Jakarta. As geopolitical tensions reshape the global order and conflicts continue to deepen across Europe and the Middle East, Belarus Foreign Minister Maxim Ryzhenkov says Belarus is pushing for a new Eurasian security framework that would reduce dependence on Western-led institutions and promote what Minsk describes as a more “multipolar” world order.

In an interview with The Jakarta Globe, Ryzhenkov defended Belarus’ proposal for a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, arguing that existing structures such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) have failed to prevent war and no longer reflect the realities of a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

Here is the complete interview:

1. JG: Minister Ryzhenkov, Belarus’ initiative for a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century was unveiled at the First Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security in 2023. Why did Belarus put forward the idea at that moment, amid the war in Ukraine and rising global tensions?

Minister Ryzhenkov: The idea of the Charter was not a spontaneous reaction to events in 2022 and 2023. As I explained in my article published last year in Russia in Global Affairs, the initiative builds on Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s 2005 call to respect diverse paths of development. In that sense, it reflects two decades of Belarusian diplomacy.

At the 2005 UN Summit, President Lukashenko warned that ignoring political, cultural, and civilizational diversity would eventually lead to chaos. By the time of the 2023 Minsk Conference, that warning was becoming reality. The US-led liberal order was fragmenting, globalization was giving way to regionalism and trade conflicts, and the Euro-Atlantic security system represented by the OSCE had failed to prevent war in Europe.

By October 2023, it had become clear that the old models were no longer functioning. In our view, the OSCE had ceased to be a genuine platform for dialogue and instead became an instrument of political confrontation. At the same time, Eurasia — from Lisbon to Manila — was still searching for a broader organizing framework.

Belarus proposed the Charter to fill that gap and provide an indigenous framework for cooperation as the assumptions of the post-Cold War order collapsed.
 

2. JG: In your 2025 article, you argued that institutions like the OSCE were “hijacked” and turned into tools of pressure rather than dialogue. What lessons should be learned to ensure the Eurasian Charter does not meet the same fate?

Minister Ryzhenkov: The answer can be summarized in three words: ownership, inclusivity, and indivisible security.

The first lesson is that dialogue mechanisms only work when all participants are treated equally. The original Helsinki process succeeded because East and West negotiated on equal footing. In our assessment, the OSCE lost credibility when some members used its political and humanitarian agenda to pressure others while overlooking similar problems within their own societies.

For the Eurasian Charter, the principle must be collective ownership. Belarus and Russia, which supports the initiative, will not impose a final document. The “zero draft” is only a basis for negotiations. Every participant — whether China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, or a European state — must feel ownership of the final text.

Second, the process must be genuinely inclusive, without hierarchies or intrusive monitoring mechanisms.

Third, the principle of indivisible security — that no state should strengthen its security at the expense of others — must be at the core of the framework.
 

3. JG: You have argued that external powers cannot effectively manage Eurasian security. How does the current crisis in the Middle East reinforce that argument?

Minister Ryzhenkov: The Middle East crisis illustrates exactly why the Charter is necessary. From the Balkans and Iraq to Afghanistan, Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, we see a recurring pattern of external intervention, often led by the United States and its allies, without sufficient regard for local historical and civilizational realities.

In our view, these interventions have repeatedly deepened instability rather than resolved it. External actors pursue their own strategic interests, while the people of Eurasia bear the costs through conflict, displacement, and destruction.

Many Eurasian countries can no longer rely on outside powers to shape their security architecture. Europe itself is facing demographic, energy, and migration challenges, while the United States appears increasingly focused elsewhere.

The only sustainable solution, from our perspective, is a pan-Eurasian dialogue in which Eurasian nations themselves shape the continent’s future security order.
 

4. JG: Beyond indivisible security, what practical mechanisms would you like to see included in the Charter?

Minister Ryzhenkov: Principles alone are insufficient without practical instruments. One proposal in the “zero draft” is a Eurasian Consultative Mechanism for Conflict Prevention and De-escalation.

The idea is to create a standing but lightweight framework for rapid consultations. Any participating state that perceives a security threat could trigger emergency consultations. This would not function as a court or enforcement body, but as a structured mechanism requiring parties to engage in dialogue and explain their concerns.

Such a mechanism could restore what was lost after the Cold War: a continent-wide channel for crisis communication that is not dominated by any single bloc or power. It would also operationalize indivisible security by treating security concerns as shared concerns.

We are realistic about its limitations. It would not solve long-standing conflicts overnight, but it could create a default mechanism for de-escalation during periods of tension.
 

5. JG: You have proposed a roadmap for the Charter process, including a launch in New York in September 2026 and a final summit in October 2027. Why are you confident such broad consensus can be reached so quickly?

Minister Ryzhenkov: The October 2027 target is ambitious, but achievable.

First, discussions on the Eurasian Charter have already been underway for nearly three years through academic publications, bilateral consultations, and international forums. Belarus and Russia have also produced a “Common Vision of the Eurasian Charter” outlining shared principles.

Second, history shows that lengthy negotiations often lose momentum. The Helsinki Final Act itself took roughly three years during the Cold War. Today, despite the complexity of the challenges, we also benefit from modern communication and a greater sense of urgency.

As for the likely absence of some NATO and EU countries at the early stages, the process remains open to all Eurasian states. Those choosing not to participate would simply forgo the opportunity to shape the emerging framework.

We have already seen growing interest from countries across Asia, the Middle East, and the post-Soviet region. The alternative to engagement is continued instability, external interference, and conflict.
 

6. JG: Critics in the West may see the Charter as an attempt by Belarus and Russia to expand their influence under the banner of multipolarity. How do you respond to that skepticism?

Minister Ryzhenkov: I understand the skepticism, but I believe it reflects a misunderstanding of the initiative.

The Charter is not an anti-Western project or a military counterweight to NATO. It is intended as a framework for Eurasian cooperation. Its proposed mechanisms — consensus-based decision-making, collective negotiations, and rotating leadership — are designed specifically to prevent domination by any single country.

The broader issue is that labels such as “authoritarian” and “democratic” are often applied selectively in international politics. The Charter is based on respect for diversity in political systems, development models, and cultural traditions. It does not seek to alter domestic political systems, only to promote sovereign equality and non-interference.

To Europeans who still view NATO as the sole guarantor of security, I would simply say that the global environment is changing rapidly. The Charter offers Europe an opportunity to participate in a broader Eurasian dialogue as an equal partner.

The door remains open to all who wish to engage.

---

The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity without changing the substance of the remarks.