Andrei Sannikov: Acknowledging Responsibility :: Charter'97 :: News

“Someone may harbor illusions that intensification of contacts with the “parliament” or administration may bring about positive changes. No, this isn’t going to happen. That’s a too short-sighted policy. They sought to do that many times back in the past but always to no avail. Belarus is governed by a system, where everything is in one man’s control,” – said former deputy Foreign Minister of Belarus, current Charter’97 international coordinator Andrei Sannikov in his January 22 interview to “Radio Svaboda”. “We must realize that we are wasting time in vain and may fail to become a European country in future. The acknowledgement of this danger may lead to a situation when changes will start real quick and then we will see other approaches, used by our friends, democratic countries and international organizations. Right now we find ourselves on such a historic crossways, where we have to realize all responsibility for the destiny of our people and the country in general”. Read below the text of the interview with Andrei Sannikov.

Question: After Belarus and OSCE signed memorandum, can we state that relations between the official Minsk and the Organization are finally normalized?

Andrei Sannikov: OSCE is undertaking attempts to change its approaches to Belarus and these attempts are unsafe. The Organization currently dwells not in the best condition, for it no longer keeps in relations with Belarus to the principles, it has once been built on. If you remember, there had been numerous statements by the OSCE Chairman-in-office, OSCE Permanent Council and observers at the presidential ballot, who said in unison that Belarus falls short of meeting the democratic standards. If we don’t have transparent, fair and democratic elections, the country can’t be viewed as the one, which corresponds to the OSCE fundamental principles. Nonetheless, OSCE deems it possible to make concessions to Lukashenko’s regime and ensure certain recognition of this regime. I’m concerned with what I heard from both official Minsk and OSCE, namely about the “parliament’s” legitimization. Especially because that happens in light of the Kremlin’s statements that Belarus can be incorporated into Russia not as one whole but as six separate regions. The “parliament’s” recognition may open the gateway for the legitimization of these plans. Hopefully, though, the European countries and USA will in good time realize the danger. At the moment they still have time to change their mind concerning legitimization of those bodies of power, which had been formed during Lukashenko’s rule in Belarus.

Question: Washington was the first to come up with the possible cancellation of visa sanctions, imposed on president Lukashenko and some of his top officials. In this connection some thought that the US and EU stance towards Belarus changed for an opposite: Americans became milder as compared to the Europeans. Do you agree with that remark?

Sannikov: I don’t really think so. I participated in the Washington conference, at which influential US politicians, congressmen and senators voiced rather strong-worded commentaries on Belarus. Now, something that’s happening at the moment can be regarded as an unqualified evaluation on part of the embassy. It is astounding to hear the statements of the US ambassador in Belarus that integration with Russia (and we know what is meant by integration) will not damage Belarus. These are pretty unsafe utterances, for they are perceived by the official side (both in Minsk and Moscow) as certain signals to do whatever they feel like. And so there can be certain discrepancies in approaches. However, to our knowledge the Department of State, White House, US Congress and public opinion critically view the situation in Belarus. Visa problems are nothing serious and they can be dealt with, but if this leads to the US recognition of this practice in Belarus, this would be a blunder on their part.

Question: Following a long pause Russian president Vladimir Putin still came to Minsk, saying nothing critical of his Belarusian vis-à-vis. Does that mean that the arguments between Belarus and Russia are over and president Lukashenko can celebrate victory?

Sannikov: The period of political confrontation, which started last year, hasn’t come to an end yet. Moscow harbors strategic plans towards Belarus, which come down to this: they want to control the situation here. There are also personal relations between Putin and Lukashenko. However, Putin is nothing like his Belarusian colleague and one could hardly expect him to say something critical in the country, where he’s a visiting guest. They had a personal encounter, which produced no positive results for Lukashenko. In other words, Putin continues to exert pressure on Lukashenko, especially in the issues of privatization, common currency, union’s configuration and Lukashenko’s role in the union. Negotiations were tough and we can learn more about them later, just as it took us several weeks to know the details of what happened in Saint-Petersburg. Putin’s lack of open criticism cannot be mistaken for normalization of relations between Putin and Lukashenko.

Question: Do you think the West gave up its Belarus ambitions and left it for Russia to deal with? Does Russia take into account the position of Washington politicians, who refer to Belarus as the “axis of evil” and the Europeans’ vision of Lukashenko as Europe’s last dictator?

Sannikov: There exists such a thinking in the policy of the West-European countries and USA: Belarus falls in the sphere of Russia’s interests and they should let Russia strengthen her positions there. In this way or another, they renew the idea on the export of democracy from Russia to Belarus. That’s utterly unsafe, for Russia can’t be considered democratic enough yet. Russian-Belarusian relations resemble those between empire and colony. One cannot expect the center to export democracy to the colony, for this clearly contradicts the interests of the very empire. And so I would call this political tendency to be “politicians’ greatest mistake” , while they should build their relations with Russia in different ways. Russia is striving to be recognized as democratic and therefore builds her relations with the EU and USA within the framework of G7 – that is the principles of democratic development. However, it doesn’t look so democratic at all in its relations with Belarus. This contrast is apparent and western democracies should always emphasize this point. But what’s happening now? They singled out one element of a democratic country – economic reforms – and through it try to influence the situation. But again it is Russia, which comes up with economic transformation proposals and these are no real transformations at all. What we rather have here is Russian capital competing for the Belarusian market. However, their attempts are doomed anyway, for without political changes one cannot get genuine real economic reforms.

Question: Recently the international contacts of opposition parties of Belarus have turned less active. What’s the reason for that? Could West be looking for an alternative partner in Belarus?

Sannikov: I’ve no idea whether these international contacts somehow diminished, but once again we see another of the Western tendencies. There are attempts to change situation through the official circles of Belarus, which is really dangerous. If they reach an agreement on that with the official Minsk, the democratic forces will be removed from the negotiations on the situation in Belarus. This may bring about an explosion in Belarus. Some reckon that through intensification of contacts with the “parliament” or administration they can usher in changes. No, this is not going to happen. That’s a too short-sighted policy. They sought to do that many times back in the past but always to no avail. Belarus is governed by a system, where everything is in one man’s control. History knows many such systems and one can never really count on changes inside this system.

Question: How the situation around Belarus will unfold in the future?

Sannikov: That’s a pretty naïve thesis, but everything indeed depends on us and us alone. If in Belarus they start more actively defending democracy and human rights, demanding the change of the political system, this will also influence the attitude of international organizations. Our society has ripened now and it is democratic. There’s a contradiction between recognition of democratic values, society’s aspiration to Europe and official pressure, which opposes the improvement of relations with Europe. This confrontation must necessarily solve one day. We got to realize that we are wasting time in vain and may fail to become European country in future. The acknowledgement of this danger may lead to a situation when changes will start real quick and then we will see other approaches, used by our friends, democratic countries and international organizations. Right now we find ourselves on such a historic crossways, where we have to realize all responsibility for the destiny of our people and the country in general.