A Ghost at the Party :: Charter'97 :: News

Kiev’s celebration of its liberation from the Germans could have doubled as a victory parade for Belarus’ Alyaksandr Lukashenka. Just 10 days earlier, on 17 October, he had enjoyed what election officials described as an “elegant victory” in a constitutional referendum that paves the way for him to serve a third term. But Lukashenka’s trip to Kiev ended abruptly before the victory parade that was the centerpiece of the celebrations. While Putin stayed for three days, Lukashenka restricted himself to just one day in Kiev, returning after laying a wreath and attending a concert.

His spokeswoman, Natallya Pyatkevich, said on 28 October that the visit had always been scheduled for one day.

However, the press office of Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma had announced that Lukashenka would arrive on a two-day visit.

Some analysts argue that Lukashenka’s decision to rush back may have been an act of retaliation, as neither Kuchma nor President Vladimir Putin showed up at a military parade during Belarus’ liberation festivities in July.

Others believe he was angered by the cold reception that his referendum victory received from Putin.

Certainly, relations between Lukashenka and Putin seem chilly. Although an overwhelming majority in Russia`s State Duma voted on 22 October to recognize the Belarusian plebiscite as "free, open, democratic, and legitimate," the Russian president never officially congratulated Lukashenka on his victory.

But, on the eve of his departure for Ukraine, Putin took matters further, indirectly criticizing Lukashenka for extending his term as president. “I believe that in many countries, at least in Russia, stability is essential now," Putin said. "And only the rule of law can ensure this stability. There is a law that is the basis of everything--and that is the constitution. That fundamental law permits [no more than] two presidential terms in a row, and I will be guided by this."

Belarusians may not have noticed Lukashenka’s potentially embarrassing absence. Rather than show the parade, state-run television showed pictures of Lukashenka from the previous day.

Putin has thrown economic as well as political cold water on the relationship. On 27 October, the CEOs of Russia`s Gazprom and Ukraine`s Naftohaz Ukrainy signed an agreement that will almost quadruple the transit of gas via Ukraine (from 5 billion cubic meters in 2005 to 19 billion starting 2010). Belarus had been trying to persuade Russia to increase the volume of gas sent through Belarus, and some preliminary agreement was said to have been reached.

While the deal was being signed in the Ukrainian president`s residence, while Lukashenka and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliev waited outside. An nervous-looking Lukashenka apparently remarked, "Did we come here to amuse the public or what?"

LUKASHENKA AND THE NEXT UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT

Putin’s visit to Ukraine has been interpreted as a very public endorsement of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych ahead of presidential elections on 31 October. Some, such as Stanislaw Shushkevich, Belarus` first head of state, and former deputy defense minister Andrey Sannikaw, see similar electoral calculations behind Lukashenka’s absence: Yanukovych may not have wanted to have been tainted by association with the Belarusian president. (However, that fails to explain why many of Russia’s and Ukraine’s government-friendly media chose to claim that Lukashenka had been at the parade.)

Whom Lukashenka would like to see as Ukraine’s president is debatable. Yanukovych might seem his natural preference, as he represents the less reform-minded spectrum of politics in Ukraine and as his grandfather came from Belarus` Vitsebsk province. But during his brief trip to Kiev, Lukashenka managed to find time to visit the leader of the Communist Party, Petro Symonenko. Moreover, analysts in Minsk argue that Lukashenka might actually prefer the more pro-Western opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to carry the election, as this would doom Moscow to friendship with Belarus.

Lukashenka himself has been balanced in his comments, saying this summer: "Yushchenko is a normal, strong, and sensible expert, and Yanukovych is a strong personality with Belarusian roots; both are very strong personalities."

Yushchenko’s camp is distinctly cooler to Lukashenka. The deputy leader of Yushchenko’s campaign, Anatoly Hrytsenko, told Belarusian journalists on 11 October that Ukraine would “have friendly relations” with Belarus in the event of a Yushchenko victory, but he said, “Belarus poses a problem as it has preserved Asian values,” going on to criticize the persecution of the independent media and opposition leaders in Belarus.

Oleksandr Turchynov, another deputy chairman in Yushchenko’s team, takes a much tougher stance.

Speaking to the same group of reporters, he said "We are always ready to cooperate with Belarus` civil society, opposition, hold talks about cooperation at the state level, but not in the context of the regime that has failed to answer questions about high-profile disappearances and to democratize the electoral system," referring to the disappearance of four critics of Lukashenka in 1999 and 2000.

"There should be no double standards here, if we want to be a civilized country. If Western countries have a consistent position, we, too, should not keep silent."

Yanukovych offers a warmer relationship. Serhiy Tyhypko, his campaign chairman (and governor of the central bank), argues the Belarusian-Ukrainian relationship would "improve considerably" if Yanukovych were elected president.

Ukraine was Belarus` fifth-largest trading partner in 2003, according to official Belarusian statistics. Trade is booming. Bilateral trade amounted to $681 million in the first eight months of 2004, a rise of almost 54 percent on the same period last year. Belarus` exports jumped by 56 percent, to $334 million.

STABILITY UBER ALLES

But Lukashenka’s priority at the moment is not foreign policy, but--as he said on 26 October while rewarding officials who distinguished themselves during the referendum campaign--to maintain political stability and public order.

Many of Lukashenka`s "working meetings" with his government officials have lately focused on measures to ensure security and preserve stability.

He stressed that Belarus is "under particular pressure from both the West and the East." He noted that "our enemies" would jump at the opportunity to magnify a single weak point of the government. He warned the authorities against making any "concessions" to those he called "criminals and arm-wavers" lest the country plunge into chaos.

Leanid Yeryn, chief of the Committee for State Security (KGB), has already proved to be one weak point. On 18 October, in a move unprecedented under Lukashenka, Yeryn went out to a crowd of protesters angered at the fraudulent referendum and parliamentary elections, and invited some journalists and Pavel Sevyarynets, leader of an opposition youth group, to meet him for talks.

That came just an hour after riot police beat back protesters from the Presidential Administration.

Since then, Yeryn has been away from his post. Rumors have swirled that Yeryn has been dismissed. KGB spokesman Alyaksandr Bazanaw was quick to explain that Yeryn was sent on leave. But, as a KGB officer said on condition of anonymity, nearly everyone in the organization understands that Yeryn will not be allowed to return to his post.

In the opinion of the opposition daily Belorusskaya Delovaya Gazeta, what the president most objected to was not that Yeryn went out to the crowd and not that he held a 40-minute talk with oppositionists but that he said, "Everyone will learn the truth when the time comes” when asked about the disappearance of four critics of the president in 1999 and 2000.

THE DEAD AND THE LIVING DEAD

For the time being, Lukashenka has little reason to fear major unrest from the opposition. After an “elegant victory” all too clearly engineered by Lukashenka’s subordinates and with some leading opposition figures now considering emigration, the opposition is having to regroup.

Protests continue, but they are again peripheral, as they were before the elections.

On 2 November, Belarusians celebrate Dzyady, the equivalent of All Saints’ Days when family traditionally visit their family graves. Ever since Belarus gained independence, Dzyady has been marked with the march to Kurapaty, a forest near Minsk that was the site of mass executions during Stalin’s rule. Since 1997, when Lukashenka decided the day should no longer be a public holiday, the march to Kurapaty has been held on the weekend before 2 November.

This year Minsk city officials allowed only the march and memorial prayer in the forest. Political speeches were prohibited. Around 1,500 people holding candles, crosses, and white-red-white flags--the national flag before Lukashenka came to power and banned it--marched from downtown Minsk to the city’s beltway and up a wooded hill where up to 150,000 people were executed by the NKVD, predecessor of the KGB.

They were followed all the way by buses carrying plainclothes police officers.

The mood was despondent, though defiant. The fear of a fragmentation of the opposition movement is obvious. “I think that all democratic forces should unite,” said Stanislau, a long-haired young man in his 20s, trying his best to speak correct Belarusian. (Lukashenka promotes Russian and the Soviet version of Belarusian, rather than the classical Belarusian advocated by many in the opposition.) “Our main aim is to get rid of the Lukashenka regime, right? You should appeal to people, come up with something new, just be together.”

A man holding a wooden cross on his shoulder was more dejected. “I don’t know what we should do,” he said.

Many opposition politicians react in a similar way. Valyantsin Askerka is a member of the Belarusian Social Democrat Party who ran for parliament from Hrodna. His electoral district was one of only two in the country where the election did not produce a first-round victory for the pro-Lukashenka candidate. In Belarus, that can be considered a small victory for the opposition.

“What should we all do? I don’t know what to tell you,” he said. “There will be no real elections in Belarus in the near future. But, anyway, we should stay prepared to participate and win the election.”

“Informing people” is perhaps the formula suggested most often as a way of changing the situation. And there are signs that a fresh information campaign has already begun. Along Kharuzhaya, a busy street near one of Minsk’s major markets, young people hand out red booklets with a report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on the disappearance of Lukashenka’s opponents. (The report had to be published in Russia.)

And the 5-Plus opposition coalition has resumed trips to the regions to tell people more about how the elections and referendum were rigged.

On 27 October, its message was given extra validation: the European Parliament officially called the last Belarusian elections and referendum illegitimate.

A HALLOWEEN TREAT FROM WASHINGTON

The opposition has also received a surprise fillip in the form of a recent U.S. report on illegal cooperation between the former Iraqi regime and foreign countries. The name “Belarus” is all over the text.

The United States recently imposed sanctions on Belarus.

According to U.S. officials, Baghdad and Minsk enjoyed close links from 2000 right up until Saddam Hussein’s ouster, with Belarusian enterprises secretly selling to Iraq equipment necessary to create missile- and air-defense systems, and laser-guided anti-tank missiles. In return, Minsk received about $114 million. The Lukashenka administration also received money from the illegal export of oil from Iraq. A number of pro-Lukashenka parties also benefited from the oil-for-food scam.

The Belarusian bank Infobank is said to have played a major role in the transactions. According to the United States, Belarusian authorities demanded 75 percent of the payments in advance. When the Iraqi government refused, Infobank agreed to cover the 75 percent in return for a payment from Iraq equivalent to 15 percent of the value of the contracts.

The report also indicates that Lukashenka and Saddam Hussein forged close personal ties. The report also mentions several officials directly connected with the trade. Most prominent among them is Uladzimir Zamyatalin, former deputy head of Lukashenka’s presidential administration and the man who reportedly headed the committee that oversaw trade with Iraq.

Zamyatalin rejects all the accusations, though it was no secret that he visited Iraq several times and met Saddam Hussein. “Stop spreading this nonsense,” he told RFE/RL. “These are sick people, who sang to the whole world that Iraq had nuclear weapons and other WMD. They can write any list they want to,” he said, referring to the U.S. authorities.

“These officials did not go to Iraq to have a cup of tea,” counters Lyavon Barshcheuski, head of the Belarusian PEN-Center, an organization that defends freedom of speech.

Opposition politicians welcomed the report.

However, some are worried that the United States might now target Belarus. Among them is Professor Radzim Haretski, a member of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences. “God forbid, we have another Iraq or Yugoslavia here. … It’s a shame, but dictators often cause war [and] confrontation, and its first victims are always civilians.”

Few see a risk of that, but Lukashenka and other senior leaders can expect more unpleasant disclosures soon. Under the recently signed Belarus Democracy Act, the U.S. government is due to produce a report on the personal assets of Lukashenka and other leading officials.