Skip Global Navigation to Main Content
Skip Breadcrumb Navigation
Skip Left Navigation
Interviews

Michael Scanlan's interview to the Interfax West information Agency

January 26, 2012

 

How would you rate the efficiency of U.S. sanctions against Belarusian enterprises and officials? 
The United States would welcome a positive and constructive relationship with Belarus. However, the central tenet of our bilateral relations is respect for human rights and democracy.   The Government of Belarus knows this.  Foreign Minister Martynau said as much in a December 2010 joint statement with Secretary Clinton, where he acknowledged that progress with human rights and democracy is essential for Belarus and its citizens, as well as a prerequisite for any improvement in our bilateral relations.  
Regrettably, the government failed to honor this public commitment, not only to us, but, moreover, moved one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposition direction  In the wake of December 2010 elections, the results of which we do not consider legitimate, authorities unleashed an ongoing brutal crackdown.  Over fifty individuals were thrown in jail, eight of them are still behind bars.  We recognize them all as political prisoners.. Hundreds of people were arrested last summer simply for clapping their hands.   And a host of new laws were passed that even further restrict already limited civil liberties. 
These actions by the Belarusian authorities left us no choice but to apply sanctions.  
Will the list of Belarusian companies banned from operating in the U.S. grow?
Everything depends on the actions of the authorities. The ball is really in their court. We are open to better relations between our countries, provided the previously undertaken commitments are fulfilled, namely progress with human rights and democracy. 
You mentioned the joint Martynau-Clinton statement which also touched the issue of the construction of a NPP and Belarus' refusal from HEU? Will the U.S. undertake any steps against the construction of the NPP if Belarus refuses to remove HEU?
Removing HEU from Belarus and replacing it with LEU is in Belarus’ interest from every point of view. Once completed, it will bring Belarus into compliance with IAEA norms.  Switching HEU for LEU will also allow Belarus to enjoy the same commercial and research benefit of HEU, without, however, paying the exorbitant costs of maintaining the safety and security measures necessary to protect HEU, which would pose a threat to Belarus and the world if it were to fall into the wrong hands.  
By the way, we are doing the same thing in the United States, namely converting our civilian research reactors to much safer and cheaper LEU. We were disappointed by Belarus’ decision to suspend this program, which the USG agreed to fund, and we hope that Belarus eventually realizes that switching HEU for LEU is in its own interest. 
Actions undertaken by Belarus to construct an NPP-- like the efforts of all countries pursuing nuclear power for civilian use--should incorporate a competitive, commercial process for the design and construction of a safe, secure plant, including the development of a regulatory structure ensuring the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the plant and associated activities, as defined by IAEA safeguards and the highest international standards.   
Moreover, the process of planning, constructing and operating the plant should be fully transparent and address the concerns of neighboring countries, as appropriate.
Do the November accords between Belarus and Russia mean that Belarus is no longer in the U.S. and EU’s domain of interests. Can Belarus lose its economic or political sovereignty because of the Common Economic Space?
The destiny of Belarus that claims to be willing to be part of Europe not only geographically, cannot be of no concern neither to the European Union, nor to the USA. 
The real question is whether Belarusians have the right and the means to determine their own future, and that of their children, in a globalizing and competitive world. People do that by holding free and fair elections, assuring that the media reflects all points of view fairly, and by fostering independent groups, widely referred to as civil society, to serve as an incubator of ideas and act both as a partner in governance and a check on the excesses of government.  Moreover, all of this presupposes a system of checks and balances in government where one branch, the executive, does not dominate the judiciary and the legislature, as is the case here.
Unfortunately, I don’t see those things in Belarus: the “All Belarusian People’s Assembly” or the one-sided coverage that I see on Belarus 1 or ONT is no substitute for what I just mentioned.  For example, I know many economists and politicians who have doubts about Belarus’ entry into the Single Economic Space (SES),especially since it is not yet in the World Trade Organization (WTO), yet I have never heard their point of view in the state media. 
 
Belarusians are now going to have to compete with cheap, world class goods that enter Russia through the WTO and then Belarus through the SES. At the same time, Belarus cannot trade directly with the world on the same favorable terms as Russia because you are not a WTO member.  Russia bet on the world market, and you only bet on the SES.  
Why did the GOB make this decision? Was there even a  public debate on the pros and cons of this decision?
How effective, in your opinion, are the Belarusian government’s steps to get out of the crisis?
The solution to your economic problems is not to continue energy subsidies or deepen your dependence on a single market, which has been the policy of the last seventeen years.  As the old adage says, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.”  Not only can subsidies end, as you discovered abruptly in 2010 with Russia oil, but they foster dependence and inhibit competitiveness.  You end up with a cycle of booms and busts, erasing in a matter of months what people worked years to achieve. We unfortunately witnessed this in 2011. 
The real answer to your economic problems is giving people the freedom to be creative and unleash their potential, namely private enterprise.  Fostering private entrepreneurship will bring with it foreign investment, because everywhere in the world private business prefers to deal with private partners. For example, private companies operating in the “High Tech Park” account for 1.5% of  Belarusian GDP. 11,000 programmers and others, not the government, have proven that they can compete with anyone.  They are not dependent on external subsidies and they are selling goods and providing services around the world, including to my own country. That is the way forward; private enterprise should be the practice writ large, not just isolated on artificial islands and in special parks. 
Last year saw a popular unrest throughout the world, including well-off Europe and the U.S.  What do you see as the reason for them? Who benefits from global instability?
I am the Charge D’Affaires to Belarus, so I will limit my comments accordingly. Despite demagoguery in the state media here, global instability is not in any one’s interest, and no one is directing events from afar as some wildly claim.  Some protests have economic origins, others occurred because of dictatorship or democratic shortcomings; in some cases, reasons are mixed. 
Ultimately, the best assurance of stability is a functioning democracy with checks and balances, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and a healthy private sector. If the GOB is worried about instability, it should start making progress in these areas. Everything else is, as they say, swimming upstream.

How would you rate the efficiency of U.S. sanctions against Belarusian enterprises and officials? 

The United States would welcome a positive and constructive relationship with Belarus. However, the central tenet of our bilateral relations is respect for human rights and democracy.   The Government of Belarus knows this.  Foreign Minister Martynau said as much in a December 2010 joint statement with Secretary Clinton, where he acknowledged that progress with human rights and democracy is essential for Belarus and its citizens, as well as a prerequisite for any improvement in our bilateral relations.  

Regrettably, the government failed to honor this public commitment, not only to us, but, moreover, moved one hundred and eighty degrees in the opposition direction  In the wake of December 2010 elections, the results of which we do not consider legitimate, authorities unleashed an ongoing brutal crackdown.  Over fifty individuals were thrown in jail, eight of them are still behind bars.  We recognize them all as political prisoners.. Hundreds of people were arrested last summer simply for clapping their hands.   And a host of new laws were passed that even further restrict already limited civil liberties. 

These actions by the Belarusian authorities left us no choice but to apply sanctions.  

Will the list of Belarusian companies banned from operating in the U.S. grow?

Everything depends on the actions of the authorities. The ball is really in their court. We are open to better relations between our countries, provided the previously undertaken commitments are fulfilled, namely progress with human rights and democracy. 

You mentioned the joint Martynau-Clinton statement which also touched the issue of the construction of a NPP and Belarus' refusal from HEU? Will the U.S. undertake any steps against the construction of the NPP if Belarus refuses to remove HEU?

Removing HEU from Belarus and replacing it with LEU is in Belarus’ interest from every point of view. Once completed, it will bring Belarus into compliance with IAEA norms.  Switching HEU for LEU will also allow Belarus to enjoy the same commercial and research benefit of HEU, without, however, paying the exorbitant costs of maintaining the safety and security measures necessary to protect HEU, which would pose a threat to Belarus and the world if it were to fall into the wrong hands.  

By the way, we are doing the same thing in the United States, namely converting our civilian research reactors to much safer and cheaper LEU. We were disappointed by Belarus’ decision to suspend this program, which the USG agreed to fund, and we hope that Belarus eventually realizes that switching HEU for LEU is in its own interest. 

Actions undertaken by Belarus to construct an NPP-- like the efforts of all countries pursuing nuclear power for civilian use--should incorporate a competitive, commercial process for the design and construction of a safe, secure plant, including the development of a regulatory structure ensuring the safe and efficient operation and maintenance of the plant and associated activities, as defined by IAEA safeguards and the highest international standards.   

Moreover, the process of planning, constructing and operating the plant should be fully transparent and address the concerns of neighboring countries, as appropriate.

Do the November accords between Belarus and Russia mean that Belarus is no longer in the U.S. and EU’s domain of interests. Can Belarus lose its economic or political sovereignty because of the Common Economic Space?

The destiny of Belarus that claims to be willing to be part of Europe not only geographically, cannot be of no concern neither to the European Union, nor to the USA. 

The real question is whether Belarusians have the right and the means to determine their own future, and that of their children, in a globalizing and competitive world. People do that by holding free and fair elections, assuring that the media reflects all points of view fairly, and by fostering independent groups, widely referred to as civil society, to serve as an incubator of ideas and act both as a partner in governance and a check on the excesses of government.  Moreover, all of this presupposes a system of checks and balances in government where one branch, the executive, does not dominate the judiciary and the legislature, as is the case here.

Unfortunately, I don’t see those things in Belarus: the “All Belarusian People’s Assembly” or the one-sided coverage that I see on Belarus 1 or ONT is no substitute for what I just mentioned.  For example, I know many economists and politicians who have doubts about Belarus’ entry into the Single Economic Space (SES),especially since it is not yet in the World Trade Organization (WTO), yet I have never heard their point of view in the state media.  

Belarusians are now going to have to compete with cheap, world class goods that enter Russia through the WTO and then Belarus through the SES. At the same time, Belarus cannot trade directly with the world on the same favorable terms as Russia because you are not a WTO member. Russia bet on the world market, and you only bet on the SES.  

Why did the GOB make this decision? Was there even a  public debate on the pros and cons of this decision?

How effective, in your opinion, are the Belarusian government’s steps to get out of the crisis?

The solution to your economic problems is not to continue energy subsidies or deepen your dependence on a single market, which has been the policy of the last seventeen years.  As the old adage says, “give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life.”  Not only can subsidies end, as you discovered abruptly in 2010 with Russia oil, but they foster dependence and inhibit competitiveness. You end up with a cycle of booms and busts, erasing in a matter of months what people worked years to achieve. We unfortunately witnessed this in 2011. 

The real answer to your economic problems is giving people the freedom to be creative and unleash their potential, namely private enterprise.  Fostering private entrepreneurship will bring with it foreign investment, because everywhere in the world private business prefers to deal with private partners. For example, private companies operating in the “High Tech Park” account for 1.5% of  Belarusian GDP. 11,000 programmers and others, not the government, have proven that they can compete with anyone.  They are not dependent on external subsidies and they are selling goods and providing services around the world, including to my own country. That is the way forward; private enterprise should be the practice writ large, not just isolated on artificial islands and in special parks. 

Last year saw a popular unrest throughout the world, including well-off Europe and the U.S.  What do you see as the reason for them? Who benefits from global instability?

I am the Charge D’Affaires to Belarus, so I will limit my comments accordingly. Despite demagoguery in the state media here, global instability is not in any one’s interest, and no one is directing events from afar as some wildly claim.  Some protests have economic origins, others occurred because of dictatorship or democratic shortcomings; in some cases, reasons are mixed. 

Ultimately, the best assurance of stability is a functioning democracy with checks and balances, respect for human rights and the rule of law, and a healthy private sector. If the GOB is worried about instability, it should start making progress in these areas. Everything else is, as they say, swimming upstream.