Politics Of The Khaki Colour

Recently, Foreign Ministry’s activity is increasingly complemented by the expansion of international cooperation of the Belarusian Ministry of Defence.

The recent visit of the high-level employee from the Pentagon, which has been firstly reported by the US Embassy, has caused some interest among different observers inside and outside Belarus. Especially, when the American visitor with the modest title "Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence of the US" has been welcomed in Minsk at the highest level.

It is worth mentioning that this visit happened at the same time when the Russian Minister of Defence, General of the Army Sergey Shoygu, visited the Kaliningrad region, where he inspected the Russian troops (part of the Regional Russian-Belarusian groups of military forces), geographically surrounded by Polish and Lithuanian forces of NATO. As you know, United States increase their military presence in these countries. Hence, the modest title of the guest from the Pentagon, who ostensibly became Lukashenka’s companion during the visit, could be complemented by the additional authority of the special message personally to the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Belarus.

At least, that is how this visit has been viewed by some observers at different levels of the government on both sides of the so-called Union State, which requires, according to Shoygu, the integral component of the defence. Bilateral military cooperation, perhaps, is not enough; and, at the background of the increasing threats in this "state", supranational bodies of the control of armies are needed on its western and southern borders.

As expected, the Minister of Defence would have had to explain such plans at the meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State in Minsk. However, General Shoygu was not there. Apparently, he is going to come to the opening of the “ill-fated” Air Base. Moreover, his Belarusian counterpart, General Ravkov, looked somewhat lonely at this "historical" meeting, which lasted less than an hour. And, obviously not being in the mood, he refused to communicate with journalists.

Nor was the Minister of Defence talkative after the meeting with the American guest - Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence of the US, Michael Carpenter. "Shyness" of the Minister of Defence looks quite unusual, as recently he literally became a “spokesperson” of the official Minsk, making statements on very important issues regarding the preservation of the sovereignty with armed neutrality. In order to prevent anyone to make any illusions about this neutrality, as Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus mentioned, the strengthening of the army would discourage any attack to Belarus. However, the General did not specify who exactly should be afraid of the Belarusian army. Apparently, he recently managed to talk about the subject of threats with his Russian counterpart during the meeting of Chiefs of General Staff of the CIS-countries armies held in Minsk. As you know, today, some of them are openly at war with each other. So, in front of all those present at this meeting, the Chief of General Staff of the Belarusian Armed Forces Oleg Belokonev just said: "Today, in the conditions of sharp changes in the geopolitical situation, issues of practical military cooperation and emerging threats are in the foreground."

It only remains to add, like from the mouth of the CSTO Secretary General, retired General Bordyuzha, the list of such threats speaks: the activation of terrorist and extremist groups in the world along with the strong pressure from the so-called hybrid war, strengthening NATO's military factions with provoking escalations of the frozen conflicts in the immediate vicinity of the borders CSTO is a serious threat to security and stability.

Therefore, mentions of terrorist groups alongside "NATO military groups" may cause, for example, special attention of the Kremlin and other observers to the recent visit of the delegation of NATO to Minsk for consultations. Until recently, according to expert estimations, relations of Minsk with NATO have looked their worst. However, after the Crimean blitzkrieg, which led to the break of relations between Moscow and the Alliance, any contacts with NATO of its Belarusian strategic ally in Kremlin may be viewed somewhat ambiguously. Especially, against a backdrop of the ongoing war in Eastern Ukraine. A sort of “khaki politics”.

In the meantime, envoy from the Pentagon made a number of public statements in Minsk: about the undesirability of appearance of Russian military bases in Belarus, about the desirability of appearance (return) of military attachés in the US and Belarusian embassies and about the sovereign right of Belarus to cooperate with Russia in the field of defence.

Unfortunately, information on the future cooperation with the US in the sphere of nuclear security in the Joint Institute for Power and Nuclear Research "Sosny" near Minsk remains unknown and unclear. It is known that after the introduction of sanctions by Washington after the events of December 19, 2010 in Minsk, which led to massive repression against the opposition, the Belarusian regime, in response to the US sanctions, "froze" all agreements on financial and other assistance to the Belarusian research center. As a result, Belarus has not been invited to Nuclear Security Summit in 2012 for participation in the further promotion of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Today, no one even raises the question of how and who ensures nuclear safety in the research center "Sosny". Nor is the US interested in this question, which seems, to put it mildly, strange. Especially when Washington hosted an international summit on the nuclear security.

In this connection, it should be recalled that at times when the President Obama began his term in office, stockpiles of highly enriched uranium and plutonium were available in 35 countries. Today, the White House is proud of the fact that since then the number has decreased to 24 countries, with a special focus on Ukraine, which president was present at this nuclear summit. According to official data, the last part of the uranium left Ukraine in 2012.

At the same time, according to the LA Times reports, six countries, including Pakistan and North Korea, increase these stocks. The political breakdown between Russia and the US impeded their cooperation in this area. In addition, Putin was not present at the current nuclear summit in Washington. Nor was Lukashenko there, although his colleagues from Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Kazakhstan were present among the 50 participants in this international forum.

However, according to the US Embassy information report on the visit of representative from the Pentagon, the visit was a response to the Belarusian military delegation visit to Washington at the end of last year, which, for some reason, has not been mentioned in media. The reason for the secrecy in relations between the official Minsk and NATO is not clear. Until now, such a primitive secrecy in foreign policy has been characterizing Ministry of Foreign Affairs, rather than its current analogue, and sometimes even its competitor in the Ministry of Defence - Department of International Military Cooperation.

It is worth mentioning that functions in the field of arms control have been recently added to the Department of International Military Cooperation. This organisation already has been involved in the recent agreement on military cooperation with Lithuania and in the visit to Minsk of the military delegation headed by Chief of Staff of the Lithuanian army. According to some military experts, the establishment of military cooperation at this level with one of the neighbours of NATO is an important factor of building of trust not only within regional security but also with NATO in general.

However, as has been fairly stated by one of the former leaders (also with shoulder straps) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other governmental agencies, there is no and there cannot be the Foreign Ministry or some other foreign policy agencies in Belarus. There is only one - the presidential. And, as evidenced by all of its foreign policy history, it is not always predictable because of the complete lack of checks and balances - the attributes of a democratic state.

However, a noticeable foreign policy activity, which is observed today in the Ministry of Defence with its organisations, began to give reasons for the political researches, and even for the intentions to start some research on the role of the army in the sovereign Belarus. In short, some analysts, not only Belarusian, are starting to talk about the Belarusian army as the subject of politics. Some of them say that the young personnel that came to the command positions in the army can become a kind of a political engine of the country's progress. Military cooperation presupposes also military education. Therefore, it is quite possible that graduates of not only Russian military academies will emerge in the Belarusian officer corps. Others believe that the army can become a more efficient balance in the power block and more active "safety fuse" from any kind of inevitable transformations in the political life of the country. That is, not progressive, but rather reactionary factor. However, these researchers and political analysts point out that both of these factors are present in the army.

Interestingly, that as an argument and example, supporters of the idea of the subject of army in politics refer to the political activities of the former Secretary of the Security Council, General Mezhuev, who returned to the "house of representatives", where he was met by another former commander - General of the Internal Troops Ministry of Internal Affairs, General Gaydukevich, who considers the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan to be a mistake. Presumably, in the autumn, there will be even greater number of familiar with khaki colour "deputies" in the "house".

Taking into account the current warming of relations with Europe, we may assume that foreign policy of current and future "house" will be actively developing. This also concerns the policy of the khaki colour.

Roman Yakovlevsky, a political analyst, exclusively for charter97.org