Adam Michnik: “Bandit Lukashenka simply gone mad”

There cannot be any kind of dialogue with Belarus before political prisoners are released.

During the work of the Wrocław Global Forum, Adam Michnik, the editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland), shared his vision of the situation in Belarus.

A well-known journalist has given an interview to “Radio Svaboda”.

- Why the policy of dialogue with the official Minsk and of Belarus’ movement towards Europe, held in 2008-2010, has failed? It was beneficial for Lukashenka in a certain sense, wasn’t it?

- There is a great risk in such a policy. And what has happened in Belarus is very vexing, it is a catastrophe. The logics of Europeans and also a part of Belarusian oppositionists was the following: we should support Lukashenka a little economically, for him not to walk all the way towards the new Soviet Union. But we failed.

- During the election campaign Radoslaw Sikorski, a Polish Foreign Minister, together with his German counterpart Guido Westerwelle visited Lukashenka. He was promised financial aid for holding more or less fair election. At the same time, Europe, including Poland, supported opposition, Lukashenka’s rivals, in the election campaign. Didn’t he view that as hypocrisy, thinking that in reality the West wants to let him down?

- It was not hypocrisy, but two-way policy. Neither Sikorski nor Westerwelle have ever concealed that their aim is a democratic process in Belarus. However, Lukashenka has double-crossed them.

- Many people now believe that the West, the united Europe should pursue hard policy towards Belarus, to the extent of imposing economic sanctions. And what is your opinion? And by the way, what was the attitude of “Solidarity” towards the sanctions imposed by the US after martial law announced the in Poland in 1981?

- I want to say frankly that I am on the side of the Belarusian democracy and I consider Lukashenka a bandit and tyrant. However we saw situations when tyrannies turned into liberal authoritarianism.

I was in favour of sanctions in 1981, despite of the fact that some people said that it is a policy of one’s motherland’s treachery. But when “Solidarity” leaders saw that the thaw started, new logics started to work. We saw contradictions in the camp of the authorities, division into conservators and reformists. The same happened in the Soviet Union in the times of Gorbachev.

I was thinking in the same way as Andrei Sakharov: that we should make this gap wider, we should take part in the process.

I believe that Sikorski in 2008 had the same logics towards Belarus. But one time it is a winning strategy, and the other time not.

- What should be a policy of the West now: a tough line or an attempt to widen the gap, which probably does not exist?

- While people are in prison, there is no place for a line for widening the gap and for a dialogue. People should be snatched from there. Then conversation is possible. But I am a pessimist as far as Lukashenka is concerned. I fear he has gone simply mad. He has become out of wits completely, he fears everyone, does not trust anyone.

- The fact that at the moment Belarus is getting more and more dependent on Russia because of the harsh policy of the West. Is it of any importance?

- Certainly it has. But a paranoid cannot make any concessions. After these political processes concessions by the West would be a great mistake, which would not be understandable for the democratic community of Belarus.