Tale ved det hviterussiske eksiluniversitetet i Vilnius

 The minister’s speech was based on the following speaking points
Check against delivery 

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, 

• Last week I visited the Middle East – and I could see for myself the changes that are taking place in that region. Driven by the young, whereas old regimes – and old men – in some places are removed, in others they still cling to their power structures.
• Returning from the Middle East I find myself today in the Middle of Europe. Where systemic change happened almost a generation ago – but where some still hang on to their despotic rule.
• Although many outsiders first and foremost remember the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the fight against oppression that you fought in this part of Europe did not end at that moment. In some places it had barely begun.
• This year we commemorate the drama that took place by the TV tower in Vilnius 20 years ago, in January 1991, when Soviet troops were used in a futile attempt to stop the Lithuanian fight for freedom. 14 civilians were killed, hundreds were wounded. But military force did not prevail. Decades of Soviet occupation came to an end. Independence and statehood were restored for Lithuania and for your neighbours to the north.
• We do not yet know what the future will bring for the people of Tunisia. Of Egypt. Of Yemen. And not least of Libya - and of other countries that might be heading for change. But regardless of geography and culture, Lithuania is a prime example of what can be achieved in a limited time span when it comes to rebuilding a state and a society after decades of authoritarian rule.
• Less than fifteen years after the restoration of independence, Lithuania was already a member of EU and NATO, the Council of Europe and the OSCE, fully integrated in the web of European co-operation and in its Nordic-Baltic neighbourhood. Although Lithuania too has been going through tough times since global financial crisis struck, and although many challenges remain, your achievements since 1991 are remarkable.
• In this regard, Lithuania should serve as an inspiring example for her neighbour to the East. Because 1991 was also the year when Belarus declared independence. But its path since then has been starkly different from that of Lithuania. And for far too many years, the Belarusian people have not had the opportunity to express their will through free and democratic elections.
• President Lukashenka’s rule has defied fundamental rights and liberties, including that of academic freedom. That is the reason we are here today.
• I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak at the European Humanities University. Your history, your statute [– and your name! –] put you at the very heart of what is a core European value: The universality of human rights. Because a key component of our understanding of what a university should be, is freedom: Academic freedom, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, to name but a few. These freedoms are part of the foundation of our modern European society – but we must remind ourselves that we cannot take them for granted.
• Especially the Belarusians among you may know this from your own experience, from your own country. That is why this university, the European Humanities University, is now situated here in Vilnius, and not in Minsk – where it was closed down by the authorities in 2004.
• With the brutal crackdown on dissent in the wake of the presidential elections last December, we are witnessing another setback in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Belarus. Hundreds of people were arrested simply for having exercised their freedom of expression, for having made their voice heard. Among them were about a hundred students, including some of your friends from this university.
• As in the current events in the Middle East, the young people took to the streets in Belarus. They protested against elections that international observers deemed to have fallen way short of international standards – standards to which Belarus, as a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, has committed itself. Despite the domestic and international outcry over the violent crackdown on protesters, and despite the obvious harm that Belarusian authorities are causing to their own country and people, there is little sign of imminent improvement in the situation.
• Many of you present here are students of languages, political science, law, philosophy, media, journalism and other subjects. Some of you study here for three, four or five years, and then you will embark on your professional career with a solid basis of knowledge.
• You should have been able to enjoy the same academic freedom at home in Belarus. The fact that you can’t – in a European country in the 21st century – is totally unacceptable. Some would use stronger words. Regardless of the words we choose, this is a situation that we cannot tolerate, whether we are young citizens of Belarus or friends and neighbours.
• For Belarus has committed itself to the same values, rights and principles as other members of the OSCE and, indeed, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These values, rights and principles must be upheld. Sadly, this is not yet the case. Since last December, we have even seen a worsening of the situation. Meanwhile, as you – and all of us – continue working towards this goal, I am very glad that the EHU had the opportunity to recreate a free section of the Belarusian academic world here in Vilnius.
• Knowledge entails obligations. Knowing about a country’s commitment to human rights and the obligations of all states is not enough. This knowledge must be acted upon. These are commitments that must be turned into practical reality. This is a challenge we face as Europeans, as students in democratic societies and – personally – I face it every day as Foreign Minister.
• Human rights and freedoms are essential and unalterable values in any democratic society. People should not be condemned or discriminated against on national, religious, racial or other grounds. We all know only too well the anguish that was inflicted on 20th century Europe due to the disregard of these democratic values. We must not forget or ignore these painful lessons of history.
• Because we have this knowledge, we have to do our utmost to avoid history repeating itself; we have to seek to ensure that no individual country can choose to disregard the rights and principles to which it has committed itself. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows us which direction to move in, and – if need be – to push in, and on what basis we should hold countries accountable.
• In 2009, Norway became a member of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Human Rights Council is an important arena where 47 UN member countries meet to discuss human rights issues and what can be done to enhance respect for human rights worldwide, in each and every country.
• The Human Rights Council has introduced a new mechanism – the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) – under which all UN countries submit a national human rights report to the Council every four years. This means that every country takes a critical look at its own human rights record, and invites other countries to offer constructive criticism. Norway’s ambition is that the UPR process should lead to concrete improvements in the human rights situation in our country too.
• In December 2009, we presented the national UPR report prepared by the Norwegian Government to the Human Rights Council. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights also produces reports: one based on official UN documents and one on input and recommendations from civil society.
• We were required to follow up with a very specific report on the actions we would take to respond to criticisms. This report entails extensive commitments on the part of the Norwegian Government to improve human rights in certain fields.
• I would like to share some of my experiences from the UPR process with you. Civil society and the media followed the process closely and we realised that it was vital to include them in all phases of the process – in preparing the reports, in connection with the examination of the reports, and in the follow up of recommendations.
• In short, the greater the engagement of civil society, the greater commitment on the part of states, which in turn promises concrete improvements on the ground. We also realised that the credibility of our government depended on an open process that included civil society throughout.
• Some may say that what I have just described is a world apart from today’s situation in Belarus. Nevertheless, Belarus will be subject to the same scrutiny by the UN Human Rights Council. For human rights are not internal affairs. They are universal rights, and hence subject to universal scrutiny and accountability.
• Last year, Belarus was up for review and presented its national report on human rights to the Human Rights Council. Belarus accepted many of the UPR recommendations. For example, it promised full co-operation with the United Nations special procedures.
• Belarus also accepted to ensure a participatory and inclusive process with civil society, including independent NGOs, in accordance with the right to freedom of association, in the follow-up of UPR recommendations. In addition, Belarus has promised to apply international standards for fair trial, and that the government will respond to concerns by defence lawyers and NGOs regarding trials against human rights defenders.
• Belarus has also accepted to take concrete steps to meet its obligations on creating an environment that fosters freedom of expression and to release complete information on the two executions in March last year. All of these recommendations to Belarus were joined by Norway.
• The assurances that have been given are welcome, and they are important. But words are not enough. What matters are concrete measures as well. The international community will be watching how the commitments made by Belarus in international forums are followed up in practice.
• Let me also add that later this year, in October, Lithuania will have to present its national report. No country is left out of this process, and all the other countries follow what is being done to improve the human rights situation in each country in the years following its UPR.
• Ensuring respect for fundamental human rights is a continuous process. Among other commitments, this entails a balancing act between upholding the rights of minorities versus the convictions of majorities in any society. Upholding human rights is not only a concern in a country like today’s Belarus. Ensuring support for human rights is also a continuous process in countries like Lithuania and Norway.
• Ensuring that all people are treated equally regardless of ethnicity or the colour of their skin, sexual orientation or gender is a fundamental responsibility of a democratic society. Standing up for the rights of a minority entails some of the toughest challenges. At the same time, it is the right to express a conviction not held by the majority that is a distinguishing feature of a mature democracy.
• We may also have to address difficult parts of our own history. Norway is no exception, and our experiences during the Second World War are an example. During the occupation by Nazi Germany, Norway’s Jewish population was decimated. By the shipload, Norwegian Jews were ferried away to suffering and death in concentration camps. And while this was part of the big Holocaust, it was not only a project conceived and implemented by our Nazi occupiers. They had Norwegian helpers. This is fact we have to face up to.
• It also has implications for present generations. Even in our days, neo-Nazi currents from time to time re-appear among us in Europe. They represent a danger that has not been abolished once and for all. And, alas, other and more common forms of xenophobia are commonplace. They may seem a less dangerous phenomenon. But they demonstrate the need for vigilance and for a high degree of historic consciousness even today, not least among the young people. This is a common European responsibility – in Norway, in Lithuania and in the rest of the European family of nations. It is also in this European family that Belarus should take part.
• What perspectives could we have for Belarus and its relations with the rest of Europe and the wider international community?
• There is readiness to engage with Belarus not only on the part of the UN and the OSCE, but also on the part of the Council of Europe, the European Union and individual countries. If we wish to see Belarus become a normal, democratic European state, then isolation is not the answer.
• That is why Norway supported the inclusion of Belarus in the EU Eastern Partnership, as well as in the Northern Dimension cooperation between Norway, Iceland, Russia and the EU – as an observer. We have stepped up our engagement with the country in recent years – primarily through increased support for forces that promote respect for human rights and democracy, including an active role for civil society. Our support for the European Humanities University is part of this picture. 
• What now, after what happened over the past few weeks? Should we slam the door shut and give up? Of course not. We must respond in several ways. And we are doing so:

First, we must make our views known to President Lukashenka and his government. This is done in many ways. I have done so through public statements, and our views have also been conveyed directly to Belarusian authorities. Another example is that of my colleague in the Norwegian Government, our Minister of Research and Higher Education. Picking up on an initiative from the European Students’ Union, she invited European colleagues to join her in an appeal to their Belarusian colleague to express their common concern about reprisals against students who had participated in the post-election demonstration in Minsk, and the violation of academic freedom in Belarus. I am pleased that one of those who joined her in this initiative was her Lithuanian colleague.

However, the seriousness of the situation in Belarus calls for more than words to get our message through. Hence, like the European Union and others, Norway has imposed restrictive measures targeted at individuals that are responsible for the fraudulent elections and the crackdown on the democratic opposition, civil society and representatives of independent mass media.

Second, we strengthen our support for the forces that work to promote democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus. Our continued support for the EHU is an essential part of this. We are also contributing to the EHU Emergency Fund, which has been set up to help students who are now unable to continue their studies in Belarus, to do so here in Vilnius. We are alco acting jointly with our Nordic friends. The Nordic Council of Ministers plays an important role in securing a financial basis for the EHU. It also has several other activities in support of democracy, human rights and civil society in Belarus.

Third, in international fora like the UN and the OSCE, we will continue to work with partners in the international community to keep Belarusian authorities accountable, and to promote compliance with the international commitments that Belarus has undertaken.

• Let there be no doubt: Europe has no wish to isolate Belarus. To the extent that Belarus is not fully integrated in European co-operation structures, this is about self-exclusion inflicted upon the country by its own authorities.
• The Council of Europe is a case in point. Belarus is the only European country that is not a member. This is an anomaly, and we would all have liked it to be different. But only the Belarusian authorities can take the necessary steps to qualify for membership. It is a decision the government has to make itself.
• Should they wish to embark on this road, support and advice will be readily available.
• As a final remark, here at the European University of Humanities, let me reflect on what I see as a core humanistic value; the need for dialogue with our adversaries. To not only talk to those with whom we agree, but also to those with whom we disagree.
• We who defend dialogue are not utopian dreamers. It is regimes who oppose dialogue that prefer to live in a world they wish existed. It is leaders like president Lukashenka and colonel Gaddafi who seem to be living in a perverse form of utopia.
• To be willing to talk to an adversary is not weakness. It is strength. And it is not cowardice to debate your opponent and try to persuade the world to follow you by speaking your values. It is courage.
• In this sense, defenders of dialogue might best be described as principled realists. In Europe we have seen many prime examples, like Vaclav Havel and your own Vytautas Landsbergis. Today we should do our utmost to support the principled realists of Belarus.
• I do not say we should talk to everyone, under any circumstance, regardless of other considerations. All countries have their “red lines” that are not to be crossed. But we should defend the path of dialogue strongly against those who would dismiss it out of hand. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: dialogue may well be the worst of all policies, except for all the others.