Why does the discussion of Belarus-Europe and Intrabelarusan dialog permanently provoke sharp conflicts within Belarusan political opposition? Uladzimir Matskevich, the Head of the Board of the International Consortium "EuroBelarus" suggests his vision of the situation.

In Belarusan society everything connected with a dialog – the European dialog on modernization and the dialog between Europe and the Belarusan regime, dialog of the civil society with the Belarusan regime and Europe — all of that is surrounded with a haze of incomprehension.

But this incomprehension is heterogeneous. At least three types of incomprehension can be singled out. The first one, the simplest level of incomprehension, is a naïve level, the level of ordinary people who are not initiated into the subtlety of international politics, diplomacy etc.

“Misunderstanding” of professionals

The second level is more complicated. This level is political, professional, when professionals who are supposed to know much about all these issues don’t understand the essence of dialog, its purpose and its possible outcome. Take, for example, Andrei Sannikau: a certificated diplomat, professional politician, former Deputy Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs. But, nevertheless, he actively opposes dialog not because he doesn’t understand that dialog will be conducted in any case. Now it is conducted in a hidden form and it is better to turn it into an official channel.

Then why and how does Sannikau have such attitude towards dialog? It is simple: his attitude is political. It is connected with concrete interests of the structure he presents and with the interests of those in Europe and America he has close connection with. In this case these interests differ from the interests of the Belarusan society, Belarusan nation and partially from the interests of the Belarusan opposition.

There are a lot of such people. And, unfortunately, almost all Belarusan parties which don’t have internal sources of financing are linked with these or those European or American structures. And there is parliamentary democracy in Europe and absolutely different groups are represented in the European Parliament. That’s why each of the Belarusan parties as represented by their leaders or people who are engaged in international relations tries to please their partners and colleagues in Europe and to please them. That is they basically implement not their own interests but rather somehow try to coincide with their partners’ stand without battling for the interests of the Belarusan society. Thus People’s party has a more radical stand — block of conservative and Christian parties in the European Parliament. A more moderate stand is taken by a group of social democrats.

The third level of incomprehension is connected with intraoppositional competition and struggle. Every leader tries to get in the mainstream of European politics, be the first who guesses the needs and aspirations of European politicians who make decisions without consulting; rather listening to the opinions of Belarusan experts or politicians. Europeans make decisions according to the interests of their country, their people and their political structure.

“We want everything and now” instead of step by step movement

It is all these three levels of incomprehension that create chaos and discordance with respect to dialog. Any dialog presupposes the movement of negotiating sides towards each other. Everybody speaks about a step-by-step strategy, a roadmap, some steps when at every stage it’s necessary for the sides to compromise mutually in order to pass on more profound issues and problems. It’s impossible to solve the most serious issues at once, it’s necessary to move gradually, step by step, towards them.

Almost everyone proclaims this step-by-step strategy. But the incomprehension of technique, procedures, programs and strategies of movement leads to a situation when many people are guided by this narrow, childish principle “we want everything and now”. For instance, there is no definite decision concerning discharge of political prisoners and their rehabilitation. There are different views. Legally nothing prevents the discharge of political prisoners simultaneously with the expungement of their previous convictions — it is permitted by the code of criminal procedure of the Republic of Belarus.

But the issue in question is political! And in political respect it’s clear that the regime will never be ready to think that people who are now being kept as political prisoners are not criminals. Sooner or later it will have to be admitted; but it’s clear that they can’t do this now. And then we must decide one simple question for ourselves: do we want the discharge of Bialiatski, Statkevich, Sieviaryniets and others or we will implement our principle and let them continue being prisoners and satisfy our principle stand?

The bloodiness of the regime is but comparable

The same concerns the sanction issue. It’s clear that after imposing embargo on the regime, and after stopping all economic relations with it, it’s possible to knock it down in the course of some months or even weeks. But the thing is that it’s necessary to gather the political will of all Europe. It’s impossible! And all Belarusan politicians who are certainly skilled people should have known it. They watch European politics and understand that when in Europe the issue about joining the war in Yugoslavia or Iraq etc. is being discussed huge masses of varied left-wingers, pacifists and radicals oppose countries’ joining the war against unlawful regimes.

t has to do with Iraq that committed genocide of its people and launched bloody wars with Iran and Kuwait. There shouldn’t have been any doubt about its bloodthirstiness; still, Europe did have them. In Yugoslavia genocide of Bosnian Muslims, mutual destruction of Croats and Serbs, assault of Albanians took place. All that cost hundreds of thousands of lives! Can we really compare bloodthirstiness of the Belarusan regime with that of Bagdad or Belgrade in those times?

When we try to pretend that Belarus is a threat to the world community equal to Belgrade and Bagdad it looks ridiculous for the majority of the European politicians. And those people who make this wave by overaccentuating such kind of solutions for the Belarusan problems know what they are for. They are well aware that they will achieve no results; however, they still will gain certain profit due to the radicalism of their stance.

Fishing in troubled waters

Still, there are other people who insist dropping sanctions. They say “look, the regime won’t make concessions. It is Europe that has to make concessions then”. Such a position is striking, too! Who is guilty of what is happening in our country: is it Europe or Belarus? It is Belarusan regime that is to blame. Thus, there should be pressure placed on the Belarusan regime. And drop of all the sanctions, even those of symbolic value is impossible. We can’t put pressure on them; they have to make decisions for the benefit of their own countries, but we can’t demand lifting of sanctions from them.

We can’t say that the “Office for a democratic Belarus” located in Brussels is in the regime’s service; it would have been too unfair. But they also try to fish in troubled waters with a declarative position and understanding that they can’t make the EU satisfy their demands. However, they show institutional loyalty and as opposed to the majority of other structures can cooperate with the regime officials because of that. The fact that this cooperation fruitless is withheld. Still, it is because of such a stance that the “Office for a democratic Belarus” can arrange meetings with middle-ranking civil servants. It turns out that everyone is fishing in troubled waters.

Principal stand and realism

I am the supporter of the relations based on principal. On the one hand, we can’t wait or ask about any relaxation of restrictions for the regime before the political prisoners are released.

On the other hand, I think that rehabilitation and total cancellation of a criminal record, and even awarding or life pension to every political prisoner will be done when the change of power takes place. Today’s regime is incapable to do that. Because it will indicate that the regime is weak and can be changed far too easily.

Of course, there is principal stand in solving these problems; however, we also should be realistic. And the mixture of principles and realism specifies our stance voiced by the Centre for European Transformation led by Andrei Yahorau. We uphold our standpoint at level of the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum and voice it through our experts and representatives.

The closest and the quickest way to release the political prisoners is just possible while we combine all these things — the principled insisting on the essential and realistic concessions when it comes to things that can be done not in the first instance, but rather at the second, third or even tenth step.