Getting down to business

  • 2012-01-04
  • Interview by Emi Pastor and Dorian Ziedonis.

Edgars Rinkevics is the current Minister of Foreign Affairs in Latvia, taking over the role when chosen by Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis as part of his third cabinet. Now this young politician in the upstart Zatlers’ Reform Party has the chance to lead Latvia at the international level, managing the country’s foreign policy. A good amount of this has been done from afar, on frequent trips to Brussels. The difficult political and economic situation in Europe, with its currency troubles, the country’s evolving relations with Russia, which itself is in some turmoil after a contested election in December, are some of the issues that appear on Mr. Rinkevics’ agenda. The minister met with TBT before the Christmas holidays to discuss his Ministry’s goals.

You took over the Foreign Ministry on October 25. What was the condition of the Ministry that the previous minister – Mr. Kristovskis – left it in?
You know, taking into account some certain particularities of power, of the political system, when ministers sometimes change quite often, in Latvia we have a very strong civil service and diplomatic service, so basically, with the change of ministers, not many things change within the ministries; from that point of view I think that certainly, when I took over, I took over a well-functioning mechanism. As I have underlined, all the priorities, all the general direction of Latvian foreign policy will remain intact,  remains intact, and I just made some set of priorities that I really want to see completed as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

First of all two basic tasks for Latvian diplomacy are, and will be, external security, which is a permanent process, not the kind of task you can achieve and then forget about it, especially in this very qualitative global and regional environment, and second is, of course, to improve political and economic competitiveness in the regional EU and global environment. Coming from those two general points I have been already working with the staff of the ministry on certain set of priorities in order to implement them, first is fine-tuning of our external economic representation according to interests abroad, export also, attracting investments and of course here our best partner is the Ministry of Economy.

I am currently having many meetings, consultations with people from the ministry of economy, the business community, representatives in order to understand and to work out a general plan of how to improve this part of foreign service activities; second is certainly the EU. You know already that now, in the middle of December, the EU is getting more critical, because of the events in the eurozone, because of recent summit in Brussels, with heads of state and government, certainly also the annual financial framework for 2014-2020; payments to our farmers, of course the EU presidency of 2015 is certainly quite under attention at this time.

Then regional cooperation between Baltic polish and german, we always have issues evaluated with common transportation, energy projects where we will have to work where certainly there are different projects on the table that are going to be addressed. Finally, the cross-Atlantic link, it’s NATO, the strategic partnership with the United States. Last week we particularly had an opportunity to talk with [U.S.] Secretary [of State] Secretary Clinton in Brussels during the foreign ministers’ meeting to outline certain specific topics to be implemented in bi-lateral relations next year, also within the NATO framework last week, which was also remarkable by the fact that more than 90 countries and more than 10 international organizations met to discuss Afghanistan. In general, I’d say that I’m really going to concentrate on those four points during by tenure.

Speaking about the meeting in Brussels – what was the position of Latvia to address one more time the euro crisis?
You see, probably we in Latvia are in a kind of very special position when it comes to the overall debate in the EU on how to proceed with these fiscal policies in the Union, with proposed new treaty or amendments to the treaty or whatever form it takes due to the fact that we have been under austerity measures already from 2008; so we have first-hand experience of what it means, how tough it is, but also that those measures are really necessary. So many countries, like Greece, italy, Ireland, you name it, Germany, France as well, are implementing austerity packages that are much milder than we in Latvia had to implement in 2009-2010, but basically when it comes to the future of the EU, the eurozone, I think that there are 2 key points I want to underline: first is that Latvia is very interested in having a stronger Union. Sometimes it is referred to there being a 2-speed Europe, we want to be in the first-speed Europe.

I hope that we as a Union can manage to be on one speed but much stronger, probably forming a certain fiscal union, certainly able to implement some stricter financial controls, some stricter fiscal discipline measures. Secondly, we want to see the eurocurrency as strong; we want to still be a part of the common currency space, even if there are some critics who say that it’s not showing a good perspective for the future. But this is our belief that this is better for our economy, than to be outside of it, and those Maastricht criteria for budget deficits, public debt, inflation, if you fulfill them then your economy, your financial situation, is better than if you borrow much money, don’t control your budget, and at the end of the day you end up with, both of us know it, how we have found ourselves.

I think that, if you have followed Latvia for the last 3 years, when we were doing those very strict fiscal categorization things, cutting budgets, raising taxes, the criticism was that it’s not [oriented] to development and growth, but to stagnation. I think that figures for the current year, GDP growth, are estimated around 4-5 percent, we still have to get the latest data at the beginning of next year, shows that already this year there is growth. But before you can start to talk about growth, you have to get your basic fiscal and economic things in order. If you have debt like some of the EU countries, eurozone countries more than 100 percent of GDP, if you have budget deficits where you have to borrow money at quite high interest rates, if you have inflation, unemployment growing, and if you don’t address those structural issues of yur own fiscal spending, then any kind of growth, stimulus package… and here I know there are at least two schools of theory in economics, but I believe in this case you simply cannot get into a situation where this growth is going to be long term sustainable; it’s going again to be an influx of money for a very short term, and then you get even greater problems on your hands, so I think that before we get into stimulus, when we get into a growth pattern, in Europe as a whole, we have to address those structural programs that have not frankly been addressed over the past 10 – 15 years If we don’t get this part of the basics, basement in order, we simply cannot build a new, hopefully better and structurally stronger house. From that point of view, for most of our friends, I’d say it’s better, first of all, to address those issues. And then, of course, to work on sustainable growth.

Should our foreign embassies also be in the business of promoting  Latvian business? Do politics and business mix at the official level, or do we risk subverting our European values for economic pursuits?
I know personally a couple of EU ambassadors here in Riga that are very active in promoting business, and the business community of their countries, so I will be very careful here in saying it is contrary to European values. I think we have to distinguish between normal economic interests versus lobbying, or promoting, one specific business interest, or whatever. When it comes to embassies, I think the embassy has such a place to play a critical role, at least in four dimensions. One is political representation, the second is economic, cooperation, development of bi-lateral economic ties; the third is related to contacts with the diaspora. For instance, we have at least 2-3 embassies where this is probably even priority no. 1, due to the fact that we have Latvians living abroad. We have to take care of their cultural interests.

The final point is that embassies also provide consulate assistance, for our citizens, our residents who are in need for such kind of assistance, or for providing the opportunity for other people to travel to Latvia. Judging from those four tasks, I would want to see more active embassy [work] in developing our economic cooperation with countries. That’s one issue where we’re working currently with our colleagues at the Ministry of Economy, how to address this issue, how to put some indicators when it comes to investments, promoting trade, promoting exports of our goods. It’s something where we are also working to fine-tune policy-making, as well as policy implementation. From that point of view, yes, I certainly want to see embassies more active in the economic view, but I also understand the events in 2008- 2009, where we had to cut our diplomatic representation by around 30 percent; of course, we managed to keep all embassies open and working. But these are basic issues, where there are some embassies that are under-staffed, and that is something we have to address next year, and 2013. I don’t see any possibility to open new embassies abroad while we haven’t strengthened and also staffed, where necessary in current embassies, so they can perform their duties.

What is Latvia’s position concerning the protests in Russia over the recent elections?
We share basically the view expressed by High Representative Madame Ashton on behalf of the European Union, where she was talking about certain concerns of the EU in this regard. We have also expressed support to Madame Ashton’s statement last week; here, basically, we’re on the same path as the whole EU.

Do you think this election must be investigated?
As far as I understand, as we are talking today, I have read in the morning news, President Medvedev has promised that there will be an investigation of the possibility of alleged election fraud. I do hope that it’s going to be the case.

Over the weekend we had another banking scare, with Swedbank. Coming after the Parex crisis, Latvijas Krajbanka, stories continue about Latvia being a regional money laundering center for money from the East. What can, or will your ministry do to clean up the banking sector in Latvia?
It’s not the Foreign Ministry that’s cleaning up the banking sector.

But this includes foreign relations.
We have authorities, both a special division in the prosecutor’s office that is dealing with money laundering. Secondly, I would certainly dispute statements that Latvia is a kind of money laundering place. We have worked with appropriate authorities of different countries; there have not been so many cases of money laundering, as opposed to certain financial capital that has been put in Latvia, Lithuania; this applies not only to Krajbanka, but also to the Lithuanian bank Snoras… which we are talking about the same guy. From that point of view, what I think is critically needed, we need better information sharing between our respective authorities in the region, but not only in the region, but across the whole EU, because we see that Mr. Antonov has been using his funds to buy things in Great Britain, in Sweden.

I have discussed with my Swedish colleague Mr. Bildt, 2 weeks ago, better cooperation between respective authorities when it comes to information sharing, when it comes to financial intelligence. We have to carefully address the issue of investment attraction. Not every dollar, euro or lats coming into the Latvian economy or to the financial sector is, per se, good. I think we’re much more interested in better quality investments, not just money. I would be much interested in that amount of money would be put into development, productive capacity. The money that comes only to be kept in banks, and then at some point leaves… well fine, there’s also a place for that, but I would be putting more priority on [those other things]. But I think that here we have to be very clear that we’re not talking about money laundering as such.

We are talking about capital from the East, and not only from the East, coming to Latvia, to Lithuania, to other regions. Being used to, at some point where there is a problem, we get what we get, in November, the collapse of two banks, one in Lithuania, another in Latvia, but I think that here again, the general lesson learned for all of us is the lack of sufficient information sharing. Not only between two countries, Lithuania and Latvia, but across the region; as I described to you there were more than two countries involved. This lack of cooperation, lack of information sharing has to be addressed. The second lesson learned probably for the government authorities, it’s not about all types of money coming in, but about the fact that we have to address how you distinguish between investment that’s really coming into the economy, and how you get money simply in your bank coffers.

That’s one issue, this visa for so-called investment; the last thing we seem to need is more real state investment, and these people, as we see, they have moved on to live in London after getting the visa. This is not really active investment to the country.
The legal prevision is, of course, [that] you put your money in the bank account and a certain amount of money gives you opportunity also for applying for the permit. The second is, of course, you can put it in the industry sector: you can buy some property here. So, there are different levels. If I am not mistaken, the law provides on a regular basis government reports to the Parliament, considers the general state of how this program works. And I think that, coming back to what I said about those investments, the quality of investments into Latvia, I think that this is one issue where we certainly need the cabinet, and also the country at large will have to take a look at how this program works. Where there are those positive and also negative things. I would certainly say that just putting money into the bank account, in my opinion, it wouldn’t be enough to apply and to obtain this residence permit, or to get a multiple Schengen visa. But I expect a report from the Ministry of Interior, I think that we need serious analysis because this program, as of the middle of next year, will be the second year when this program will be a full-cycle year, when you’ll be able to assess the year 2011 with the year 2010. I think some consideration to this program needs to be given.

And would this analysis be public?
Well, I would never be able to say what other ministries are going to submit to the public, but I think that, in the general planning, there is no point to make them confidential.
About nuclear energy, Russia and Belarus have both expressed their wish to continue their plans to build a nuclear power plant in Belarus, very close to Latvia. Does this position present any risk to Latvia in terms of security?
Well, certainly I think that we have to take a look at all the environmental safeguards, if they’re up to the standards of the European Union. What is certainly to be addressed is how safe this energy plant is, from the environmental point of view. Second, as you know, the Baltic States have expressed a desire, and this project is being implemented, in its initial stages in building our own Visagina nuclear power station in Lithuania, I certainly don’t want currently to dispute the rights of any country or any private company to that or another business, but I think that three nuclear power plants so close, and in this market environment that we’re in, this is certainly too much capacity. From an economic point of view, at least for the nearest future, that would be a good question – who will be the customers, and how it’s going to play in the whole energy market. But our certain priority is, of course, the Visagina power station.

But Poland today pulled out.
Well, they have suspended as far as I know. Now the correct information, their participation, they are considering in Poland also building some of their own nuclear power stations, and the PM of Latvia just reaffirmed our interest to continue this project.

Can we do Visagina without Poland?
I think that certainly it is about the cost, about the cost effectiveness. If you have read a number of participants in the project then, of course, the general cost is decreasing. But, at least, so far the project is going to be continued. I think this is something certainly where those issues will be discussed among the Ministers of Economy and Energy of the Baltic States and experts. But, as I’ve said, we have just reaffirmed our principal interest in developing this project. Certainly, if we take correctly what Poland has stated about suspension, not pulling out, I have to underline this issue. Then certainly it doesn’t prevent, at some point in the future, the country returns to the project. I believe that this is open, but the commitment is reaffirmed by the PM of Latvia to the continuation of this stage of the project.

You mention that you had a high opinion of the first meeting of the Latvian-Russian committee of historians last month. But many say that this type of committee just gives Russia just the chance to re-write history. Why would we need to find a compromise on history, on the facts or on interpretation, through a committee? Do we risk distorting history?
First of all, the committee of historians has not been set by both countries to re-write something, or to make a compromise. The committee was established to discuss, first of all, all the issues of bi-lateral history of two nations in a more academic and more professional environment than politicians do. And second, the committee was established to make some large research in areas where there is an interest from both sides. I talked with the co-chairman of the committee, Professor [Inesis] Feldmanis, about his impressions and he said that he was positively surprised about the meeting.

They agreed to start joint research on issues of bi-lateral ties in the 1920s and 1930s, the interwar period, of, let’s say, the general state of cooperation between the then-Soviet Union and Latvia. And second, they agreed to start some joint research and to work on things that I think are very important to our people here; there have been many deportations back in 1941, in 1949. Unfortunately, due to some current legislative restrictions, some policies, Latvian historians who are interested in this period of history, as well are making some historic research of the fate of those people, either killed by the communist authorities, or who have been spending their time somewhere in exile in Siberia. But the fate of those people, currently of many people, also, many famous Latvian cultural, political, military representatives in our elite, our establishment, the fate or those people is still unknown, or there are not enough facts. And here there is an agreement when it comes to the research in a how deportations also people of the committee of historians will make this as priority, which also means access to some certain documents in the archives. When it comes to the re-writing of history, I think that this is an interpretation of some people; it is not the task that the committee has set itself.

But is that a possibility?
No, I don’t think so. I don’t think that anybody in Latvia but also in Russia is going to change his or her perception of what we consider as basically historic facts. And here in this country we are absolutely sure that this is the general line that what happened in 1940 has been an occupation, and that this is something that we see as historic fact. We have talked with our Russian colleagues [who] see it differently. What we certainly see as a necessity, is not to sit here in Riga or somewhere in Moscow and to put out another press release about how bad the other side this, but at least to start to discuss our common history, to do it in a professional, academic way, and to do some basic research from which, actually, two countries may benefit.

The two points I have outlined as a first topic of research, I think they are very promising. I think that the process of this work is not going to be easy; there will be many discussions, many heated discussions, many different views. I think that the timeline is not one year or two years: I think it’s quite a long period where both sides will have to take also extra caution, extra patience to work on these issues, to discuss those issues. But I see this as a good way forward to somehow, at least, get a better understanding of what one party and another party thinks and considers as what happened in the history which, by the way, was tragic for both nations. I think that the twentieth century history has been quite a tragedy for Latvians, for Russians, for everybody.

Yes, it was. But I think you can’t put the label of aggressor on both countries.
That’s why I am saying that there are certain things where our understanding is pretty clear, and nobody is going to compromise on certain issues. But what we are going to do is, also what historians have discussed, are going to discuss and to start from those facts, from that period of time where we have to do some kind of joint research, do some joint publications of documents, do some conferences on the issues and start to debate. And only if you debate, if you talk with people, if you do some research, then you can get a kind of grasp of understanding of what happened at that time. But I don’t expect change or compromising on both sides, at least for the time being. I think we see a quite clear understanding on both sides, quite clear differences, and we have to respect those differences. We have a very clear understanding of what happened let’s say in 1940. We understand also that it is very difficult on the other side to address those issues, but I am glad that we are starting to do [something].

In your meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during the OSCE conference in Vilnius, you stressed that Latvia’s non-citizens should use the opportunities offered by the naturalization process.
Yes, that was in response of the proposal of some international organizations, and also Mr. Lavrov, to allow our non-citizens to vote in local elections. It’s my absolute belief that we have to do what we can, actually, to address this issue by the process of naturalization, by them choosing their loyalties, finally, to become Latvian citizens or to become citizens of another country. But I don’t see that voting in local elections would address the problem of non-citizens. Actually, I think that simply kind of deprives them of another incentive to become citizens. If you want to be active in political life, I think that the best way is to get Latvian citizenship, to get full political rights but also full political responsibilities.

The naturalization process really is not that difficult. Where is the resistance for these people to not get Latvian citizenship if they want to live here?
That’s a good question; I think we need some creative research on this, and some opinion polls as well. I have looked at figures recently. I have seen that around the date of our entrance to joining the European Union, Schengen agreement, the number of persons who got through the naturalization process was pretty high. I don’t have exact figures in my mind. Now the figure is lesser. I think that it’s partly the fact that basically as non-citizens you enjoy the same set of rights and benefits under the social system, so you can get a job, you can even get visa-free travel to Lisbon. You are actually in a better situation to some extent than citizens of the EU who need a visa and so on… I think it is very difficult to find one or two keys reasons why, probably, we are where we are. But one thing that I certainly think from the government’s perspective is that we need to address this issue more rigorously to understand the reasons and to address them. But basically, this country is very interested in having citizens, rather than foreign citizens or non-citizens.

Would such a large number be a security risk, a national security risk?
I don’t think that we should talk in terms of security risks. We should talk in terms of nation-building, where we have a large amount of non-citizens; by the way, now I think it is [half] of that of some fifteen years ago so you see what kind of way we have already gone through and where we are. I think that is a positive side of the process.
But many have left and many have taken the citizenship.
Many have taken citizenship. There are certainly non-citizens who enjoy free movement in the EU. Certainly one thing that I would very much look at, we have to work with the remaining ones. They also have to choose, let’s say their destiny. There are also other options, not only Latvian citizenship.

They’re living in limbo.
I think that one area of concern is certainly, and something where we have to work at, is to provide better information about events here, about opportunities… To some extent addressing this issue as well.
The drive to make Russian an official language in Latvia has little, if any, chance of success.
I agree. I think that there is no chance that it succeeds.

What do you think is the motivation behind this referendum?
First of all, I want to make very clear that those people who went to sign, they expressed their will, their wish, and I think that we should not criticize them. Where I see, certainly, political ambition, and I view it very negatively, for those people, who clearly know it, that this referendum is not going to succeed, clearly knowing what kind of tension to some extent it may create… they were trying to realize their own very narrow political interest, which is in a certain group of voters, which is a not very large group… And I think that this was not very wise, first of all. And second, they simply have been cheating a large group of voters, and I hope that those voters will understand that this group of politicians will not succeed in making any headway in the elections in the parliament… I think that this is being motivated purely by a very narrow-sighted personal interest, rather than care about those who don’t speak Latvian as a native language. I think that was not their primary problem, not the Russian language as the primary problem; it’s political ambition that’s their problem.

Is there any evidence of meddling from Moscow?
I don’t have any such kind of information.

You have been in office for almost seven weeks. Are you enjoying it?
To me it’s very busy here around the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Basically yes, it is a very interesting, demanding and challenging job. Every day is absolutely different from the other one. To some extent, I would say, it is very interesting!