INTERVIEW: Belarusian opposition leaders on the Lukashenka regime (09/08/96)

INTERVIEW: Belarusian opposition leaders on the Lukashenka regime

Zyanon Paznyak, chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front and former parliamentary deputy, and Syarhei Navumchyk, also a former deputy and now the BPF press secretary, are in what, presumably, is temporary, self-imposed exile. They have been denounced by their erratic president, Alyaksandr Lukashenka, for opposing Mr. Lukashenka's pro-Russian, and, in their opinion, anti-Belarusian and dictatorial policies, and claim to have been marked for "neutralization" by the Lukashenka regime. This interview (Part I of which was published last week) was conducted on July 16 by The Weekly Editorial Assistant Yarema A. Bachynsky and Svoboda editorial staffer Serhiy Myroniuk at the newspapers' offices in Jersey City.

CONCLUSION

Q: Are there signs of civil disturbance in Belarus?

Zyanon Paznyak: Everything is leading towards just such an occurrence. The factories are still, wages are not being paid, prices are rising, because of the failed economic policies and financial crisis wrought by Lukashenka, cash reserves are dwindling, there is a total lack of real economic policy-making on the government's part. He even wanted to close the borders, which would have meant that people who survive by trading with Poland and our other neighbors would be totally impoverished. Given all this, what will the people do when the economy grinds to a total standstill? And here we may see the emergence of people onto the streets. This is a definite possibility. But, on the other hand, workers' strike actions may not happen, because the manufacturing plants are already empty, at a standstill. Not like in 1991, when hundreds of thousands came out into the streets. Trade union activity is banned, strikers are severely punished. So it is not certain that mass actions will occur. But a strong possibility exists. Meanwhile, opposition forces are mobilizing. The BPF has increased its activities, especially in terms of youth participation, and the spring has been very busy. What with the demonstrations against the regime, the impression that many may have that Belarus has been surrendered by its people is simply incorrect. This is Lukashenka propaganda for Western consumption, that the Belarusian nation wants to unite with Russia. It just isn't so.

Q: So what will decide Lukashenka's political fate?

Zyanon Paznyak: There are two factors which will decide the fate of the Lukashenka regime. The first is whether or not mass demonstrations will break out, and the second, what Moscow's reaction to such outbreaks would be, because Lukashenka really is hanging on Moscow's thread, no question about that.

Q: If there were mass disturbances directed against the Lukashenka regime, bearing in mind the Russian interventions in Tajikistan, Chechnya, Transdniester, would you comment on the possible Russian reaction to such disturbances? Is a Russian military intervention possible or likely in that event?

Zyanon Paznyak: None of these possibilities can be ruled out. Russia has the capability to intervene militarily in Belarus, and would do so if it felt its interests sufficiently threatened. For the present moment, Lukashenka is very useful to them. They managed to find a person who willingly, indeed zealously, pursues Russian strategic interests and carries out Russian dirty work in Eastern Europe, against Poland, the Baltic countries, Ukraine etc. At the same time they have found an individual who of his own volition surrenders to them the means for capturing Belarusian sovereignty and control over the country. He has given them the border, customs, transit rights for gas and petroleum, the petrochemical industry. He gives Russian capital absolute priority in the privatization of Belarusian industry. The Belarusian economy is being captured by Russian mafia capital. We have become beggars in our country, on our own land, still theoretically independent. Lukashenka uses the fact of his "democratic" election to sell his country down the river. Of course, Moscow is at times embarrassed by such abjectly supplicant behavior. It is worried that Lukashenka's days are numbered and that normal people will take his place and make things much more difficult for Russia. That is why Yeltsin and his imperialist-minded gang of so-called democrats support this fascistic regime, instead of supporting Belarusian democrats, although their support is not immediately obvious to the average person. It is interesting that in the recent Russian presidential elections, Lukashenka supported [Russian Communist] Gennadii Zyuganov rather than Yeltsin, because he knew that Zyuganov, who at the time looked to beat Yeltsin by a wide margin, would support him more directly in his work of attaching Belarus to Russia. We now know, of course, how Yeltsin won the election, what the Americans did to influence the vote, etc. And now Lukashenka is in a bit of a spot with official Moscow and Yeltsin. Although officially, Belarusian-Russian relations are as warm as ever, I am nonetheless convinced that Moscow will soon start recruiting a replacement for Lukashenka. Belarusian Parliament Chairman Syamyon Sharetski's public calls for a parliamentary republic and against Lukashenka may well be trial balloons floated by Moscow in this vein. So it appears that most scenarios foresee the downfall of the Lukashenka regime in the near future.

Q: Will Lukashenka agree to new elections at the appointed time, or will he find some pretext to extend his term in office?

Zyanon Paznyak: There is still some time before the next mandated elections, which are to be in 1999. Of course, it is possible for Lukashenka to try extending his hold on power in some way. What he will do is difficult to predict because of his specific character. But there is no doubt that he will hold onto power for as long as possible.

Syarhei Navumchyk: Today we received information from Radio Liberty sources, not confirmed officially, that Lukashenka will propose a new referendum, with questions touching on NATO expansion, a redrafting of the Constitution and an extension of his presidential mandate from five to seven years [this information was borne out subsequently by reports in OMRI Daily Digest and other news agencies that Mr. Lukashenka had, indeed, proposed such a referendum for the coming autumn.] We do not know if he will put the question of extending his mandate openly, e.g. as a separate referendum question, or whether he will operate by subterfuge and hide it in the new constitution. But the danger is real.

Zyanon Paznyak: Lukashenka has also proposed setting up a bicameral Parliament, with the upper house's members appointed by himself. But, interestingly, Sharetski again openly opposed him on this question, and this opposition suggests that Sharetski has Moscow's support here. For that matter, the BPF supports Sharetski's statements, because we are working on forcing Sharetski to allow a motion on the president's impeachment by the Parliament. Even though many of them are pro-Communist, they too are against Lukashenka, and would like a greater measure of parliamentary independence. So there is growing conflict between the president and Parliament, and things may well come to a boil in the autumn, both in Miensk and in Moscow.

Q: In last year's referendum in Belarus, large majorities of those voting supported granting Russian equal official status with Belarusian, supported the reintroduction of national symbols closely modeled on Soviet ones and gave Mr. Lukashenka the green light on close economic integration with Russia. How do you square these actions with your earlier statement that Mr. Lukashenka does not, in fact, enjoy the support of the majority and that most of the citizenry is supportive of Belarusian state independence?

Zyanon Paznyak: This is very simple to explain. It has happened more than once in past days. In an authoritarian environment, where the regime controls virtually all mass media and quashes all kinds of dissent, the regime always wins, at least in the short term. One could have put almost any question to a referendum and, in the given atmosphere of lies, propaganda and repression, those questions would have been approved. There is nothing strange here, whatsoever.

Q: Lukashenka recently visited France, where he met with French President Jacques Chirac. Mr. Chirac declared that his and Mr. Lukashenka's views on European security are essentially identical. As well, Reuters reported that this was Mr. Lukashenka's first official visit to a Western state. How does one explain the convergence of the two presidents' views?

Syarhei Navumchyk: Lukashenka gave an interview yesterday in which he stated that he had expected to arrive in France and be chastised by the French president for his alleged violations of so-called human rights, for his policies vis-a-vis NATO etc., but that Mr. Chirac had actually supported him on every issue and expressed his understanding of Lukashenka's situation.

Zyanon Paznyak: I would ascribe such statements to Lukashenka's Bolshevik way of thinking. He is a typical Bolshevik. A Bolshevik lies in politics as a matter of course, without any conscience whatsoever. And more importantly, the Lukashenka regime does not conduct a Belarusian foreign policy; his carrying out Moscow's foreign policy directives is another story. The Lukashenka regime is the primary threat to the stability of Eastern Europe. A regime which wants to close its borders, deports Solidarity leader Krszaklewski, supports the use of Belarus as a transit corridor for Russia and supports Russia's demand for a corridor through Poland to Kaliningrad Oblast, threatens [Czech President Vaclav] Havel that, should his country join NATO, Lukashenka will take "adequate measures," threatens re-deployment of nuclear missiles, crushes human rights - how can one speak of a cohesive or stable foreign policy given such actions? Lukashenka lies constantly. He lies to the point of believing his own lies. And Moscow knows him well, for he served in our republican soviet for six years. Let me give you another example of Lukashenka's lies, of how his propagandists lied about his meeting U.S. President Bill Clinton during last year's 50th anniversary celebrations at the United Nations. Lukashenka-controlled media reported, in bold headlines, of "Firm Handshakes by Two Presidents," and Lukashenka himself told of telling Clinton, "If I had your problems, Bill, I would solve them right away." But in truth, this never happened. Journalists who were present related to us that Lukashenka actually met Clinton in some corridor during a banquet, and, breaching all protocol, of course, started talking to him, all the while gripping his hand tightly. Clinton listened without saying anything, said thank you and left. So much for the meeting. And yet Lukashenka created some grand meeting out of this pathetic incident. We know this man and can't take him seriously, except to note that he is a Bolshevik. As far as the French President hosting the leader of a regime which represses its own people and behaves sycophantically, this is something new to us, and we are not sure what would motivate such an action, even though we know that no other leader in the West, nor, for that matter, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, would invite Lukashenka for an official visit. They avoid him. France's position seems odd to us.

Q: Perhaps this can be explained by the traditionally warm relations between France and Russia?

Zyanon Paznyak: That is the first thing which comes to mind, because the pro-Russian orientation of France is well-known and historically proven.

Q: Tell us about your contacts with Ukrainian political parties and with official Kyiv.

Zyanon Paznyak: We are very close with Rukh, frequently exchanging delegations, attending joint meetings, and cooperating in difficult times. Ukrainians have helped us in the past with logistics, and we have reciprocated, sending representatives and lending moral and political support on other occasions, for instance, after last year's incident at St. Sophia [the police beatings at the funeral of the late Volodymyr Romaniuk, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate, in July 1995]. Recently, the Rivne Oblast organization of Rukh offered us office space and logistic support, in the event of the BPF's banning in Belarus. The Chernihiv and Zhytomyr Rukh organizations work with us; there have even been some intermarriages resulting from this close cooperation... Rukh and other organizations give media exposure to events in Belarus. [Rukh leader Vyacheslav] Chornovil has suggested the formation of a Ukrainian-Baltic Fund for the Support of Democracy in Belarus. All in all, Rukh and others do much to help our cause. We have even touched the question of close coordination of economic and political policies between Ukraine, Belarus and Poland. These three countries can, together, serve as a counterweight to the Russian threat to all three countries. As far as Kuchma is concerned, I did not meet with him when we were in Kyiv. I did meet with [Ukrainian Foreign Minister Hennadiy] Udovenko and a number of parliamentary deputies. The meetings went well, and I felt that the Ukrainian president is inclined to support our efforts. I say this because I know our reception in Ukraine was warm and we did not face official obstacles to our activities. Had the government wanted to take a different tack, it could easily have done so, whether by not admitting us to Ukraine, or be deporting us to Belarus. Realize that when the Ukrainian communists raised hell in Parliament over my stay in Kyiv, calling me a fascist and similar nonsense, Ukrainian Television, which is state-run, ran a ten-minute commentary which totally debunked the Communist position. This can be seen as a sign of official Ukrainian support.

Q: What role did or does the Chornobyl disaster play in shaping Belarusian national consciousness?

Zyanon Paznyak: It played an important role, because prior to 1989 all information concerning the disaster and its consequences was highly secret. Only through the efforts of the BPF was a commission formed in 1990 to investigate the disaster, which rendered 20 percent of our agricultural land unusable and contaminated, to varying degrees, 70 percent of our territory. Eventually it was disclosed that, when, several days after the disaster, the winds carried fallout in the direction of Moscow, the Russians seeded clouds over Mahilou (Mogilev) Oblast, resulting in a large accumulation of radioactive fallout brought down by rain on Belarusian territory. This is all proven and officially recorded. Chornobyl has had an enormous impact on our national consciousness. It has been a heavy psychological blow to the nation. People feel as though they have been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. The state has thrown the people to the wolves. Aid for Chornobyl victims is stolen, official organizations confiscate this aid. The Lukashenka regime openly steals Chornobyl aid and the people see this. I've met with victims of Chornobyl relocated to Miensk from contaminated zones. These people have no hope. Alcoholism, other addictions, are out of control. So all in all, on the one hand Chornobyl raised national consciousness, but on the other hand, it has greatly increased apathy among its direct victims, who have grown hopeless with the years.

Q: What role does the Belarusian language play in fostering national consciousness? It has been said that even if Belarus becomes totally Russified in terms of language, it will still be organized along the lines of an independent state.

Zyanon Paznyak: As in every traditional national state, language is the central element in national consciousness. It is true that one can build a state without immediately reviving the national language. But Belarusians are well aware of the importance of their language, of teaching their children. For two years (1992-94) we had a normal language and education policy, which stressed opening Belarusian as opposed to Russian-language schools and classrooms and the like. But the current regime purposefully halts and even reverses this process. Perhaps one can compare the situation to the difference between [heavily Ukrainian-speaking] western Ukraine and [predominately Russian-speaking] eastern Ukraine. Remember that as the Belarusian people realize that their language was an important literary and government language in the past, in the Middle Ages, during the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, they will respect and eventually use that language more frequently. Our language and culture are sufficiently deep to survive Russification. But the new generation understands the problem. Belarus will not turn out as Ireland did, an independent nation-state with a foreign language as the primary medium of communication. The modern revival of Hebrew can serve as our model; essentially disused for 2000 years, it was reintroduced in Israel and has become the chief language there among Jews. Incidentally, the question of how to revive Belarusian culture touches the question of Russian culture. Russian national (ethnic) culture has been destroyed by an imperialist culture, which submerges the Russian ethnos in an amorphous mass, and may lead to the destruction of the Russian empire in its present configuration. Just look at Chechnya, Sevastopil etc. Where is that leading to?

Q: Where do you see Belarus in five years? Will it be an independent state, a part of Russia or what?

Zyanon Paznyak: In five years I see an independent state moving towards democracy, economic transformation and a return to Europe. Even though we now have a Communist parliament, this will still occur. Once the current regime is removed from the scene, once the fifth column is gotten rid of, things will change for the better. Interestingly, although one may think that the western regions of Belarus would be most averse to following Moscow, it is in fact eastern Belarus which is most opposed to integration with Russia, because the people there see what integration means. Whether it is the giving away of oil refineries, or the fact that well-paved roads turn into gravel tracks once one crosses the [now transparent] Russian-Belarusian border, or just the appearance of the Russian people right across the border. The easterners see how people from western Russia come in and buy everything up, they know they can do much better by themselves. Independent polling conducted in the spring, prior to the recent crackdown by Lukashenka, indicated approximately 47 percent support for a union with Russia among the Belarusian citizenry. Now the figure is undoubtedly much lower. And this tendency will grow. Belarus will not die, because there are people, especially young people, who will fight for its existence by any means necessary. So even though things may not get much better in five years, they will go in that direction. In ten years I see marked progress towards normalcy.

PART I