The Abduction of Europe

• 
  Sannikov: "It could be said that Europe created Lukashenko, and Lukashenko created Putin's Russia." (Photo: Marco Fieber)

Related: Pariah state Belarus sends top diplomat to Brussels

BRUSSELS - The slowing of democratic development is becoming increasingly evident around the world. Freedom House reports that fewer countries now guarantee all political and civil rights and freedoms than just a few years ago. This worrying retreat of democracy has been going on for more than five years.

This is largely due to a change in attitudes towards promoting democracy in the US and Europe.
There is a growing perception that democratic Europe is turning its back on the very principles it is based on; even the emotional connection to recent history, the history of fighting for freedom, for European values, is becoming weaker. 

Promising past

The success story of European unification is no longer a political guiding light. However, it's worth reminding that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe wasted no time in turning its back on the former empire to join NATO and the EU.

Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Romania joined the EU. Reality exceeded the boldest of forecasts for the democratic world, for progress and human rights in Europe. The dream of a Europe whole and free became reality for much of the European continent. In the 1990s, it still appeared that the constituent republics of the former Soviet Union, or at least those in geographic Europe, would follow suit. This was the best time to create and develop democratic institutions in the European portion of the Soviet Union. Indeed, many Western NGOs came to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia at that time to help develop civil society. However, for different reasons they failed to achieve any lasting success in these countries.

Early in the new millennium, Europe needed US support, including support for accession of new members to the EU, and was aligned with the US foreign policy, which was based on the core premise of promoting democracy above all. Europe and especially Eastern European states that reclaimed its European identity benefited from this solidarity on principles.

The entire Former Soviet Union (FSU) is now in full retreat, away from democratic values. And Western NGOs and their local partners are under the greatest pressure ever in all the years of their operation in the FSU nations. NGOs have been declared "foreign agents" in Russia. They have been "enemies of the people" in Belarus for years.

There is a clear danger of Russia becoming a totalitarian state. Totalitarian tendencies are on the rise in Ukraine as well, even as it is negotiating to sign an association agreement with the EU. It is not a “civilisation choice” of Ukraine that is being negotiated but an arrangement to accommodate the interests of an authoritarian ruling elite in Ukraine.

Disappointing present

Currently the US is distancing itself not only from promoting democracy in general but also from the process of promoting democracy in Europe. Going back to the "security paradigm" that de-emphasizes concerns for human rights and democracy lead to the US having a working relationship, sometimes very close and friendly, with the majority of non-free countries around the world. This is why the "Arab Spring" came as a great surprise to the US, creating problems for the US, the EU, and the world. No matter what provoked the nature was revolt against tyrants that were partners of the West.

Europe is now repeating this mistake. It has started sliding back into the Realpolitik mode of 20th century, dating from an era of two opposing systems, two different ideologies. This is a policy based on fallacy. It is a path that is harmful for the EU and a path that will lead to outright betrayal of democratic movements in nations living under authoritarian regimes or dictatorships.

One of the arguments behind this policy is the false premise that Russia is resisting Western influence and doing everything to oppose it and that the EU must therefore discern any signs of opposition to Russia in other FSU nations, and help support this opposition.
The key error here is thinking that by supporting these regimes against Russia the EU is weakening their ties with totalitarianism.

In reality the fact is that the FSU nations have created an alternative development model and are now building upon it, with Russia as the heavyweight in the region, and with help of Western Realpolitik. Whatever differences some of the FSU nations may occasionally have with Russia, turning a blind eye to the nature of their regimes and supporting them just because they are from time to time at odds with Russia is lethal for values and for the future of those countries.

Under this policy, the basic values Europe stands for and is based upon tend to take second seat to Realpolitik considerations. Geopolitical rivalry once again comes to the fore, which results not only in reneging on one's principles, but also in strengthening and legitimising the totalitarian regimes.
The totalitarian government model is currently much more appealing than Western-style democracy to the ruling groups of FSU countries. They have chosen this development path and are never going to adopt Western democratic ways by their own choice. Why should they?

At the moment issues like human rights and democracy can be excluded from meaningful bilateral trade relations. They can always reach a deal with Europe that is monetarily profitable to both sides. Liberalisation and democratisation will cost them power. At the same time there is little cost to them for failing to comply with international obligations and to change under current EU policy and huge risks to their dictatorships if they do change.

Post-Soviet totalitarianism has taken things much further than the Soviet Union ever did. The former superpower at least had some respect for national borders. It opposed the West in the Third World, rather than on the enemy's home ground. In Western Europe, the USSR used “conventional” methods of espionage, attempts at propaganda and support for local communists.

Things are very different today. Post-Soviet totalitarianism has found Europe's weakness and is increasingly trying to impose its own rules of engagement in Europe. This may not yet be a conscious strategy, but the scale and effectiveness of this “abduction of Europe" are truly impressive.

Dangerous future

It all began with significant investment in the Old World. Post-Soviet nouveaux riches became welcome in Western Europe. At first, they simply came over for a short holiday, to party and enjoy "European" life, while gradually coming to understand that they did not have to adapt to unnecessary convention, as their money was dazzling to the citizens of the EU.

Businessmen and politicians from the FSU started buying up real estate, moving their business to Europe, or at least putting them under companies in European offshore zones. They began buying sports clubs and entertainment venues on the Continent. The experience of those early weekend trips to Europe came in handy, and proved a great eye-opener. Huge amounts of cash began flowing west and huge amount of lawyers were hired to justify it, explain it and arrange for its deposit in western banks.

Business interests from all FSU countries currently have a presence in all European countries. London, which many of the Russian super-rich call home, is a prominent example. On the face of it, this would all be perfectly normal, even progressive development, if wasn’t for the fact that business interests across the FSU have no respect for laws and rules of the game accepted in the West.

These business interests bring their grey schemes of making money to Europe, making a "quick Euro" or a few hundred million quick Euros without proper control and while following corrupt practices. They also actively lobby EU member states, especially their policies in respect of FSU nations.

Business interests need lobbying, and this was precisely what post-Soviet businessmen and EU politicians started engaging in, acting through European politicians and members of parliaments and other legislators. The Latvians lobby for relaxing constraints on Belarusian petro chemicals, many of which are exported through Latvian ports. Former German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder joined Gazprom in the midst of its energy wars with the West.

The next level of infiltration of Europe was through the media and think tanks. After several failed attempts to set up or support NGOs in the West that would promote pro totalitarian propaganda, Russia and several other nations simply started buying analysis, journalists and media personalities, who could use their full knowledge of Western sensibilities and mind-sets to promote the interests of totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. The television channel Russia Today is a prime example of this. Native English speakers and pundits are hired as presenters to present pro Russia news in perfect English.

Expensive PR agencies are more than happy to see totalitarian regimes of the FSU among their clients, going to great lengths to make sure human rights violations in these countries are overlooked in Europe. Lord Timothy Bell and his PR agency eagerly came to serve Lukashenka government to lobby its interests in the UK and in Europe.

The push-back from the FSU is strong. The opposition to a EU Magnitsky law is a prime example of this with the EU being afraid to pass an act for fear of derailing its relations with Russia.
Dictators around the world are watching closely. They happily note that the Court of Justice of the European Union has accepted the claims of the blacklisted representatives of the dictatorial regime in Belarus who pose as journalists or election committee officials as well as some oligarchs who serve the dictator to be removed from the list.

Not only accepted but even ruled to pay the lawyers of the criminals that goes against European values. We also see the Zimbabwean tyrant Robert Mugabe filing a multibillion-dollar lawsuit over the losses suffered from EU Sanctions. Frightfully expensive European lawyers will now try to prove in court that destroying one's own country and one's own people is a tyrant's inalienable right. That'll be quite a precedent.
European democracy is increasingly becoming a product for purely domestic consumption. It is in full effect in the EU, where politicians, journalists, government officials and ordinary citizens alike are more than happy to benefit from it, and it grinds to a halt at the EU’s boundaries.

Democratic principles prevail inside the EU: independent courts protect human rights from encroachment by other individuals as well as governments. Outside the EU, one can conveniently forget about principles and deal with dictators.

The policy that Vaclav Havel described as "the sinister experience of dictator appeasement," is now called a "policy of engagement." This is precisely what the EU is offering Lukashenko, the man whose regime is responsible for disappearances and murders of opposition leaders, journalists, mass human rights violations, as well as destruction of national culture, history and language.

It all started in Belarus

The abduction of Europe started with Lukashenko. The foundation of Europe's last dictatorship was laid in Belarus precisely in the 1990s when Europe lived through its best period of great expectations, enlargement and common values. Lukashenko achieved a successful coup d'etat (disguised as a referendum) and assumed total power in 1996.

The EU responded by suspending relations with the regime, hoping that the next election would be fair. Popular opposition leaders who enjoyed broad support were murdered in 1999: Gennady Karpenko, Yury Zakharenko, Victor Gonchar. 

Every one of them could have won an election against the dictator. The EU did not respond to that. The Council of Europe conducted an investigation years after the murders. In the meantime, the dictator was building, consistently and methodically, modern Europe's toughest totalitarian system in Belarus. 

All FSU regimes, notably that in Russia, carefully studied the approaches and methods tested by the dictator in Belarus. They did not simply study them, they also adopted the "best dictatorship practices" for their own use.

It is abundantly clear how Lukashenko's practices are currently implemented in Russia. Among other things, Russia is watching how quickly Belarus can patch up its relations with the EU after yet another, more vicious spat.

It could be said that Europe created Lukashenko, and Lukashenko created Putin's Russia.
The experience of the Belarusian dictatorship shows that after any flare-ups with the West, after putting down peaceful demonstration, putting more political prisoners into jail, someone will come forward in Europe to defend the bankrupt Belarusian regime, and appeasers would be found domestically, who would join efforts to make the EU to revert to the Realpolitik mode.

A united Europe, with active involvement by the US, would have been a guarantor of restoration, reinforcement and development of democratic values, principles, and standards in the post-Soviet region. This is necessary for maintaining the Transatlantic partnership, for FSU nations, and for Europe itself. However, this is not happening.

And now Europe is in the throes of a very real crisis of values, which will hit it, much harder than any financial, mortgage lending, or foreign exchange crisis. The essence of the crisis is precisely that the EU does not see its mission to strengthen and develop democratic values. It believes it can maintain its own institutions and values untainted and engage and trade with its undemocratic European neighbours at no cost to itself. This is a mistake.

No "Realpolitik," no amount of "engagement" and overtures towards dictators are going to create predictable, safe neighbours for Europe. Dialogue and engagement with these regimes legitimises them and lets them into the EU where it is the EU’s systems and values that corrode. Remember, there are fewer free countries in the world than five years ago.

Only a direct, honest, uncompromising assessment of the dictatorship's actions, only an honest, strong, and brave stance in response to human rights violations by oppressive and dictatorial regimes, and bold support of democratic movements should help Europe defend its values and avoid new conflicts and a real “clash of civilisations”.

Andrei Sannikov is a Belarusian opposition politician 
and a former presidential candidate and political prisoner. 
---
 http://euobserver.com/opinion/122187
---
 

British Aid to Belarus Dictatorship

 
British aid money has been given by the European Union to help the security forces
of the last dictatorship in Europe.

Funds intended to help the world’s neediest have been spent on providing training and equipment to the police force and border guards of Belarus, an autocracy run along Soviet lines. The aid, supplied by the European Union’s EuropeAid programme, to which Britain’s Department for International Development (DfID) is a major donor, came despite violent action against the pro-democracy opposition.

The Foreign Office has expressed grave concern at the imprisonment and abuse of dissidents and also at the use of the death penalty, while an EU arms embargo has been put in place. However, the EU increased aid payments to Belarus to more than £32 million last year, including millions of pounds on projects to reinforce the country’s western borders.

The European Commission said the aid would curb people trafficking and drug smuggling, but dissidents claimed the equipment has been used to prevent the regime’s opponents fleeing.

Labour said the aid to Belarus was unjustifiable and urged ministers to raise it with the commission.
David Cameron is committed to spending 0.7 per cent of GDP on foreign aid, but Britain has direct control over only part of the budget, with more than 40 per cent distributed through third parties.

The EuropeAid programme receives £1 billion from DfID. The Brussels scheme has in turn spent £68 million since 2007 in Belarus, under the “neighbourhoods policy” designed to promote democracy in countries bordering or near the EU, and prevent illegal migration to the EU.

Procurement documents show Belarus has been bought equipment including motorcycles, patrol boats, swamp vehicles and thermal imaging cameras for border guards.

The list included £279,000 to buy and house guard dogs, £8.4 million on mobile X-ray machines and cameras to inspect cars crossing the borders, and £6.7  million on a computerized criminal records database and portable equipment to check biometric data.

The aid agency trained border guards in “document integrity, detection of forgeries and impostor recognition” and spent millions to clear the border strip and install new checkpoints, telephones and CCTV networks.

Human rights monitors are severely critical of Belarus, which has been ruled by Alexander Lukashenko, the so called president, since 1994. He has retained the KGB and other Soviet-era ministries, is accused of running death squads for political opponents and has named his son Kolya, nine, who carries a golden handgun, as his “heir”. He said last year: 
“I am the last and only dictator in Europe.”

Presidential elections in December 2010 were declared “fraudulent” by the American Senate, while the US and Europe have placed a travel ban and asset freeze on some regime officials.

Natalia Kaliada, director of the underground Belarus Free Theatre, accused Brussels of propping up the regime, which does not want its critics free to campaign.“With such equipment they would block all possibilities of escape completely. It would be a completely isolated country,” she said.

Jim Murphy, the Labour shadow development secretary, said there was no justification for aid to go to Belarus and called on ministers to take it up with the European Commission. “Aid is vital to help alleviate poverty and to support UK national security and economic interests. It should not support regimes in countries of concern with alarming human rights records,” he said. “Ministers must now urgently raise this matter with the European Commission to ensure no UK taxpayers’ money is being spent in ways which undermine our national interests or values.”

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader who sits on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said: “Before financing equipment of this kind you have to assess the balance of risks of illegal breaches of the border against the reality of an unpleasant regime which cares very little for the human rights of its citizens. “If there is a suggestion that this equipment is being exploited we should think very carefully about continuing to provide it.”

DfID said its ministers were aware of the aid to Belarus and supported Europe’s policy of “critical engagement” with the regime. A spokesman for the European Commission said: “EU support for Belarus is all about promoting democracy and human rights and where necessary pushing the Belarusian authorities hard, whilst supporting civil society that seeks to hold them to account.”

Matthew Holehouse, The Telegraph.

Free Belarus! Remove Lukashenko’s Wallet!

The dictator will continue to ignore the West’s demands unless billions of dollars stop coming in.

The chair of the working group on investments at the Committee for International Control of the Human Rights Situation in Belarus Olga Zakharova said it in an interview to charter97.org. Olga has recently presented report The EU Dilemma: "What Kind of Dialogue with Belarus?" in Warsaw together with Yuri Dzhibladze.

- Olga, you became known as the chair of the Committee for International Control of the Human Rights Situation in Belarus first after the events of December 19, 2010 in Minsk. How did you become a human rights activist?

- My mother was born in Latvia, but she came to Russia to study, and stayed to live here. At first I was a biologist, or an environmental activist with a background in journalism. But eventually in the late 1990-early 2000s many of my colleagues from former soviet countries were put to prison. In Belarus, it happened to professor Yuri Bandazhevski; in Turkmenistan several people were pressed and had to leave the country. And here in Russia it became much harder to protect the environment, tress, people from the factories. The space squeezed and I realized that unless basic human rights are respected, there’ll be no environment. Belarus, Russia and Central Asia are gradually moving away from democracy, and I decided that I should work with human rights.

- When did you as a Russian human rights activist begin to work with the situation with human rights in Belarus?

- At first, it was the environment. Apart from Bandazhevski and all those “nuclear” cases, we worked with protection of the Bielavezhskaya pushcha. When the current powers got involved, we tried to preserve the national park, to save at least something. We held a successful international campaign that drew much attention, but eventually the ecologists had to leave. Then I was warned that it would be better for me not to return to Belarus.

But we did return on December 19, 2010. It was an international task to rescue the Belarusians that had to go to prison after the presidential elections. We should show solidarity. There is a law: if you don’t help others, nobody will help you. We realized that the same or a similar situation can happen in Russia. In fact, we were right…

- Thank you for your solidarity. How did your work look like at that time when so many people were in prison?

- At that time, a part of representatives of the Committee for International Control of the Human Rights Situation in Belarus were in Minsk working with youth at human rights seminars. Before the elections of December 19, 2010, we saw that someone had to watch and tell about the events to the international community. We kept in touch and started to act before the mass arrests. My colleagues and I had this idea to start the OSCE Moscow process, while the others who were in Minsk wanted to launch an observatory mission to tell about what was going on.

It became clear that still so many organizations alarmed by the situation in Belarus are looking for ways to help, there was a need to establish the committee, first of all, because the committee gives the possibility to coordinate actions. As a result, apart from the international observatory mission of the Committee for international control of the situation there was appointed Special Rapporteur on Belarus Neil Jarman whose report was very influential. It was the first appointment of a special rapporteur on Belarus since the events of December 19. His report was one of the factors that helped us start the OSCE Moscow process. We had to convince everyone that this was an extraordinary situation.

Even if the terror had never followed – the tortures in prisons, forced disappearances – this situation would still be classified as a “crisis”.

For a long time our mission was in fact the only international institution functioning in Minsk, because the OSCE mission was very soon asked to leave. It was basically the only source of information, and as soon as the Belarusian powers realized it they started to bar human rights activists from Russia and Ukraine from coming to the country. Our colleagues were stopped at the border; some were detained, some were deported or asked to leave Belarus within the nearest 24 hours and not to come back in the near future. This way, 20 persons were forced to leave Belarus, that not including the foreign journalists and activists of political movements. I am only talking about civil observers not related to political forces who only worked with human rights.

- You have mentioned a crisis. Is it over or is it still happening?

- In his report, the UN special rapporteur on Belarus Miklos Haraszti emphasized that we are dealing with a full-scale system crisis of human rights in Belarus. It reached its acute on December 19, 2010. A system crisis is not a fantasy. The European court of human rights has a definition for it. The situation in Belarus fits it perfectly.

Why is it important? We are looking at situations not only from the point of view of personal tragedies and broken lives, but we also consider the current events in Belarus and now in Russia. It is an attempt to rewrite the history of human rights, to give the powers right to do whatever they please. And if our rulers succeed, we will get a new frightening world. Syria will seem a paradise compared to what will happen here. It is already happening in several countries in Central Asia, but nobody is talking about it.

- How strong is the impact of the situation in Belarus on its neighbors – Russia and Ukraine?

- The impact on Russia is negative. For the last 20 years, a part of the nation has been living in an illusion that there is some kind of communist paradise across the border. Many people believe that there is this ideal model, “Byelorussia” as they call it. And it has a destructive effect not only on common people but on the intelligentsia, teachers, doctors who are not particularly interested in details and don’t have the full picture. Unfortunately, Lukashenka’s propaganda has proved very effective.

But the events after December 19, 2010, showed that the Belarusian powers can throw people to prison and torture them and not suffer any consequences. Sanctions? Conflict with the West? Well, there has always been a conflict. Then repressive laws followed. Belarus is a training ground. Lukashenko tries first, Big Brother repeats.

As for Ukraine, it will manage to keep balance unless the situation changes. The relations of Belarus with the European Union also play a role here. If the EU repeats the same mistake and says “it doesn’t matter that you have political prisoners and no democracy – just fix something a little bit,” Yanukovich and his team will realize that these methods can be used in Ukraine. And they will have it their way, the Eastern Partnership will just play along.

If the EU becomes more rigid (which is not so probable), there is a chance that the Ukrainian powers will act more properly. Obviously, neither Lukashenka, nor Yanukovich want to hug with Russia, and because both of them will lose their power at once.

I am going to say a very cynical thing. Everyone is anxious about the rising Russian military presence in Belarus. Why is Lukashenka doing it? He understands that nobody will perform a military overturn. This military base poses no threat to him. If the situation develops in the same direction, Putin will gain unlimited authority.

- Why are you so sure?

- There are norms of the international law. Russia will never choose a military overturn. The only thing Russia could complete was the little victorious war in Georgia. Hence, nobody will deprive Lukashenka of his power in a military overturn. If Russians get a full control over the Belarusian economy, there is no need in Lukashenko. Then he can be simply removed and placed in Drazdy.

As any paranoid, Lukashenko feels danger 100 steps away. Our forecast is that he will stay till the last drop in his games with Russia.

On the other hand, Lukashenko will try to “suppress” the European Union. And it would be really stupid to tell the Europeans (while export of Belarusian goods to Europe reduced by 40 percent during January-June 2013) to lift the sanctions against the dictator, which is already happening.

This person just like his entire team come from the Soviet Union. They don’t understand what a constructive dialog is. For them, it is a situation when the opposite part makes concessions and when the system of agreements, constraints and counterweights doesn’t function. Europeans can spend all time at a chess board, but Lukashenka will still beat them with a hockey-stick.

- What should Europe do? What are your recommendations?

- The system needs to change. Why don’t we support the international procedures that concern Belarus? Why did we need the OSCE Moscow mechanism so much? Why do we support the report of the UN special rapporteur Miklos Haraszti and why do we want his mandate prolonged? Because all these things put the situation in Belarus in a legal sphere.

You see, this ”dialog” with the EU about human rights, the ”dialog” with the USA is an invention of evil persons from the West who want to ”bend” the little poor country over. And when we appeal to the international legal norms, agreements and obligations that Belarus took on voluntarily, it proves that human rights are not an interior issue. If you want a dialog, you should fulfill your obligations, not act as little children at the dinner table: I’m not eating this, I’ll have that instead.

With these agreements, commonly accepted notions and norms, a road map of changes can be constructed to use for evaluation of the progress. If the political prisoners are released now (and in the current situation they will not be rehabilitated), there should be no illusions.

If there are no clear changes, there will be new political prisoners. Why is this situation so repulsive? Because the ruler says he acts in compliance with the law, that Belarus is a state of law. But if this law contradicts all international norms and agreements on human rights, it means that it is a bad law and it should be changed. There is no need for claiming hypocritically “we live in a state of law.”

- Do you support target sanctions against Lukashenko’s regime?

- It is not sanctions but restrictive measures, because sanctions are “carpet bombing”. We are talking about the need to limit the trade between the people who earn profits for Lukashenka’s regime and, first of all, the USA and EU.

A classic example: Latvia managed to lift these restrictive measures from some of the most profitable companies of Yury Chyzh. Basically, these companies worked via the profitable scheme of petroleum products trade estimated to generate 2-3 billion dollars.

Do you see now why Lukashenka ignores the demands of the international community? When the positive trade balance with the EU equals 8 billion, all threats sound ridiculous. It is much more than what they get from Russia.

That is why we believe that those who earn profits for the regime should face significant restrictions. The criteria are simple: we see who gets the best parts, and who gets license to trade with petroleum products, tobacco and alcohol.

- You have studied the situation with the Belarusian banks, too.

- This situation is interesting. We have questions about Iranian banks in Belarus, although formally sold because of the sanctions imposed by the USA. But the question of how and where the cash flows went remains, because we know that Belarus and Iran have a mutual agreement on direct accounting that doesn’t involve SWIFT. But you understand that these accounts are meant for direct deals of unknown character.
100 percent of shares of the North European Bank until recently called Onerbank belonged to Iranian banks. After the sanctions imposed by the West, the bank had to change its name and shareholders. Now, its owners are citizens of Germany and Turkmenistan. However, there are born Iranians among the board members.

There is Fransabank with Lebanese capital that operates in France, Lebanon and, I believe, Syria. For a couple of years ago, the New York court closed a case against this bank initiated on complaints of the victims of attacks against Israel, like Hezbollah attacks. The bank worked with accounts of this organization. There was enough evidence for the case, but it was still closed because the court lacked jurisdiction. Here comes a question: what does this bank do in Belarus, given the complicated history of Lukashenka’s weapon trade with all these friendly regimes in the Middle East? In my view, this situation should be scrutinized.

- Lukashenka’s prime income is from selling petroleum products to the West. There is a long-lasting argument: if this trade is limited, who will suffer – Lukashenka or the people?

- There are two aspects to this argument, a moral and a practical. The moral aspect: when the regime gets its key income from selling Russian petroleum products, the EU can follow the example of the USA and simply impose sanctions against Belneftekhim. But unfortunately, Europeans won’t dare do that. Moreover, they claim that the petroleum products mostly are transit goods. Then another question arises: where do these goods go to from Rotterdam? Maybe, the USA? This question should also be considered.

The practical aspect: restrictions of the petroleum products trade are needed at least for private companies, like it was with Chyzh’ companies which had a major impact on the regime But as we see today sanctions have been lifted from all these companies.

- Why is it happening?

- You surely understand that when some countries get the major part of their income from transit of goods, there comes a necessity, as they think, to ”compromise” and ”use a pragmatic approach”. And hence, if voters are discontent with the economic situation in the country, lobbyists’ job gets easier. Basically, charter97.org has published reports of security services of Latvia and Lithuania that said that the Belarusian special services are very active in these countries. We have an idea about what they do there. During a KGB meeting Lukashenka suddenly asked, what happens with this dialog with the West, which shows who is actually in charge of this “dialog”.

Andrey Sannikov on Sky News

Help to Free Belarus From the Dictator Lukashenko and his Dictatorship!

Brussels Forum: Sanctions Against Lukashenko's Regime Must be Strengthened!

Brussels

March 26, 2012

The Belarusian issue became one of the key themes at the Brussels Forum.

Andrei Sannikov, the coordinator of European Belarus civil campaign, has been representing Belarus for previous years at the prestigious Brussels Forum, the event uniting the world's political and economic elite. But at present time former presidential candidate has been in prison for over a year accused of organizing protests against the rigged election.

Due to the arrest of Andrei Sannikov, Belarus was represented for two years in succession by his sister Iryna Bahdanava, an initiator of a legal prosecution of Lukashenka; head of the Belarus Free Theatre - Natallia Kaliada and head of "We Remember" Foundation - Irina Krasouskaya.

This year's forum was attended by EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton; NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen; US Senator Jeanne Shaheen, who initiated hearing on Belarus in the US Senate; Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt; Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski; Belgian Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Didier Reynders; Ukrainian and Bulgarian Foreign Ministers Kostyantyn Gryshchenko and Nickolai Mladenov; Chair of the Board at the Centre for Liberal Strategies Ivan Krastev; Former Prime Minister of Libya Mahmoud Gebril; former President of Lebanon Amine Gemayel and others.

"We initiated a discussion on Belarus at the panel to discuss the situation in Syria in connection with Belarusian weapon supplies to the country," Natallia Kaliada said at the forum. "Bulgarian Foreign Minister Nickolay Mladenov spoke at the panel discussion. We asked the minister why the negotiations to involve dictatorial Belarus into European processes were initiated in spite of tortures of political prisoners in the country and weapon supplies to rogue states, including Syria. Mladenov replied he was ready to deal with such people like Lukashenko to save the lives of political prisoners. Andrei Sannikov's sister Iryna Bahdanava said political prisoners had faced even more severe tortures after Mladenov's visit to Belarus, but EU economic sanctions were not imposed due to Lukashenko's empty promise to release all prisoners of conscience."

The Belarusian issues was raised as a separate theme at the panel discussion The Eastern European Partners "Going East, West, or Nowhere?"

A moderator of the discussion was Bruce Jackson, the President of Project on Transitional Democracies. Kostantyn Gryshchenko, Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, member of the US Congress Michael Turner and Natallia Kaliada took part in the discussion.

"As sanctions against the Lukashenko's regime were introduced on the day of arrival of the Belarusian delegation, we thanked Baroness Ashton for that step, but explained the EU should be even more strong and apply tough measures to release political prisoners. Asked by Bruce Jackson what sanctions should be imposed, Natallia Kaliada said That Europe should understand the dictatorship in Belarus will be strengthening anyway and that's why adequate measures should be applied. Natallia Kaliada presented an action plan for the world community in relation to Belarus:

1. Everything what is already done in relation to the Belarusian regime did not produce the desired result (to release political prisoners). Boundaries and rules need to be broken. As Vaclav Havel once said: "Politics is the art of the impossible."

2. Actions should be taken in time. In January 2011, Catherine Ashton said it was an issue of some days to impose EU sanctions on the Belarusian regime, as the United States did. We welcome the sanctions introduced, but they were imposed to the full extent only 13 months later. Had they been introduced in time, probably, all political prisoners would have been released, a metro bombing would not have happened and two young men Dmitriy Konovalov and Vladislav Kovalev (who possibly were not guilty) would not have been executed.

3. No dialogue or involving the authorities into cooperation with the EU can be discussed until all political prisoners are released and rehabilitated!

4. Old and stable democracies (such as Germany, the UK, France) should explain to new European democracies (such as Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria and Slovenia) that a construction of a hotel in Belarus is not worth the lives of political prisoners.

5. Think globally. If Belarus supplies weapons to Syria and Iran, it cannot be viewed outside of the global process.

6. A decision on issuing free EU visas to Belarusians should be taken in consideration to give them a possibility to compare what can be better: moving to the East or to the West, and at least, feeling the support from Europe at this minimum level.

7. If you think you did everything possible for Belarus, ask yourselves: "Were bodies of the kidnapped opposition members found? Was the death penalty abolished? Were political prisoners released?"

8. If Europe wants to position itself as a Union being rather ambitious to solve the problems of Syria and Iran, it should solve the Belarusian issue first. Belarus is in the heart of Europe.

Talking about sanctions we paid attention to imposing an embargo on oil products and expelling Belarusian ambassadors from European capitals as one of the variant of applying further pressure on the Belarusian authorities," Natallia Kaliada said.

Street Actions Around The World Against Dictatorship in Belarus!

( March 18th, 2009 )

Street actions against Lukashenko's dictatorship are to take place in many cities around the world on March 18, 2009

The events are timed to the anniversary of Lukashenko's election victory in 2006 which is not recognized by the international community. The protest is organized by Brussels-based international political non-governmental organisation the JEF-Europe (Young European Federalists) and their partners.

Organisers of the actions explain that it is dedicated specifically to Belarus, the last dictatorship in Europe. In more than 100 cities people are to protest against the unjust regime and demand the struggle against dictatorships to become one of the priorities in the foreign policy of the European Union.

"On 18 March 2009 European youth will remind our leaders and civil society that Europe is not a dictatorship-free continent," the JEF-Europe stresses.

They underline that the Belarusian dictatorship exists for 15 years, but the EU hasn't had clear policy towards the situation in Belarus. EU foreign ministers at a meeting in Brussels confirmed their decision NOT TO IMPOSE (?!) visa bans on Belarusian officials. And it sounds real strange. Why did they do that? So the authorities can rig the results of the elections and nobody gets punished for doing that? Do they do the same it in other European countries? Why only people in Belarus need to suffer from unwise EU decisions?

The EU imposed travel sanctions on Lukashenko and 41 Belarusian officials after the presidential elections 2006. In October 2008, the EU foreign ministers suspended visa ban on Belarusian officials, including Aleksandr Lukashenko. Why? The EU ministers agreed to discuss the situation in six month to decide whether to reimpose the ban depending on the human rights situation in Belarus.

None of the positive changes happened in Belarus during those six month! Political repressions in the country have gone wild. New political prisoners have appeared. Leaders of entrepreneurs Mikalai Autukhovich, Yury Lyavonau, and Uladzimir Asipenka were arrested in Vaukavysk in February. "Young Front" activist Artsyom Dubski, participant of the Case of 14, was arrested in February, too. Forceful draft into the army can be observed in Belarus. In spite of medical condition, Franak Vyachorka, Ivan Shyla, and Zmitser Khvedaruk were call up for military service. Human rights activist Yana Palyakova, pressed by the Belarusian authorities, committed suicide. So authorities can kill people in Belarus and then go to Europe on vacations??? WTF!

Rights of opposition activists Alyaksei Bondar, Mikhail Kryvau, Mikhail Pashkevich, Alyaksandr Straltsou, Alyaksandr Charnyshou, Tatsyana Tsishkevich, Mikhail Subach, Paval Vinahradau, Maksim Dashuk, and Alyaksandr Barazenka, sentenced to restraint of liberty for participation in protest rallies of entrepreneurs, remain restricted.

Not only opposition activists but most of the Belarusian people stand for tightening sanctions against the Belarusian authorities. "Brussels must make it clear that freedom of the press and NGOs and above all respect for human rights, especially with regard to the opposition, are prerequisites for any EU gains and EU entry for Belarus officials", Toni Giugliano, Action Co-ordinator wrote.

The cities where the action will take place include not only European ones (Brussels, Prague, Copenhagen, Paris, Helsinki, Berlin, Warsaw, Geneva, Stockholm, London, Kyiv, Petersburg, Riga) but also Dubai, New York, Pretoria and so on. As for Belarus, it is said in the statement that the action will take place in the country also, but its place is not disclosed because of security reasons.

Political Prisoners in Belarus (winter 2008)

(New Lies From So Called President)

Aleksandr Lukashenko admitted on 2/15/2008 that he knew well about bad health of political prisoner Aleksandr Kazulin's wife and tried to use that situation for bargaining with the West and European Union. Irina Kazulina is seriously ill, while her husband has been kept in prison for 2 years on political motives. Release of all political prisoners is the main requirement of the EU and the USA.

The Charter'97 Press Center asked Kazulin's daughter Olga to comment on Lukashenka's statements. "Our mother is dying and Aleksandr Lukashenko knows it perfectly. Saying that he is ready to release our father for mother's treatment is height of cynicism. Let him not hide behind our mother. It's shameless and inhuman," Olga Kazulina said.

Visiting Vitsebsk region the same day, Aleksandr Lukashenko said there is no more question about political prisoners. "Question concerning the so called political prisoners is closed," he said, giving interview to Interfax. According to Lukashenko, the so called political prisoners "were punished in accordance with the Criminal Code, for particular crimes."

Yep, sure they are, Mr. Big Liar! Aleksandr Kazulin, for example, was punished with 5,5 years sentence just because he wanted to be a new president of Belarus. Andrey Klimov was punished with an absurd 2 year sentence for his article on the internet (luckily he was released on 2/16/2008!), Andrey Kim was arrested for taking part in the entrepreneurs rally and can stay in prison cell for up to 6 years, Aleksandr Zdvizhkov was convicted for 3 years for reprinted Prophet Mohammed caricature. Cases of political prisoners in Belarus are made up with all those absurd groundless "criminal" convictions and all those cases are endless just because the judicial system is so corrupt and dishonest.

As Pavel Severinets, founder of the Christian Democratic Party, admits the human rights situation in Belarus is getting worse lately:
"There are more dissent criminal cases, political criminal cases in Belarus today than in the 1970ies. In other words, today's repressions have exceeded the level of repressions in the period of stagnation. One more alarming signal is when people over high-profiled and famous cases can be released via Europe's pressure or bargaining with it, but the awful dynamics of administrative arrests, expelling from university and dismissals is growing. The human rights situation in the country is becoming worse and worse day after day."