Marija Golubeva. Minister of the Interior without a lie detector

The appointment of Marija Golubeva as Minister of the Interior was a surprise to everyone, probably even to her. There is only a year left until the next election, and unlike her predecessor, she has no plans to start any revolutions. Heads of services can sigh with relief. The Minister does not intend to hook anyone up to a lie detector either. That is not her style of work. But – what is it then?

The latest UN intelligence report on Latvia gives a terrible assessment: we have overarching racism, crime, violence, rural children do not go to school, disabled people and women are denied access to medicine, and minorities are discriminated against. Of course, domestic violence as well. As if we were some kind of Afghanistan. Looking at this report in government, did you read the original document and agree that it corresponds to the objective situation?

I think it is very important to notice the nuances of the language when analyzing such documents, because I doubt that the same terms are used for us and for Afghanistan. It points at some systemic problems that are also present in developed countries. Well, for example, the issue of unequal educational conditions in urban and rural areas is partly true, but it is not because we are deliberately discriminating against rural children.

I will not argue in the place of the UN about why they write their reports in this way, but I suspect that if we were to open the French report, it will look the same. They look in great detail at all aspects that are important in today's understanding of human rights, not only in relation to the fundamental human right to life, but also housing, education, a life free from violence. There are problems in each country, and they try to cover them as comprehensively as possible in their report. We just have to keep in mind that they see these problems here.

And home affairs deal with this.

I do not agree with that.

Practically everything related to discrimination, racism. These are crimes, and that is the area you control.

Crime is only what is defined as a crime within the meaning of the law. The fact that children somewhere in a small village do not have access to education of a similar quality as in Riga is not a crime.

But the report also mentions violence and various forms of crime. What is the current situation in Latvia in the field of crime?

There is less crime. This is clear from statistics. Compared to what it was, say, 20 years ago, the situation has improved. The fact that we still have problems in certain areas - we still have a lot of theft, fraud and so on, well, that also is a fact.

Your pre-election program practically does not mention national security. Why is your party and you taking on an industry that has so far not interested you politically at all?

Some issues in the home affairs sector have always been of interest to our political alliance as well. It is a very important part of our party and political alliance program. We want Latvia to be at the heart of Europe and for Latvia to cooperate as much as possible with its European colleagues in solving global challenges that we cannot solve on our own. For example, migration. And the area of ​​home affairs is one of the central areas of our membership of the European Union. In this respect, we have always been ready to be responsible for it.

But was there some kind of joint party meeting where you decided - yes, we are taking home affairs, which we have not emphasized so far?

We did not formulate it in this way but assumed that under the renewed leadership of Krišjānis Kariņš, if we were offered, we would be ready to take care of home affairs as well. Such an offer was made by the Prime Minister, and we accepted it.

People said that you should rather be the Minister of Education. Such a choice was a surprise to many.

Choosing me was because colleagues saw that I could also be the Minister of the Interior. I carefully analyzed this offer before agreeing. It was important for me to understand whether I saw an opportunity to make any improvements in this area in the short time left before the elections. And I saw the potential for change. Both in terms of combating domestic violence and in terms of improving working conditions for police officers and other services, also a gradual increase in pay. I have seen that there are things that can be done in a relatively short time and I am ready to try. That was why I agreed.

Last year, 78 murders or attempted murders took place in Latvia, 139 people died on the roads, 84 people burned to death. But at the national level, much more attention has been paid so far to corruption, hate speech and money laundering. Do you think these accents are placed correctly?

The Minister is not the person who drives the process, conducts an investigation or works to prevent money laundering. It is the Minister who enables the services to work on these issues. My priorities include, for example, improving the conditions for the professional development of employees. For investigators to have access to modern training, laboratories, for operatives to have access to modern shooting ranges. I will place much greater emphasis on this professional development as a central component of the education model. We cannot wait for new potential police officers and investigators to be trained.

And what about those who are killed on the roads, and those who burn to death?

The fact that people are killed on the roads, that, of course, is a problem, and the Road Police are working on it. But I am not really sure if the most effective way to combat it is in exactly the way that the previous minister proposed. I think we will still discuss this with the Road Police. But now it is much, much more important for the police and other services to be stronger professionally. And for their pay and working conditions to be better than they are now. This is one of my priorities, and it will be reflected in the budget's priorities.

19% of cigarettes smoked in Latvia are smuggled. Contract assassins can also come through the Latvian border, beat a lawyer with a board, shoot a footballer and leave again. Is our border like a sieve?

This is a leading question. No, our border is not like a sieve.

Clearly, we have room for improvement in the security of our borders. I absolutely agree that both the cases that were found in the reports of the State Audit Office and those that are sometimes raised by the media - the issue of smuggling is one of the biggest - are, of course, problems. But, on the other hand, we have to admit that quite a lot is being achieved with the current number of people in the border guards, and we also need to strengthen our border guards. I believe that we need to increase its numbers slightly and, very importantly, we need to restore the border guard mobility allowance for the fact that border guards do not always work where they live.

Lithuania has just requested the assistance of the European Border Guard Organization FRONTEX, as criminals from Iraq are beginning to enter from Belarus.

We must be very careful in our choice of words. The fact that illegal migration is taking place from Belarus is true. Lithuania reports this. But we cannot claim that they are all criminals. They are illegal border crossers.

Is illegal border crossing not a crime?

For example, a person can cross the border and immediately apply for asylum.

Until then, he is a criminal...

He is a criminal only if he has been found a criminal by a court.

Okay. No matter what we call them, are we ready for that many uninvited people to come here?

We are working with FRONTEX on this. Of course, we also talk to the border guards on a regular basis, and I have asked to indicate what is needed to strengthen the border with Belarus in the timeframe we currently have.

One group of Iraqis was recently arrested in Latvia.

Well, from time to time people who cross the border illegally come to Latvia. This is also the case in so-called peacetime. Their number is much smaller, and so far we have no reason to talk about a crisis like the one that Lithuania is facing.

I understand that no huge drama has taken place in Lithuania yet. They are preparing in time for what Lukashenko threatened.

Exactly. For them, of course, the number is higher than for us, but it is not the same as it was a few years ago at Europe's borders. But we must be ready for it. There I completely agree with you, we need to prepare.

You probably know the term "welcomer", which is often used colloquially.

Yes.

Do you personally support the idea of ​​more immigration from third countries? That we should become more open and, when there is a national distribution of refugees at European Union level, we should also take our quotas.

This is a very broad issue. It depends on what we mean by immigration from third countries. There are a number of areas where we could allow people to enter, of course, by checking in advance that they do not pose security risks. For example, people from Belarus, if they find themselves in a dangerous situation in their country due to their opposition activities. If they are IT specialists or from some other areas of the economy where the Latvian economy needs employees, I think that we could admit such people in a controlled way.

It is a question of a wider flow. Do we open the border for ordinary workers, strawberry pickers, everyone?

We need to look at the areas in the economy where we have a great need for this. And then we have to think about it. Think very carefully, developing a common position and only then making decisions. The issue of asylum seekers, on the other hand, is much more complex. There we have been very cautious so far. We do not have a political consensus on this. There are some more conservative colleagues who certainly do not want even one asylum seeker to stay here.

And there are those like me who believe that we, too, should bear our share, our part in saving the world.

Some of these people are really refugees, not just looking for a good life.

And some are potential terrorists.

There are also those who are terrorists. Our task is to understand who the terrorists are and who are simply people seeking refuge from life-threatening conditions in war zones or where human rights are very, very oppressed. We need to be able to make this choice correctly every time. This is a terribly difficult task.

Maybe it's easier not to let any in.

Simple solutions are not always the best. Both as a politician and as a person with an academic background, I am very inclined to try to offer solutions that are not just simple, but that strive to respect both the interests of the state and human rights as much as possible. Things don't always have to be easy.

The Border Guard would probably be happy if a fence was set up everywhere and no one came. I spoke to the Head of the Border Guard some time ago. He said the criminal case and the actions against him were because he managed to restrict the operations of human traffickers and smugglers. Can you comment on the conflict between the Internal Security Bureau and the Border Guard?

I will definitely not comment. You are well aware that the Minister does not direct criminal proceedings, the relevant authorities do. And accordingly, I cannot interfere politically.

Your predecessor initiated criminal proceedings against Normunds Krapsis.

It's not quite the same. The Minister himself cannot initiate.

He brought the materials to ISB.

Yes, this is an action I probably would not dare to do.

There is a line between political responsibility, political leadership and the progress of criminal proceedings. And politicians should not cross that line.

It is the politician's job to pay attention, to point out that something is worrying - could you please find out if there is something there or not. But to go and say politically - you have to initiate a case now... I do not see that as a good example. We need to distinguish between where the role of civilian leadership ends and where the role of specialized services begins.

But that Krapsis story was really ugly.

The word ugly is not really what reflects the specific situation, in my opinion. Of course, any infringements that are found in a lawful manner must not be concealed, they must be combated, and that is my firm position. In the home affairs system, everyone works within their mandate, everyone works within their tasks, and it is very important to maintain this balance. Let everyone do exactly what the law requires.

The question is whether there are not too many of these borders. Too many services, too fragmented. Juta Strīķe once suggested reorganizing the KNAB, merging it with the Security Police and the Constitution Protection Bureau. But instead, a whole new ISB has been made. There is a feeling that they are competing with each other and even digging under each other.

I would like to disagree with that statement. When it comes to such things, we must always be very, very precise, because otherwise it happens that we easily attribute something unjustified to people who do their job in good faith.

But the work of the State Security Service largely overlaps with the work of the Constitution Protection Bureau. Intelligence - counterintelligence. The question is why it cannot be a single body.

As far as I know, the differences in tasks between all these institutions are quite strict in the legislation, and KNAB and CPB, for example, are independent institutions. The SSS is subordinated to one ministry.

Specifically under your control.

Yes.

And ISB is under your control.

That is right, but in this case, we are not talking about institutions that function on a completely equal footing.

In other words, you do not like the idea of ​​reorganizing security institutions.

I like the idea of ​​greater cooperation, for example, where there is an investigative function. Cooperation also through capacity building using state resources. That is the issue I was talking about at the beginning. I would like a training center to be set up based on the Police College, where investigators can improve their professional skills. And it could also be used by other departments that perform investigative functions in Latvia to improve their investigation methods.

And why not the Police Academy? Are you against this idea?

I am neither for nor against. What I would like is a clearer vision from the working group. Not about what the distant vision should be, which we will try to implement for many years to come. But what should be the sequential fulfillment of priorities in relation to needs that are pressing now, in the medium term and in the slightly longer term? For example, master's programs are a good thing, but we will not create new master's programs in a year or two - with all the lecturers, the laboratory and so on. But we can set up this training center relatively quickly. Most likely, in the college territory where people who are already working could study. Who recently graduated from college, for example.

There have been some pretty awful reviews from prosecutors about both the quality of the college and the investigative materials that come to them. Of course, perhaps the prosecutors themselves are doing a bad job.

I do not want to comment on the work of prosecutors now, but I agree that we can work to improve the quality of investigations and pre-trial investigations. That would be the first round. Then next - we improve the undergraduate program. And then the third round would be master's programs, doctoral studies, research. Respectively, we would implement these rounds sequentially and gradually.

But will the next Interior Minister do that?

I am already expecting this summer an offer from the working group on what this educational model will look like. What we can manage to improve in the first round, what in the second and third. If, as a result, what will happen is, for example, not a collaboration between the college and Stradiņš University, but an academy, let it be an academy. To me, the title seems less important than the content.

There was also the idea of ​​building something based on the National Defense Academy.

I have already raised this issue in my conversation with the Minister of Defense, including the sharing of resources in the field of education, but I think it is too early to say what form exactly will this cooperation take.

Ģirģens came, raised a storm with all his lie detectors, threw people to the right, to the left. Are you planning a staff change?

I guess I belong to the school that believes that the most important thing is to improve the work processes, and only then, if it can be seen that improvements do not arrive, to raise the issue of staffing. And I have a very strong intention to focus on the improvement of the processes. We have structural reform projects that are financially supported by the European Commission. The Ministry is currently working on them. And those processes affect the police, the State Fire and Rescue Service, and the OCMA.

If the improvement process is in line with a common understanding of efficiency, resource efficiency, also less bureaucracy and people work better, I see no reason to change anything about staffing simply because new political leadership has come.

You were the only party that promised to attract professionals from abroad to the administration. Meaning, what? Let's throw out the leading employees in the field and put foreigners in their place?

You make a very different interpretation from what is said in our program. It was never meant like that. We believe that there are issues that need to be addressed more quickly and effectively with partners from NATO and the European Union. Leverage their capacity, for example, in consulting.

But at the expert or management level? It was mentioned there that you would announce international competitions for leading positions.

Yes, that is what happened in the health sector, which is in a completely different situation. Hospital corporations must be run by professionals, the best in their field. If the head of the Helsinki Children's Hospital is helping to build the capacity of our Children's Hospital as a member of the board, I think that is perfectly legitimate and good. But there are no corporations in the home affairs sector. We work in a completely different model, there are services, other functions, other tasks, and here we cannot work that way. Here we work according to Latvian laws.

With lie detectors.

No, I'm not keen on lie detectors, this is not what I'm talking about.

Home affairs as such is an extremely tough industry. A month has passed since you took office. The welcome was not very warm. Do you come to work as if it were a battlefield or have you managed to build mutual understanding with colleagues?

I have very good day-to-day communication with both the services and my colleagues in the ministry. I take part in the police selector, where, together with all the regional leaders, we discuss what happened the previous week, current events and the work to be done. Of course, I have visited all the major services and also some small ones. I try very hard to work with the services directly, not just through the ministry.

Overall, I see a rather cooperative attitude. I have no complaints. And I am thrilled about the professionalism of many colleagues.

What I still see is this is an area that has been underfunded. This is an area where cooperation is underdeveloped, both between services and with the public. And I very much hope to plant even a little seed of that cooperation, because it is much easier to fight crime if society is involved, if it helps. I also see professional officials trying to do their job in good conscience. So, in general, I don't think this place must be lead with a strong and threatening tone. I hope that cooperation can also achieve something.

However, you plan your actions more or less in the short term until the next government. You do not plan to build a career as a politician in home affairs?

I am not saying yes or no. I am absolutely aware of the political reality of Latvia. I need to do what is possible now because we do not know what will happen after the 2022 elections. Nobody knows that. At the same time, both within the department and with my colleagues in the government, I am trying to build long-term cooperation that is not focused on immediate benefits but on the ability to continue to work together. Because no matter how my own political career develops, I am convinced that my party Movement For! and very possibly also our association Development/For! will still be part of the coalition for a long time. And I very much hope that we will also continue to carry out reforms.

In conclusion, there are some more personal questions that you can, of course, refuse to answer. Your political allies systematically emphasize your sexual orientation. Do you feel comfortable with them talking about it?

Who exactly are these allies?

Well, for example, the Progressives. Do they need to talk about it?

I have never considered my private life to be a special advantage or a particular obstacle to my political activity. I believe that everyone has the right to privacy, and every family has the right to be protected by the state. But I do not believe that this is a determining factor in the professional activities of any politician or other professional. Including in the work of the Minister of the Interior.

Thank you for this conversation!

*****

Be the first to read interesting news from Latvia and the world by joining our Telegram and Signal channels.