Robert Boehme: Belarusian authorities have inadequate reaction to U.S. sanctions

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, responsible for Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus affairs Robert Boehme, answered questions of Radio Svaboda, sites visitors and listeners on 2 April.

“We see that the reaction of the Belarusian government to the sanctions against Belneftekhim demonstrates the sanctions are effective. We consider it to be inadequate reaction, but it’s absolutely clear the sanctions are very powerful,” Robert Boehme said answering the question of how fruitful he finds U.S. sanctions against Belneftekhim.

– For how long will such country as the United States hear and fulfil demands of illegitimate Lukashenka’s regime (demands of the Belarusian Ministry of foreign Affairs to the U.S. embassy are meant)?

– We have recently received new demands [on cutting embassy staff in Minsk] and we regard them as illegitimate and groundless. They have no grounds to advance such demands. It’s not a way of cooperation between countries. We don’t see any reasons for these demands, but we are considering them, it’s all I can tell you.

– Is break of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Belarus possible in this situation?

– I think it is the question for the Belarusian authorities. They made all steps. They are constantly putting forward new demands without any causes. So this question is not for us, but for the Belarusian government.

– Is it possible the sanctions against Belneftekhim will be ineffective and lead only to further repressions and strengthening Russia’s influence on Belarus?

– I think the reaction of the Belarusian government to the sanctions against Belneftekhim, we see, demonstrates the sanctions are effective. We consider this reaction to be inadequate, but it’s absolutely clear the sanctions are very powerful.

– But doesn’t it mean the repressions against participants of the peaceful demonstration on 25 March and new trials over opposition activists have been caused by the sanctions?

– I don’t know. It may be a sign of desperation of the regime. The regime might feel it loses control, and thus make a retaliation strike. It’s hard to say, but the regime is likely to be in great perplexity.

– How far is the United States going to advance in the cold war with Minsk? Isn’t it obvious how Russia uses the Belarusian regime for its purposes?

– We focus on the situation in Belarus, on right of the Belarusian people, on the methods of Lukashenka’s violation these rights. The regime don’t release political prisoners in spite of its promises, suppress demonstrations, don’t allow free media to work. In my opinion, the question of what is happening inside Belarus is more important. We are speaking about Belarus, not other countries.

- How would you comment the opinion that the Belarusian regime was set up and is controlled by Russia?

- I do not have a possibility to comment on what Russia does or does not. Naturally, relations between Belarus and Russia are difficult. They have very close economic relations, and sometimes Russia exerts economic pressure on Belarus, but again, we are concentrated on the Belarusian nation. And to our mind, to formulate this as a question of some third countries means not to pose the right question. We should concentrate on the democracy coming into Belarus.

- How does the US Department of State treats the strategic problems of the Belarusian nation – eradication of the language, culture, historic memory; national independence loss risk?

- I think that in the issues of statehood we have made it clearly understood that this issue could be freely solved only by the Belarusian nation. But now we absolutely do not see conditions in which the Belarusian nation could make such a decision about the future of the country and their own statehood. As for the issues of culture (Belarusian identity, language), they also should be solved in the context of democracy. But Belarus is not a democracy, and it shows the problem when Belarusian nation does not have the right to vote on the fate of their own country. Belarus is a dictatorship, not a democracy.

- What is your attitude towards the situation when Alyaksandr Lukashenka rules the country for 14 years?

- I do not think that the question is, for how long some body rules a country, if the person had been elected democratically. Democratic leaders sometimes stayed in power for a very long time. I can recall Mrs. Thatcher, who had been re-elected for several times in Britain. Our president Roosevelt was elected for four times. But it were completely democratic elections, when opposition candidates could carry out their campaigns freely, and express their opinions to the people.

In the case of Alyaksandr Lukashenka nothing of the kind occurs. The vote is rigged, and opposition candidates do not have a possibility to carry out a serious campaign, have access to the media. As I have said already, it doesn’t matter for how long somebody is in power, but in what way he stays in power. There is a great difference between somebody’s staying in power because it’s a free choice of the people of this country, and when it’s simply a dictator who uses all means available to stay in power.

- Can the US really help the nation which had been robbed of the power, and which cannot develop normally?

- I think Belarusians deserve it. We and our European friends are trying to support those people in Belarus who want changes. It is very important for Belarus to have an effective civil society, free media, real oppositional parties. We are trying to press on Belarusian government, in order to make it agree to basic freedoms, so that there was no atmosphere of fear, so that people who take part in rallies against the regime’s policy were not beaten up and arrested. Both we and the European Union, that has stated its objectives clearly, are doing that.

President Bush has said that Belarus is a dictatorship, and it’s simply unacceptable in a united and free Europe. Our policy is aimed at democratic changes, and if President Bush met leaders of oppositional parties and civil society representatives last year, it showed the position of our country and what we would like to achieve in Belarus.

- Now President Bush meets Ukrainian President. And what are the prospects of negotiations between your leader and Alyaksandr Lukashenka? As even the most democratic leaders of the US never shunned to sit down to negotiations table with Stalin, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and presidents who had been elected doubtfully. What or who is interfering with the meeting of the leaders of our countries?

- What the foundation of such negotiations would be? Our Ambassador in fact had been forced to leave the country, and that’s the primary channel of communication. We have made it clear that the Belarusian Ambassador can return [to Washington] any time, and we are expecting that our Ambassador would be able to return to Minsk.

President Bush has just visited Ukraine. Ukrainian President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko took power in a result of a democratic election. It should be welcomed, and the US in the person of its highest leader showed their support. The situation in Belarus is obviously very different, and naturally, we cannot speak about a meeting at the level of presidents seriously, if we cannot even have an ambassador there.

- To your mind, are changes in Belarus in the coming years possible?

- Naturally. Dictatorships do not exist forever. As I have said already, some things done by President Lukashenka look like a sign of his weakness. We have a hope that the situation in Belarus would change in a positive way, and all our efforts are aimed at that, as well as efforts of our friends in Belarus. Nobody wants the present situation to remain unchanged.