Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Freedom :: Charter'97 :: News

Today we are living in a period, when our national trait is the deficit of personalities, wholeheartedly committed to their country. However, even the darkest of times cannot cast shadow upon a bright person. Andrei Sannikov – a plenipotentiary ambassador, who filed in resignation from the deputy Foreign Minister’s post just ahead of the notorious 1996 referendum. Not so long ago he used to serve as specialist for disarmament, who helped set up the National agency for arms control and inspections. At the moment Sannikov is the international coordinator of Charter’97 civil initiative and one of the democratic leaders of Belarus.

Andrei Olegovich is a descendant of Sannikov’s genealogical line, which gave the country many prominent individuals. His grandfather Konstantin Sannikov was one of the founders of the Kupalovsky Theatre and the forefather of the theatrical pedagogy. His father was a well-known theatre critic, specializing not only in Belarusian but also Spanish and Cuban theatres.

- Andrei Olegovich, what do you feel when passing by the memorial sign of your grandfather in the Skariny prospect?

- I seldom stroll in that part of the prospect. But every time I walk there, paradoxical as it sounds, I recollect the way it had been constructed. The decision to install it was passed back in 1965, but it hadn’t been done right away. Such a possibility emerged not until my granddad’s 100th anniversary. Back at that time his book was just about to see light. Everything seemed ready but we failed to make it till May 1996. And soon afterwards I resigned. My grandfather’s book didn’t appear for Zametalin crossed it out from the agenda of the publishing house “Mastatskaya Literatura”. So, he suffered for his family name. We feared that they would somehow disrupt the installation of the memorial sign, but this never happened. I assume, then head of the city hall Vladimir Ermoshin personally agreed to erect it taking a serious risk for I was already part of opposition camp by then. If this is indeed so, I am very grateful to him.

- You came to work in the Foreign Minister when Lukashenko was in power. Didn’t it bother you that you would work under Lukashenko?

- I wasn’t going to work for Lukashenko but in the Foreign Ministry. Moreover, I respected the head of the Ministry Vladimir Senko. He invited me to be his deputy and I consented to the proposal having seriously pondered my decision. Then the country hasn’t yet turned authoritarian, despite Lukashenko’s odious nature. It was the year 1995. We already signed a framework agreement with the EU and it seemed as though we would ultimately manage to stand for the final accession to Europe, despite the head of state’s negative impression.

- But referendum 1995 should have made you alert…

- To say “alert” of my condition back then is to say nothing at all. I simply realized that I would quit. The very referendum proposal and the course of Lukashenko’s policy were enough for me to realize that we have nothing in common in future with the regime. Everything became clear at last when they beat up the deputies. By the way, on that very day at 5 in the morning I got a phone call from Valentin Golubev who told me what had happened. I could have resigned back then, but I still had lots of professional stuff to do, which was crucial for the state, no matter who ruled over it. It had to do with the disarmament treaties, the Central-European Initiative, where they refused to accept us and other aspects, when we were supposed to defend the position of the sovereign Belarus.

- What does a person feel when he files in resignation from the deputy Foreign Minister’s seat?

- I remember that day perfectly. Ahead of the referendum Lukashenko signed one of the decrees, in which he directly mentioned the application of physical force in case of the parliament’s insubordination. I couldn’t accept it and had to give up the post. There were four days of vacations back then and when the holidays ended I submitted my resignation plea. I wrote that I disagreed with the policy of Lukashenko and no longer considered it possible to occupy deputy Minister’s post.

- Did Senko try to hold you back?

- No, he only told me to cool down my hot blood, though realizing that I couldn’t be stopped then. Days before that we drew a special conclusion for Lukashenko as to what consequences would befall us, given our approaches in interior policy don’t get changed. Vladimir Leonovich advised me to put off my resignation till referendum, but I explained to him that after referendum the decisions will be passed based on its outcomes, which can be predicted even now. On the same day I handed over to journalist Yuri Drakohrust a copy of my resignation plea. I asked him not to publish it yet, for it would serve me a guarantee if something wrong happens to me. And the week of nervous tensions was just round the corner.

- Did they exert pressure on you?

- They tried to pressurize me, even bribe… But one day I called the presidential Administration and told them: “Don’t you realize that I’m still acting deputy Foreign Minister and can sign any kind of paper, which will bring you, guys, into great trouble. Then I went on to invite to the Foreign Ministry the Swedish journalists and Alexander Stupnikov from NTV. They shot an interview with me. Soon afterwards my plea was signed.

- There came the first day when you weren’t supposed to go to your office in the Foreign Ministry…

- That was one of my best memories. Before I used to work at my job day and night. But then I had time all to myself. I woke up at 11a.m., took a bath, drank some coffee and smoked with pleasure… Then I went to the store, bought a bottle of beer and a bloater and felt as happy as I’ve never been before.

- And then?

- And then I faced a dilemma, being in double mind as to what to do next. I had nowhere to go, which made my departure pretty tough for me, although far more exciting and honest.

- Did you receive any job proposals?

- Plenty of them. However, some hoped that I would remain close to the state structures and could be of help to them. Those proposals had to do with the work both here and abroad. At that time I wasn’t part of any opposition structures.

- How did you view opposition from the Minister’s seat?

- Strong, united and enthusiastic. However, one should bear in mind that times had been different then. Opposition was powerful and everyone remembered the year 1991 when the communist regime was overthrown, while the failure with 1996 referendum was perceived more as the accidental mistake. The visible resistance looked stronger then it does now and one could get an impression that opposition followed consecutive and logical policy.

- How did you befriend opposition circles?

- I wasn’t so remote from opposition, having friendly relations with many politicians. Some I knew really well. With my old friend Valentin Golubev we have often discussed the situation. However, it was Gennady Karpenko who personally got me involved into the work. Once he invited me to the meeting of the economic committee. I proposed to call this committee a public coalition government and that’s exactly what they named it. It included Karpenko, Shlyndikov, Bogdankevich, Zakharenko, Khodyko and many other prominent politicians. That’s where my active political work started outside of the state structures. And soon I stopped receiving any job proposals.

- Did your foreign policy activities also come to a halt?

- Absolutely not. When I left Foreign Ministry I in no wise left foreign affairs. Instead, I actively maintained contacts with others, engaging in international visits of all different levels. For instance, the Swedes immediately arranged my meeting in Stockholm with the Foreign Minister of Sweden. I also took part in all sort of international forums on security and disarmament.

- Charter’97 civil initiative appeared in fall 1997, didn’t it?

- Right. When it finally became clear who the influence group are, there ascended Charter’97. If you recall the years 1996-1997, you may state with all assuredness that those were the years of journalists – a totally unconditional corporative solidarity and decisiveness in pursuing one goal for all. I liked the way the independence press functioned back then. First, it was so exciting to read the newspapers then. Secondly, the journalists were in the limelight of attention, holding actions that rocked the society. And when the journalists came up with such a proposal, I had no doubts on that anymore. Moreover, by that moment I knew pretty well those people with whom I would cooperate. Charter’97 was no division of the “political pie” or something. I rest assured even up to date that should all the democratic forces sincerely helped us then, we would attain any goal possible.

- But parties’ interest claimed victorious?

- No, but the zeal and carefulness of both parties and certain NGOs. Our parties started developing strategy towards the fall of the totalitarian system. In Poland too they had common force under the “Solidarnost” brand. It was kind of more complex in Serbia, but the parties managed to unite into the “DOS” union. In our circumstances we followed the party construction course and ideological competition, although the undemocratic country rules out the successfulness of this route. That’s where our many problems with unity stem from.

- How come you managed to open representation of a political opposition structure abroad, in such a city as Brussels?

- My personal contacts helped us do that. When we opened it, we thought why the parties don’t do the same? You see, we didn’t invent anything new – the foundations of the Polish “Solidarnost’s” support existed in many countries of the globe.

- What was the benefit from opening that representation?

- I’d call it immediate informational breakthrough. The office opened its doors for everyone, being frequently visited by the heads of the Belarusian political parties, hosting receptions for public figures and organizing exhibition of the Belarusian art. Belgian main newspaper ran a material about the opening of our Brussels office. During our representative’s stay there the European Parliament passed 4 resolutions on Belarus. This direction of our work could well form such a shield of international solidarity, which wouldn’t let the OSCE PA legitimize the so-called Belarusian parliament, as it regrettably happened weeks ago.

- In February 1999 RNE thugs attacked you in the street and they beat you almost to death. Do you regard the incident to be an assassination attempt or mere coincidence?

- At first I took it for a misfortunate accident. However, further situation development revealed that this act has been conspired beforehand. I had numerous facts evidencing that: visits of the police officers to my home in the company of KGB agents, attempts to blackmail us through instituting legal action against us, the victims and hasty cessation in investigation into the attack.

- The period of the early 90ies was crucial for the foreign policy of Belarus. What did you have to do at that time?

- In early 90ies our country faced the dilemma of how to become an equal partner of two nuclear countries and this task has been successfully solved by 1995 – we became signatories of the nuclear disarmament treaties. I was one of the very first Belarusians to walk into the doorway leading to the NATO’s central headquarters. Then I was in charge of preparing visit to Belarus for NATO’s secretary general Manfred Verner. He paid great attention to the situation development on the territory of the former USSR and today they call this man a forecaster, for he knew exactly what NATO must do about the former Soviet republics. With him at the head NATO turned into a political, rather than military alliance.

- You’ve been in charge of preparing president’s first international visit to France, haven’t you?

- Right, and we wasted too much energy on that. Later we, with the French ambassador Mr.Zholif discussed this visit and determined that if had we scheduled it for the year 1995, as originally planned, this could change our history. However, they delayed it till 1996, when they announced a referendum and the Belarusian regime simply misused it for their propaganda purposes.

- Theatrical genes somehow affect your contacts?

- Sure. In America I have a great friend Elen Stuart – a founder of an American theatre “La Mama”. She started her theatrical activities after her brother’s fiasco in the area. Gradually her talent as dramatist was clear to all and the world, thanks to her, learnt such names as Sam Shepard, Andrei Scherban… She also helped such outstanding Polish scenarists as Kantor and Grantovsky.

Once in New York Rygor Baradulin and I went to the “La Mama’s” play. What I saw there astonished me: Baradulin, who doesn’t understand any English, reacted to every scene before the native audience, as if feeling the play in some way, unknown to the rest. Perhaps, a man of art comprehends other people of art without words.

- Did Elen Stuart come to visit you in Minsk?

- Unfortunately not, although she’s been long willing to come over here, for Belarus is sort of a terra incognita for her. We first got acquainted in the days of the Soviet Union, but even then she knew that I came from Belarus. Now she’s cruising around the world with a group of her students and stages theatrical plays in the countries of visit on the basis of local mythological materials. I’d be glad if she carried out one of her projects in Belarus.

- Why didn’t you leave for Europe, where you had plenty of employment opportunities?

- Even now I have every chance to continue my career in Europe. However, I feel most at ease here, in my country of origin. So, I’ve got to do something about the situation here. Moreover, I know very well that the situation can change and do that quickly. Something that communism and current regime failed to do in 70 plus 9 years is to annihilate human potential. That’s a mystery: how can one feel comfortable in a country, which is anything but comfortable? But we’ve got people here with whom you want to associate and commitments, which you have to fulfill… Naïve as it sounds, but that’s what they call Motherland.

- Do you think Belarus can still change? Or progress just as in early 90ies?

- No doubt, it can, though the situation here is more complex than the one, which used to be in, say, Poland or Czech Republic. We’ve just cast off the Soviet chains and immediately got into another slavery. We watch Russian documentaries about Dasaev and Harlamov and take delight in that, being oblivious to the hockey-player Sergei Shitkovsky, soccer star Alexander Prokopenko, basketball player Ivan Edeshko, who were heroes of my young age. We should look at our history from a different angle, you know.

- Come back to the Great Lithuanian Dukedom through Prokopenko, Mulyavin and Stanuta?

- In our independent press they are now debating on the return to the history of the Great Lithuanian Dukedom, Rech Pospolitaya and the historic divisions of Poland. That, of course, is necessary. However, may be we should try to get back our place in history through those people, whom we remember alive. Those we adore and love?

In early 90ies it was necessary to beat into the people’s heads that we didn’t ascend as a nation in 1917, but have a thousand year long history. Then we had to recall our contemporary Belarus – those smart, talented and strong people who are still among the living. We should fill in the gap between us, living in the XXIst century and the Belarusian knights from the medieval times.

- Can you mention concrete names?

- No problem. Among those who died during our lifetime are artist Nikolai Seleschuk, whose name vanished into oblivion for no reason in 90ies, Yuri Mironenko – outstanding theatrical scenarist. Among the living there are incomparable Vladimir Tsesler and Sergei Voichenko, who deserve not only constant exhibitions but also examination of their work and master-classes. Vladimir Ugolnik and Alexander Rastopchin are our guitar legends, along with “Pesnyary” band, whom we remembered not until Mylyavin’s death.

- During Brezhnev’s era “Pesnyary” were absolute leaders in popularity among all Soviet musical groups.

- “Pesnyary” always showed that Belarus exists. When Vladimir Mulyavin came to Belarus from the Sverdlovsk region he started singing in Belarus. He found something in Belarus, which enabled him to work more creatively. Even such a country as Ukraine, being rich for musicians, develops this trend in music through “Vopli Vidoplyasova” and “Okean Elzy” only now, which “Pesnyary” had achieved in early 70ies.

- Why don’t we see any more new Mulyavins, Seleschuks and Prokopenkos appear?

- The living environment, the natural habitat is different. Talented people fail to get recognition. We lack freedom as air, without which no country’s history can be formed. I don’t mean history from the textbooks, but rather the history of personalities, figures, who define generations’ further development.

- You are speaking of your diplomatic activities with excitement. But do you also feel comfortable in opposition?

- You mean opposition as institute or rather the state of soul?

- The state of soul…
- I simply have no other choice. Surely I am sorry to have been deprived of my favorite job, though I would all the same be unable to be doing it here. Today I’m looking at my former colleagues, left in Foreign Ministry, with compassion.

- How about opposition as an institute?

- It’s quite difficult for me to be there. Sometimes this stems from certain state of helplessness – both my own and our common one… One thought always occurs to my mind: what must be done to remove the odd things and find a common denominator for the democratic forces. It is wrong to say that democrats are united only in their hatred to the existing regime. That’s absolute nonsense. If this were the case, opposition groups would either travel abroad or join the official ranks, soothing their hatred.

- Today we see you in new capacity – one of the organizers of the People’s March. Plenipotentiary ambassador Andrei Sannikov takes to the streets under motto “Raise salaries, reduce the apartment rent!” Do you also fail to pay for your apartment now?

- Right, it is hard for me to afford paying such huge sums for my flat. But we aren’t talking about me, for I am pretty much aware how to earn enough money to pay my bills. But I know a category of people, who are made strong in wars – these people are ready to tolerate anything, but they would prefer to keep silence and quietly die out. When you realize that, you understand that something must be done about it. To put it simple, you realize the responsibility not only for yourself, but also for others.

- Can you imagine yourself as a street orator?

- Not really. What I do realize though, is that there’s no other choice. All appeals to the authorities prove to be futile, just like the attempts to follow the parliamentary path and appeals to their common sense. Once these tools failed, one must get down to the last resort – street as a direct means of communication with the authorities.

- Are you indignant over the Belarusians’ passiveness?

- I’m indignant that people protest no matter what happens in Russia, where over the past there were no serious upheavals. However, as soon as they raised public utilities, reduced wages and ridiculously augmented pensions, the whole regions broke into protests. With the current control by the Russian authorities, it is quite unsafe too, but people know that this will bear forth fruits. The citizens’ activism is a deposit of the future progress. People lived during the transition period in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland poorly to such a degree, to which they had an economic boom in the following years.

- However, the public utilities expenditures are soaring there.

- Right you are. But everything is proportionate, you know. And their expenditures are covered up by higher incomes, wages and allowances. In Belarus everything could be more effective, for there was a tremendous readiness to earmark credits and investments on part of the western states.

- What did you think when the People’s March won the females’ support in the persons of Zinaida Bondarenko, Irina Krasovskaya, Tatiana Loginova, Ludmila Gryaznova and Irina Tolstik?

- I felt gratitude and additional emotional stimulus. When such ladies take your side a man can move mountains. And when you are upheld by the country’s most recognizable woman – I mean our dear Zinaida Bondarenko, of course, then one needs no more comments.

- Let us take a closer look at two ways of development for Belarus: the worst and the best. What does the worst look like?

- If it comes to the worst, things will remain the way they are. That can bring about national extinction – culture, history and art will all die out. Will there be many of those, ready to dwell in what is left? Best people will either pass away or flee abroad. I’m judging by the people of art – today they have to worship a rascal in order to get the right for a job and start working, though not using their potential to the full.

The state, which respects itself and values human personality above all, won’t be satisfied with the lackeys, who had long forgotten what art is all about and now zealously seeking to please the regime.

- How about the best situation development variant?

- To put it short, the current leadership must step down. Illiterate government doesn’t let economy and culture develop the way they are supposed to. Meantime, the appearance of the new situation releases new forces, energy, emotions and ideas.

- Who bears responsibility for how things will move on?

- Only a group of leaders can take responsibility for that, while the nation becomes a driving force not until there ascends certain leader. In my opinion, this group can emerge today and place all responsibility upon their shoulders.

- Who is part of that group?

- Those of us, who realize that a lot had been done wrong and in vain. All opposition efforts somehow fitted in the system, imposed by the regime. The political parties fit it, because they had to get registered with the state; the NGOs – because they need sanction for their mere existence; human rights organizations – because they need state permit to protect citizens’ rights from the state. Today it is clear as daylight that we need a totally new vision and totally new approach.

- Has this new approach been formed already?

- It’s formation is still underway. Though this process is kind of slowed down, which is normal for Belarus, it nonetheless goes on. In order to realize our previous faults we had to suffer defeat at the presidential and local elections. Regrettably, the regime set up such a system, which won’t let us succeed through any democratic victories. Even during perestroika times one could do more than through the elections today.

- Have any changes occur in yourself over the past few years?

- You bet they have. The thirst and feeling of freedom, as well as the inborn need for it, became top priority in my life.

Interview was recorded by Yan Navagradsky ahead of the People’s March