Campaign News

09:34, 05.04.2007
www.afn.by

Belarus and Belarusians one year on after the Square, interview with Aliaksandr Milinkevich (www.afn.by)

Exactly one year ago Belarusians came out in the Square having proved the courage and the degree of self-consciousness never seen before for the last 10 years. In his interview, A. Milinkevich speaks about events of 2006 elections as well as developments of the year that followed. So, we talked about the past, the present and what we, Belarusians, may expect in the future.

- How does the situation in Belarus look now, one year after the presidential elections?

The year after the elections proved that the Lukashenka’s model of development for Belarus obviously leads to a deadlock. The feeling of prosperity and stability that is obstinately imposed to the society by the official propaganda is shallow since it is based on lack of information. There is an increasing number of Belarusians that realize the real cost of the ‘stability’ paid by the country. We found ourselves in a critical stage of wear and tear of main production assets. Because of unfriendly investment climate we lack money for modernizing economy. Oil and gas conflict with Russia has showed that Belarusian economy is not ready at all to operate with world prices for gas and oil. Belarus is becoming an appendix of raw materials-based economy of Russia. Our relative prosperity has been mainly based on oil products exports and cheap gas price. The private initiative is utterly squeezed.

According to independent polls at March 2006 elections democratic candidates got support of 30% of voters. We managed to achieve a consolidation of democratic electorate, of all those who want changes and advocate independence, democracy and European choice for Belarus.

We were supported by the international democratic community. The whole world saw that in Belarus fear is loosing ground to human dignity, love for the country. This moral support is nothing but increasing.

- Belarusians came out in the Square one year ago. At that place, there were both those who came in to support personally you and those who were there to advocate democracy, so they came for themselves. What would you like to say now to this people?

- There were a lot of people. We should remember that Belarus is neither Ukraine nor Serbia where people needed only to get up and to come out. The authorities, by constant threatening, created big fear. Those who came out are wonderful and brave people.

I know the motivation of most of them. They told me during our meetings: the destiny of the country could have been at stake and I had to come out instead sitting in and watching TV. It was a kind of moral motivation. I don’t say that many of them believed in the possibility of victory on the square, but there were very many people of those who wanted to feel themselves as persons with dignity and courage.

Since I traveled the length and breadth of the country during the campaign I know that that the Square was not possible without efforts of thousands and thousands people across the country. As a result there was a feeling that changes were coming up.

As for the actions in the Square I must say that the main question I was often asked lies in the field of solving dilemma – to stay in the square or to walk across the city and to occupy buildings.

I think that in order to win we need more people. Yes, street protest can be successful. In our situation of a quasi-totalitarian regime elections do not change the regime and won’t change it. So there is nothing left but street protest. But we should have moral superiority, we need much more people. The number of people gathered that time was not enough to march across the city. There is a huge responsibility of the politician who takes the lead and says “let’s go”.

- In what kind of situation the street protest can be successful in Belarus?

It is difficult to fix the exact time when it will happen.  It could occur suddenly with or even without us. The number of people coming out into the street depends not only on the efforts of politicians and activists but on the public mood as well. The mood can change when people feel that the authorities are no longer efficient. So, not only crisis or social problems may produce these changes but also public awareness that the authorities are impotent.

- Do you think that nowadays the authorities are still effective? Does it seem to be working even when the president is not in the country?

It is very important how general public views the authorities, not only by opposition. People should realize that they are frightened. I do not know the reasons why Lukashenka has been away for so long but in the eyes of the majority the authorities are still seen as stable and effective. However there are many of those who don’t want to live in fear or with any imposed ideology. When I talk about the assessment of the situation in Belarus by the majority I mean those people who walk on streets, go to schools, universities or plants and they still feel that the situation is stable. It is very difficult to produce changes in their mind.

I would not overestimate the role of politicians or any structures since today’s Belarus looks like the Czech Republic or Poland in 1980s.

- We are however neither the Czech Republic nor Poland.

At that time, people were simply spreading information, denouncing lies and setting a pattern  of dignified behavior. If we look at Poland’s Solidarno?? we will see that they did not plan victory. If they were asked when they will replace the communist regime by the democratic one they would hardly provide you with a date. They were just working.

There is no miracle solution, it is a gradual process on which we can only have some influence. And then comes the moment when one has to take decision. That is why I cannot tell you when street will win. Some think that it can happen during the next parliamentary elections. Anyway, I am strongly opposed to the idea to wait until 2011 elections. I believe that if we wait until then nothing would happen, it would be even worse.

- How long are you going to stay in politics? Aren’t you tired?

I am not. I won’t step down. During the campaign people across the country were asking me at every meeting: “Will Milinkevich go abroad as it happened to others?” My answer is the same, I will not emigrate even under the threat of being arrested.

- Why Kazulin is jailed but Milinkevich is not?

This is a hard question for me. You are right to have asked it. I often ask myself why, after the war, one comes back injured, another does not come at all and the third returns safely home undamaged?

I am sure that the persecution of Kazulin comes not from law infringement but from the supreme power’s vengeance. Whom do the authorities fear the most? Neither Brussels nor Warsaw. The authorities fear Moscow. It is evident  - and it overtly declared - that Kazulin had support from Moscow. I don’t know what kind of support but it was the case.

First reason is that Lukashenka had a challenger in the very Moscow. Secondly, Kazulin was from the very high level of nomenklatura. I resigned from the public office in 1996, I had not been not appointed by Lukashenka. Kazulin was very close to him. Kazulin is not the only one to be treated like that. What happened to Chyhir or Marynich? Yes, this is a revenge for, in Lukashenka’s eyes, a betrayal of very close person. And the third reason is to demonstrate to all, first to nomenklatura that any step aside will result severe punishment.

- How long Kazulin will stay in prison?

I have always feared that as long as he (Lukashenka) stays in power Kazulin will be imprisoned. Since the situation becomes more and more difficult Lukashenka may come to grant him amnesty. At his place, I would release Kazulin.

If the authorities want to get a chance for cooperation with Europe Kazulin and other political prisoners must be released. For the authorities, this is also a means of self-preservation in a very complicated economic situation. Certainly, they don’t recognize them as political prisoners so they could do it within the framework of amnesty, at least.

If we reach the goal of their release this would be small but a victory anyway. Since people stay in prison it is essential to struggle for their freedom.

- What do you think about the Union of left-wing parties -- the project of Siarhei Kaliakin?

- This is not a bad idea. It is normal to set up blocks – right wing, left wing, center and so on. Forms of cooperation between political groups can be more or less close. What is worse that if there are blocks within the coalition we oppose then platforms or ideology.

I advocate now avoiding any discussions on platforms or ideology. This is what we were doing with Mr. Kaliakin during 2006 election campaign. We had never argued about topics like communism or conservatism. I would like to keep on this approach. Both of us have preserved normal, trusting relations although sometimes there is a tension in discussions.

But I extend my hand to him and we shake hands. I respect him.

- Please tell us about the ties between Milinkevich and Charter 97. They say, your address to Lukashenka is  your joint project.

I came here from regional politics, so I needed time to understand what’s going on in Minsk. I found a layer of mistakes, resentments and suspicions among leaders in Minsk that it appeared extremely difficult to consolidate them. I’ve chosen to follow the line that everyone who can be useful will be working with me regardless his past or any rumors. I have working relations with Charter 97. They are not members of my HQ but this is an organization that I successfully cooperate with as well as, by the way, with others.

Yes, many their ideas have been good, I liked them, they have creative approaches. They have an excellent web site that provided me with free support during my campaign. It was a sincere support without any financial obligation. They did help because they believed it was necessary. I use their support and I am grateful to them for their help.

How did the address to Lukashenka appear? Well, we held a long discussion of this idea. They suggested the idea even earlier than me. Yet Bandarenka’s ideas on this subject were a bit different from mine.

- The summit of G8 hold in Russia last summer. The opposition undertook a sounding PR campaign that “Belarus’ issue” would be one of its agenda’s items. But the outcome is …?

I hoped very much that this issue would be raised. I addressed them with such request. I truly thought then and still think so that the question of preserving the independence of Belarus is a very pressing one. In my address I mostly emphasized that.

Why you are so certain that country’s independence is under threat?

Only a sustainable democracy may be the guarantee of independence for Belarus. But today altogether we do not have influence on decision-making. So that the decisions taken may be subjective, amoral and anti-historical.

 - You are talking about a threat to independence that comes from Minsk or Moscow?

It comes mostly from Minsk. This is because of the person in power for whom sovereignty is not an absolute value. For me, this is a sacred thing. But for him, this is rather a means to grip a power. Therefore, I am not sure that he will protect independence of the country. You know that they have been building with Moscow a union state since 1996. I think this union state is useless. I am in favor of good, friendly and cooperative relations between Belarus and Russia without trading off Belarus’ independence. The Belarusians want to and must have their own state.

- And what about the European Union? Isn’t is an analogy of Russia-Belarus union state?

Yes, they delegated some powers to Brussels, but member states keep their sovereignty. They agreed to have common currency but it is not Deutsche mark.

This is also matter of practical choice for Belarus. If we look at Russia we will discover that they in Moscow are debating: “Are we Europeans or not.” I understand them. Russia is a huge country. But Belarus is without doubts a European country. And if you ask Belarusians they see themselves in close cooperation with Europe, but this very close cooperation is not directed against Russia, it is in Russia’s interests to have a European democratic and predictable Belarus.

The leader of Russia wants to turn relations into market based ones. I believe that this is a start of friendship. Good friendship begins with money count. We give gifts to each other and afterwards we blame each other, what we need is simply to start working in compliance with market rules. It is the best warranty for good relations.

However, as for geopolitical choice, I believe that Belarus is a historical part of Europe and it must be moving towards EU membership.

Let’s imagine that you have a face-to-face meeting with Lukashenka/ What would you tell him?

I am not afraid of meeting with him, I have things to tell him. Although, perhaps, the most important I would tell him is about historic responsibility. About how it matter what will be written about him in history handbook in 10 or 50 years. If he thinks about it he will make much less mistakes.