DIALOGUE OR A DIALOGUE GAME?

2006-10-20

By Alyaksandr Klaskowski, analyst

Uladzimir Nistsyuk, deputy chairman of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Hramada), is proposing his organization as the best mediator in a likely dialogue with the authorities. He has outlined his considerations in an extensive interview with the Marketing and Consulting agency (www.iamik.ru). Other web-based news sources immediately started circulating this story, pointing that this interview does stand out of a standard set of statements by political opponents of the regime.

In the view of Nistsyuk, Lukashenka will never sit down at the same table with the "radical", "nationalistic" opposition. By and large, he says, "the main mistake of the political enemies of Lukashenka over the past twelve years is their foolish and harsh opposition to the authorities in all aspects." The politician hints that the Belarusian Social Democratic Party, different from the idealistic maximalists, is prepared to be flexible.

He also thinks that Europe, too, should start transforming their policy from threats to a search of compromises with the official Minsk, which, despite a gas attack from the Kremlin, still preserves firm positions both domestically and internationally. In Nistsyuk’s opinion, the highly experienced Lithuanian politician, Algirdas Brazauskas, could excel as a head of an ad hoc delegation to begin a dialogue with Lukashenka.

It is noteworthy that Brazauskas, like Nistsyuk, is a Social Democrat. Generally, this interview is definitely filled up with the party interests. Moreover, such positioning of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party as a constructive force by means of destructive criticism against the "radical" opposition naturally raises ethical questions. After all, there is no bigger radical for the authorities than jailed Alyaksandr Kazulin, who nominally remains the leader of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party.

But Nistsyuk (who once worked at Lukashenka’s team and has preserved his old connections) is an experienced politician; and he apparently smells the moment.

The logics are the following. On the one hand, the Belarusian leadership, under pressure from Gazprom, is forced to chivvy. On the other hand, Europe, too, welcomes a chance of dialogue. Neither declarations, nor sanctions have yielded success in the cause of democratization of the authoritarian regime. And the way, in which Brussels easily postponed for a later date the issue of depriving Belarus of EU trade preferences, as soon as Minsk hinted at loosening the grip over independent trade unions, proves the readiness of Europe for a flexible dialogue.

Another thing is that an imitation of the dialogue can begin, according to some Belarusian commentators. Such a game had already been observed before, says political analyst Mikalay Luksha. Suffice it to recall the attempts by OSCE Ambassador Wieck in Minsk in the late 1990s to promote "a wide socio-political dialogue."

Besides, a dialogue game could pay off both to Minsk and Europe, Luksha noted in an interview with The Viewer. The European Union, he reminds, is a conglomerate of 25 countries, which finds it often difficult to reach a balance of interests between different groups. A tough position on Belarus is usually lobbied by the groups without serious influence (human rights activists, NGOs, etc.). The players with a heavy economic weight are unlikely to be seriously interested in building up pressure on Minsk, as it could affect their businesses.

The expert community in Belarus has an opinion that the regime has a chance of starting a game in democracy with Brussels (also, Strasbourg, Vienna, Geneva, i.e.: PACE, OSCE, ILO, etc…). The pattern is the same as the integration game with the Kremlin, successfully played for the past ten years.

Of course, both the domestic opposition and the West should use every chance for a dialogue, which can lead to democratic changes. At the same time, Europe should also take into account the previous experience, political analyst Andrey Fyodaraw said in an interview with the Viewer. In other words, Europe should insist on very detailed concrete steps to promote democratization. Not just promises to let the opponents appear on national TV, but, for example, exactly one hour per week…Not loosening the repression against the independent press, but bringing it back to official subscriptions, newsstands and domestic printers…Not just promises to liberalize the electoral laws, but introducing solid quotas in election commissions for the political parties, and so forth.

Otherwise, it will be a vicious circle. For example, the authorities could present the release of one of political prisoners as a fine gesture, and then would imprison the other three…

Still, when we talk about the freedom for even one human being, any diplomatic efforts are justified.

Uladzimir NISTSYUK

Born in 1950…Graduated from a higher military school…Was one of the key members in Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s campaign headquarters during the 1994 presidential race…Was a member of the 13^th Supreme Soviet (Belarus’ parliament disbanded by President Lukashenka in late 1996)…Was a member of the Belarusian delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly between 1997 and 2001…Deputy chairman of the Belarusian Social Democratic Party "Hramada."