Bankrupt politicians must quit

The crisis will make Belarusians act more decisively, stated the leader of the civil campaign “European Belarus” Andrei Sannikov in an interview to the Charter’97 press-centre.

- In the period of “milk war” escalation you with Stanislau Shushkevich, Alyaksandr Kazulin and Lyavon Barshcheuski said that you are ready to fight against Lukashenka’s regime and seek the dictator’s dismissal. Does it mean that you sided with Russia in the conflict?

- The conflict with Russia is predictable, as relations in the “union” of Belarus and Russia have nothing to do with normal international relations. We wanted to get across that this conflict would be wrongly interpreted by European politicians, who are lobbying Lukashenka’s interests today. And not only interpreted, but even offered as a strategy for the European Union.

It is important to underline that problems of human rights are not dealt with in Belarus, there are political prisoners in prisons, political repressions are continued. The conclusion is that this regime is not able to cope with the economic challenges of today, and undoubtedly does not see the way to live in a democratic situation.

Today the situation is very difficult for the country in general and for each person. We should look for way out all together. The democratic forces are a realistic alternative to Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s regime. Only democracy can guarantee the individual freedom in all spheres, including economy.

- By all appearances, “milk war” is not the last one, is it? “Gas”, “combine harvesters”, “meat”, “fish” wars are predicted already…

- It’s true, it is not the first one, and not the last one. More serious conflicts are to come, as Lukashenka managed to manoeuvre in a more or less calm period, but during the crisis problems are solved due power games as well. And we are to see this from the Russian side.

All these conflicts are the outcome of the Belarusian dictator’s policy. Both the Kremlin and Lukashenka are birds of a feather. Conflict situations are their natural mode of behaviour. Relations of the states which are not based on international practice are to result in new and new wars.

That is why we are saying that bankrupt politicians must quit. I am not worried about what is going on in Russia. I am concerned with what is going on in Belarus. The mode of behaviour of Belarusian authorities towards Russia is based on secret talks and agreement. When these agreements fall through, evident conflicts take place. When an agreement is followed more or less, everything is more or less peaceful. But these agreements are related to crucial strategic issues for Belarus: state-owned property, enterprises, transit infrastructure. It is extremely dangerous to be indifferent to the things that are going on right now.

- Why Lukashenka in his revenge for milk has chosen the session of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation to be under fire, and ignored signing the agreement on the collective rapid reaction force? Now legitimacy of the agreements signed at the CSTO summit is disputed.

- He was to respond somehow. For many years Lukashenka used not even privileged, but in fact free credits from Russia, and lived at the expense of Russian money. To exploit the old rhetoric – we are keeping your military bases and shield you from the NATO – would be comic. Some blow was to be delivered. But actually it has become possible only because Lukashenka hopes to have sympathy of Europeans by demonstrating his harsh stand to Russia. And only thanks to Europeans’ flirting with the dictator he takes the liberty to do such tricks.

- But the Belarusian opposition has also been arguing against signing the agreement on creation of the collective rapid reaction force, hasn’t it?

- The opposition comes out against any military scenarios, which are not connected to national interests of the independent state, Belarus. Lukashenka is sure to change his mind and sign the agreement on the collective rapid reaction force. His behaviour is not based on a strategy or national interests, but on a desire to render blow for blow. That is why one cannot say that the opposition’s and Lukashenka’s interests have coincided in that. To depend on the dictator, on his passing moods and on his personal difficult situation in such important decisions means to expose the country to serious danger.

- “Anonymous sources” in the administration of the Russian president said that “it looks as if somebody has got tired of being Belarusian president”. What was your attitude to that? As a matter of fact, you have the same aim, Lukashenka’s dismissal.

- How could one be glad at boorish statements that one country, even if it is a big country, could bring up an issue of changing a leader in a different country? It is clear that Lukashenka has landed the situation in that. But in general, I have heard a different thing in that. I have heard Russia’s full confession that they supported and continue to support Lukashenka. It is their henchman, and he fully depends on actions of the Kremlin, which can increase or decrease support to him, depending on his behaviour.

- Recently independent political analysts and economists unanimously say that only after Lukashenka’s dismissal Belarus would be able to overcome the crisis. Do you seriously hope for that?

- If Lukashenka could quit now, undoubtedly, he would shift part of the blame for the existing situation. However, he does not think in such terms. So far he is grabbing hold of to power by all means. The most unforeseen moves can be expected from him. And when a dictator gets unpredictable, it is exceptionally dangerous.

Lukashenka can leave either voluntarily, or through holding a really free and democratic election. It would be the best situation for Belarus. And the best for the dictator and his entourage, too, by the way.

- In their joint statement opposition leaders have been speaking about the necessity to hold a dialogue between the authorities and the democratic forces. Do you think the authorities would listen to that this time?

- The opposition offered the authorities a dialogue two years ago, before the economic crisis, when the market trends in trade and economic relations with Russia changed after the prices for energy resources increased. The dialogue is even more constructive way out for the authorities and for the opposition and for the society in general today. Why? Through a dialogue a decisive evolution could be guaranteed in the shortest possible time, and without considerable losses for the today’s regime. If the regime would enter into the process of transformation, there would be no confrontation, we would be looking for solutions and answers together.

- And how do to treat the statements of Belarusian officials about a possible abolition of the capital penalty for receiving the Special Guest status in the PACE? Is it a sincere wish or another “equivoque” towards the West?

- It is the old game which was played with Europe long ago. The Belarusian authorities do not want to stop political repressions, crackdown on opponents, but are ready to discuss the two questions posed by the Council of Europe once: abolition of the capital punishment and setting up a position of an ombudsman. Abolition of the capital punishment is likely to take place through a moratorium. But it is possible to do anything one wants with the position of ombudsman: to appoint one’s people who won’t be engaged I human rights in reality. I think that would be the next stage. The authorities do not want to speak about political repressions as before.

- Lukashenka is in power for 15 years already. How could such a long existence of the regime be explained? Could these be national traits of Belarusians who like to live in a dictatorship?

- There are several factors in that. First we were generous to manifestations of Lukashenka’s regime at the early stage: to his desire to impose personal power, dictatorial ambitions, building a totalitarian system from the first days of his power. That is, we gave some advances to the newly elected president, as it was the first democratic election in the history of Belarus since 1994. But then this system started to work against the people effectively.

Everything started with ruthless grinding of the opposition. Let’s recall disappearances of Viktar Hanchar, Yury Zakharanka, Anatol Krasouski, mysterious death of Henadz Karpenka. Then suddenly Lukashenka started to receive support from the West. The “new policy” of Europeans hasn’t started today. Europeans have always tried to establish relations with Lukashenka’s regime (not the EU as a whole, but certain countries). They tried to feed the dictator with credits, develop trade and economic relations, support the transit role of Belarus. That is why the regime has become rather steady. It used the international environment around Belarus rather successfully, and undoubtedly “sponged” Russia. Russia’s support has never ended, despite of some personal conflicts.

But now this system has run out of steam, and only more harsh methods would help Lukashenka to find some money for a very short period. I mean harsh methods inside Belarus. And not against the opposition this time, but against managers, directors, both private and state companies. When people are taken hostages, imprisoned and released only after a huge ransom.

- What should be done for the regime change in Belarus and for return of democracy?

- Today there is every possibility for decisive evolution of the system. People do not like to speak of revolution in our country. Belarusians have been convinced that they do not have a right to demand the authorities to resign. But the crisis that is escalating now and exposing all the deficiencies of the political system in Belarus, will make people act more decisively. When dismissals will start, salaries and pensions will be reduced, they won’t wait for the situation to get worse. It would inevitably cause pressure on the present political system. And this pressure is to grow. In combination with political demands brought forth by the opposition, it can result in a quick change of all the scene.