"If we do not always agree with what the prime minister says, it does not mean that we want to overthrow him. We are not Kariņš's clones, we don't have to reproduce everything he said. Everyone has their own opinion. But if we must simply repeat what the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health says, then we should not sit in those meetings: let the two of them decide together, take responsibility, and that's it,” explains Minister of Defense Artis Pabriks (Development/For!, Attīstībai/Par!). Today - a conversation with him.
The media reports that informal talks are taking place on possible new government models.
I do not participate in informal talks. But if we seriously look at the work of the government and the crisis situation and openly assess it all... I have no interest in overthrowing this government or trying to become prime minister. The problem lies elsewhere. We see differences of opinion between ministers, and that is important. I think that it is not right to divide ministers into those who want to fight for health and those who want to facilitate everything so that there are no restrictions.
Rather, we have differences between pandemic fundamentalists who do not see things and processes contextually and those who want to address the crisis more systematically. If this crisis is long-lasting, then we need to understand: the restrictions will be in place for another six months or even longer, so we need to think seriously about what will happen to finances in the summer and later, what will happen to benefits? If we have money now, then let's distribute 200, 300 euros to everyone? That's not sustainable national development!
We have construction stores, antique stores, clothing stores, they could work and make money on their own, and they wouldn't need to be specifically supported. Then there would be more money left for those sectors that are having a really hard time - tourism, transport, catering... Infection figures are going down, we have a respite, we have been given time to put the system in order.
It has been talked about for a long time, but nothing has changed. What's the problem?
First of all, I believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health are afraid.
Afraid of what?
They are afraid to open up any industry because if the virus starts to spread more, they will be blamed for not doing enough to prevent it from happening. So it is much easier to ban everything so that nothing happens. But I cannot agree with that, and I am not the only one who does not agree. I am proposing not to divide the ministers into those who are in favor of strict order and those who support one that isn't so strict, but rather to put the system in order. Like, for example, lists of prohibited goods - they are still useless. The spring/summer season is about to start, people wish to plant something, there must be no new restrictions!
Trade is one of the hardest-hit sectors, with many shops being unjustifiably closed, thus perpetually restricting entrepreneurs' ability to work and the public's ability to buy the products they need. My offer: allow all stores with a separate entrance from outside to operate. Of course, by strictly observing the requirements set by epidemiologists and promptly closing those stores where increased risks of infection have been identified.
Looks like you're an internal opposition. The President quite explicitly pointed out that those ministers who will support the easing of restrictions may lose their positions. Aren't you afraid?
I have made it clear before that I am not in favor of relaxing restrictions, but of putting them in a logical order. That is first of all. Secondly, I'm not afraid of losing my job, I'm afraid of making a bad decision.
You said that you do not take part in informal talks. But it is these talks that mention Artis Pabriks, who is likely to be the next head of government.
This is a normal process - when the government grows unpopular and also when the prime minister loses popularity. So they say: the government is unpopular, it could fall. If it falls, then who could be the next prime minister? But this is just speculation: it is not in my interest or in anyone else's interest to overthrow the government. Moreover, in a crisis situation, none of the overthrowers will become popular. Often those prime ministers who have grown unpopular take the opportunity to resign, because doing so saves the party they represent and besides, people grow tired of public politics.
If we do not always agree with what the prime minister says, it does not mean that we want to overthrow him. We are not Kariņš's clones, we don't have to reproduce everything he said. We have government debates and everyone has their own opinion. But if we must simply repeat what the Prime Minister or the Minister of Health says, then we should not sit in those meetings: let the two of them decide together, take responsibility, and that's it! So it is not a question of overthrowing the government, but of putting the work in order and, let us not be afraid of that word, of regaining popularity.
Regaining popularity? It is unlikely that an even more unpopular government can be found... But it seems impossible to form another government.
That would be very difficult. Building another coalition could take months. In times of crisis, the public would not support it. If the government were to fall, the country would not be left without a prime minister. But it is not like anyone is digging a pit under Kariņš... except himself. Governments fall because of the mistakes of the members of the government themselves, not because someone from the outside is trying to pull a minister or prime minister under the water...
At a recent government meeting, epidemiologists suggested that "only the major manufacturing companies" should operate in the future.
I do not agree with such suggestions. All industries can continue to work, we can open all stores that follow the same security principles as Rimi and Maxima. With modern testing options, we can test store employees even every other day. Masks and distance can be checked regularly. And finally - if we are already such a digitally advanced nation - we can process the data obtained much more accurately. Speaking of schools: if Covid appears in a school, we do not have to close schools across the country. If an employee in a store is infected - we close the particular store for two or three weeks. We do not forbid all small shops to work! But now we're shooting at sparrows with a cannon. The economy won't survive this situation for long. Even Germany says: we can't keep everything shut for another year.
That is why I propose: to stop torturing people and to reach a compromise with society because all these prohibitions do not work. This situation discredits the government, makes the laws illegitimate, and it is not good governance. I have told this many times to the head of the State Chancellery Jānis Citskovskis, I have been talking about it in the government for two months now. I told Citskovskis: if you meet in the operational management group, you sit there for seven hours, you come with a discussion to the government, and then we sit in the government again for seven hours - talking about nothing! Where are the decisions? Where is the plan? Where is the assessment? How much will it all cost? We must put together all the indicators and decide what policy to make. But now the government is a public debate club, where we observe, wait, talk...
It can be seen clearly in the open government meetings.
I understand that this is in vogue here at the moment. Tell me, in which normal EU country are government meetings open to the public in times of crisis? It's just mockery. Each speaker first considers: does his hair look good, is he choosing the right words, and so on. It's not a job anymore!
Not long ago, Roberts Zīle (NA) pointed out that Latvia has not taken all the money we could have from the European Recovery Fund. Why, were we too shy?
A report has been received from the EU's Economic and Financial Affairs Council that they are critically evaluating how we are allocating these funds and how we plan to invest. From an economic and financial point of view, I agree with Zīle that we need to use everything we can take from the EU's common treasury and use it wisely - not just by throwing it left and right. We can buy popularity in the short term, but if we give everyone a few hundred euros the recipients will thank us and then quickly forget. But the national economy needs to be considered in the long run. Therefore, we now need to think about what the country's economy and budget will look like in the summer and autumn. I think there will be problems.
You touched on communication problems. There is no communication between ministers, no communication with the public: it does not understand anything from the confusing and illogical prohibitions. It seems that the only communication was to make government meetings public...
Public access to government meetings is not communication: there we try to talk to each other politely. Various conversations are thrown out in the public space - go and sift through them! There is definitely something wrong with communication. Both the State Chancellery and the ministries need to talk to the public in a different way - involving any media.
But wait, the State Chancellery has so many communication specialists.
Of course, a lot. But if there were not enough, they can be found. They are needed in a crisis situation. If there are no communication specialists during a war, and every deep crisis is like a war, then we can lose in this war.
Speaking of war... In Krustpils, the monument that was destroyed by local daredevils, which was dedicated to the "heroic deeds" of the occupying army, turned out to be a "cultural monument". What is the view of the Ministry of Defense on this - is it an awkward souvenir left in Latvia, an object of landscaping or something else? What to do with it?
Any such formation represents some value, political influence and political direction. The existence of Soviet-era monuments in the country must be carefully assessed, especially if they are related to the military symbols of the occupying power. There was no place for that cannon - that much is clear.
But an act of vandalism is not the answer. And it is not clear: is someone buried under it or not? If someone is really buried there, then we can act in accordance with the norms of a civilized state, namely, we can exhume the dead, with due military honor and dignity return them to Russia, because we also want to return Latvian citizens who have fallen in Russia to Latvia. Or we could bury the dead Soviet soldiers (if there are any under the Jēkabpils memorial) in one of the Latvian brethren' cemeteries.
But what to do with that cannon? Fortunately, it was thrown into the Daugava - like the Black Knight.
If it gets pulled out - put it in a museum.
There were news in the media that you were in favor of buying the Russian anti-Covid vaccine Sputnichok, forgive me, Sputnik.
No, I am not in favor. That is an interpretation. A journalist called me and asked: what do I think of the Russian-made vaccine? But I have a question: is this vaccine accepted in the EU? If it is not accepted, then there is nothing to talk about. If it is accepted, do we need this vaccine at all? Because we have contracts for a few million vaccines, which will be delivered soon. Purely hypothetically: if the people need medicine, if it is only available in some authoritarian state, then will we deny it to the people? Then you have to buy them anyway.
Therefore, I think that geopolitical issues are secondary if the health and life of the people are on the line. But at the end of March, we expect the largest consignment of vaccines, so Russian vaccines remain unneeded. It is a question of priorities. We cannot base our decisions solely on what epidemiologists say, we must also listen to economists, psychologists, financiers... And then we can draw the average - the right - decision.
What will be your attitude towards even stricter epidemiological rules, if any were put forth?
I will evaluate any variant by looking through the common prism of the Latvian economy. It must be a contextual offer. At the moment, I see no reason for a tougher lockdown. We have every opportunity to put the systemic fight against the pandemic in order. Instead of thinking: now we will close the whole country for four weeks, put the police, the army and the National Guard next to each citizen, then maybe in four weeks the disease will not be here anymore... But how much will it all cost? And what will happen on the next day after these four weeks?
*****
Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.