Borrell: “Lukashenko is like Maduro. We don't recognize him but we have to treat him ”

“ Yes, Mr. Lavrov? This is mister Borrell ”. The interview, conducted on Thursday during a break from the Quo vadis Europe courseHe has been directing for 20 years at the Menéndez Pelayo International University, in the quiet paradise of the Magdalena Palace in Santander, ends as planned when the Russian Foreign Minister calls him to talk about Belarus. Josep Borrell (La pobla de Segur, 73 years old), European High Representative for Foreign Affairs, hardened in a thousand battles, will chat with him in a palace corridor trying to convince him that this time it is not like the Ukraine fiasco: now the EU is not wants to fight for geostrategic control with Russia, only to promote democracy and help Belarusians who ask for freedom. The EU's super foreign minister has spent all summer putting out fires. And there are still many left.

Question. How far is the EU going to get Alexandr Lukashenko to leave power peacefully?

Reply. The case of Belarus is not comparable to that of Ukraine. There was a tension between the European vocation and that of associating with Russia, the protesters carried European flags. It had a geopolitical dimension. Belarusians are not arguing now whether mom or dad. They simply demand a regime of civil liberties and rights. There are no European flags at the demonstrations. And the EU also has no intention of turning Belarus into a second Ukraine. We have to promote political reform but avoid appearing as a distorting factor, which is how we could be perceived on the Russian side. That tension between Europe and Russia ended in gunfire, with violence and with a disintegration of the Ukrainian territory that still lasts. Today's problem for Belarusians is not choosing between Russia and Europe, it is achieving freedom and democracy, which are basic values ​​of the European Union and which we will therefore support.

Q. Isn't it in the EU's interest that Belarus doesn't fall into the hands of Vladimir Putin?

R. We are especially interested in that Belarusians can live in a regime of political freedoms, and have good relations with our entire neighborhood. A very complicated neighborhood, as this summer has shown. From the Sahel to the Middle East, through Libya, Turkey, Iran and now Belarus, our entire neighborhood is troubled. And UE has no magic wands. We have financial resources, we have mobilized 50 million euros to help Belarusian society, we have political influence, but Belarus must not be a second Ukraine.

Q. There are no European flags, but there is a certain desire for westernization, for democratization in Belarus. Can it happen, as in Ukraine, that this desire for openness ends up the other way around, with Putin's greater control of that area?

R. It is also what to avoid. That is why we are in contact with Russia. The President of the Council has spoken with President Putin and I with Minister Lavrov to avoid misunderstandings and that the Russian side take decisions that could destabilize the situation. As early as 2010 we said that those elections were false, and Lukashenko responded with the same violence to the protesters. In 2006 we already established sanctions against Lukashenko himself and 230 people responsible. Then he made a timid liberalization movement, released a few political prisoners, we wanted to believe that it was a good sign and we lifted all sanctions. It is clear that now they will have to be put back.

P. For the EU, Lukashenko has to fall?

A. We do not recognize him as a legitimate president. Nor do we recognize Nicolás Maduro. From this point of view, Maduro and Lukashenko are in exactly the same situation. We do not acknowledge that they have been legitimately chosen. However, whether we like it or not, they control the government and we have to continue dealing with them, despite not recognizing their democratic legitimacy. The goal is for Belarusians to have the opportunity to express themselves freely. That is what the European Council decided.

Q. What relationship should Europe have with Russia, which wants to occupy more and more space?

A. The relationship with Russia is as complex as the relationship with China. It is a polyhedron that has many faces. With Russia, on the one hand we sanction it but on the other we have an energy dependence that for some countries is very strong. It doesn't look the same about Russia if you're Lithuanian or Portuguese. Russia is an actor in international politics, desiring to return to playing a role of power, it is not the only one that feels the old imperial temptation. But like it or not, there are many problems that we have to deal with with Russia to try to solve, from the Arctic to Syria.

Q. Are you concerned about the possible poisoning of the opponent Alexéi Navalni?

A. Naturally, it concerns us, and it also concerns us. A plane is taking him to a German hospital. These things remind us of events that already worried us. But everything is still to be verified.

P. Why is it so difficult to consolidate democracy in Russia?

A. Not only in Russia. Democracy is very little consolidated in many countries of the world. Or in others there is a worrying democratic fatigue. We Europeans are not aware of how extremely lucky we are to live in the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social solidarity in the world.

P. Does Putin respect the EU?

R. Are you asking me about Putin or Trump? When Putin acts as he does, first in Syria and then in Libya, and first in Ukraine, he does so using his military potential and his willingness to act with a regional hegemon. It would be easier for him if the European Union did not exist. Then it would only have to deal with countries one by one, and some would have little to say. Precisely in order to face the risks and threats at our borders, the European Union has more and more reason to exist.

P. France wants to get closer to Russia.

R. France has a more open position with Russia, true. But Germany, too, is perfectly aware that Russia is a market and an energy supplier. The situation in Poland and the border countries formerly dominated by the Soviet Union, in particular the Baltics, is different. The problem we have in Europe when it comes to making a common foreign policy is that we do not share the same vision of what our threats are. Because we don't have the same story. And that is why our vision of the world is different. I give an example: the Poles believe that they owe their freedom to the United States and to the Pope. And they are right. But as a Spaniard, I think that I have endured the Franco dictatorship to a great extent because of the support of the United States and the Vatican. Foreign policy is the projection of the rest of the world of your historical identity.

Q. Does the recovery fund save the EU?

A. The virus has had a great catalytic effect on European integration. Without it we would continue to say that you cannot go jointly to the financial markets, that you cannot give debt-financed transfers. Once again it is found that the EU is built on crises. Or according to the proverb, they hang by force.

Q. Could the pandemic have saved the EU?

A. It has given you a new image. At the beginning of the pandemic, Europe had a very bad image. We saw Italians burning European flags. And a man for himself, with the Germans who did not want to sell their stocks of medical supplies to Italy and Russian and Chinese planes landing in Milan with the flags displayed saying here we are, we are the good guys. At first the image was not bright. But later there was a joint response, difficult to develop, which broke the mold. We have to feel satisfied. Now Europeans see that Europe is mobilizing organizing solidarity in a deeper way.

P. Is Spain prepared to spend that money well?

A. It will not be easy to run those billions. Because transfers are not given without conditions. But there will not be men in black in the sense of the troika , because there will be no macroeconomic adjustments, but there will be logical conditionality so that these resources are used for the purposes for which they are intended, developing the climate response, the ecological transition, the digitization of the economy. Neither men in black nor blank checks. It is logical that there is concern about the execution of this ambitious plan.

Q. Is there concern with the political situation in Spain, in particular with an unprecedented coalition in Europe?

A. Not particularly. Look, I was Minister of Public Works, I had to administer a good part of the structural funds. That was easier because the structural funds were basically public works infrastructures that we knew how to build. But we were the ones who best managed the structural funds, and that was a flood of money. Now it is more difficult, because we are not just going to tell a waiter who has lost his job on the Costa del Sol that his future will be green and digital. He will say "okay, but what about my present?" In the short term there is a problem of maintenance of income and capitalization of companies, which is a more micro job. This will require great administrative efficiency from all countries.

P. If Donald Trump wins the elections, we are heading to a world of trade war between two great superpowers, with China. How is the EU positioned there?

R. The EU has to define its own international policy and not be pressured into that Chinese-American confrontation that is going to mark this century. Right now, the US has lost a vote in the Security Council because countries such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom have not voted on its proposals on the arms embargo on Iran. But it is not only Trump, there is an undercurrent also in American society that is the relationship with China. Surely both the Americans and we have sinned a certain naivety and now we want to level the playing field. What happens is that we do in a more, let's say, negotiated way.

Q. Does Europe have to be more concerned with its own defense without always depending on the US?

R. It is what is called European strategic autonomy, which does not mean that we are going to leave NATO. The euro gives us a certain European strategic autonomy, without the euro Spain would not have been able to leave Iraq, poor peseta if we had had it. But we do not yet have it in defense matters, as was demonstrated in Libya. We have to build it in a complementary way to that given by belonging to NATO. Developing a European security and defense policy is one of the tasks that I have to do, knowing that not all European countries see it in the same way and not all have the same interest in it.

Q. Can the situation in Libya cause a migration crisis like the one in Syria?

R. It is not Libya, it is the migratory pressure that comes from the Sahel. On Syria, we have disputed and debatable agreements with Turkey, but we are not giving money to the Turkish government, we are giving money to refugees in Turkey, which are 3.7 million people, the largest mass of refugees that any country hosts.

Q. Isn't outsourcing a problem?

R. The alternative is that European societies decide to accept that these 3.7 million exiles come and settle in Europe. Do you want it? Well, if they don't want to, they have to look for an alternative solution. Doing politics requires defining objectives according to your abilities. Putting your head in the sky while leaving your feet on the ground does not help much.

Q. There is no way to prevent people from continuing to die at sea in front of Europe?

A. Yes, but this requires regulation of immigration and asylum at European level, and for too long the EU has been unable to do so. Immigration cannot be a deregulated phenomenon that instills fear in societies, because it is easily manipulated. But Europe needs immigration. Some European countries do not want to recognize it, they prefer to grow old to mix, like the Japanese, by the way. Others are more open. But we all need to make up for our demographic gap with immigration. Oh, and let's call things by their name: the Syrian war did not send migrants, it sent exiles, like the Spanish Civil War sent exiles to French beaches, exactly the same.

Q. Is there a risk of armed clash between Turkey and Greece?

R. It is a very tense situation. In the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs that we have had this summer, which I have spent with a telephone in each ear, the three most used words were solidarity with Greece and Cyprus; de-escalated, because there are many warships maneuvering in the same area and the other day there was an accidental collision between a Greek ship and a Turkish ship that tomorrow may be something else; and negotiation. With Turkey things have gone from bad to worse, we need to rebuild the relationship and that can only be done by negotiating.

Q. Will there be sanctions against Turkey?

A. The Council asked me to present a panoply of possible sanctions. There have already been attacks against some executives of companies that do drilling. If things do not go better, we will have to act, but we are trying to avoid it. My role is not to add fuel to the fire, but to avoid increasing tensions.

Q. You have welcomed the Israel-United Arab Emirates agreement but some partners believe that it may be a stab at the Palestinian cause.

A. It depends. We have a good relationship with Israel, with the Emirates, with the Palestinians. Everything has advantages and disadvantages. This agreement has served at least to prevent the announced annexation of the Jordan Valley during the summer, which would have been a point of serious disagreement with Israel. What we have clearly said from the EU is that the peace plan presented by Jared Kushner is not a good basis for negotiation.

Q. You have been in office for nine months. Is it frustrating to have to agree on everything unanimously?

R. I came to office convinced that the rule of unanimity had to be abandoned and now I am more than ever. But I am aware that to change the unanimity ... you need unanimity, and such a thing does not exist, everyone wants to keep the right to veto. It is an exciting position in which you have to be very patient, to know that it is a marathon. I am grateful to life for the opportunity to finish my political career in such a demanding position.