2004 press releases

Press Statement And Q&A at U.S.-EU Mission's News Conference In Minsk (March 19, 2004)

Participants:

Mrs. Barbara Jones
Director for Eastern Europe, OSCE and Council of Europe
Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin

Mr. Peter McIvor
First Secretary, Political Division
Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin

Mr. Gerhard Lohan
Head of Unit, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus
External Relations Directorate-general
European Commission

Mr. Carl Hartzell
Foreign Policy Adviser
Principal Administrator
Policy Unit of the Council Secretariat of the European Union

Ambassador Steven Pifer
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

Following are the texts of the opening statement and question and answer session with journalists at the March 19 EU-U.S. joint delegation's news conference in Minsk:

(begin text, opening statement)

Representatives of the European Union and the United States made a joint visit to Belarus on 19 March 2004. This is an unprecedented joint mission that affirms the importance that the European Union and United States attach to their relations with Belarus and their wish for Belarus to end its current self-isolation and claim its rightful place in a free and democratic Europe without dividing lines. The joint EU-U.S. mission met with the Belarusian Government and representatives from a wide range of political groups and parties, civil society, and media.

While expressing deep concern over the deteriorating democratic situation in the country, the EU and U.S. representatives underscored their willingness to engage the Belarusian authorities in a constructive dialogue to enhance relations and to promote common values.

The joint EU-U.S. mission noted with regret that Belarus has failed conspicuously to make progress toward meeting its OSCE commitments and thereby realizing an improvement in its relations with the European Union and the United States. The status of individual and collective democratic freedoms in Belarus has worsened considerably with unacceptable infringement of freedom of the media; banning of non-governmental organizations active in the promotion of human rights; restrictions on the right to free association or to demonstrate; and unacceptable pressure on independent academic institutions and academic freedom.

The European Union and the United States have indicated previously that an improvement in relations would depend on the Belarusian authorities' willingness to make progress in implementing common values of democracy, respect for human rights, and freedom of speech. They noted in particular the importance of a free and fair process leading up to the October 2004 parliamentary elections. The joint mission reaffirmed the willingness of the EU and U.S. to initiate a serious discussion immediately on how to achieve these goals in Belarus.

On 1 May 2004, the European Union and Belarus will become direct neighbours. Recently, the Belarusian authorities have taken steps that widen the policy differences and values gap with the rest of Europe even as Belarus becomes geographically closer to the European Union. The new relationship between the EU and Belarus makes more pressing than ever that Belarusian policies and practices conform with the ideals of the Council of Europe and the newly enlarged European Union. If Belarus implements political reforms, both sides could reap the potential that flows from good neighbourly relations, anchored in common democratic values. The United States fully supports the European Union approach.

(end text, opening statement)

(begin text, Q & A)

Radio Liberty: Two questions for Ms. Jones and Mr. Pifer.  Ms. Jones, what are the grounds for your unprecedented joint mission and can it lead to something more permanent? And Mr. Pifer, more than two years ago, in February 2002, you proposed the step-by-step strategy to improve bilateral relations between the U.S. and Belarus.  What officials in Belarus did you meet with yesterday and today and is there any chance to undertake the first step in the step-by-step approach?

Jones: Thank you very much for this question. I see two points: first of all, the grounds for this mission, and second of all, how would the European Union see the relationship with Belarus developing. I'll take the first point first, the grounds.

I believe that this mission underlines the importance which the European Union attaches to its relationship with Belarus. The European Union has been consistent in this analysis of the importance of the relationship for several years.

But there are two new factors. The first factor is that in forty-two days time the European Union becomes a union of 25 member states and Belarus becomes a direct neighbor of the European Union.

The second factor is a negative factor. In the last several months the European Union has noted with great regret a deterioration in the space for democratic freedom in Belarus. And therefore, we feel that the time has come to take this unprecedented initiative to come jointly with our American friends and to share a same message to the Belarusian government about the need for change soon. As to how the relationship could develop, this is in the hands of the Belarusian government because the European Union is openhearted in its approach to the Belarusian people. It does not support the policy of self-isolation and exclusion of the government towards European values and European neighborly relations. One concrete measure -- just to conclude -- in an election year would be to demonstrate a commitment to a completely free and a completely fair parliamentary debate and parliamentary election going into end of this year.

Pifer: The United States fully shares the concern of our European partners about the self-isolation of Belarus. We would like to see Belarus take steps to end this isolation to be able to join in the trends that have been sweeping Europe over the last 15 years. But for this to happen, it requires that the Belarusian authorities be prepared to take certain real steps in the area of political liberalization. This was the essence of the step-by-step approach that we proposed two years ago; that is, if the Belarusian authorities were prepared to take real steps in terms of political liberalization, the United States would be prepared to respond in terms of enhancing U.S.-Belarusian relations. There have been some discussions between the American and the EU ambassadors here with the Belarusian government. And the goal of this joint EU-U.S. mission was to come and reinforce their message, which is, that if Belarus wants to move out of its position of self-isolation, it can, but it needs to take those steps in terms of political change. But we are in a situation where we are now looking to the Belarusian response.

With regard to meetings, we had a joint session with the Foreign Minister Martynov for about an hour this morning. We also had proposed and had arrived in Minsk yesterday expecting to have a joint session as well with Mr. Latypov, but he declined to have such a meeting with the joint group.

Belta: How could you comment on the meeting with the Foreign Minister? This is a question for Ms. Jones. And a question for Mr. Pifer. Many in Belarus think that the rise in terrorist activities has been caused by the forcible spread of democracy, especially to the regions where the population does not regard democracy as an acceptable form of social development. Your comment on that?

Pifer: I just wanted to be clear on the question of the meeting with Mr. Latypov. The proposal was for a joint EU-U.S. meeting with Mr. Latypov. And that's what we arrived in Minsk yesterday expecting but he declined to have such a meeting with the European Union and the American delegations together.

Jones: Thank you very much. So, the one meeting we were granted was with Minister Martynov for a common demarche. And I would have a couple of words to say about that. The first point is to be very grateful to the Foreign Minister, who had just returned from a long overseas trip, for meeting with us. And the second is to say that we fully respect that diplomacy is a confidential process. But the concerns of the European Union and the United States are well known about Belarus. And we used this meeting to reinforce our key messages about the need for reform on democracy, human rights, freedom of the media and the free elections. We are looking forward to Minister Martynov's official response to our common demarche and we certainly will hope that there will be both words and actions in reply to our concern.

Pifer: As I understood the second part of your question, it had to deal with a connection between the rise of terrorism and the spread of democracy. I guess I would have to disagree entirely with the premise of the question. If you take Afghanistan during the rule of the Taliban, when it was home to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, that was not a democratic state. And I think if Afghanistan, taking account of its own history and culture, can introduce and consolidate democratic norms, that, in fact, again will be a very strong break against Afghanistan again being the base for terrorist activities. I mean if you look at the established democratic societies around the world, those are not states in which terrorism flourishes.

BelTA: To put the question in simpler words, before troops were moved into Afghanistan, no trains were blown up in Madrid, and there was less drug trafficking.

Pifer: I guess I would point out that when Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were in Afghanistan, three airplanes were flown into buildings in the United States killing three thousand people.

Vesti: In case Belarus does not end its self-isolation and there are no improvements in the field of human rights and the political situation, will sanctions against Belarus be considered? Will you recommend that sanctions be introduced?

Jones: Well, I mean, obviously, the European Union is going to have to monitor developments very, very closely in Belarus in the coming months and will continue to do that. And quite clearly, the purpose of our mission is to create a circumstance where there would be a stop to the current negative trend. If, however, the current trend continues, I think the consequences would have to be considered carefully and you could not rule out a decision by the foreign ministers to take such steps.

The key message of the European Union to Belarus is consistent. There is a path for us to follow together as good neighbors. And this path depends upon strong commitment to shared values and to a pursuit of common interests. We are hoping to encourage the government to follow that path with us. And there is no wish in the European Union to exclude Belarus from its rightful place in the European family.

Pifer: I would just add that from the perspective of the United States the situation within Belarus since we proposed the step-by-step approach more than two years ago has deteriorated in terms of continued pressure on NGOs, on the independent media and on the opposition.

If this continues, if this deterioration goes on, the United States Government will also consider further steps that it might take. I would note that any steps or sanctions would be directed at the Belarusian government, Belarusian authorities, not the Belarusian people. And, at the time where we had a very difficult relationship over the last several years with the Belarusian authorities, we have tried to maintain and expand contact with Belarusian society. And I very much share the hope of my colleague from the European Union that the approach on the part of Belarusian authorities will change in a way that there will be some real steps in political liberalization which will be good for the people of Belarus but will also put us in a situation where we can talk about developing the relations between the West and Belarus.

Vesti: Do I understand correctly that the Georgian scenario when one year prior to Saakashvili's coming to power it was said that "we are not happy with Shevardnadze but we are not mad at the people of Georgia" is not ruled out for Belarus?

Jones: I don't know what statement you are referring to, I'm sorry.

Pifer: You cannot compare the situation in terms of the relationship between the United States and Belarus now and the United States and Georgia prior to the events of last November. I think if you look at the history of the last twelve years, the United States was supportive of Georgia, was supportive of Mr. Shevardnadze and we hoped to see him succeed. What happened in November in Georgia was an election process that was so badly flawed and results that were not credible with the population that a large majority of the Georgian people rejected those results.

Associated Press: Shortly prior to your arrival in Belarus, criminal proceedings were begun against two prominent politicians -- Chairman of the United Civic Party Anatoliy Lebedko and Chairwoman of the Helsinki Commission Tatyana Protko. That and the fact that this press conference is held not at the National Press Center but at the Lithuanian Embassy, don't you think that these are the answers of Belarusian authorities to the message you are trying to convey?

Jones: Could I just say that obviously the pressure on democratic opposition figures and the question of pressure on the Helsinki Committee is a matter of very serious concern for the European Union. And I hope that I was clear earlier on when I said that we are looking for message both in terms of actions and words -- reassuring actions and reassuring words from the Belarusian government. Belarus has voluntarily committed itself to meet OSCE standards and norms and we look forward to them meeting those standards and norms now and as we prepare for the elections ahead.

Vremya Novostey: Have there been any discussions with Russia about the situation in Belarus through diplomatic channels and is Russia supportive of your position with regard to Belarus?

Pifer: At this point, let me say that I will actually be continuing on to Moscow tomorrow and I have asked Ambassador Krol to accompany me. We would hope that Russia as a neighbor of Belarus would also be concerned about the failure to meet basic democratic standards within the country.

Jones: Could I just say from the European Union's point of view: Belarus has been and will continue to be an important issue for discussion in political dialogue at all levels. Furthermore, the Russian Federation and all the member states of the European Union are members of the Council of Europe and therefore we feel very confident that the Russian Federation would share our concerns about the lack of Council of Europe human rights standards here in Belarus.  In the context of enlargement we are looking forward to a much better dialogue with the Russian Federation on all of the countries in our common European neighborhood. We believe that we share many points of concern with the Russian Federation in the neighborhood and we are looking forward to deepening our dialogue on those issues.

Interfax: Question for Mr. Hartzell. The new European strategy, Wider Europe, pays less attention to Belarus than to other countries, like Ukraine and Moldova. Why is that and is Europe prepared to give more consideration to the economic interests of these countries, including larger trade quotas for local manufacturers?

Hartzell: I understand the question as a reference to the newly adopted European security strategy.  Wider Europe. Basically I would say that there are actually two paths that now run in parallel. One is the European security strategy which I mentioned; the other one is Wider Europe that you are referring to. When it comes to the origin of the latter, that is, Wider Europe, one would have to go back one and a half year ago when an initiative was launched initially to deal with how to create better relations and stability with our new neighbors after enlargement. And the focus of this strategy, which is still the case, is clearly a focus on the region as such, the full region, with an aim to see how we could develop the relations and the policies we have on this region.

And in this context, while the objective is very clear --  that is, of greater engagement -- each of these countries in the region will have to be treated individually, taking into account our current relations and the potential for further development of these relations. I think the important point is basically to note that this initiative, as well as the newly developed European security strategy, makes a very clear point of putting a focus on this region, which will hopefully give some new impetus as to developing our policy in the region.

Lohan: Can I add a few words about the last question concerning trade and economic interests?  There are three particular aspects which are at present or for the near future – where these can or will be taken into account in appropriate terms. First, the ongoing WTO accession negotiations. They are slow but they are moving and we hope there will be some rapprochement of positions.

Second, the effects of the EU enlargement. There are one or two examples of existing agreements which need to be adapted in order to take into account the fact that there will be ten new member states inside the EU. One example is the recent renewal of the bilateral textiles agreement.

And third -- and that is for the future to be considered -- the context of the neighborhood or Wider Europe policy that you were referring to. In this context, much will again depend on reforms in Belarus because they would better take place not only in the political but also in the economic field. Effects of such reforms can give you automatic benefit in the bilateral relationship to a certain extent but they can also be rewarded by specific steps on the EU side. This is not a foregone conclusion; I just wanted to hint to it, but it is a question to be considered on both sides in the future.

Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta: Has there been a response to the concern regarding the situation with the Helsinki Committee and is it possible that all assistance through TACIS, for instance, will cease, including to government institutions?

Jones: Well, I think I would just want to underline again what a bad signal the harassment of NGOs in general is sending about the intentions of the government.  And we certainly are concerned about the specific case that you mentioned, the Helsinki Committee. When this mission has left the local presidency which is conducted by the French Ambassador here, we'll be following up on behalf of the European Union to ensure that the harassment which is impeding European Union funding to this organization will stop. And on the issue of sanctions, I have made our position, I think, very, very clear. This is not an avenue we want to go down.  We want to continue to assist civic society in Belarus specifically. But government action will have to be closely monitored and we will have to consider very, very carefully what pressure we can continue to bear so that this activity would stop.

Pifer: From the American perspective, I would agree completely that it's pressures like the sort we're seeing on the Belarusian Helsinki Committee that need to stop. It's these kinds of attacks on the institutions of civil society that are of such great concern to both the United States and the European Union.

Much of our discussion today in the meeting with the Foreign Minister was: Can we find a way to halt this deteriorating situation for civil society and find a path where you can improve both democratic norms within Belarus and, in parallel, enhance both the relationship between Belarus and the United States and Belarus and the European Union? We very much hope that the response from the Belarusian authorities will be a positive one, both in words and, more importantly, in terms of actions or in terms of halting actions against civil society institutions. We hope for a positive response. I'm not sure exactly what kind of response we are going to get, but we are now waiting to hear back from the Belarusian authorities.

(end text, Q & A )