FM Landsbergis on Merkel’s talks with Lukashenko and possible talks with the dictator: this is a sad hour for Europe

5 comments

  3. The main question of the interview is – “If everything can be resolved in one call and it is now Europe’s new way of dealing with crises, then what is the point of having a Foreign Affairs Council?”

  5. Google Translate to English:

    >Landsbergis on Merkel’s talks with Lukashenko and possible talks with the dictator: this is a sad hour for Europe
    >
    >German Chancellor Angela Merkel and illegitimate Belarusian President Aliaksandr Lukashenko have spoken for the second time over the situation on the Belarusian-European Union border. According to the foreign minister, such conversations with the dictator could turn into negotiations. According to the minister, such negotiations are a sad hour for Europe, which has already talked about sanctions against the regime.
    >
    >**- What is Lithuania’s position now – should we talk to Aliaksandr Lukashenko or not? You have argued so far that there is no need to talk. The same was said by President Gitan Nauseda until yesterday, but an interview with the BBC yesterday said he needed to be spoken to. What is our common position?**
    >
    >- In fact, no one is asking us now, because the conversation is going on. We can only assess the ongoing conversation and consider the worst possible outcome of that conversation. Because we could always enjoy the best. The worst thing is when a conversation, despite our good wishes, quickly turns into a negotiation on the lips of a dictator. Despite the fact that we can say that we demand the release of the people, he has imposed conditions on us. This seems to be happening little by little. The second bad thing is that the dictator wants to ligitimize himself. For more than a year he was unrecognized, he was not talked to, not communicated with. He is being talked to now.
    >
    >**- You call Merkel’s call and the conversation she started with Mr Lukashenko – there was only a conversation this evening – a negotiation?**
    >
    >- Well, basically he makes negotiations with him in his public statements. We have now heard him see that during the conversation, the German Chancellor introduced the idea that, in order to end this crisis, which he himself had organized, two thousand migrants would have to be taken to Europe. And since we don’t know the exact content of the conversation …
    >
    >**- You still don’t know the exact content of the conversation?**
    >
    >- We do not know the exact content of the conversation. Obviously, this is probably not a complete bluff – something similar has apparently been said, now that is the way it is. So my question is whether we are negotiating today, whether there is anyone on behalf of Europe, or can simply tell the dictator on our own that we will not negotiate with him for two thousand, for five or for anything else. The only thing Europe can ask, bilaterally or in any other way, is to enable the people who are invited to Belarus to leave home safely. Everything.
    >
    >**- The President of Lithuania says that he was warned about Merkel’s call, you say that you found out about the conversation only on Twitter. Did the presidency not warn you of that call?**
    >
    >- I found out on Twitter.
    >
    >**- Polish colleagues have been in contact with our Polish colleagues today. They say the Polish presidency also found out about the call two minutes before it and the call was not coordinated with them, only reported. It can be concluded that the call was not coordinated with the Lithuanian leaders, it was only reported. What does it mean if the content of a conversation is not reconciled, only reported?**
    >
    >- Well, it probably needs to be assessed from the perspective of the European Council of Ministers or the European Council. That is why we have formats where the 27 countries, sitting around the table, look for a common position through their representatives or ministers or leaders and authorize the High Representative or any leader to represent the common European position. At this time, we don’t know who represents whom and what the content of the conversation is, what is being sought. All the discussions, the negotiations, which lasted half a year, have a purpose. We are all part of that process and, in a sense, we are taking responsibility. It is not clear now.
    >
    >**- Minister, when you met your fellow EU foreign ministers on Monday, you said something completely different. There was great unity and it just radiated, and today, a few days later, you say there is chaos.**
    >
    >- I’m not saying there’s chaos. I say there is a question about why we are doing that whole process. I guess I’m definitely not alone in raising that issue. If everything can be resolved in one call and it is now Europe’s new way of dealing with crises, then what is the point of having a Foreign Affairs Council? In fact, you are absolutely right: Monday was great, the sanctions mechanism has been agreed and is still being agreed. The list was tentatively agreed, with a few more days left to complete the list of companies authorized to do so, and it seemed that we were all united and confirmed that Europe could deal with the crises it was facing on its own.
    >
    >**- You agreed on sanctions against Belarus on Monday and those sanctions have not been officially announced. Can that list of sanctions change if you say that negotiations with Lukashenko are already under way?**
    >
    >- Well, the really alarming news has arrived. There seems to be an attempt to remove perhaps one of the most important elements from the list of sanctions. These are sanctions against Belavia, which is known to be responsible for a large number of migrants brought to Belarus.
    >
    >**- Is this just one item you are trying to remove, is it removed and you just don’t know the real information, you just get that information?**
    >
    >- That’s what it gets. Information is available on two points: Belavia and Syrian airlines, both of which were to be sanctioned by the fifth package of sanctions. As sanctions are harmonized, again, each state has a veto. Consequently, the objection of one state is sufficient and that line is struck out.
    >
    >**- Who proposed to remove those sanctions, these two?**
    >
    >- I have no real information.
    >
    >**- Could it be Germany?**
    >
    >- Maybe.
    >
    >**- Will we know who proposed to lift those sanctions? We just don’t know what those sanctions are. You saw those sanctions, did you read?**
    >
    >- I’m familiar.
    >
    >**- Will you be able to say what has been removed when the sanctions are officially announced?**
    >
    >- Yes.
    >
    >**- Now you say that two points have been removed.**
    >
    >- I have been informed that two points have been raised.
    >
    >**- Who will have to decide now – whether or not the points remain?**
    >
    >- Since there is a general consensus between states, if one state vetoes, the other state cannot veto that state. One state objection is sufficient and that point is deleted. We are in such a situation today. A separate negotiating path seems to have begun with the dictator and the unrelated president, and I think this is a sad hour for Europe.
    >
    >**- Sad hour for Europe over Angela Merkel’s call. Who did she consult in preparation for calling Lukashenko? What prompted her?**
    >
    >- As far as I know, the Baltic States were not consulted. With Poland – too.
    >
    >[Image]
    >
    >Migrants on the Polish-Belarusian border / AP photo
    >
    >**- Could she have called Mr Lukashenko on her own initiative?**
    >
    >- Yes, he could.

    Too long for one comment. See following comment for remainder.

Leave a Reply