A. Rahr: Thank you for receiving me.

A. Lukashenko: I shall try to make our talk useful both for you and Die Welt newspaper readers. I am aware that you do the analysis of everything that happens in the Commonwealth of Independent States. I am most sincerely ready to answer all your questions.

- It is not so often that you speak publicly in the West, I think. You are one of the most, it may be said, enigmatic leaders in the post-Soviet space. They in the West know little about you, about your friends. Could you again introduce yourself to the West, just in two-three words? What is your vision of yourself now, after many years of presidency in such a key country as Belarus is?

- Well, but it seemed to me they know me very well in Europe. Although I may place the word “know” within inverted commas. Sometimes they allegedly know “very much” and keep writing fantastic things…You know, I am, perhaps, the most open President. I am saying this on the grounds that I never engage in PR. I am saying frankly: I do not have any PR persons about me, absolutely none. I am living a normal way of life. If I go in for sports, I do it publicly, not just making 20-30 plotlines to be then assembled in a ‘window dressing’ over TV. Certainly, by making use of modern TV technologies, one can present itself as a great pole-vaulter or a great wrestler…I’ve never been doing anything of the kind.

However, in the West, there’s a stereotype of Lukashenko that has taken shape and it has been created by journalists, by your colleagues. I react calmly to it. Earlier, in younger days, I used to react very painfully to it, but now I’ve grown accustomed and try not to pay any attention to it.

There’s a stable opinion with you in Germany and generally in the West in political circles that Lukashenko is “the last dictator of Europe.” If one subjects this foolish cliché to an objective analysis, it would appear not only a wicked one but quite ridiculous. The President of such a country as Belarus is cannot be a dictator! We do not have nuclear weapons, we do not have self-sufficient economy, as in Russia or in the Unites State of America, we do not have the might to dictate conditions to anyone. The majority of people, without any compulsion, have elected me as President. But it seems as though someone wishes to create a negative image of me. I understand why it happens. Perhaps, you also do. Somebody dislikes the policy we have been pursuing, especially the social policy. They dislike the fact that we have not sold our economy for a mere song, that we have not given it away, but, on the contrary, we have modernized it. We have not allowed thoughtless privatization as it had happened, say, in Russia. If we carry out privatization, we examine every enterprise separately. People have been made the cornerstone, they are the main value. The proof lies in the gap between the rich and the poor – one to three. In Sweden, to my mind, it is one to three. Or is it one to four?

- One to four.

- In Germany, around the same. In Russia it is one to 24 or one to 25. That’s how it is, please compare. That is why they are treating Lukashenko the way they are treating. The European Union has been tirelessly criticizing us, but nobody has ever wondered: why, after such massive criticism, do the people in Belarus actively support Lukashenko? Why don’t many journalists, politicians, experts from research centres wonder whether what is being written and said corresponds to reality? Why are they making an oriental-type “despotism” out of a quiet and tranquil Belarus? And when our Belarusian people start reading it, and they are very literate, they start thinking: it can’t be what is written about us. It is not true! That is why, all the money spent for the anti-Belarus propaganda just go bust.

There isn’t any “dictatorship” here, the country is being governed by an ordinary man who understands his place in politics and understands what place our Belarus should occupy in the world.

Some critics also find it difficult to treat me like that because there’s nothing I could be “pinched” for. I haven’t stolen any money, I haven’t deposited it in foreign banks in America, in Europe, in Russia or anywhere else. For this reason, all the notorious attempts to look for “Lukashenko’s accounts” have resulted in nothing. Honesty is my credo!

- I’d like to use a short comment. It seems to me that the West has been creating, if it may be put so – a sort of its own religion, its own culture – these are the Western values which are sometimes even being made a fetish of. Nonetheless, in your small country, Belarus, which is regarded as an outpost of Russia by some people who can’t realize the actual situation, a national state is being built. Poland and Baltic States have yielded their sovereignty to Brussels. There is some dissonance here which causes all those passions and misunderstanding about the developments in your country.

- Absolutely right. They have their own values in the West, and we have ours. But that does not imply that our values are 100 percent contradictory to West European ones. Not at all! Intellectual and moral values do not appear out of nowhere, they crystallize in the course of the development of a state. How can we not profess the European values if we have been living together all the time? Whether bad or good, the fact remains as it is! However, we also have own, as you have rightly remarked, national interests. Just as Germany has, and other states too! You have noted very subtly that over the last years we have been building a sovereign, independent state. I should emphasize that, it being so, there are essential differences as compared to what is happening in the European Union. Our economy is more socially targeted. We do not reject the role of the state sector and have demonstrated convincingly that, once it is provided with equal conditions, it may be developing no worse that the private sector. Let me cite one example. Recently I visited the Atlant company. Energy carriers account for about 5 percent in their production price. Just like in Germany. But ten years ago, they had accounted for 15-20 [percent]. Such a colossal leap in ten years! Atlant is a joint stock company, but, in fact, it is a state-owned enterprise. These things are not to everybody’s liking in the EU because, as you said, they have “their own values” over there. Private ownership, above all else. That is a “sacred cow” one has to pray for. But what about the multistructural nature of economy, the market competitiveness?

Yes, we do have our own specifics. Yes, we are too sincere in politics, the President first of all. If we see that something is wrong, if we do not agree with something, we deem it necessary to say it bluntly. There are many who dislike it. For this reason, they start “dressing up” Lukashenko in a negative way.

I also believe that, before making certain steps towards Belarus, before making extremely sharp statements, the European Union must at least perform elementary accounting of certain things.

You know that over more than ten years of my presidency the current crisis [in relations] with Russia has been the only point Germany and other countries have taken interest in: what is actually happening there? They arrived, they looked into, they analysed information. For the first time, their assessment was close to an objective one. That was immediately appreciated by Belarusians and they reacted accordingly. But, I repeat, it has happened for the first time in our newest history.

- That is to say, this crisis can now bring cohesion between the West and Belarus?

- I can’t say whether there will be cohesion or not, but this crisis has exposed a lot of things. Time ago, I had harshly remarked, and I would repeat it now for those in the West who were rubbing hands and thinking that “well, now, the regime of Lukashenko is going to collapse:” today it is we who have won, you may wait for tomorrow!

- Still the economy of Belarus is rather dependent on Russia, isn’t it?

- It is. In the same way as the economy of Germany is very dependent on other states. To a lesser degree, maybe, but it is also dependent. Generally, today there are no absolutely independent economies. Russia’s economy is very dependent on European one, on American one, and it becomes increasingly dependent on Chinese economy. It’s because they are solvent markets and it is advantageous for Russia to sell its raw materials to them. Hence raw materials mean life for Russia. Generally speaking, everything is interdependent. By the way, the powerful Germany is dependent to no lesser degree than Belarus is in terms of energy resources and energy carriers.

- Putin once said that Russia subsidizes 41 percent of Belarus budget.

- That comedy was intentionally staged in Russia’s mass media. Any more or less literate person would do nothing but laugh at such calculations. I’d like to say that the Russian public took a very negative attitude towards all this and it valued very negatively the position of Russia’s leadership. It should be said that Russian nation, Russians have a very hearty attitude towards us. You, for instance, a man who is said to have lived in Asia too…

- …I was born there…

- …Yes, you’ve traveled a lot across the world… But I see warmth in your eyes, the warmth with which you speak about our country. You visited this country several times, there’s something that binds us together. You know that Russians, Belarusians had fought together in that terrible war. Belarus lost a third of its population, no other nation did as much. When it was very difficult, Belarusians were always side by side with Russians. And the people in Russia do not forget about this, it is a part of the people’s historical memory. It can’t be eradicated! So when that story with energy carriers started (not for the first time, by the way - in 2004 they had shut us off from the gas supply, this year - from oil), the Russian public took an extremely negative attitude towards all this. The leitmotif behind the condemnation was: “Why are you ‘suffocating’ our brothers?” Somebody had to justify himself somehow… That is why they had staged a play over the TV – to demonstrate: no, no, don’t worry; yes, indeed, we’ve raised the gas price 2.5-fold, but please look how generously we are subsidizing Belarus’ economy…

“That is how it was being ‘explained:’ “if we had sold gas to Belarusians at a price of USD 200, the same as to Germany, we would have earned an additional profit of USD 2 billion; if we had introduced a duty on oil exports amounting to USD 170, not USD 53, we would have earned USD 3 billion more, the sum total being USD 5 billion.” 5 billion against 14 billion of the Belarusian budget, that’s how 41 percent come in. But let us look calmly into the matter in this play of abstract figures. Who in Belarus would have bought gas from Russia at a price of USD 200? Nobody. Who would have bought oil from Russia at a price of USD 500? They were offering oil at the prices higher than the world prices! For this reason we refused to buy such oil. But once they immediately introduced a duty on oil, we did the same. What’s wrong about that? We just answered in an adequate way, as the people who respect themselves. It is a natural, quite civilized practice. To say nothing of the fact that due to the ‘Gasprom and oil companies attack’ all our earlier agreements on equal conditions and the like have been crushed. O.K. then, let us leave this within parentheses so far.

I must say bluntly: if the Russian Federation subsidized Belarus with 5 billion dollars, our relations would be quite different. But the fact is they raised gas prices twofold in 2004, and one and a half years after - again twofold. Say then, what kind of economy can endure this? What’s more, how can one characterize such a pressure? ‘Generosity?’ Absolutely not!

- But they keep saying you resell oil.

- Let us look into this matter also. What was the cause of the conflict? We were buying oil at market prices from Russia, were reprocessing it at our refineries - we have two high capacity refineries, in Novopotsk and in Mozyr - and we were trading in oil products: diesel (solyarka), gasoline, motor oil, - the way, for instance, Germany does or the USA…Just usual practices. Furthermore. Out of 20 tonnes that we processed, around 6 million were consumed inside the country, the rest was sold. Thus we gained certain profit. But why were they feeling very jealous about that in Russia? It is because all their companies started rushing, racing one another, to us. Because what we have are modernized refineries. Today, the average intensity of our refining is about 85 percent. It is the world standard. In a year, the intensity will grow up to 95 percent! In Russia, however, it was 50 percent and so it remains, because their facilities were not modernized and they preferred piping oil easily and without problems to the West. We are an industrialized country, we had to produce high quality fuel, which, in order to gain profit, we can sell to developed countries. So seeing us gaining profit Russia started grudging: “But it is our oil! Introduce an export duty on diesel, gasolene and give it to us into our budget.” In retort I said: “Listen, why don’t you call for Americans, for Germans, they also buy and process oil from you, and tell them they should also transfer money gained from oil product sales to your budget.” You cannot but agree that the “claims” addressed to us with regard to the export duties are an economic absurdity!

- That means that a political intrigue is in place. Or may it be that Putin wants a third-term presidency, will they perhaps demand reunification from you?

- I have never heard Putin saying that he would wish to run for a third term in this way. Never indeed. Let us come back to history: when my two presidency terms were over I appealed to the people: “Will you allow me to run for the elections for the third time or not?” The referendum was then held in this country. I was criticized because of that. Yes, it can be criticized, but I did it openly and faultlessly in juridical terms. There was no poll rigging whatsoever, because the majority of voters said straightforwardly “yes!” I was allowed not to run for the elections for a third term, but to have an opportunity to participate in the elections and compete with other politicians.

Now, let me answer the question on Belarus’ incorporation into Russia. It will never happen until President Lukashenko holds power. Never have I said that Belarus would be a constituent part of be it Germany, or Poland, or Russia, or Lithuania. Never! It is not to eliminate the country actually that the people has elected me as the first Belarus’ President. President and the institute of Presidency is the major factor of sovereignty and independence of a state. Could it be that I should have become President in order to wreck the country, not to justify centuries-long hopes of the Belarusian people for having its own national home? This topic needs no discussions!

They would reproach me in Russia: “Well, you see, Lukashenko will never agree to a union.” What kind of union? Everything has been written down in the Treaty on the Formation of a Union State. It says clearly and unambiguously that we should work out a Constitution and adopt the Constitution in referendum. Russia refused to adopt the Constitution in referendum because the equal-rights-based framework of that union wasn’t suitable for them there.

- Will the issue of the Russian rouble be raised again?

- As regards rouble. When they realized in Moscow that Belarus would never be incorporated into Russia, and they don’t want to adopt a normal Constitution, they suggested: make the Russian rouble your national currency, it will be beneficial for you, they say…We analysed: but what for? If you are so kind and want benefit for our economy and our people, why can’t you simply avoid raising prices of gas, of oil! It is clear for everybody: loss of national currency means an immediate loss of independence! It took a long path for the EU [towards common currency], through a system of multilateral treaties. And in this case they just say – let’s do it tomorrow! Just like it was in Soviet times when we had to travel from Minsk to the Kremlin to get our salaries. Now the Belarusian rubel is stronger than ever before. Inflation is placed under control. Who ever in such a situation would favour rejection of a normally functioning currency? Nobody would. Because money is money, it is the basis of everything. It means freedom both for individuals and the state. So then we said: guys, we are not against the common currency, but let us resolve all the issues in an integrated way, starting from currency issues, foreign policy, domestic policy up to the structure of our state and the formation of the bodies of authority. Everything of this kind must be laid down in the Constitution which is to be adopted in referendum. They answered: no, the Constitution is apart, we are not yet ready, as to the [common] currency, let us introduce it quickly. The whole thing smacks of a dictate…

- Can you imagine that someday in 10-20 years you may start using euro?

- Everything is possible in this life. When I look at the states that have recently joined the European Union and those which start using euro, I believe, you know, that we are ahead of those states in some respect. I would say bluntly: in terms of universal cooperation, Belarus is a very promising country. We do not have foreign debts, we have low inflation, what is very important is that we have hard working people, our economy functions intensively, we manufacture competitive goods. We are always able to earn money for the budget. So if the European Union opened its domestic market for our goods we would calmly compete there as well: regarding both quality and price. Generally speaking, we are in no hurry, I am speaking about potentialities. Both Germans and other Europeans recognize: owing to its economic stability Belarus at this stage meets all the parameters for the accession to the European Union. Even to a greater extent than some new members of the EU.

- Aren’t you afraid of Western investors?

- Why should we? Just the opposite, we invite investors. The recent events have demonstrated clearly that we ought to work more actively with Western and American investors. Then, some Russian oligarchs will stop pressing on Belarus in this brutal manner. Otherwise, you know, some lords are itching to “grab” our well functioning and profitable enterprises. We would become a true “democracy” then! I refer, I should underline that, to processing enterprises, which are on market main lines. As I was saying, crude oil is supplied to the Belarusian refineries, processed there in an excellent way and the most high-quality goods are obtained! With metal being supplied to Belarus, we manufacture automobiles, tractors, which are successfully sold throughout the world. Take, for instance, BelAZ heavy duty trucks - 33 percent of the world market of such trucks are manufactured by the Belarusian Automobile Works. The Soviet Gosplan (State Committee for Planning) had far-sighted people on the staff: they had planned the movement of resources from Siberia, Far East, via Belarus, Ukraine, Baltic Republics, in such a way, that they were processed here and the finished products were then sold in mighty American and European markets.

We have rather successfully modernized our ‘inherited’ economy. The result is that there are some who have a burning desire towards it.

Therefore, we had stated clearly and precisely that we would offer concrete projects to Western investors whom we would receive here with pleasure. It is profitable now to be working in Belarus! I am already getting signals from Germany that many holding companies are prepared to install manufacturing facilities in our country. Practical businessmen are also prepared for joint-stockization and privatization on a sound basis. We are going to examine all those projects very thoroughly. There’s another particularity: if Beltransgas company had been turned joint stock by German or American companies, could Russia take any unprecedented steps? Never! We understand it too. We are going to build new enterprises – all in all we will have built around 300 of them during the current five-year planning period. We will also have modernized all the existing enterprises.

- Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States, extending archlike from the Baltic Sea to the Black…

- Baltic-Black Sea Region, as it is called by Americans and Europeans.

- As an alternative to the Single Economic Space?

- You know, I’ve never considered this option as a global-scale alternative. However, the fact is that we need to fruitfully cooperate between us. Our relations with Ukraine have been taking a business-like shape. We conduct intensive negotiations with Azerbaijan, with other oil extracting states to urge them to come to our enterprises. We are prepared for joint-stockization together. They will be interested in supplying oil here, it is not far away, in processing it (similar plans have been examined already) and in selling products in the European market. Then we shall see who and how will be reacting to such developments. This is another way of achieving energy security. We must not depend upon a single source – it is an economic axiom! We must urgently diversify the imports of hydrocarbon raw materials, other countries have to also, presently all are dealing with this problem. As soon as we do it, we’ll become stronger as a sovereign and independent state. We have all the prerequisites to make it done.

- I want to ask a purely political question. I think, there’s a “rub” in politics. At the meetings in Europe which I attended, a question is often asked: Alexander Lukashenko is indeed a popular leader, the people will vote in his favour in any case, but why at the elections, even quite recently, in January, doesn’t the so-called true opposition have an opportunity to address the mass media audience like he does? I think this is the main criticism of the West with regard to democracy in Belarus. I think this is one of the obstacles that may be removed and explained so that the West could understand better the situation in Belarus.

- Let us start with the fact that the declared “equality” which the West wants to see in Belarus, authorities – opposition, does not exist anywhere in the world.

- This is true.

- Well then, does Batasuna address the Spanish TV audience, or else, does Sinn Fein have a permanent airtime in London?.. And who knows what is actually happening now in Russia? Nobody knows anything. Metaphorically speaking, all have been ‘lined up’ – from the so-called ‘independent’ NTV Channel to the state-owned RTR. The developments in recent days demonstrated that all the mass media were playing, so to say, the same tune. Sometimes the situation was almost paradoxical. When I was about to visit Russia in those days, I wanted to meet with journalists there, to explain my point of view. Isn’t it a normal practice? But the “censors” “sealed” all the meeting venues so that I couldn’t meet with journalists, by no means! Can that be called “freedom of the press?”

- But in Ukraine, for instance, the situation is different…

- As regards Ukraine… God forbid from the replication of some Ukrainian events. I am saying this with a feeling of greatest love for Ukrainians.

- I am speaking about mass media.

- Mass media are not only mirror to the society. Mass media can work like very formidable firearms. Reporters, metaphorically speaking, are “the man with rifle.” Reporters can kill any democracy, any totalitarian system, and, regrettably, can thoughtlessly destroy the best, and comfortable for the majority of people, society. In my view, a reporter must be, first of all, a responsible person. Furthermore. One can’t say that mass media in Russia, Ukraine are ungovernable. There ̀are governable, but there, despite the seeming difference, they have great consolidation and full dependence upon mass media owners. Sometimes they fight against one another and that gives the appearance of public polemics going on, although actually there’s nothing but fight for business interests. It being so, the state in Ukraine, for instance, is being shattered. Is it good? However, I am not criticizing anybody. I am simply explaining my point of view on the extent of freedom and the extent of responsibility. By the way, I am not a proponent of parliamentary republic in the post-Soviet countries. We are not yet ripe for that, I believe. We also had had a parliament as the main player. I also had been a deputy. So, there they were, 350 parliamentarians, nobody being responsible for anything, many of whom having joined the Supreme Council in pursuance of some “lists,” pressing [voting] buttons as decided by their “sensation.” As a result, there was total irresponsibility concealed behind discussion façade, the country was moving towards an abyss. In the meantime, in Minsk, they were competing with one another as to who does speak loudest? There were scuffles, voicing of gossips. Not for the sake of finding the truth, but, largely, for doing self-advertising. In the meantime, everything was on the road to ruin. It was only after the adoption of a new Constitution, after the election of President, that we managed to stabilize the situation and receive what we have today. And now ask the people what do they prefer: savage scuffles of deputies before TV cameras or a responsible, let it be dullish, work on the drafting of the laws which make the life worthy and well-to-do? No. The “democratic” form must not undermine the contents.

You will see that in the near future the situation in Ukraine will get stabilized, and other, maybe less vocal, but much more responsible mass media will come into being! Although some are already available there. What is happening in Ukraine is not happening in Germany today, isn’t it? The level of legal culture in Germany is different, they are governed by the law, and Alexander Rahr will not transgress the law, never in his life. If he had let his imagination run away with him, if he had written something not as it “ought to be,” he would know that he will be held liable…

-Yes.

- For the time being, Ukraine and Russia, and we too, have many problems in this matter. Why am I saying “and we too?” Because there’s no total ban on opposition press in this country. As to the Russian media, they “are shooting through” us. Our political opposition members are their favourite guests. Americans have promised many million euros for the “struggle:” they gave [money] to Euronews, to RTVI, and, of course to Radio Liberty. They have built stations all around us, “shooting through” us from the west to the east, from the east to the west. We have an open information space. Do not pay heed to those who keep telling that our political opposition has no opportunity to reach the public through words. It is not true because Belarus is a compact country, with good roads, it will take one day to cross it from one end to another, any family can be reached, any newspaper can be handed over, any message, any party “battle leaflet.” The opposition does exactly that, by the way. Who does not allow? Some “leaders” have recently declared regarding the elections: we will be going door-to-door, house-to-house. Right, it is necessary to reach people, to explain their position to them. But all these are empty words. The people rejects windbags. Why? Because some of them, rather than going “door-to-door,” loiter about with outstretched hands in the West, in your country in Germany too, begging for money, and then pocketing the same money. Just think, how can a jobless party chairman, who might still earn 100 dollars per month as he declares, buy two cars and built himself a mansion near Minsk? Can you imagine it happening in Germany? Police would immediately peer into it and ask: whence? Here, nevertheless, they feel safe.

- We are living in the epoch of CNN. Many journalists in the West prefer one-sided reports on Belarus. But if we look at TV shots showing police forcefully dispersing peaceful demonstrations…

- But in France and in Germany, police act in the same way. Using tear-gas. We, thanks God, do not resort to such extreme measures.

- I am thinking what is to be done to build, maybe, some new bridge for Belarus in these crucial days, so that Europe could understand better your situation. What do you think?

- At that moment, Europeans have learned what Belarus is, they have understood that their security has to be linked with Belarus too. We have repeatedly said in public: you have a problem with illegal migration. Today, however, hardly a dozen illegal migrants can slip through our borders to the West, whereas before, there were thousands of them calmly crossing the border. That means we have put a barrier to them. We have been behaving honestly towards Europe, we have put a barrier to drug trafficking, to potential terrorists. We have done it at our own expense. While Europe is depriving us, or is trying to deprive, of preferences…

- I think that Europe is extending hand to Belarus now.

- Today everything depends on Europe. We are serious people, we aren’t overevaluating ourselves. What is more, after becoming President I said we would be building the country in such a way that it could resemble Sweden and Germany. Educated as a historian, I know well both the economy and social sector of those states. We make every effort so that Belarusians could live almost as they live. It is clear that this road is not a simple one. But it is in this direction that we have been pursuing out policy. It’s a pity that not all understand us rightly. They are sometimes pushing us in our backs. We cannot tolerate it because we know – everything must be achieved by one’s own labour. And we shall achieve! To those who fail to understand simple things, we say bluntly: do you want to help us? If not, do not interfere, our people will manage to do everything themselves. We do not need either “coloured” or “gas revolutions.” I believe the moment has arrived when we really must cooperate in a more responsible manner. It should be done the way we are doing it now with you, we must meet face to face with serious European politicians and discuss pressing problems with them.

Instead, they have imposed travel ban on us. A medieval savagery! Does it also have to do with “European values?” What of it? For two years we have been calmly managing without protocol visits. But who needs it anyway? Can’t Europe understand that they are acting to their own detriment? Is it right to construct “iron curtains?” Whom did they help and when? Is it really proper to conduct dialogue in such a manner? We have nothing to say over the fence. It is counterproductive.

- What a pity that recently there was another statement in which some Europeans say: “We would wish to cooperate, but again, at your local elections, there was vote-rigging somewhere.”

- Alexander, that kind of statement had been prepared half a year ago. Even at that time it was clear in advance what Americans, for instance, would say with regard to our elections. It’ s a pity that Europeans obeyed with a salute. To think Germany has to quarrel with America because of a certain Belarus, Chancellor Merkel - to argue with President Bush! Well, but sometimes one should argue. Far from always has the USA been right, just see how Bush was being refuted by his own Senate!

I believe Europe should change its position in this issue, Germany first of all. Because Germany is not only an industrial locomotive but, generally, the centre of Europe. Now it is chairing the European Union. What is it that prevents Germany from taking an elementary interest: what is actually happening in Belarus? Enough of listening obsolete gramophone discs of those who has turned politics into a business. They will be talking the same things again and again. Why shouldn’t citizen Alexander Rahr be invited to the Bundestag and asked: you make visits to Minsk, you understand Belarusians, you have friends over there, you’ve met with the President, just share your sincere impressions! I, for instance, do not trust one-sided information. If something is not clear for me about the USA, there are different people who often visit that country, I invite them and start questioning. Hence, a more or less unbiased impression takes shape. Therefore, if it were important for Europe to sincerely understand us, without sticking to the clichés of others, responsible politicians would start doing exactly that.

- Germans are holding “Minsk Forum” in Belarus, there’s a difficult discussion there also. But I do agree: it could be done far better. However, it seems to me, we’ve entered a new period when transit states, like Belarus and Ukraine, start playing quite different role, and precisely that will be of interest for Germany and the European Union.

- You know, God endowed Russia with natural resources. They are Russia’s wealth and property, its lever for influencing processes in the world. God endowed us with other resources — the geographical position of a transit country, what you were speaking about. Why should we be stripped of the right to use this resource the way Russia, for instance, does?

- Interesting, yes, it is the right formulation of the question.

- We too have right to act likewise. We are now preparing an agreement, which will be forwarded to the Russian Federation, with an absolutely civilized – by analogy with the US laws, by the way – tax on land under pipelines. Aren’t we entitled to impose it? That will be a fair and honest compensation for the rise in prices that the Russian Federation has brought forth. Absolute compliance with the market spirit.

- Now it is possible to think over how to make a PanEuropean Energy Charter with the European Union…

- I’ve already said that we are prepared to cooperate with everybody for ensuring our national security, for accommodating our interests. Undoubtedly so, as far as Europeans are concerned. Ukraine and Belarus are major transit states. We’ll come to an agreement, I suppose. Others - Poland, Baltic States - will join us. This idea had been suggested to us long ago – consolidation of transit states. And we will be upholding our interests together. Everything of the kind is ahead of us.

For this reason, we are looking today for an alternative. And we do not exclude participation of our European partners in this alternative. We are willing to cooperate with Europe. The EU comes second after Russia as our basic trade and economic partner. So, the good-for-nothing effort to “push us away” from the General Agreement on tariffs, on preferences, is indeed out of place. We will survive the loss of those 300 million dollars. What is hard to understand is why the Europeans need doing it! The more so, that some politicians really make us look for a compensation for 300 million dollars. The shortest and the most profitable way remains unaltered: movement of your goods to Russia, and back via Belarus. There’s no need to impose 45 dollars per tonne of oil as for Russia, one dollar per tonne of freight will suffice – in that case we will more than compensate everything, we will earn one billion. Does anybody need it to be done in that way? I think not.

- No, not.

- Of course, not. The entire civilised world takes a different direction. If you advocate “equal access of authorities and opposition to mass media” why do you exclude this very principle in economics? Why are you placing us “within parentheses?” Just do the opposite, you must draw Belarus nearer in order to have a normal neighbour-partner who will continue protecting you from bandits, terrorists, illegal migrants.

Figuratively speaking, you’ll be “exploded” if Ukraine and Belarus, that is, transit states, take a lucrative position. We are doing a good deed, however, and will continue doing it provided you treat us humanely, at least sometimes say “thank you” to us for everything good.

- I think the year 2007 will change a lot. One more point to be raised, of course, how will Russia react? Putin too does not want to enter history as a man who has been ruling Russia for 8 years, but the reintegration has failed.

- If Russia’s political leaders were more responsible in the matters of Belarus-Russia relations, the results would be different. Why, as a matter of fact, have a great number of border crossings been put in place? Whose need is that? When we in return installed recently a local customs control post, a queue of automobiles nearly reached Moscow! Do the Russians need it? I think not. Neither do we. The EU definitely does not need it. If they in the Kremlin thought about integration, they would not destroy what has already been created! Why was it necessary to withdraw from the existing treaties and agreements?! They have declared publicly, through a note, about the withdrawal from the Treaty on equal conditions. What for? Is it an example for others to follow? In my view, other states, before concluding treaties with Russia, if at all, will be looking back at this adverse example.

I am sometimes rebuked for, allegedly, being guilty of an image-spoiling blow received by Russia due to the recent oil row. Don’t blame me. Blame those, who from Russia’s side shut the valve to Europe. They punished themselves as a result.

- Maybe, there’s a need to have a man’s talk with President of Russia? The most…

- Do you mean it’s high time Europeans had a man’s talk with Vladimir Vladimirovich? As to us, we have always been speaking openly to one another. If you heard our talks, you would understand that we, to say the least, are true friends…

- Still?

- Despite these conflicts, we discuss problems in an absolutely normal way. We argue, sometimes scold, which is inadmissible between other presidents, it is just because we are friends that we can argue with one another, very harshly, expressing our attitude towards one issue or another. There aren’t any bad relations between presidents in our case.

You know, he openly explained me his position on gas and oil prices. I may agree or disagree, but he was speaking openly. I appreciate it very much. And he knows that I can understand only a sincere and open policy. Other policies are unacceptable for me.

Therefore, I, of course, know the President of the Russian Federation well enough. Don’t be demonizing him…

- I am not demonizing, not Putin in any case. I think you will easily come to an agreement with the next President also, in 2008. But the point is in the idea behind all that. He seems to have had his own idea: during his presidency, when everything in Russia is so normal and stable, to reunite the Slavonic world. He has come back to the idea you were pushing forward in 1998-1999, when Yeltsin did not want it.

- I disagree. If Vladimir Vladimirovich wants to reunite the Slavonic world, he should do it in another way, in my view. As to Yeltsin not wanting it, it is not true. Do you know why the Union State emerged? It’s because we started making it together with Yeltsin.

- Yes, I know.

- Russia met us halfway at that time. True, at that time, oil and gas cost merely kopecks. Nonetheless, Russia had had a difficult situation, very difficult. But Yeltsin went halfway, to Belarusians first of all, because he saw a reciprocal movement. What for? To urge Ukraine and then Kazakhstan to follow the example. And we came close to the point when Russia was ready to reunite those states. Yeltsin disliked very much being called “elder brother.” He had a very concerned attitude to it because he knew: every state had had already their own national elite who claimed their role. He understood that it is not by force but through other methods that Russia could reunite the new states. An attractive example appeared - Belarus and Russia. We were building this union as an example for others. Boris Nikolayevich used to say and keeps saying that to the leadership of Russia. But when the leaders of Russia started torpedoing these processes, I said concretely but firmly: it is not the best example that we are serving to others.

That was the purpose of creating this union – to demonstrate to everybody, following the example of Belarus and Russia, what we want and what kind of union we want to build. So what, have we demonstrated?

- Now the “orange” revolution in Ukraine is over, Yanukovich will stay for long. Kazakhstan is ready for a rapprochement with Russia.

- Indeed?!

- Not politically of course, but still the ‘Eurasian idea…”

- That is, there where it is profitable…

- Yes...

- Everybody is ready to act like that: “to make friends” wherever profitable. As to losing anything - because to obtain benefit from Russia one has also to give something to Russia - not every leader wants it. Whereas we did it: we gave something to Russia, Russia gave something to us, and that was written down in the Union Treaty. The essence was – Belarusians and Russians cannot be foreigners to one another. That was the main idea of the union.

- I think we have held a very extensive and very interesting interview. Thank you, Alexander Grigoryevich.