the Eastern Partnership – the free-trade zone. De facto, Belarus is half-way out from the Eastern Partnership. Maybe Ukraine’s success will encourage Minsk to return.

- What can Belarus expect from the Vilnius summit?

- Nothing specific. Today the future of the conversation with Belarus is being tested, nothing more. We can start talking about needs, strategies and visions when an agreement that there should be a dialog with the political regime is reached inside the EU.

- Lithuanian minister of foreign affairs Linkevičius said that there is something positive in the fact that the Belarusian foreign minister didn’t respond to the criticism regarding the political prisoners. How can you explain Lithuania’s position?

- What minister Linkevičius tried to say, I assume, was that the Belarusian foreign minister didn’t deny that there are political prisoners in Belarus. And Lithuania doesn’t work alone with these aspects of foreign politics. All initiatives and statements regarding Belarus are consolidated with the EU. This is how the EU’s common politics work.