Is Russia interested in regime change in Belarus?
This week Russia's Finance Minister Kudrin made it clear that Moscow was not interested in bailing out the Belarusian economy with no conditions attached. That stimulated discussions that Russia finally decided to get rid of Alyaksandr Lukashenka. However, these discussions are based the premise that Russia`s intention is regime change.
Certainly Russia has no interest to support further Lukashenka’s geopolitical juggling between the East and the West. Despite the noisy anti-Lukashenka campaign and speculations over possible support to opposition candidates, Russia`s intention has not been changing Lukashenka.
For Moscow any other president would mean a new large opening to the West. The Russian efforts more intends to guarantee the loyalty of Belarusian leader and to get the most important economic assets of Belarus – energy transit, oil refineries, potash and some other – under control. Russia certainly does not want to weaken Belarus too much and therefore could support Lukashenka’s regime financially (as it has happened before), should it be absolutely necessary. But not now. Moreover, Belarus makes ideology is based on, may no longer remain as the only option.
For Moscow any other president would mean a new large opening to the West. Read more
In this context, the Western press is eagerly discussing the lack of the right EU policy toward Belarus. But Brussels has tried everything from isolation to engagement by now. With the renewal of sanctions based approach, the EU policy has returned to the same point after a full circle.
Moreover the visa-ban itself is a great show case how much the West knows Belarus: dozens are left the positions, another dozen are not responsible for the actual court decisions, there are two heads of presidential administration and even a dead person on that list. Perhaps now it would be worth learning what is really happening in Minsk first of all in order to make the Western policy and assistance a better fit.
It is time for the West to think out of the box – consider that nothing can make the EU more attractive in the eyes of Minsk than ignorance. This is exactly what happened with the US before the elections. The American ignorance two years ago after the row over the US Embassy in Minsk when Minsk forced the US to reduce its diplomatic corps from 34 to a mere 5 prompted Minsk to give up its enriched uranium before the elections. Although the delivery is in question, the path toward a new policy is there.
Thus, a new viable mid-term strategy for the West at this moment is not to isolate but to ignore Alexander Lukashenka, meanwhile focusing on broader society as a whole. It is not an easy task considering the strong intention of the West to be (at last) principled with Belarus.
Having no oil or gas, Lukashenka has developed another commodity – his own image of a dictatorship. Read more
Having no oil or gas, Lukashenka has developed another commodity – his own image of a dictatorship. Until the West will reduce the importance of this commodity, it will keep continue to play its part from the Lukashenka's script. As Lukashenka is in the corner he is sending different messages every day: insulting European Commission President Barosso while offering dialogue with the EU. Hold your breath.
The Western press and policymakers, rightly so, have pushed for a tougher response. In the meantime a new policy must finally acknowledge that Belarus provides a more complex challenge than it seems. It is not only about Lukashenka but about a society that approves and supports order and stability and does not mind a lack of freedom in return.
To make Belarus embrace European values – such as normal leadership change through free and fair elections – the West needs to engage with all layers of society. Unless the West is able to expand its contacts and influence amongst the bureaucrats it will have a little chance to support a systemic reform and build public support for it.
Mr Jarábik is Associate Fellow at FRIDE in Madrid, Spain. The full version of this paper is available at FRIDE web site.
Whom to Blame for the 11 April Terrorist Attack?
In less than two days after the 11 April attack, Aliaksandr Lukashenka announced that the investigation resulted in capture of the suspected terrorist. According to Belarusian security services, the terrorist was a mentally ill person who had constructed a unique radio-controlled explosive device using the internet.
Police also detained a few more people from Vitsebsk, a regional center in Northern Belarus, in connection with the blast. The authorities also announced that the same people prepared two other blasts in public places in 2005 and 2008. The team of investigators, led by Andrei Shved, shared little evidence to support their findings. The authorities also made sure that their findings were not questioned in the state-controlled media. As a result, the Belarusian public remains very suspicious.
For instance, the leading Belarusian portal tut.by (which is not linked to the opposition) showed that over 60% of people polled linked the terrorist act with the authorities. The portal had to promptly remove those results from their website in order not to anger Belarusian authorities. Polls on opposition web sites showed even more mistrust towards the officially announced version.
President Lukashenka continues to hint at links between the opposition and the blast without giving any evidence to support it. Yesterday several human rights activists were detained in connection with the blast. No further details of their alleged involvement were given. In less than two days after the 11 April attack, Aliaksandr Lukashenka announced that the investigation resulted in capture of the suspected terrorist. According to Belarusian security services, the terrorist was a mentally ill person who had constructed a unique radio-controlled explosive device using the internet. Police also detained a few more people from Vitsebsk, a regional center in Northern Belarus, in connection with the blast.
The authorities also announced that the same people prepared two other blasts in public places in 2005 and 2008. The team of investigators, led by Andrei Shved, shared little evidence to support their findings. The authorities also made sure that their findings were not questioned in the state-controlled media. As a result, the Belarusian public remains very suspicious.
Belarusian authorities prevent any discussion of the terrorist act in state-controlled media. As a result, Belarusians have to relieve their thirst for uncensored information on Internet. The number of visits to independent and opposition web sites has grown significantly. Although web sites such as charter97.org were blocked in Belarusian state establishments and suffered from DOS attacks, their popularity is much higher than that of the state-run media. Last week, the authorities issued official warnings to the leading independent newspapers – Nasha Niva and Narodnaya Volya and several journalists. Nasha Niva may now be shut down at any time.
The reason for the Nasha Niva warning was that the newspaper published information that while Lukashenka was visiting the crime scene there was a young woman still alive. It appears that the woman was not there, but subsequently released pictures showed there were a number of uncovered dead bodies when Lukashenka visited the scene.
Belarusian authorities cracked down not only on independent newspapers and internet web sites, but also on individual bloggers for “spreading rumours”. Several people were detained for posting untruthful information on the internet. Massive repressions, however, against the opposition comparable to the post-election crackdown have not yet followed. With the exception of the yesterday’s detentions, the authorities primarily use the terrorist act for propaganda purposes.
Both the opposition and the authorities accuse each other of using the terrorist act to reach their immediate political goals. Mutual accusations of the regime and the opposition in organizing the terrorist act show just how bad the political climate in the country is. It is hardly possible to imagine that authorities in Russia or Ukraine, let alone Western countries, would blame their opposition for terrorists acts. In Belarus, however, it is becoming the norm.