bildt79_Natalia FedosenkoTASS via Getty Images_belaruselectionprotest

Hviterussland bør følge den armenske modellen

Aug 18, 2020 Carl Bildt

STOCKHOLM – Hviterussere lar seg ikke lenger kue av statlig vold og undertrykkelse. Folk har tatt til gatene i de største demonstrasjonene i landets historie. Det er åpenbart at president Aleksandr Lukasjenko ikke vil slippe unna med valgfusk. Etter alt å dømme, er hans dager som president talte.

Mange kommentatorer sammenligner utviklingen i Hviterussland med Oransjerevolusjonen (2004-2005) og Maidan-revolusjonen (2014) i Ukraina. Men Hviterussland er ikke Ukraina. Og Maidan er neppe noen god modell for det som nå finner sted i Minsk og andre hviterussiske byer.

Indre anliggender, som korrupsjon og vanstyre, har utvilsomt påvirket den politiske utviklingen i Ukraina etter Sovjetunionens oppløsning. Men den avgjørende faktoren har vært ønsket om å tilnærme seg EU. Maidan-bevegelsen kom som en reaksjon på at daværende president Viktor Janukovitsj ville trekke landet i en annen retning — bort fra europeisk integrasjon og reform.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Carl Bildt

Writing for PS since 2009
81 Commentaries

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and Prime Minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 in all 4 Comments on this article

Wim Roffel Aug 23, 2020

The Saker website has what it claims to be the program of the Belarussian opposition. It looks more like the Maidan than Armenia:

http://thesaker.is/these-are-the-real-goals-of-the-belarusian-opposition/
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hethum Lambron Aug 20, 2020

A few incorrect statements:
1. "country’s orientation vis-à-vis Europe or Russia are almost totally absent"
a. The opposition is Belarus demands cutting ties with Russia and join NATO. May be people do not want this but oppositions leaders do.
2. Parallels with Armenia
a. The only parallel here is the people's intense indignation aroused by the "authoritarian" ruler trying to extend his leadership position.
b. Armenian government, before 2018 has privatized the country and treated her as "they own business", while Lukashenko is a statesman and his actions are for the benefit of the state
c. Armenian before 2018 was a vasal state of Russia, while Belarus (with Lukashenko's efforts) is trying to keep independence.
d. US does not have real interest in Armenia, while She does in Belarus - creating another layer of buffer between Europe and Russia (Poland needs to think about what will be her role after Belarus turns into a buffer zone, and US will not need Poland any more)
e. If Lukashenko falls, vultures will appear to get their piece (including Russia), while in Armenia - well Armenia has its permanent vultures and change in government will not change their appetite.
f. Government change in Armenia was good for economy - no more extra expenditure: to give money to ministers, law enforcement institutions, etc. While Belarus has a relatively stable economy, which will go through devastation with new leaders trying to change the ownership.
3. "The situation in Belarus is not a geopolitical struggle" - if so why Russia declared its full support to Lukashenko? Why Latvia Lithuania , and Ukraine are standing behind the opposition? Why NATO brought their forces close to the border (as a sign of solidarity)?

To me this article is a propaganda message to conceal the true tendencies behind what is happening in Belarus. US is trying to extend its presence and influence in Europe, which is bad for both Europe and for Russia. How about Belarus? Do you think anybody cares about Belarus???

Then what is happening in Belarus? People are discontent, they are tired of the despotic rule of one person over 25 years. People want change. As Darius Hystaspes (Darius the Great, the emperor of the Achaemenid Empire) said 2500 years ago, before becoming the leader of Persia: "in democracy demagogs will manipulate people and make them vote and act for their (demagogs) interests". World did not change much over last 2500 years, did it?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 20, 2020

Carl Bildt says ominous parallels have been made in recent days between this year’s mass protests in Belarus and the 2004 Orange and the 2014 Maidan revolutions in Ukraine. Despite Moscow’s pathological fear of "coloured revolution" on its doorstep, Minsk is not Kyiv in 2014. Belarus is not choosing between East and West. Its people are outraged by the brutality of their security forces, and Alexander Lukashenko’s traditional base – like state factory workers – are abandoning him.
Ukraine’s pro-European trajectory was abruptly halted in November 2013, when a planned association agreement with the EU was scuttled just days before it was scheduled to be signed. The accord would allow more closely integrated political and economic ties between the EU and Ukraine, but Viktor Yanukovych bowed to intense pressure from Moscow. Protesters took to the streets and called on him to step down, with police cracking down violently on the crowds.
After weeks of bloody clashes Yanukovych’s power base crumbled. End of Februay 2014 he fled the country ahead of an impeachment vote that stripped him of his presidential powers. Outraged, Putin wanted to destabilise Ukraine by sending in “little green men” – special operations forces, wearing masks, unmarked green army uniforms and carrying modern Russian military weapons – to annex Crimea and to fight alongside pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.
While there are fears that Russia might intervene in Belarus militarily, following Lukashenko’s plea for help from Putin, analysts believe such a move would be counter-productive. The author says “the situation in Belarus is not a geopolitical struggle. It is a domestic matter, concerning the Belarusian people and a regime that has lost legitimacy and outlived its usefulness. Western diplomacy can help the Belarusian people arrive at a democratic outcome, but only if it is conducted wisely.”
According to the author, “Armenia's democratic transition” is a “much better analogy.” In 2018 “Armenians demanded a change in domestic governance, not in the country's geopolitical orientation”. Protests were sparked by Serzh Sargsyan’s decision to take on the post of prime minister after serving for more than a decade as the country’s president, provoking anger among opposition parties and other protest groups.
The decision came as Sargsyan’s second term as president came to an end, and shortly after the constitution was amended to give more power to the prime minister and transform the presidency into a ceremonial role. He must have been inspired by Turkey’s former prime minister, Erdogan, who won a referendum in 2017 to replace the parliamentary system with an executive presidency, expanding his presidential powers, while scrapping the role of the prime minister.
After 11 days of mass protests and mounting pressure, Sargsyan stepped down, in a stunning concession to the country’s opposition, which did not expect him to exit so quietly. He admitted his mistake, issuing a statement saying: “The street movement is against my tenure. I am fulfilling your demand.” The opposition had filled the streets with tens of thousands of protesters demanding his resignation.
“Armenia, too, has always had a close relationship with Russia, for both historical and strategic reasons. In 2013, the country abstained from joining Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine in entering into a Deep and Comprehensive Free-Trade Agreement with the EU, opting instead to join the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).” In 2018 there were justifiable fears that “Russia would intervene…. in order to forestall another ‘color revolution’ in a former Soviet republic. But, because Armenia’s geopolitical orientation wasn’t poised to change, the Kremlin seems to have restrained itself.”
In order to make the “Armenian model” work for Belarus, the EU will have to “accept that a newly democratic Belarus will still be dependent economically on Russia, at least for now. Long-needed reforms to modernize the Belarusian economy will, one hopes, gradually make that relationship more balanced within the framework of the EEU.” Brussels has announced financial sanctions against those involved in electoral fraud in Belarus.
The author warns against the “Ukraine-style association agreement with the EU,” as it would draw Putin’s ire. Its “priority should be to bring Belarus into the World Trade Organization, and to support it through the International Monetary Fund. Both of these processes would introduce conditions for domestic economic reforms, and the hope is that a democratic regime would quickly adopt them.”
At the end of the day Putin has to decide what he wants to do with Belarus. The Kremlin is determined to keep the former Soviet satellite within its sphere of influence and safeguard its security interests there. Its ultimate goal is deeper integration with its neighbour – a fully-fledged union state (with Putin at the helm). It might still be able to achieve this through political leverage – the protests in Belarus are not anti-Russia and pro-Europe. If Russia were to send in troops to shore up the embattled Lukaschenko, it risks alienating the Belarusian people and creating anti-Russian sentiment.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Aug 19, 2020

Thank you for the clear-eyed view of the political situation in Belarus ( Belo-Russia ). It is an internal matter. One objection however : the popular election of a president has nothing to do with " democracy". The elected president will rule and control legislation, administration and judiciary, and the media. There is not anything else in Minsk, and to make things worse, there does not seem to be a political elite in the country, and no business elite either, that would frame the constitutional groundwork, and the political will, to develop the political system towards a liberal, law-based and representative democracy. No democracy has ever begun with the election of a dictator.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/GKY5NNYnb

Cookies and Privacy

Hviterussland bør følge den armenske modellen

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

Hviterussland bør følge den armenske modellen

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification