Medvedev and the "Belarusian Circus"

For Global Voices Online: A picture says more than a thousand words, the saying goes. An Instagram snapshot that the Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev tweeted as a tacit comment to his visit to Minsk sure does: the "Belarusian Circus." 

During Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Minsk on Wednesday, July 18, he tweeted [ru] an Instagram snapshot with the comment: "In the streets of Minsk." The problem with the picture is that it portrayed the Belarusian State Circus, which could be interpreted as a tacit comment on Medvedev's meeting with the Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko and senior state officials. 

 Medvedev's visit to Minsk was no courtesy visit. A recent smuggling scandal has aroused much anger in Moscow, and Medvedev used the meeting to bring Lukashenko to account for the export of chemical solvents produced from the Russian supplies of duty-free oil. Another item on the agenda, according to RIA Novosti [ru], was the recent intrusion into Belarusian airspace by a Swedish plane dropping teddy bears with anti-Lukashenko slogans. The bear incident was a major embarrassment for Belarus in view of the two countries' joint air defence system. As a consequence, a student [ru] who published a photostory about the bears, and a 16-year-old girl [ru], who allegedly took a photo of one of the bears, got arrested by the KGB.  

Then, how did social media react to the "Belarusian circus"? Twitter user @minssk united [ru] the two themes of the circus and the teddies:

Медведев прилетел в Минск, сфоткал цирк. До этого прилетали медведи, тот ещё цирк был, но с фотографом там не хорошая история получилась.

Medvedev flew to Minsk and photographed a circus. Before this, bears flew in, which was quite a circus too, but the story with the [detained] photographer wasn't good.

Some, like @Dubovnik_Dmitry, turned to sarcasm [ru] when commenting:

Медведев отметил минский цирк твитом:-) видно для того чтобы подчекнуть куда он приехал.

Medvedev mentioned the Minsk circus in a tweet:-) obviously to underline what kind of place he had come to.

Twitter user @daphnis_nerii assumed [ru] a more ironic tone:

Информационные порталы страны разместили новость о том, что Медведев сфоткал цирк. Что было бы, если б он в Беларуси в туалет сходил?

Information portals spread the news that Medvedev photographed a circus. How would it have been if he had gone to the toilet in Belarus?

Still, as Twitter user @yurok1521 asked [ru], the question on everyone's lips is this:

Медведев намекнул на «цирк» в правительстве Беларуси?

Did Medvedev hint that there is "a circus" in the government of Belarus?

What Medvedev's intention with the tweet was, only he knows, but if it was a joke, it testifies to a certain sense of humour of the former Russian president with the nickname 'iPhonchik'.

Belarus: East and West and Nothing in Between?

For Global Voices Online: "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet." This chronically misused Kipling phrase seems to catch realities for an increasing number of Belarusians, as recent protests and crises have become a rude awakening from the torpor of the last Soviet "sleeping beauty." Waking to a wild and hostile world, many people now start asking: "Who cares about Belarus?"

Coverage found in the Western media of the recent developments in Belarus largely follows the general pattern of repression, with a few opposition activists highlighted, but still with little added to the familiar story. It is true that the economic crisis that has recently hit the country and Russia's gradual takeover of Belarus' economy have added spice to the stew, whilst the ultimate news would be the ousting of President Lukashenko.

Until that day, though, Belarus seems deemed to remain in limbo between East and West. Or would Lukashenko or no Lukashenko really make a difference? An increasing number of voices in Belarus say that the limbo will linger on, and Belarus is bound to remain in a grey zone between East and West.

Thus, LiveJournal user by_volunteer complains [ru] that the country's economy is sold out to Russia, whereas Europe has enough problems of her own to trouble to care:

Беларусь пошла с молотка и это очевидный конец. Руководство Беларуси заключило сделку и тихонько распродаёт страну, в расчёте на политическое убежище, все наши ура-патриоты спокойно на это смотрят. Основные предприятия страны переходят в собственность к России, это российские капиталовложения в нашу собственность. Как можно это допустить и как может ЕС так спокойно упускать свои перспективы на будущее в Беларуси?! Это же полный провал европейской политики, тем более в ЕС нарастает огромный финансовый кризис, европейский бизнес девать просто некуда. Это немощный инфантилизм и позор, нельзя допускать завершения сделки с Россией, это огромная ошибка, нужно срочно принимать меры!

Belarus went under [the auctioneer's] hammer and it was a foregone conclusion. The leaders of Belarus made a deal and are quietly selling off the country, counting on political asylum, and all our hooray-patriots calmly look at it. The main enterprises of the country are becoming Russian property. It is a Russian investment in our property. How can this be allowed, and how can the EU so calmly give up on its views on Belarus?! It is simply a total collapse of European policy, especially as an enourmous financial crisis is brewing in the EU, and European business simply has nowhere to turn. It is powerless infantilism and a shame. Оne cannot allow dealing with Russia. It's a big mistake, and urgent action is needed!

But where is Europe, and where is justice? Feelings of abandonment and, for all appearances, being treated unfairly are obviously spreading, adding to a sense of general disappointment and hopelessness in everyday life and in hopes for the future. Writing about a denial of an EU-Schengen visa for her son, a mother laments [ru] over how she feels people from Belarus are regarded:

Нет правды в Беларуси. Десятки лет мы получаем лживую информацию, слышим безответственные обещания, видим потемкинские деревни. Наелись. Все цивилизованные страны единодушны в оценке и называют такое поведение властей издевательством над народом. Но как оценить издевательство над многострадальными гражданами посольств этих цивилизованных стран, когда после заявлений о смягчении визовых режимов для белорусов, отказывают в визе даже тем белорусам, которые по всем критериям очень даже выездные. [---] Мой сын закончил третий курс университета. Хотел съездить во Францию по частному приглашению. Получил отказ. Поскольку ничего плохого за ним никогда не водилось, единственной причиной отказа считаю административный арест 19 декабря на 15 суток. Он проходит по спискам и, скорее всего, поэтому посольство Франции ответило: «У нас нет уверенности, что вы покинете страну по истечению срока визы». Интересно получается. Два списка фигурируют для запрета въезда в Евросоюз: официальный - список чиновников и неофициальный список задержанных. [---] И стало, знаете, очень обидно. И очень одиноко. И за демократию бьют по голове, и демократия бьет по голове. И никому мы не нужны. Ладно бы не нужны – и на порог не пускают. А главное, никакими демократическими процедурами это решение не оспорить. Где справедливость, где права человека, какие гаагские суды рассматривают отказы в выдаче визы? Какие правозащитные организации защищают таких людей? А главное, отличается ли белорусская судья, превентивно выносящая приговор за несовершенное правонарушение, от французского чиновника, отказывающего в визе за несостоявшийся невозврат?

There is no truth in Belarus. For decades, we have been getting a pack of lies, listening to irresponsible promises, seeing the Potemkin villages. We are fed up with it. All civilized countries unite in their judgment and name such conduct of power a mockery with the people. But how is such mockery with the long-suffering citizens valued by embassies of these civilized countries, when - after declarations of a softened visa regime for Belarusians - visas are denied even to those Belarusans who really by all criteria are liable for them. [---] My son finished his third year at university, and wanted to go to France on a private invitation. He got a rejection [to his visa application]. As he has never been up to anything bad, the only reason for rejection, I think, is the administrative [post-election protest-related] arrest on December 19 for 15 days. He is on the lists, and therefore, supposedly, the French Embassy replied: «We don't know if you leave the country after your visa expires». It all becomes interesting. There appears to be two lists for denial of entry to the European Union: An official - the bureaucrats' list - and an unofficial list of those who had been arrested. [---] And then, you know, it becomes really hurtful. And very lonely. Getting hit on the head for democracy, and then getting hit on the head by democracy. Nobody needs us. It's okay if we are not needed, and not let over the threshold. But the main thing is that there are no democratic procedures by which to appeal this decision. Where is justice, where are human rights, which Hague courts review the denials of visas? What civil rights organizations defend these people? And above all, does a Belarusian judge, who preventively passes verdict for a crime not committed, differ from a French bureaucrat, who denies a visa for a non-return that has not taken place?

Touching on the classical Tolstoian question of the evil inside us all and the need to come to terms with it, LJ user dolka777 asks [ru] how people allowed the Lukashenko regime to develop:

Как мы вскормили диктатора. Это вопрос, который я себе задаю постоянно. Мучительно вспоминаю, как и когда я сама впустила в себя эту диктатуру. Свято верю, что в каждой судьбе должен быть такой момент, когда ты соглашаешься со злом только потому, что твой двоюродный брат работает в КГБ и он – клевый парень, а тебе не хочется его обижать. Или хвастаешься другом, который парится в парилке с личным сантехником Его Величества. Шугаешься коллег или сокурсников, которые связаны с оппозицией. Думаю, что здесь, в бай-политикс собрались те, которые, возможно, ничего такого не делали. Но все же. [---] И теперь вопрос каждому: что ты лично сделал для того, чтобы в Беларуси воцарился диктатор?

How did we nourish a dictator? It's a question I ask myself all the time. It is painful to remember how and when I, myself, let this dictatorship in. I sincerely believe that in every destiny there has to be such a moment when you consent to evil only because your cousin works for the KGB, and he is a cool guy and you don't want to hurt his feelings. Or you boast about a friend who has steamed in the same sauna as His Highness. You vilify those colleagues or classmates who are connected with the opposition. I believe that here, in the .by-politics, those have gathered who perhaps did nothing like this. But still. And now a question to each and everyone: What have you personally done so that a dictator could reign in Belarus?

So, as the shrill voices of Lukashenko loyalists and opposition activists reach crescendo, perhaps there are weaker voices wondering why they cannot simply be allowed to be here, "tuteishi", and lead a normal life between Russia and Europe.

Kipling's famous poem on East and West has a less-known ending: "But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!"

So, even if Russia and Europe, as two strong men, would learn to respect each other, where would that leave Belarus but in a grey zone? Perhaps, for many Belarusians, East is East and West is West, and there is no place for the rest, living in between.

Belarus Beyond Bomb or Blast

For Global Voices: Even before the smoke from Monday's Minsk Metro blast dispersed, the dual question of: "What is to be done? - Who is to blame?" arose in the Belarusian blogosphere. Two major strands of thought dominate, blaming either President Lukashenko or the political opposition, although a deeper sentiment of sympathy for the victims seems to unite the people of Minsk.

The Monday explosion in a subway station in Belarus capital Minsk is undoubtedly the largest act of violence in Belarus since World War II, leaving tens dead and some hundred injured. Understandably, people in the usually tranquil country reacted with both loathing and anguish, perhaps as a premonition of a shattered social fabric. Still, initial reactions from the blogosphere largely grasped at the question of who was to blame.

Although oppositional voices vary in passing the blame on Lukashenko and his regime, the overall impression is that this is what such a repressive system produces, by mechanisms of defunct societal interaction. LJ user svobodoff, for example, thinks that [ru] "the explosion has covered the regime in blood":

Такого кошмара люди в относительно спокойной когда-то Белоруссии от режима Лукашенко ещё не ожидали. Последние несколько лет существования диктатуры преподносили много неприятных "сюрпризов" для миролюбивых белорусов, но никто не думал, что это может зайти так далеко.

"Such a nightmare, the people of the previously relatively peaceful Belarus had not expected from Lukashenko's regime. The last few years of the dictatorship's existence have heralded many unpleasant "surprises" for peace-loving Belarusans, but nobody thought that it would go this far."

Bloggers loyal to the regime reacted with vehemence against any attempts to pin the blame on the Lukashenko regime, as LJ user lyavon did [ru]:

Не успел рассеяться дым от взрыва, как в интернете словно по команде появились сотни постов с обвинениями в адрес властей... авторам уже все ясно - виноват опять президент. Злобная Петра на минскбае, засучив рукава, банит всех, кто пытается высказать мнение, отличающееся от утвержденного из Вашингтона. Просто п[---]ц, у этих свиней нет никакой совести... Люди! Одумайтесь!!! Нельзя так бесстыдно использовать чужие страдания!!!

зы: судя по всему, это попытка разыграть египетский сценарий... сейчас будут призывать идти на плошчу и тд и тп...

"The smoke from the explosion had not even settled, before hundreds of posts, as if by command, appeared on the Internet with accusations directed towards the government... For the authors, everything was already clear - the president is once again to blame. Like a vicious Peter on Minskby [Minsk web community], with sleeves rolled up, banning everyone, who tries to express an opinion, which diverts from the one stipulated by Washington. It is simply **** that these swines have no conscience... People! Come to your senses!!! One should not so shamelessly exploit others' misery!!!

P.S. By all apperances, this is an attempt to unfold an Egyptian scenario... Now they will urge [us] to take to the square and so on..."

But there are also reactions against the polarization of interpretations. Thus, LJ user khatskevich writes [ru]:

Вчера произошло два ужасных события. Теракт и реакция на него. Страшно подумать – буквально не успели кровь смыть, как в блогах и твиттере прогрессивная общественность уже стала делать выводы и бросать обвинения. Оппозиция винила власть и белорусские спецслужбы, лоялисты винили оппозицию и зарубежные спецслужбы. Смешалось в кучу всё – доллары, сахар, Ливия – всё, что могло послужить хоть каким-то обоснованием пропаганды. [...] Лично мне кажется, что все эти домыслы и взаимные обвинения похожи на то, как если бы блогеры сбегали на Октябрьскую, перемазались в крови жертв, и стали бы кричать всякие лозунги, типа «это кровь жертв режима!» или «эту кровь пролили отморозки из пятой колонны» [...]. Люди, вам не стыдно? Да, мы по разные стороны политических баррикад. Но разве это повод уподобляться всякой нелюди и устраивать пиар своих идей на крови жертв теракта? Мы что, не в состоянии отбросить идеологические противоречия в эти страшные дни и просто побыть людьми?

"Yesterday, two terrible events occured. The terror act and the reaction to it. It is awful to think, but the blood had literally not been washed away before the progressive public already began to draw conclusions and make accusations. The opposition blamed the government and Belarusian special services, the loyalists blamed the opposition and foreign special services. Everything was mixed up in a nice heap - dollars, sugar, Libya - everything that could serve as any basis for propaganda. [...] Personally, I think that all these speculations and mutual accusations are as if bloggers ran down to Oktyabrskaya, smeared with the blood of the victims, and began to call out such type of slogans as "this is the blood of the regime's victims!" or "this blood was shed by the thugs of the fifth column" [...] People, are you not ashamed of yourselves? Yes, we may stand on opposite sides of the political barricades. But is this really a reason to characterize everyone as inhumane and make PR for your ideas by the blood of an act of terror? Are we not able to set aside ideological contradictions during these terrible days and simply be people?"

By the end of the day, perhaps some of the last sentiments may prove closest to the truth. It seems that people are simply fed up with the classical duality of "What is to be done? - Who is to blame?" when things go wrong. What this means for Belarus, only the future can tell, but at least it may be a sign of fatigue from the polarized divide between repression and resistance in the country.

Godfather of refused offers

For Global Voices Online: Is it a deliberate provocation, a government-engineered attack on a foreign head of state, a gas-giant's attempt to rock Russian foreign policy - or simply an example of good and critical journalism? Questions abound in the Russian-language blogosphere following Russian TV-channel NTV's 4 July screening of "The Godfather" - a documentary about Aleksandr Lukashenko, omnipotent president of neighbouring Belarus.

For long, Russia and Belarus have stood out as brothers in arms in the dysfunctional family of post-soviet states. Strings of harmony have even sounded a 1999 ouverture to formal unification of the two states. But as with any family, outward accord often hides domestic discord, and disturbances have been both frequent and harsh. However, up until now Moscow and Minsk have made efforts to keep up appearances. It is against this background that Sunday's screening of NTV's Lukashenko-critical documentary - beside overall sentiments of indignation - has sparked speculations that "The Godfather" of Belarus may have refused too many offers from the Russian Dons.

Then, what about the documentary in itself? As LJ user zmagarka notes [RUS], the Lukashenko documentary has little new to offer about government involvement in political repression, murders, and disappearances in Belarus over the last 16 years:

Thank you NTV for this documentary about the biggest Belarusian psychopath. For us, this was absolutely nothing new, not least because the greater part of the video was clippings from old films [---]. The theme of the "vanished" (disappeared political opponents) should never be forgotten and there is no forgiving the murderers, not even hoping so in their sweetest dreams. Still, over the last 10 years, matters have grown so much worse. About this there is hardly a word.

Gazprom

Returning to the major theme of discussion, it is no secret that relations between Moscow and Minsk have been tense in recent years, and it is likewise well-known that Russia's former President and now Premier, Vladimir Putin, has had to make little effort to restrain his enthusiasm, on both a political and personal level, in dealing with Aleksandr Lukashenko, President of Belarus. Consequently, many see the documentary as a political commission to NTV, although opinions differ on whether Russian state gas company, Gazprom, is behind it all or if sanction has come from the very top of Russian politics. That NTV is controlled by Gazprom, which until recently was engaged in a prolonged gas war with Belarus, may not be sufficient reason to simply point the finger at this company. As LJ user sergeland points out, also state owned Russia Today sounds critique towards Lukashenko:

At the same time, the multilingual international channel Russia Today ran a similar story about the last dictator of Europe. Formally, NTV is an independent TV-network, although it belongs to Gazprom, and Gazprom belongs to the state. However, Russia Today is a wholly state-owned company. Therefore, it is wrong to think that this action is merely a limited revenge against Lukashenko for the loss of the recent gas war. Without sanction from the very top, nothing would have happened.

Some Russian bloggers also believe that this is not simply a temporary squabble, but that the documentary marks a change in Russian dealings with Lukashenko, and even call for a straightout annexation of Belarus, arguing that Moscow anyway constantly has to pay Minsk's bill. Thus, LJ user elf_ociten, in a piece called "NTV tears the mask off the godfather" [RUS], writes:

At long last, the elite of the Russian Federation has made it clear that it is not heading down the same road as the bloody and thieving last dictator of Europe. It is time to disassociate ourselves from an independent Belarus and stop the farce of a union state, and thank God, Moscow has also put the question squarely to the Belarusian élite: Either Belarus becomes a North-Western territory (as an option) - without Lukashenko - as part of the Russian Federation, and with possible separation of ethnically Polish territories, or let's dump it together with Lukashenko and his free lunches to all four sides. As the saying goes, the cards have been called, and it's time to pay up.

However, such ideas are dismissed with ridicule in Minsk, and Belarusian bloggers are not late to underscore that also Russia is dependent on Belarus. As LJ user pan_andriy [RUS] is quick to point out:

On Belarusian forums, you can come across blunt suggestions to cut off transit of food to Russia. After all, Moscow sits with 90% imports of chow, of which a lot is rolled through Belarus. Within two days there would be full chaos in Moscow (remember the madhouse with salt because of rumours of a "war with Ukraine").

There are also voices in Belarus expecting its political leadership to pay back in kind, and according to LJ user Nagnibeda [RUS], there are even rumours that a documentary about Putin is in the making:

As a very initiated television source is saying, recruitment of staff has started for a film about Putin, in which the subject will be tougher than in the one reeled on NTV about Lukashenko. Putin will not merely be a murderer, but an outright serial killer of his own people.

Finally, as the saying goes: Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but do not notice the beam that is in your own eye? Consequently, LJ user varfolomeev_v draws some parallels [RUS] between politics in Belarus and Russia:

I wonder whether the executors of this political contract noticed that, telling about the horrors of political life in Belarus, they made a film about contemporary Russia? Only the names are different, but everything else - crackdowns, arrests, murders, and so on - wholly characterises also our own regime.

At the end of the day, and despite a recent customs union, it is becoming increasingly evident that Russia and Belarus do not head in bed again, and still they seem destined to more horsing about, not least if hiring media gunmen. Perhaps, both Slavic brothers should thus heed the advice of another godfather: "Never tell anybody outside the family what you're thinking again."

Belarus - European watershed?

If society bans murder, how can society itself commit murder? By which morality does a state justify and perform murder of its own citizens? Is the state somehow part of a higher ethical stratum, where it deems itself the right to take life for life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth? No, this is contrary to the basics of European norms and values - to what we are as a civilised society. Still, to this very day, one single country in Europe actively exercises - what it believes to be - its right to deprive humans of their lives, namely Belarus.

A few days ago, Amnesty International published its annual report on the death penalty and executions in the world, stating that "Belarus is the last country in Europe and in the former Soviet Union that still carries out executions." At the same time, the European Union is easing the pressure on the authoritarian Lukashenko regime in Belarus, in an attempt at extracting relations with Minsk from the dead end of sanctions' and isolationary policies. The EU has thus e.g. lifted the ban on international travel for the regime's leadership.

As much as such EU-ouvertures may be wise - realising the failure of isolationism - a change of policy towards Belarus demands careful reassessment and consideration of what is to be achieved and to what price. It is not enough to say that policy must change for the sake of change, if such change cannot create true change. Above all, however, we as Europeans, whether of Western or Eastern origin, must take a stand on which fundamental norms and values are inalienable, and which we are prepared to compromise with. This is to pose a few fundamental questions.

What is it to be European today? Arguably, the key common denominator for European statehood today is the abolition of the death penalty. It is a moral basis of the post Cold War European order, the logical consequence of the Helsinki process, the Council of Europe (CoE) and European overall integration.

This was clearly understood already by Gorbachev in the late 1980s, and was part of his common European home. Realising that the death penalty was incompatible with being a member of the European family, also Yeltsin's Russia took steps towards abolishing capital punishment, despite widespread public resistance. As part of its CoE accession process, Moscow accepted the proviso of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR prot. no. 6) to abolish the death penalty, and implemented a moratorium on executions, which has been upheld to this very day. In the 1993 Russian constitution, the intention to abolish the death penalty was clearly stated (art. 20). Although Russia has not yet abolished the death penalty, the normative value of not carrying out executions has so far been powerful enough for the country not to reconsider this position.

The founding fathers of American democracy held the right to life and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable out of religious and ideological conviction. To the perspectives of rationality and enlightenment they added the intrinsicality of fundamental rights and freedoms, thus reaffirming the achievements of the French revolution. The US bill of rights prohibits government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Some three scores hundred years later, Europe - in contrast to America - has reached as far as realising the right to life for its citizens to its full measure, without the restriction of legally sanctioned capital punishment. It is a powerful statement that the state is not more than its citizens - a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Why is it so?

As life, death is also a constant companion to human existence. Throughout human history, society has condoned itself to killing its own citizens for the sake of social order and cohesion, as punishment for crimes spanning from murder to petty theft, despite such basic norms and mottos as "thou shalt not kill." Respect for human life has varied, but still gradually progressed towards realising a ban on state executions. The utilitarian approach - societal homicide out of convenience - has given way to the fundamental right of human life. Such progress has demanded courage and conviction of our political leaders in their belief in the sanctity of life, also when it comes to the rights of the individual in relation to society and state.

As the European Union is now engaging in dialogue with the Lukashenko regime in Minsk, leadership is needed also in this respect. That four executions were carried through in Belarus only in 2008, should serve as a memento to European leaders as for which kind of regime they are dealing with, namely the only remaining European state that sees it fit to take the lifes of its own citizens, for whatever reasons there may be. Not having this constantly in mind is to tread a slippery slope in relation to the fundamental norms and values that make up the Europe that we have come to know and cherish.

A few years back, the opposition in Belarus carried placards with the motto "Kill your inner Lukashenko!" As much as killing seems inappropriate to the arguments held forth here - a call for caution when dealing with the last European state implementing the death penalty - it has a lot to say about the mental and intellectual process within each and everyone of us in reaching the conviction that capital punishment is contrary to our most basic values. The soviet liberal and founder of Memorial, Aleksandr Yakovlev, often used to say of Stalinist crimes that "the guilty are in hell, and among ourselves. --- Evil will not pass away before we acknowledge that we are sick ourselves." Thus, killing one's inner Lukashenko refers as much to acknowledging that one - as an individual - is part of the overall societal malaise of an authoritarian regime. A true change for the better can only come about as a result of individual and societal mental progress. This is as true when it comes to abolition of the death penalty, as to human rights and democratisation.

As leaders of the European Union now set forth to talk to the tyrant, their recipe should be a mixture of courage and humility in the realisation that they also carry the seeds of good and evil within themselves. Still, goodness and grace stand victorious in the guise of the common European identity, epitomised by the norms and values of fundamental rights and freedoms, and must also be the very basis of any current or future dialogue with the Lukashenko regime in Belarus. Any other way would be a betrayal to what we as Europeans are and what we stand for. We simply cannot embrace societies that condone murder of their own citizens as members of our European family, no matter how convenient this might seem. In Belarus, attaining fundamental rights and freedoms means fundamental change. If Europe and its leaders do not realise this, Belarus might prove a watershed also for Europe in the constant choice between good and evil.

Back to Belavezha?

A union between Russia and Belarus with Putin as president? Those are the rumours presently at sway in Moscow, as Dmitri Medvedev has just been nominated Putin's successor as Russian president. According to Ekho Moskvy, Putin is to sign an agreement on a full political union between the two countries during his visit to Minsk this week.

One would normally be inclined to agree with the Kremlin spokesman who characterised these rumours as coming "from the realm of speculative fantasies," but one never knows what might come out of Moscow these days. Still, the idea seems far-fetched and appears to arise from those who simply cannot imagine a Russia without Putin. Fears are wide-spread among the security structures that the choice of Medvedev as new Russian leader might topple the delicate balance Putin has ensured. Still, in recent years, the security structures have gained many of the system changes they have so eagerly wanted.

Putin's presidency has been an era of stabilization for Russia. However, from 2005 the influence from security structures have been felt by the so called new democratisation or the development of sovereign democracy - effectively ridding Russia of political rights and freedoms. Now, having attained stability and control of the country, Russia's next project is modernization, as expressed by the so called Putin plan. Then, the choice of Medvedev comes naturally.

Letting go of influence to enable socioeconomic development is no minor matter for the security structures, especially if it means giving power to so called liberals. As has however been demonstrated, there is little liberal politically in Russian elite liberalism. Or, as James Carville once put it: "It's the economy, stupid!" Russian elite liberalism today is all about economic growth and development and has little to do with liberal rights and freedoms.

Still, despite an impressive economic growth in recent years, there is a long way to go yet and many obstacles to overcome. The main problem on the way ahead might actually be to deal with the consequences of dismantling Russian democracy. Paradoxically, the greater political control the Kremlin has gained, the more severe are the potential consequences for the economy. As surveys from the World Bank has shown, the 2005 policy of new democratization coincides with a general downturn for the systems supporting a good business climate. Would this trend continue, it might become a mounting obstacle for the economic growth and diversification envisioned by the Putin plan as the coming era of modernization. Then, both security structures and Kremlin liberals are in for trouble.

To even consider a union with Belarus under these circumstances appears mere wishful thinking by soviet nostalgics, but might well be a test-balloon to see what room there is for a new political project by the security structures. Reunification of the Slavic lands - Belarus, and perhaps eventually Ukraine and even Kazakhstan - would be exactly the kind of task that would topple the construction of a new and successful Russia the entire Putin presidency has been about. If Putin were to sign an agreement on political union with Belarus, it would be as if reverting the 1991 Belavezha accords, signifying the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That would be a thoughtless revanchist act of the magnitude of Compiègne, but perhaps those are the sentiments in Russia presently.

A union between Russia and Belarus fundamentally contradicts the Putin plan's policy of modernization, and the only reason why it might still be seriously considered, would be as a concession from the liberals to the security structures for letting Medvedev succeed Putin as president of Russia. The question one must then ask, is if the ongoing Kremlin power struggle has been allowed to go so far, as to enable even the craziest ideas. If the union and similar ideas would materialise, people will in a few years time look back with nostalgia to the relative peace and quiet of the Putin era.

Swedish East European Blog Update 2007

Should a foreign minister be allowed to blog? This has been a burning issue in the Swedish media and blogosphere this year. The blog in question, Carl Bildt's Alla dessa dagar, is a personal weblog, describing the daily chores and reflections of his life as foreign minister. His critics, mostly representing traditional media, hold that this sort of one-way-communication belittles the critical role of media, and that Bildt runs Sweden's foreign policy through a blog.

That Bildt is next to the only prominent Swedish blogger, who regularly writes about Eastern Europe, is a little recognised fact. With a life-long commitment to regional issues, support for the independence of the Baltic States in the early 1990s, and role as EU mediator in former Yugoslavia, Bildt has insights and knowledge in this area unique to Swedish politics. Regrettably, and in contrast to his dormant Bildt Comments, his current Swedish-language blogging efforts at Alla dessa dagar are but daily notes dotted down in the margins of a life as a travelling salesman in foreign policy, and lack the clear views and analysis that he previously provided his readers with. It would probably have been much more interesting if Bildt's critics had been proven right, viz. that he would actually run Swedish foreign policy through a blog. Instead, it might seem that Bildt has fallen victim to the noblesse oblige of his office, by self-imposed censorship. The truth of the matter may, however, be much closer at hand: As foreign minister, life is simply too demanding to write analytically in the precious little spare time available.

In comparison to the 2006 review of Swedish blogs on Eastern Europe, Bildt is one of the few bloggers remaining. Only about half of the blogs in the 2006 survey are still active. On the positive side though, the number of Swedish East Europe bloggers has expanded, including some very promising new blogs, forming potential nuclea of blog clusters. The evolving pattern is thus a division into media, politcal, Slavophile, organisational, and expat blogs.

A decisive point for the expansion of the issue specific blogosphere was probably the October 2006 murder of Anna Politkovskaya. The leading Swedish evening paper, Aftonbladet, intensified coverage on Russia, and started cooperating with Novaya Gazeta. Recently, some experiments have also been made with blogging, by Johanna Melén's Moskva direkt, and one might expect this to become a recurrent feature of reporting.

The most regionally initiated blogger among Swedish journalists is indisputably Kalle Kniivilä of the Sydsvenska Dagbladet daily. He regularly posts stories, mainly about politics, in Swedish, Finnish, Esperanto, and Russian at his blog diVERse. Kniivilä's enthusiasm for his subject clearly shines through, and despite clear and strong views, he delivers a reasonably balanced coverage. The only downside of it is that you never know which language to expect, potentially discouraging regular reading. Still, it is definitely worth the effort.

Another journalist blogging about Russia is Sylvia Asklöf of Barometern-OT daily. She regularly blogs in Swedish at Sylvanien - a title obviously alluding to both her own name and the subjects she covers. The intention is to deliver her own reactions to our time, developments in Russia, and some tidbits about Swedish politics. By blogging, she shares her reflections and experiences of some 15 years as a russophile.

An infant Swedish East European blog cluster is the political, totally dominated by liberals. With the Swedish International Liberal Forum (SILC) as a base, a number of blogs about the region have been started. The first was Tobias Ljungvall's blog on Belarus, which regrettably closed down about a year ago. Instead, SILC activities have given rise to e.g. Amanda Lövkvist's blog Lindrig huliganism (Swedish), which main focus is on the situation of the Russian liberal opposition. Lövkvist - as was the case with Ljungvall - had also a book published by SILC on the topic of her blog. It also seems Amanda is running a blog in Russian called olydiagron, with views from Stockholm and St. Petersburg.

Another liberal in the blogosphere is Andreas Ribbefjord, with Andreas's Blog on Russian and Swedish foreign policy and current affairs. Coverage on Russia is, to a great extent, based on experiences from cooperation between the Swedish liberal party and its Russian counterpart Yabloko and the dissenters' movement.

Similar to both the political and media blogs are a few Slavophile blogs, which often offer interesting views and insights. Mi Lennhag at demo.se provides really good coverage of Eastern Europe with a focus on Russia. Anna-Maria Norman posts various pieces on the Ukraine at en salig blandning, and currently also runs a summer 2007 Ukrainian travelogue - ukraina 2007 - with her friend Hanna Söderbaum. Norman has both commitment to and insight into the Ukraine, which hopefully will encourage her further publishing efforts. A recent Slavophile addition is blogger Bjolso, who writes about politics and society at Ett annat Ryssland and about music at Russian music video blog.

The third tendency is that organisations and institutions dealing with the region are beginning to discover the blog media. Already last year, the Swedish Union of Journalists used Fredrik Nejman's Ukraina-blogg to cover a cooperation project with its Ukrainian counterpart. Now, as this cooperation seems finalised, its blog will probably go into hiatus. An NGO-activist, Swedish Amnesty Russia coordinator, is Johanna Lärken, who runs Med blicken mot öster, which regularly presents views and reflections on Russian politics and civil society. Also, Gunilla Lindberg - a member of the Swedish-Polish Association - publishes Bulletinenbloggen, as a complement to a Swedish-Polish online journal. A nascent Polish exile blogger community is also discernible, revolving around the foremost Swedish expert on Polish politics, Jakub Święcicki. At the Święcicki blog, he writes about politics and society - currently Poland under the reign of the Kaczyński twins. Politics, culture, and society are also the subjects of choice for other bloggers in this promising group of Polish exile kulturnye and intellectuals. Furthermore, the special Swedish system of adult education - the Folk High Schools - leaves its imprints on the blogosphere by Ove R. Eriksson's blog Eurasia Studies, reflecting on the experiences of East European studies at Österlens folkhögskola. The organisational category may also include Göran Dalin's Allt om Georgien - a hub for the Georgian diaspora community in Sweden - covered already in last year's review.

Then, there are the expat blogs. A blogger already known to many interested in the area is Erik Petersson's Dushanbe Pictures, which is still going strong in contrast to his Moscow blog Samtidigt i Moskva that seems to have gone into indefinite hiatus. With Dushanbe Pictures, Petersson regularly posts pictures from Tajikistan, and his photos are really worth seeing. The Central Asian perspective is complemented by a Caucasian, with C-G Erixon's CG Bloggin' - until recently based in Abkhazia.

Among the seniors of Swedish East European bloggers is Murmansk-based Wictoria Majby's Ryska Rövarhistorier, which after a period of hiatus, has recently resumed posting Russian cock-and-bull stories. A welcome addition is A Russia of my own, by Josefina - an aspiring writer based in Yekaterinburg. Writing in English, she posts stories and reflections from a provincial perspective of the Russian Urals, with the motto "Ambition mixed with vodka gets me up in the morning." However, she is not exclusive among regional reporters. Erik i Ryssland is a Swedish expat who has been living in and reporting from Rostov-na-Donu ever since 2005.

Turning to the big cities, another fine newcomer is Expat i Ryssland by female boxer Anna Ingman, who blogs about a training-existence in St. Petersburg. She also contributes with regular chronicles to the Västerbottens-Kuriren daily. Guran i Moskva and Thomas i Moskva are two blogs by Swedish teachers, telling about life and school in Russia. Furthermore, Kina i Moskva blogs about experiences and fashion in the Eastern metropolis. Turning west, Mats i Warszwa writes about his endeavours in the Polish capital. Last but not least, Sweden has - for the last year - had a welcome visit by one of the long-standing Russia bloggers, namely American expat Megan Case. Her unpretentious and down-to-earth accounts of life in Russia have gradually developed into an indispensable component of the expat Russia blogosphere, and she has also recently started blogging in Russian at американка, к сожалению.

To sum up, the Swedish blogosphere on Eastern Europe is undergoing expansion and some of the necessary stabilisation to form the dynamic density needed for a blog community. What is also positively surprising is that the number of women blogging about Eastern Europe equals that of the men, which seems an exception to the international East European blogosphere. A disadvantage for the international audience is that blogs, with few exceptions, are in Swedish. For Swedish bloggers though, the domestic audience seems larger than the international, even when blogging about events and phenomena taking place abroad.

As for contents, it is obvious that the Swedish blogosphere on Eastern Europe is much more Swedish than it is East European. For better or for worse, much of it reflects both the norms and values of Swedish society, and its views and perceptions of Eastern Europe. This is especially so when it comes to Russia blogging, where the idealistic often takes precedence over the realistic, which may prove dubious in the long-run, as Swedish views and Russian realities become too divergent. Still, despite this caveat, the Swedish blogosphere on Eastern Europe seems to meet with a bright future - a situation unforeseen but a year ago.

Minsk Opposition Rally Gathers 15,000

This Sunday saw the biggest opposition demonstrations in Minsk since the April protests against the presidential elections last year, prolonging Lukashenka's rule over Belarus. An estimated 15,000 demonstrators gathered in front of the Academy of Sciences to listen to Alyaksandr Milinkevich and other opposition leaders, in commemoration of the first shortlived Belarusian National Republic of 1918.

This time, authorities used milder methods to thwart the demonstrations than the violence seen last year. Thus, some 50 opposition activists throughout Belarus had been arrested prior to the rally, in order to complicate its organisation. The march was also led away from the city centre, and police repeatedly urged people to dissolve the "illegal demonstration." Furthermore, the Lukashenka regime had staged a number of concerts to draw attention away from the opposition rally.

Demonstrations must be seen as a test of oppositional strength and resilience. The opposition has for long been torn by internal struggles and conflicts, which has been skilfully exploited by the Lukashenka regime. With increasingly strained relations to Moscow, Lukashenka has recently signalled rapprochement and dialogue with the West, and here the predominantly western-oriented opposition is once again seen as an obstacle to the president's plans.

Speaking at the rally, former presidential candidate, Alyaksandr Milinkevich, called for political freedom and for the long-term inclusion of Belarus into the European Union. Referring to the international isolation of the Lukashenka regime, Milinkevich said: "We should understand that we are not alone. The democratic world and Europe stand together with us."

As a token of oppositional unity, the demonstration must be seen as a great success. Still, the opposition coalition remains fundamentally divided, and Alyaksandr Kozulin, who came second in last year's presidential elections, is currently serving a 5 1/2 year prision sentence for his political activities. So, as Milinkevich called out to the masses that "We are the majority! We will win!" it is questionable if this is enough to overthrow the Lukashenka regime. As long as the opposition remains divided, majority is not the issue - unity is.

The Putin Persuaders!

Take two relatively harmless compounds, say nitro and glycerine, mix them together and you have a very potent combination. Petersburg's Dmitri Medvedev in his first-ever television series... Sergei Ivanov in his first series since his good old Lubyanka days... internationally famous guest stars... glittering settings on the Red Square and in other famous pleasure spots... corrupt bureaucrats by the thousand... and tingling adventure combined with exhilirating tragedy.

In the first episode of "The Persuaders!" called Overture, Vladimir Putin, as the President, brings Sergei Ivanov - the Nevsky blueblood - and Dmitri Medvedev - the self made billionaire from out of the Petersburg slum - together. They are opposite characters, but together they are as explosive as dynamite. As the President says in the first episode: "I like the analogy and I light the fuse.”

Two mismatched, wealthy playboys engage in intrigue and high adventure in exotic locales as they set out to instigate criminal cases the police won't solve. One of them will assume the role of Russian president in a year, heralding the series' demise.

Currently, "The Persuaders!" is the most expensive television series ever produced, with location filming in Grozny, Davos, London and Sochi. While it is a huge success in Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, the series makes little impact in the US, where it airs opposite "Mission Impossible Iraq."

"The Persuaders!" has everything as it unveils the hectic exploits of two bloated middle-aged playboys who are tricked into becoming partners... a debonair Soviet chekist and a self-made gas billionaire from Petersburg. They're reluctant heroes, swept into a crazily dangerous life together. "The Persuaders!" is a series with all the sparkle of sovetskoye shampanskoye.

In its 24 episodes you will watch history unwind itself before the eyes of an amazed world. "The Persuaders!" is a series you simply must not miss.

Lukashenko No Rocket Scientist

Yesterday, a Russian space rocket carrying 18 satellites crashed shortly after takeoff from Baikonur spacebase in Kazakhstan, as reported by international media. The accident presents a serious setback for Belarus new and proud space-programme. The rocket was carrying Belka - Belarus' first to be human-made object in space. As it now appears, this dream was never realised.

Since Kazakhstan became independent in 1991, Russia has kept on to its spacebase in Baikonur by a bilateral lease agreement, which runs until 2050. Baikonur has since been used as a launching-pad for numerous satellites, mainly for commercial purposes. One pleasant twist to activities at the spacebase is that Russia uses converted intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) for these peaceful purposes, thus literally turning swords into ploughshares. Working on a commercial basis, Baikonur has also allowed other countries to enter the space age, as should have become the case also for Belarus on Wednesday.

Thus, it was with great pride that Belarus president Alyaksandr Lukashenka yesterday stood watching how the country's first satellite took off from Baikonur space-centre in Kazakhstan. As the rocket rose to the skies, it was to become a short-lived joy for Lukashenka. But 86 seconds after take-off, the rocket started twirling to the ground to eventually explode in a burst of fire. Regretfully, no media reported Lukashenka's reaction to the crash. Let us however assume that it would not have been his one and a half minute of glory.

Of course, had Lukashenka himself been a rocket-scientist, the accident would never have happened. One cannot but pause to wonder, why this very gifted man does not master also rocket science, but perhaps not even Lukashenka can be omnipotent. Therefore, someone else has to take the blame for failure. Yesterday, Belarus opposition leader Milinkevich was arrested by police. It will be interesting to see whether he will be charged for sabotaging Belarus glorious space programme. After all, the motto of the regime is: "Together towards a strong and prosperous Belarus!" Then some insignificant little opposition leader should not be allowed to sabotage Belarus' glorious and bright future under the wise leadership of president Lukashenka. Or should he?

Belarus Opposition Leader Sentenced to Jail

Today, a court in Minsk sentenced Belarus opposition leader and former presidential candidate Alyaksandr Kozulin to five and a half years' imprisonment, according to his wife. Kozulin was charged with organising protests in March against the reelection of Alyaksandr Lukashenka as president of Belarus. Lukashenka received some 83% of votes, which provoked widespread public protests and demonstrations.

The now sentenced Kozulin remains somewhat of an enigma to most analysts. In contrast to the other presidential candidate, Alyaksandr Milinkevich, Kozulin unexpectedly appeared as a candidate at a late stage of the runup to the March elections. His populism and provocative slandering of president Lukashenka was something new to Belarus politics. Many also wondered why he was allowed to attack the president on state TV, which is strictly controlled by the regime.

The initial assumption was that the regime had Kozulin run for the presidency in order to split the opposition. A more likely explanation is that he was Moscow's man. Accordingly, Russia would have used Kozulin to replace the increasingly difficult Lukashenka. Such assumptions are supported by an apparent power struggle within the regime in connection to the elections.

Thus, it seems that Lukashenka might just have averted being ousted from office by political forces allied with Moscow. His disappearance from the public after elections and the postponement of the presidential inauguration are further circumstantial evidence of a power struggle. That Belarus authorities now crack down so hard on Kozulin would serve as the final confirmation of the Russian connection. However, as is often the case with authoritarian regimes, one should be careful with taking rumours for granted. What is obvious is the increasing desperation of the Lukashenka regime to hold on to its grip on power.

Belarus: HR-Activists Get Swedish Awards

On Monday, the Anna Lindh Memorial Fund announced that this year's human rights' awards both go to Belarus. Thus, Tatiana Ravyaka receives the 2006 Anna Lindh Prize and Alyaksandr Byalyatski the Per Anger Prize. Both prize winners represent the Belarusian Human Rights Center Viasna.

Byalyatski, the leader of Viasna, has for a decade supported human rights in Belarus by offering legal aid to the thousands of people that have been repressed by Lukashenka's regime. He is awarded the Per Anger Prize for his "brave struggle for the rights of the individual in the fight against oppression of human rights."

Tatiana Revyaka, also of Viasna, receives the 2006 Anna Lindh Prize for her "committment, empathy and persistence in disclosing wrongs and supporting and advocating the oppressed. She courageously defies political oppression and spreads knowledge of an alternative society in which the rights of the individual are inviolable."

The Anna Lindh Memorial Prize was founded in honour of former Swedish minister of foreign Affairs, Mrs. Anna Lindh, who was murdered by a madman during a political campaign in 2003. The Per Anger Prize is in honour of ambassador Per Anger, Raoul Wallenberg's closest associate in salvaging jews in Hungary during WWII. The prizes will be presented to Revyaka and Byalyatski at a ceremony in Stockholm on 14 june.

Belarus: The Galina Rodionovna Mystery

On account of a recent dicussion at Tobias Ljungvall on Belarus, more questions must obviously be raised about Galina Rodionovna - wife of Belarus president Lukashenka. Who is she - this first lady of Belarus? Few seem to know, why the question all the more deserves an answer. Who can solve the mystery of Galina Rodionovna - Belarus' secretive presidential wife?

As previously discussed, Lukashenka's wife, Galina Rodionovna, has for long been out of public view in Belarus. She still lives in the rural town of Shklov, where Lukashenka once led a collective farm. Officially, she is regularly commuting to her husband in Minsk, but among others the BBC claims that the couple is separated. They have two sons together - Viktor and Dmitry.

On the few occasions, when Lukashenka has commented on Mrs. Rodionovna, he has been saying things like: "Wives have no business in the affairs of state officials." Lukashenka has also reportedly been negative to examples where wives and children of state leaders are put in the limelight. This would seem one of the few positive traits of Lukashenka. However, keeping his family out of power seems to be an ambition that he nowadays is not fulfilling, as his sons appear to exercise an increasing influence in state affairs.

The picture above, courteously provided by Tobias Ljungvall, depicts the couple's wedding. However, it is one of only two available photos of Mrs. Rodionovna. The other one depicts her milking a cow, which does not appear a common chore for a presidential wife. Ljungvall claims that "she is said to be a decent woman." Then, what more is to be said? Questions abound, but little is disclosed. For the time being, it seems that Galina Rodionovna will continue to be a mystery to the world.

GUAM leaves CIS for ODED

Among this plethora of abbreviations, leaders of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova (GUAM), met in Kiyev earlier this week to agree on forming the regional Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM, Ukrainian Journal reports. In effect, this means that the four countries are about to pull out of the CIS, as previously speculated upon.

Formation of a new organisation is perhaps an overstatement of the results actually reached at the Kiyev summit. In essence, it simply establishes the final metamorhosis of the old GUUAM into a new GUAM, this time definitely closing the door to renegade member Uzbekistan. Thus, the GUAM-states will now proceed in cooperation within economy and free trade to form a bloc of peace, stability, and prosperity throughout the region. The Kiyev Declaration on Establishment of the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM, states as its aim "the enhancement of democracy, adherence to the rule of law, respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, economic development of States and assuring of security and stability." Great emphasis is also put on the importance to safeguard "sustainable supply of energy resources."

The headquarters of ODED-GUAM will be in Kiyev. Its rival regional organisation - the CIS - leads a fading existence from its offices in Belarus capital Minsk. As the GUAM-states now seem destined to withdraw from the CIS, the Commonwealth may however gain a renaissance. With less internal opposition, Russia may want to use the CIS more as a tool in its policy towards the near abroad than was previously the case due to CIS-membership of the GUAM-states. Whether Moscow opts for such a solution is however far from clear, while Russia may prefer a unilateral policy towards its lost empire. What is becoming strikingly clear however is that reform-oriented nations of the former Soviet Union are forming a cordon sanitaire against Russia to curve Moscow's influence over its near abroad.

Belarus Bans Helsinki Committee

Yesterday, a voice of freedom, justice, and democracy was silenced in Belarus. The Belarusian Helsinki Committee was finally banned by the Lukashenka regime, having fought a long and uneven struggle in defence of Human Rights. This leaves the people of Belarus without a champion for the individual rights and freedoms enjoyed by the bulk of European citizens.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court decision to illegalise the Helsinki Committe was announced by Belarusian Ministry of Justice. Supreme Court judges are appointed by the president, why the decision to ban the Committee must be seen in this context. The Belarusian Helsinki Committee has fought a consistent and continuous battle for the observance of Human Rights in Belarus. Since last autumn, its activities have however gradually petered out in view of the regime's increasingly oppressive measures against it, drastically curtailing conditions for its mere existence. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Lukashenka regime now has taken the final step of closing down the committee by outlawing it.

The pretext for the ban are accusations of Committee irregularities during the 2004 parliamentary elections, and breach of laws regulating NGO activities in Belarus. Last autumn, the Helsinki Committe was fined some 75,000 USD for tax evasion. Needless to say, most of the charges brought against the Committee have been fabricated by the regime. The ban testifies to Lukashenka's fear of the power of human rights and individual freedoms. He is probably right in this fear, as norms and values have previously proven a mighty power to change the minds of people in Central and Eastern Europe. The struggle for human rights was a contributing factor to the demise of the communist East bloc. Creating awareness of these issues led people to realise that: "We can no longer live like this - we have rights."

Little did Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev realise that values and not weapons would become the crucial issue, when he in 1975 approved the Helsinki Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Its third basket, dealing with individual freedoms, laid the foundation of a rights movement that was to contribute to the downfall of the Soviet Union and put an end to political oppression in the Eastern bloc. In 1976, the Moscow Helsinki Group was formed to make the Soviet Union observe its commitments from Helsinki, inspiring dissidents throughout the East bloc to follow in Czechoslovakia - Charta 77 - and in Poland in 1977. The inspiration from Helsinki initiated a movement today associated with names such as Nobel laureates Andrei Sakharov and Vaclav Havel, and fellow dissidents like Yelena Bonner, Adam Michnik, and Jacek Kuron.

The Helsinki Final Act to this day stands out as a beacon for freedom and enlightenment in the eyes of the oppressed throughout the Eurasian hemisphere. By linking peace and security with the respect for human rights, soft security in the 1980s made the difference for change whereas hard security spiralled into an arms race threatening our very existence. Instead, by the recognition of universal rights, humanity became the salvation for mankind. Today, peace is secured but the Helsinki rights live on - as self-evident and inalienable as those of the American bill of rights.

When Lukashenka now bans the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, it is because he understands that it is a threat to his power. What he does not realise is that ideas, norms, and values can neither be suppressed nor banned, while they rest in the minds of people. Lukashenka may deprive the people of their rights, but he cannot silence the voices of the people calling for freedom and justice. Instead, robbing the people of their rights only leaves them with a feeling that they are bereaved of what is intrinsically theirs. It only serves to further spur them to better know and act upon their rights and duties, and by exercising them bring about change. It is with this in mind, one realises that the ban of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee is yet another step towards a level of repression that in the end will produce a counter-reaction. Sooner or later the people will rise to the challenge of reinstating freedom and democracy in Belarus. That day, come when it may, will inevitably mean the downfall of Lukashenka and his dictatorial accomplices.

Belarus, human rights, Helsinki Committee, ban

Belarus: EU Freezes Lukashenko Assets

The European Union on Thursday decided to freeze the assets of president Alyaksandr Lukashenka and those of 35 other leading Belarus politicians, AFP reports. The measure is a reaction against suppression of the opposition during the March presidential elections.

According to the EU, all assets belonging to people responsible for breach of election rules and suppression of the democratic opposition will be affected. In April, the EU imposed travel restrictions for the same 35 people besides the president himself. Opposition allegations of election fraud have been met with stern reactions from the regime, including repeated police crackdowns on demonstrations. OSCE election observers found that the presidential election was severely marred by irregularities and outright fraud. On March 19, Lukashenka was reelected as president with an overwhelming 83 percent of the votes. The results only serve to strengthen the impression of dictactorial ambitions that have been a growing feature of Lukashenka's rule ever since his rise to power in 1994.

Belarus, EU, sanctions, travel, Lukashenko

CIS: Halfling Joins While Giants Leave?

Last Thursday 4 May, breakaway Georgian republic of Abkhazia declared its intention to join the Commonwealth of Independent States, Interfax reports. Reactions from Tbilisi and Kiyev were quick. Both Georgia and Ukraine now seriously consider leaving the CIS.

Abkhazi leader Sergei Bagapsh stated that: "Abkhazia's priorities are membership of the Commonwealth of Independent States and further rapprochement with Russia." Last August, Bagapsh openly confirmed his ambition of "Abkhazia's secession from Georgia and de facto merger with Russia." Now he sets the goal to join the CIS by the end of the year, but "Abkhazia's further political and economic rapprochement with Russia is the central issue. We remain adherent to our proposals on Abkhazia's associated membership of Russia," Bagapsh concluded, according to Interfax.

Reactions from Tbilisi and Kiyev
Bagapsh's declaration was immediately met with stern reaction from Georgia and Ukraine. Georgian president Saakashvili ordered his government to assess whether "it is worth remaining in the CIS," Nezavisimaya Gazeta reports. He went on to say that the conflict in Abkhazia back in 1993 had "forced Georgia to sign the declaration of joining the CIS." Now Georgia is seriously contemplating to leave the CIS.

On Friday, Ukraine also for the first time officially declared that the country might leave the CIS. Kiyev has for long been disappointed with how the organisation works. Thus, speaking about a Ukrainian withdrawal from the CIS, Yushchenko's foreign policy advisor, Kostyantyn Tymoshenko, said that "if there are no results, the question arises." During last week's Vilnius Forum, president Yushchenko also characterised integration with the EU and NATO his main foreign policy objective, according to NG. Such ambtions might prove incompatible with remaining a CIS-member.

A future for the CIS?
This puts the future of the CIS even more in question than previously has been the case. Today, few of its members - not even Russia - have any great hope in the organisation. The original split in perceptions of its purpose, viz. political as opposed to economic cooperation, remains. The political aim is epitomised by the CIS Collective Security Treaty, signed by six countries - Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Belarus. Turning to CIS economic cooperation, it can only be characterised as a resounding failure. Thus, demands were raised to find alternative to the CIS in lieu of its defunct economic record.

GUUAM instead of CIS?
In 1997, GUUAM was founded by the CIS-members not party to the Collective Security Treaty, with the single exception of Turkmenistan. GUUAM comprises Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan (1999), Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Its aim was to fulfil the original purpose of the CIS by economic cooperation and free trade. Excluding Russia, GUUAM has remained on the second echelon of post-soviet foreign policy, and the organisation has been careful not to portray itself as a counterbalance to members of the Collective Security Treaty, although it seems evident that so is the case. Georgia and Ukraine have also been GUUAM's most eager members in pursuing a regional policy independent from Russian influence.

Borjomi - a way forward?
To take the matter further, Saakashvili and Yushchenko, last August, issued the Borjomi Declaration, calling on their neighbours to unite "efforts to turn the Baltic-Black-Caspian Sea region into a sea of democracy, stability and security, to make it a fully integrated region of Europe and of the Democratic and Atlantic community." In Moscow's eyes, Borjomi's outright western orientation was seen as yet another attempt to insulate Russia and curve its influence over the near abroad. Whereas there may be some truth to Moscow's contentions on this point, one should however not shy away from the paramount fact of the matter: Russia and the CIS have little to offer in comparison to the fruits of western integration. That Georgia and Ukraine are the first to publicly raise their concerns whether to remain CIS-members should therefore come as no surprise, as they have seized the opportunity of western integration offered to them by their coloured revolutions.

The Abkhazi question
All in all, one must conclude that there is more to the issue than simply a statement by a renegade republic leader. As for Abkhazia, the region broke away from Georgia already in 1992. This separatist republic remains unrecognised by the international community, and there is no secret that Abkhazia would not survive long without Russia's backing. For long, Moscow has remained ambivalent on how to deal with the issue. As the UN, the EU and the OSCE insist that Abkhazia is part of Georgia, Russia has been reluctant to recognise its de facto independence. Instead, Abkhazia has oscillated between outright independence and associate membership in the Russian Federation. Today, most Abkhazis hold Russian citizenship, facilitating a potential future incorporation into Russia. This is also what Georgia claims is Moscow's long-term ambition, making the issue an international bilateral conflict instead of an internal secessionist conflict. So, is it a mere coincidence that a statement by some half-wit chieftain of a secessionist region would seem to shake the foundations of the entire CIS? Why should Abkhazia's wholly unrealistic ambitions to join the CIS spark off such stern reactions from both Georgia and Ukraine?

A pretext for divorce?

First, it is beyond doubt that the Abkhazi CIS-ambition is utterly senseless. It would presuppose Abkhazi independence, and even then CIS-members Georgia and Ukraine might still easily bar Abkhazia from membership. Second, one should ask why such a ridiculous statement is made specifically at this point in time, when the dividends of post-soviet space are are about to be paid to either Russia or the West. That Abkhaz leader Bagapsh's statement coincided with US vice president Cheney's critique of Russia at the Vilnius conference last week, shows that there is more to this than first expected. Third, the declared western orientation of Georgia and Ukraine - reiterated in Vilnius - serves only to underline the basic contradiction in clinging on to an imagined union by a post-soviet Commonwealth. From Moscow's point of view, the CIS is to little avail as long as the organisation cannot be used as an instrument for Russia's de facto power and influence over most CIS-countries. So, both parties want out. Georgia and Ukraine want to go west. Russia wants to rid itself of difficult CIS-members to better control the organisation. Fourth, were Ukraine and Georgia to leave the CIS, remaining members would, in the process, be left to the best of their abilities to deal with Russian dominance over the CIS.

To conclude, it is remarkable how willingly Georgia and Ukraine swallowed Russia's bait - hook, line and sinker. Provided that considerations to other CIS-members do not prevail, it appears that Ukraine and Georgia will go west while the rest are left to their own devices. Going separate ways in concord is no loss. What such a split of the CIS may constitute, however, is part of a division of the spoils between Russian and US influence over post-soviet space, at a time when their strategic partnership seems to have come to the end of the road. Then, one might ask how much the sovereign choice of the nations and peoples of Central Asia is worth to the great powers of global politics. Would a halfling state join and make the giants leave, it might also well constitute the moral choice of halflings and not of the great giants. That is perhaps also the lesson of our times, that when power talks morale steps aside: "Erst kommt das Freßen, dann kommt die Moral." It remains to be seen how Great the Game will be played, and with what appetite.

CIS, Georgia, Abkhazia, Ukraine, Russia, GUUAM, Borjomi