Vintsuk Viachorka: “Chamber Men” Do Not Belong To EU Structures

Parliamentary speakers of the states that want to have a closer relationship with the European Union have arrived to Warsaw under Poland’s initiative.

The meeting is attended by 12 delegations, including the one from Belarus. The Belarusian delegation is headed by deputy chairman of the "chamber of representatives" of the National Assembly of Belarus Viktar Huminski.

Political and civil figure Vintsuk Viachorka has commented upon the invitation of the Belarusian “parliament” representatives to the above-mentioned meeting, to Radio Racyja.

– How do you assess this Poland’s step towards, first of all, Belarus?

– I just wanted to point out the institutional choice for such contacts. Let me remind that Mr. Ryszard Terlecki also met with the heads of the so-called “chambers” of the so-called “parliament” during his visit to Minsk. This contradicts the practice that existed until now, and admits the necessity to communicate with the authorities of Belarus, but with those authorities that really make decisions. With Lukashenka’s people, profile ministers, or, let me say, with the officials responsible for borderline service, for the economy, with the representatives of the administrations of the regions located close to the borders.

As for the structure that decides nothing but plays an imitation role at the same time (like, there allegedly are elections in Belarus, the elected “parliament” allegedly exists), it never got involved in the contacts like this before. Sadly, the invitation of these people to Warsaw actually means recognition that Belarus allegedly has “elections” and democratic political system. This seems something new.

- Ryszard Terlecki , the Vice-Speaker of the Polish Seym, who officially visited Minsk recently, stated that Poland was eager to advocate for the countries that want closer relations with the European Union. Is there such a desire in Belarus, among the top state officials?

– A considerable part of the Belarusian society, especially young, active, and better educated people have common European, Euro-Atlantic values. As for the authorities, they remain post-Soviet firsthand, and, secondly, pro-Moscow.

I mean not only the everyday orientation to Moscow, but the values that the authorities share with Moscow. There regimes are attracted to each other because they are both anti-democratic, and Kremlin forms the agenda, being the main anti-democratic regime.

So, this is a sort of an illusion and playing to the tune of the professional messages that Minsk’s official diplomacy sends westwards. It includes confidential talks in the corridors and hints. Like, we would like to achieve equilibrium between Moscow and Brussels, but it is so hard, please support us.

This is simply untrue, as the authorities make to democratic changes, which would meet the people’s longing for the normal free life, free economy, an opportunity to choose their government and protect their independence; no steps like this have been taken.

- Still, the authorities sometimes take the liberty of poking the Russian side. Recently, the Center for Strategic and Political Studies, and this is an official structure, published the report of Arsen Sivitski and Yury Tsaryk “Belarus in the Context of Russia-NATO Counterstand: Threats and Challenges for Sovereignty, Independence and National Security”. This report clearly indicated that Russia could threaten the independence of Belarus.

- Sivitski and Tsaryk wouldn’t say a word if they hadn’t got clear permit, or, better to say, order from the ideological department of Lukashenka’s administration. It is obvious that such messages as, for example, the return of the Belarusian language in the non-vital spheres (like advertising in the streets), are used by Lukashenka adherents also to trade with Moscow.

Look, Sivitski and Tsaryk published this, Lukashenka said something, Makey said something in Kyiv, and, here you are, here come the discounts for gas. Moscow still needs Minsk, and in this sense, Lukashenka, whose leash is getting shorter nevertheless, creates himself the space for such trade, with Moscow in the first place.

- Nevertheless, in Kyiv, Makey thanked the President of Ukraine for assistance in restoring constructive dialogue between Belarus and the European Union.

- Actually, the “intermediacy” in the communications between the official Minsk and the European Union, which is often mentioned in connection with Ukraine, or the official Warsaw started talking about it now also, this is a thing that sort of lacks contents. If Warsaw chooses the path of supporting ambiguous regimes hoping to distract them from Kremlin, this will be done also without excess intermediaries.

- What does Poland count on here, involving the former outcasts in such official contacts? Does it just hope that the Belarusian regime will facilitate termination of the conflict around the Polish national minority and the Union of Poles in Belarus?

- Your last question partially answers itself. Indeed, the foreign political missions of Warsaw sort of narrowed to the support of the Polish national minority in Belarus.

However, I am deeply convinced that the Polish national minority cannot possibly feel free and well in the non-free Belarus. Unfortunately, this inflexible regularity cannot be stepped over. Generally speaking, it remains highly desirable that the Belarusian theme in the Polish politicum wouldn’t be a subject of interparty disputes and refutes of what was done previously and now.

For example, in the United States, the two-party understanding with regard to the Belarusian politics has existed for a long time. Both Republicans and Democrats recognized the act of democracy in Belarus. It seems to me that the issue of Belarus as a very important, one of the key neighbours of Poland, must also be the subject of an inter-party consensus.