What is the meaning of the South American decision to throw its own ambassador in Minsk? What will be the reaction of the European Union and the Russian Federation on the conflict between Minsk and Washington? What will be the consequences of this conflict for internal and external policy of Belarus?
On these issues in the program "Prague accent" talk columnist Russian magazine "The New Times" Vadim Dubnov, editor of the analytical bulletin BelaPAN Klaskouski Alexander and Director of the Belarusian Institute for Strategic research Vital Silitski.
Drakakhrust"This Friday, the Belarusian authorities decided to recall the ambassador of Belarus in the U.S. Misha Khvostova from Washington to Minsk for consultations immediately, the U.S. Ambassador to Belarus Karen Stewart was recommended to go to Washington for consultations with his government.
At the end of last year, Alexander Lukashenko said: "She (salting) is flung first. Strolled by opposition parties and claims about the ability of economic sanctions," warming up "the situation. Suppose South American salting doing his neuvvyazkami since early may leave his post."
Lukashenko then December 30, explained that Karen Stewart can be sent out of the country if the United States to impose sanctions against Belarus. Meanwhile, the sanctions were imposed and a half months earlier, on November 13, imposed on "Belneftekhim" concern, which provides the lion’s share of Belarusian exports to the United States.
February 30 during a meeting with German Ambassador Lukashenka again remembered the "bad" behavior of the South American Ambassador, which still remained in the country.
In the end, 6 March, the Ministry of money the U.S. explained the sanctions imposed in November 2007 against the "Belneftekhim".
And almost a day after Foreign Ministry announced its decision to withdraw the recommendation and Belarusian Ambassador to the U.S. ambassador to Washington for consultations.
As a motive Foreign referred to additional sanctions against "Belneftekhim". But then an explanation of the U.S. Treasury to pay these additional sanctions? So it was still a prerequisite decision of the Belarusian authorities that new sanctions or a response to last year, four months ago South American decision on sanctions? Mr. Klaskouski that your answer? "
Klaskouski: "At the present day situation looks so that Washington used a broad interpretation of the economic measures that have been made in the last year in November. If then the sanctions referred several missions "Belneftekhim", now under attack may fall many businesses that one way or another associated with it.
It should be emphasized that in this history of the sanctions we have clean politics, only economic wrapper. I believe that Washington has expanded sanctions, without knowing in any political issues, and more directly — in liberation of those West considers political prisoners.
Obviously, this is a sick beat and in the economic sense, though ordinary mortals hard to judge what the scale here. Although our economy called the "national economy", the people of her state that not many know, that last year sold VELCOM, that long did not know to whom and for how much. We do not know what the official Minsk cooperation schemes, including through "Belneftekhim" with Venezuela, with Chavez.
Because it can be a painful blow on certain Belarusian structures and certain persons in this reaction because such a large sensual component. Plus the mental component: saying "a", it was necessary to read "b." If he is a strong favorite, speaking in slang "Cool Man", then you need to keep your word. If it was promised "kick", the promise is realized to a certain extent. Although the point of the «i» not yet placed, because it seems that Washington is in no hurry to withdraw its own ambassador. "
Drakakhrust: "Vital Silitski, and your eyes, what is the reason: or that the U.S. really have introduced new, additional sanctions, or in fact any special new sanctions, but there is just a change indiscriminately and political situation in which Minsk considered that risk can and should be implemented? "
Silitski: "There is a technical and factual side. From a purely technical level on the side of what happened — it was useful that the Yankees 4 months to realize what" Belneftekhim "and they were given a new explanation.
On the other hand it was clear that further sanctions may occur (our Belarusian Institute for Strategic research gave such forecast in December), it was anticipated and the Belarusian authorities, and no matter what it was technically on the U.S. side, the Belarusian side takes this is just an extension of sanctions.
There are two notable event: the first — a popular telephone conversation between Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin about the "relations of Belarus with individual Western countries", which was held for the day to the diplomatic demarche Belarusian Foreign Ministry and a day before the signing of the agreement with the European Commission. And the second point — just signing of this contract, which may indicate a 2-things: that there is no proper coordination policy towards Belarus and the European Union between the U.S. and Western policy on Belarus is one hundred percent coordinated with Russia. I think that the freezing of accounts "Belneftekhim" affects not only Belarusian, and Russian interests, but we are not much about this that we know. "
Drakakhrust: "Vadim Dubnov, and what your eyes — what background, what the sources of the Belarusian solutions?’s Vitaly presently said that maybe all these diplomatic war between Minsk and Washington arkestruetstsa from Moscow. On your eyes, and it there is and can be? "
Dubnov: "No, I think everything is normal, and the initiative in this case in the hands of Lukashenko. Lukashenko, as nobody knows how to use the moment to offer himself as a third party in the conflict between Russia and the West, but directly — between Russia and the United States.
It has long been seen that the most decisive steps, the most sudden decisions Lukashenko sees able personal resentment. Certainly, sanctions, announced that Washington personally insulted, he takes almost all through the prism of personal, but it pretty quickly kanvertue in political decisions. And here it was necessary to wait until just. And now the moment just perfect.
In 1-x, Lukashenko has always tried to approach different to Europe and America, and now we just litsezreem apogee of this policy at a time when Lukashenko declares economic liberalization regime, is an obvious attempt to Europe warming occurs such sharp blow to Washington. Here everything is clear.
Even more fascinating is what happens on the Russian front. In Russia, there come several months of political byaschassya, transfer cases, the definition of who is and who will manage, in this situation, Lukashenko Medvedev says that there is such a Belarus. Moscow has bad case with Washington, and they
are not going to improve in recent years, and here Lukashenko Tipo plays the ball.
But on the other hand Medvedev, I think he has not exactly led to his foreign policy, and until such time as it is formulated, Lukashenko presents its ideas on performances united front. And in such a situation, it seems, really nothing to do but to formally support Lukashenko and prygadavats long time on bilateral contradictions. What matters at the moment for Lukashenko and practical significance. "
Drakakhrust: "And at the moment I suggest for you to analyze the response to the decision of the Belarusian authorities and demand the U.S. side. State Department spokesman Thomas Casey beginning, said:" If they do not need our salting, then she leaves. They stated that they were withdrawing their own ambassador — it is very good, as their ambassador we could not be very happy. "
But after a while the same Thomas Casey said salting Stewart ignore advice and remains the Belarusian Foreign Ministry in Minsk: "She will remain in Minsk, as we continue to learn the situation," — said the representative of the State Department. He stressed that the salting was not sent out of the country and has not received a formal proposal to leave Belarus.
Like you could explain the meaning of this South American decision of whether he come to the conclusion as to what line will choose the United States in response to the step of the Belarusian authorities? Vital Silitski. "
Silitski: "Yuri, a small remark about your question Vadim. I read that the policy was" coordinated with Russia, "is not the same, that the policy was" orchestrated from Moscow, "I think you have identified. I’m not sure that your interpretation of my words was correct.
Now to your last question. With regard to sanctions against Belarus, the Americans with anyone they do not agree and are not going to agree. This was their sovereign decision, which was not even related to the situation of human rights or democracy in Belarus, there were additional motives.
Practically, these sanctions were first announced, the Belarusian side had prepared for him a number of monetary issues has been resolved and the impact of sanctions have been minimized except those things that we do not know and what calculations in dollars were needed.
As for U.S. policy, then of course, she did not have the effect that would have had. Moreover — exactly clear that the EU will never join these sanctions. And without acceding to the EU sanctions have enormous effect, calculations for many commodity groups have been translated into euros, that’s all. And what can be done? Shut transports driven Belarusian potash abroad? Well, it’s stupidity. It remains only to limit those companies that do business directly with the "Belneftekhim" and the United States.
And what eventually happened? United States stayed in a certain isolation in the West, and the impact of the European Union has increased significantly. If at this point calculations "Belneftekhim" go to the euro, the Belarusian economy more health is dependent on the EU. "
Drakakhrust: "Vadim, how would you explained to this" dvuhshazhny "South American answer: first — a willingness to withdraw the ambassador, later — a statement that is salted?"
Dubnov: "There is a certain contradiction between the symbolic and the real politics faced by Washington itself. Most decision on sanctions was, in my opinion, the bureaucratic nature, Lukashenko is a signal that his regime enrolled in the number of those regimes with which no desire to deal with.
Some undercurrents I did not really find out, we can obviously find and Venezuelan track can behold in this RF signal, which wanted to buy Belarusian petrochemical enterprises. But it seems to me that all this is not the real cause and that the decision was purely symbolic, the more so as the time it does not coincide with any rhythm, or in discussions about democracy, in its relations with Russia and Belarus.
And at the moment it is used perfectly Lukashenko, he waited for the moment he struck own beat, and Washington had to make a concrete decision. His decision is clear to me too, because most formula rather exotic — proposed after leaving for advice. And in truth, never before heard such. And Americans ignored this, and that of course: why, actually speaking, the State Department should listen Lukashenko? In this sense, quit after it was the most common, and in this sense logically. "
Klaskouski: "Relatively speaking, the Belarusian side has made progress E2-E4 and thought it would be a symmetrical response e7-e5, will be withdrawn South American salting. But then the dialogue would be frozen. Here Vadim said about the way the symbolic and the real nuances prepyadstviya. Maybe Washington should not Artel like Minsk and Caracas. But this is not clearly stated, and will be read, for example, on the issue of political prisoners. And maybe now that the collision takes place due to the fact that the point here, despite the declarations of the Belarusian ruler has not yet been set.
If you read as much as possible directly, everything depends on the problem of Kozulin. I believe that the official Minsk is currently very big concession. On the other hand, Washington also goes on principle.
Because in this case it could skhlisnutstsa questions about the full release of political prisoners, and that America remains salting in Minsk, on the one hand it is a typical provocation: they say, show whether you have enough spirit to send ambassador. On the other hand, America’s ability to also still limited, and it can not go too far, and it is obliged to look to Moscow on this issue, there are still other reasons.
In short, there is still a place for dialogue, and can be as paradoxically, this crisis could push this dialogue and bring it to a new level. "
Drakakhrust: "The representative of the Government of the United States referred to Gordon Johndroe Belarusian unjustified act and said that they are" still largely isolate Belarus from Europe and the rest of the world. " Oh, so just about Europe, namely the European Union: what, in your opinion, would be the position in the Euro Union, at first glance, a bilateral conflict? It should be noted that the diplomatic war with the United States Minsk started almost on the day when it was signed in Brussels an agreement on the long-awaited opening of the consulate of the European Commission in Minsk. Can anyone imagine for yourself in this situation, that all EU countries will withdraw their own ambassadors from Minsk or in some other way to demonstrate their solidarity with their South American allies in this decline? Alexander, what do you think? "
Klaskouski: "Brussels has appeared in specific myagenkoy trap. Indeed it is no coincidence that in Minsk waited signing an agreement on the opening of the office of the European Commission, and immediately was made this demarche against America. European policy on the Belarusian issue more myagenkaya and, frankly, more inconsistent, because large economic, pragmatic enthusiasm.
One of the clearest examples of the latter — secret negotiations with the German Ambassador Weiss Belarusian man
age Kozulin’s release. This suggests that Europe consumes more principles Realpolitik the Belarusian issue. It is in the Belarusian leadership understand and try to drive a wedge between Europe and America.
Immediately on the heels of this new conflict, representatives of the Belarusian side and gentlemen Cherginets Gaiduchevici specifically so stated, they say, to prevent States wants dialogue between Belarus and the European Union. "
Drakakhrust: "Vadim, do you think, given the" Tango ", as it is currently called from time to time that the European Union is currently trying to dance with Minsk, maybe if that criteria diplomatic war between Minsk and Washington these" tango "will be thrown to the side, and Europe would side with the United States?"
Dubnov: "With all due respect to Belarus, it is not the reason for which may exacerbate their differences or check your sayuznitstva Europe and the United States. And because I believe that Brussels is unlikely to listen to Washington. He apprehend note of this situation, but less order.
Brussels has calculated its newest line, loyal it or not, he will understand later, but to understand, regardless of the Yankees. And I believe that this vector lung contrived warming with Minsk will last.
And second, even more significant. Now Europe, European Union, the OSCE in crisis to post-Soviet own business site. What happened in Georgia and Armenia, that trap that caught the OSCE observers at the elections in these countries, says that at the moment are changing and conventional products, and the EU, I believe, will be very little to distance himself from those problems that this place including the Global: West — East, NATO — not NATO, etc. European Union, I think at this point will generally reduce the level of controversy with Russia over the former Soviet Union, and in this distancing just happens rapprochement with Belarus. "
Silitski "This war diplomatically points out that in reality more devices Brussels impact on Minsk than in Washington. Because first, what happens is in the western part of the European Union will rise tandem, so go on such a step, to such penalties if the sanctions do not work, devices to influence the situation in the U.S. side remains quite small.
If the Belarusian side adapts to those bad consequences to which these sanctions will further pressure on already some points nowhere. And by the way, I’m also curious in this situation, and that this situation in Minsk seeks to minimize the effects and dangers to get out of the OSCE — from the same opera, as the OSCE — is the one institution that binds the United States, European Union and the post-Soviet space. I’ve got a suspicion that this statement caused to ruin someone’s zeal OSCE proxy.
Surprisingly, in the EU in this situation there are new abilities against Belarus, another thing he zrealizue them. For now, it is the main foreign player with Belarus on the west side. "
Drakakhrust: "What will be the echo of the diplomatic conflict in the external and internal policy of Belarus How Minsk is for himself the end of this diplomatic war? Maybe salting eventually leave, and what next?
And yet — here is the fragile, inconsistent, but it’s also a certain liberalization continue, or freeze in relations with the U.S. will be combined with frost on the domestic front? "
Silitski: "Colleagues sent a note that the ambassador is still not thrown, only asked to leave. Exacerbating the situation for the Belarusian side — in other words, to create conditions in order to harmonize the policy of the U.S. and the EU are also there.’s Ambassador to throw if, then there is the question of solidarity. official Minsk, it seems to me, is not interested in having to go to a very harsh measures. "
Drakakhrust: "Belarusian political analyst Andrei Fedorov stated version according to which the U.S. and the EU are playing with Belarus in evil and good investigators. There menacing the United States, what sanctions are taking, Minsk from their bounces, but fighting, forcing some business with Europe and in a certain sense become addicted to it. "
Dubnov: "I do not think there is any obmyslennaya agreed strategy between Europe and the USA. Again I repeat: Belarus is neither the U.S. nor the EU problem number 1. Lukashenko entire game is that he is trying to make itself fundamentally problem for everyone. I do not think it will turn out.
Resource deterioration of the relations with the United States has not been exhausted. It is possible that after a while salting all the same vedet. In my opinion, Moscow is interested in the position to Minsk against Washington would be a bit more myagenkoy, because Moscow is now quite well, not to Belarus, that’s just her and this is not enough, and her escapades Lukashenko quite inappropriately.
I think that Lukashenko will use the resource deterioration in relations to a certain extent, to a temporary decrease in the level of diplomatic, consular. This has happened many times. A few months, maybe six months, maybe a year Belarus will be in a very cool relations with Washington that would have a severe impact on the domestic nor nor the foreign policy situation.
If Lukashenko would impose business with Europe, and it seems that Europe is not going to decrease the level of their own relations with Belarus due to the Yankees, he is quite free to continue today vector liberalization ritual, ritual smiles with Europe ritual ruthlessness with Washington and after the design of the new Russian policy regarding control of the West will be recorded that the appropriate level of cold relations between Moscow and Washington. Then Lukashenko, on this basis, and will build the subsequent course of conduct. "
Klaskouski: "With regard to domestic policy, then this situation will be squeezed greatest PR effect. There refurbishing the image of the enemy, it can be explained and economic difficulties. Such notes have already been made on the board nedavneshney MFA if the Minister Martynov overemphasized the role of Western sanctions negative balance foreign trade of Belarus. general, According to experts, the determining factor here was a change criterion of trade with Russia.
Version that diplomatic conflict between Minsk and Washington organized by "the hand of Moscow", is unlikely. Some negotiations and consultations would be, but faster specifically Minsk uses for its own benefit context stately confrontation between Moscow and Washington on the issue of defense on the Kosovo issue, etc. And at the moment is really very profitable moment to uplishchytstsa in this context and to get their dividends: partial public relations, but it could be real.
If look into perspective, the largest escalation of this conflict will not, and at some point, after some time, received those dividends, return to Minsk method of improving relations. Incidentally, it is curious that the representatives of the Belarusian Foreign Ministry said in demarches stated that the United States violated the method of normalizing relations. Translated into ordinary language, this means that the views of the official Minsk America very much wants.
As it may sound
cynical, I think it will return to the political trade, it will again be the release of political prisoners, etc. After Belarus today is pretty tough nut, America’s ability to sense the pressure is also limited. In this situation, once you begin to take on another paradoxical expression Lukashenko, which was made in an interview to "Russia Today" and the agency "RIA Novosti", he says, "Our homeland is the primary driver of our sovereignty." Indeed, under the Russian umbrella can make such an attack, and in fact — is a continuation of risky policy of balancing between East and West. "
Tags: Belneftehim, united states, conflict, diplomatic, Belarus