Mistreatment of political prisoners was the primary focus of non-governmental media in Belarus over the last week. Two former political prisoners of the Belarusian KGB fled Belarus following their release on condition that they would not leave the country. Ales Mikhalevich, a former presidential candidate, is currently in Prague seeking political asylum. Natalia Radzina, editor of the anti-government web site charter97.org, fled Belarus yesterday and is rumoured to be in the United Kingdom. Ales Mikhalevich has already revealed details of the harsh treatment of detainees which may amount to torture. Following Mikhalevich’s lead other opposition activists started revealing details of beatings, sleep deprivation, and other methods of physical and psychological pressure used by security services. Mikalai Autukhovich sent a letter to the Belarusian service of Radio Liberty giving graphic details of abuses in Belarus prisons. He is still in custody.

The National Bank of the Republic of Belarus has recently started devaluation of the Belarusian ruble. Foreign currency is now officially allowed to be traded at an exchange rate that is deviating as much as 10 percent from the official rate set by the Bank. The poor competitiveness of the Belarusian economy was the main impetus for an urgent devaluation of the currency. According to Timothy Ash, head of emerging market research at RBS in London, the rapid reduction in convertible foreign-currency reserves would necessitate an eventual 20-30 percent drop in the rate of the Belarusian ruble. Supposing that the RBS analyst is correct, within the next 3 months, Belarus will further devalue its currency by 36-44 percent relative to January 2009 levels. This dramatic devaluation is aimed at decreasing the current account deficit by encouraging exports and limiting imports. In the short run, this may help to revive economic activity; judging it with a longer-term perspective in mind, however, the rebound of the Belarusian economy is highly unlikely.

Last week, Russia issued an ultimatum to Belarus to present a programme of economic reforms “within 10 to 12 days”. This would be a necessary condition to begin the process of negotiations for new Russian loans to Belarus. Apparently Russia is putting more pressure on Belarus to make structural reforms. This pressure can be far more effective than any pressure coming from the European Union. There are two schools of thought with regards to cooperating with Russia in order to democratize Belarus. One views cooperation with Russia with suspicion because of Russia’s expansionist sentiments demonstrated in the events that unfolded in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Moreover, many doubt that Russia, which has serious problems with democracy and human rights itself, can have positive influence on Belarus. Others think it is necessary to cooperate with Russia since it has long enjoyed a much stronger influence on Belarus than any other country.

As Europe’s “last authoritarian state”, Belarus is often portrayed as a divisive force: in Moscow sit its supporters, in Washington and Brussels – its detractors. This dichotomy tends to gloss over the multi-faceted nature of Minsk’s foreign relations. One facet that merits more detailed analysis is the growing relationship with China. Since official relations were established in 1992, China’s leaders have lavished considerable attention on Belarus: Hu Jintao visited the country as Vice-Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1998 and 2000; Premier Wen Jiabao made a historic two-day visit in November 2007; and in March 2010, CCP Vice-Chairman Xi Jinping, who is likely to succeed Hu as President of China in 2012, came with a delegation of 49 executives and Commerce Ministry officials to sign a raft of new trade and investment agreements. Likewise, President Lukashenka has made numerous visits to Beijing over the years, most recently in 2005, 2008, and 2010. Given the moderate size of Belarus in economic and demographic terms, and the few advantages it offers in terms of resources and markets, it is a bit puzzling that Beijing’s nomenklatura would make these diplomatic overtures. Sino-Belarus relations in many ways reflect the complex motives of China’s foreign policy in the developing world today. As Beijing leverages its position as an emerging world power, it is pursuing new forms of economic diplomacy that aim to secure resources and markets overseas. At the same time, it still resorts to a revolutionary diplomacy that emphasizes national sovereignty, anti-hegemonism, and Third World solidarity. One might argue, of course, that the economic and political motives of China’s diplomacy go hand-in-hand: political relations open doors for Chinese investors; by the same token, economic activity can help accomplish geo-strategic objectives.

As Japan is dealing with radiation leaks and Germany is shuting down its nuclear plants, Belarus committed to build its own nuclear plant. Belarus has a special and tragic relationship with nuclear power. In 1986 most of the fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear plant landed in Belarus. The country is still recovering from the aftermath of that disaster. For years the Belarus authorities were toying with the idea of having its own nuclear plant station. Belarus is literally encircled by the Soviet-type power plants in neighboring countries without having its own. The main rationale to have its own nuclear energy is to diversify energy supplies. The country overwhelmingly relies on Russian oil and gas and the idea was that a nuclear power station would make Belarus more independent from Russia.

The current plight of the long-standing authoritarian regimes in the Middle East is raising new questions about the fate of the regime in Belarus. The wave of democratisation that had transformed most Eastern European countries left Belarus untouched, and the current wave of regime change is again bypassing the post-Soviet state. President Alyaksandr Lukashenka continues to enjoy a monopoly of power while the opposition parties remain too weak to challenge effectively his political dominance. The regime in Minsk resists the transition from one-party government to pluralistic democracy and from state-controlled economies to relatively open market economies that happened in many post-communist countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Last year, the total foreign debt of Belarus increased by $6,452 mln or 29,2%. By January 1, it amounted to $28,512 mln, or 52,2% of the national GDP. According to the Belapan news agency, the foreign indebtedness per capita in Belarus is currently $3,007, although at the beginning of 2009 it was just $1,596. According to the IMF, Belarusian foreign debt will keep growing. Thus, by the end of 2011 it can reach 57,3% of the GDP, by the end of 2012 – 61,9%, and by 2016, the debt can amount to 74,5% of GDP. Will the government find courage and resources to change the course which has led the nation into the debt? Oddly enough, the Belarusian government today does pay attention to the opinions of the IMF and the international community. Recently, it has decided to correct loan interest rates according to the IMF recommendations. But, of course, the most important recommendation is to privatize state-owned firms, which entails a fundamental overhaul of the entire Belarusian society and its values. Unfortunately, in the absence of transparency the only realistic privatization in today’s Belarus could only be a result of manipulations by the regime’s insiders. The main problem with the indebtedness is not about the amount as such. After all, many developed countries have much higher debts. Yet their economies are working, and they can repay them over a reasonable time span. Is this the case for Belarus?

The recent presidential elections were too costly for the Belarus government. Alexander Lukashenka managed to remain in his seat but at a far higher price for his reputation and the Belarus economy than before. Two years of hard diplomatic work to better relations with Europe were wasted over a few hours on December 19. It is clear that only special arrangements with Russia made Mr Lukashenka less sensitive to the reaction of the rest of the world. But are these arrangements really beneficial for Belarus in the long run? About a week before elections Mr Lukashenka signed a number of agreements related to the Single Economic Space, which included new terms of oil supply to Belarus. Two presidents agreed that Russia would deliver 21.7 tons of duty free oil to Belarus, on the conditions that 100% of custom duty on oil products will be paid to Russian budget. At first it seemed to be quite beneficial for both sides. However, it turned out that Belarus also had to pay a fee of $46 USD to Russian oil producers for every tone. But it is not all – in case Belarus buys less oil than agreed volume it has to pay penalty to the Russian side. It means that all previous agreements with Venezuela and Azerbaijan on oil supplies have to be reconsidered and even abolished, as Belarus will have no capacity to process that oil too. Russia, which first did not take seriously all the attempts of Belarusian government to diversify energy resources supply, suddenly got nervous and grabbed Belarus back to its strong oil embrace.

Yesterday the United Nations apologized for a mistaken statement that Belarus supplied helicopters to Ivory Coast violating the UN embargo regime. Even if these allegations were true, there would be not much what the UN could have done about it. The damage would be only to the Belarus reputation, which is already bad enough. Currently, there are over twenty UN embargoes most of which relate to African countries. In addition, United States, the European Union and other countries impose unilateral embargo regimes. International embargoes have been violated for as long as they exits. Although the word embargo sounds serious it is very difficult to punish those who violate arms embargoes. When it comes to violations of UN-imposed embargoes, the UN can only take concrete action upon approval of its Security Council. It is usually the security Council which adopts sanctions, no-fly zones or authorizes peacekeepers' missions.

The waves of revolutions rolling across the Middle East have taught the Belarusian regime an important lesson. Helping fellow dictators in need – even in faraway African countries – pays off in the long run. Democratic dominoes do fall, just as Dwight Eisenhower predicted half a century ago, and the more autocratic regimes are still standing the more secure one’s own hold on power. Together with economic benefits and the lack of concern for its already irredeemable reputation, this explains why Belarus arms one autocratic regime after another defying the international community. Just yesterday, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said Belarus violated the international arms embargo on Ivory Coast. Minsk is accused of delivering three attack helicopters and related material to President Laurent Gbagbo. According to Ban’s spokesman, additional deliveries were scheduled for Monday. How big of a deal is the Belarusian assistance to Gbagbo? Minsk’s transfer could potentially tip the balance of power in Ivory Coast in Gbagbo’s favor and will certainly lead to a new bout of political violence in the country. In fact, Gbagbo may have a lot to learn from the 16-year rule of the Belarusian President. Like Alyaksandr Lukashenka, Gbagbo is clinging to power after disputed 2010 election. To be fair, Lukashenka’s pursuit of his political opponents after December 19 has been much more elegant than the power struggle in Ivory Coast, which is teetering on the brink of another civil war.

As Muammar Gadaffi deploys aviation and artillery to protect his rule from Lybian citizens, Alexander Lukashenka vowed to use Belarus army to protect his political regime. Although not everything said by Mr Lukashenka should be taken seriously, this statement should not be left unnoticed by the international community.  

  I can not call myself a theatre specialist or a lover of contemporary art. I do not know if I could appreciate the artistic value of the performances of the famous Belarusian Free Theatre. I shall admit that, like probably most of the readers, I have never been to a performance by the theatre, which I certainly plan to eventually fix.

Despite the dark clouds of political repressions Western businesses still express interest in doing business in Belarus. Recent evidence of that is an event in Minsk organized by the Ministry of Economics called “Belarus Capital Markets Day”. Apparently, Belarus authorities want to look serious with their privatization plans.