Columbian bustup: reasons and consequence

Interview with an expert in foreign relations Yuri Kozhuro (Sweden).

What consequence would the evidence of Belarussian power controlling group having relations with the FARC terrorists have for Belarus itself?

Belarussian regime has proved its decayed essence again. Profits by any means- it has always been and still is the characteristic trait of all totalitarian and autoritarian regimes. Lukashenko often critisizes for example United States for their interfierence into the Iranian affairs. But with this he himself even more ugly methods. American actions in Iraq, at least are the subject to public discussions, first of all in US itself. People demand moral responsibility and disclosures - where had the tax payers’ money been applied to? In case of Belarus everything is much more cynic: support is being provided to the most extremist and unbridled organizations,that happens because civilized wepon and services in military sphere markets are occupied with more respectable countries.

Belarussian society in this case is kept uninformed. Scandals like that have alredy happened.It is enough to recall that iranian militants were trained in higher military institutions in Belarus, which even used to be the subject of special consultations in the UN Security Council in 2002. For the outside society the actions of belarusian regime are not a novelty any more. It’s a shame that the image of the whole nation, which undoubtedly deserves more positive perception by others is being deteriorated.
On practice Lukashenko and his team should keep in mind that once global society won’t longer stay passive and that day not only him and his team would become the hostages of counteractions which circumstances is hard to estimate right now. That is why the question of constitutional responsibility of present belarussian dictator for the enormous damage to the nation either material or regarding the “image“ of the country on international level should be stated today.

	citation

For outside world the actions of belorussian regime is not a novelty any more.

What is the role and position of Russia in this situation? Will it protect Lukashenko? How useful is this scandal to Russia?

Any scandal around Lukashenko serves for the benefit of Russia. Untill Lukashenko is in power, russian government is much easier to have comparatively positive image communicating with western countries. They say, look what is happening in Belarus...

Externally, practically, Russia has always kept distance from inadequate behavior of “batka“ and continue to do that.
Another situation is observed during their intercommunication, or verbally. Here, russian elite strives to asure belarusian regime in its support. And I think it is obvious why it happens.

There still is successfully under cultivation the myth about Russian political support to Belarus. This myth was alredy made up in Eltsin time, but during that period positions of Russia itself needed support and we couldn’t talk seriously about any considerable help from russian political establishment. At a minimum it would be not professional from diplomacy point of view to talk about that now. Russia has not solved any big political problem of Lukashenko. Today, when Russian positions strengthened internationally, and the context of dialog between Russia and Belarus has considerably changed there is no reason to talk about “covering Beralus from bullets“ at all.

What move can the USA make if it will be proved that belarussian officials participated in weapon supply to FARC terrorists and mantaining drug traffic indirectly.

The columbian scandal is developing when the relations between the US and Belarus have faced an uneqalled crises. American diplomacy traditionally is considered extremely straightforvard and certain.United States have made a lot to counteract the cynic dictatorship of Lukashenko so far. On the background of Europe they look strongly different especially against new EU member states which ignore sanctions against Lukashenko regime and mainly pursue their own economic interests.

The United States don’t have economic interests in our country or if they do, we can call them minimal. We can pay tribute to the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Never before a so called “Belarussian case file“ has been so evident in diplomatic avtivity of american administration. Never before US had so many information including the belarussian opposition. Never before the conflict between US and Belarus has reached so far, even if to consider 1998, when violating Vienna Declaration,bulldozers of president administration intruded the territory of United States in Minsk protected by international law, and the ambassador Spekhard with tears in his eyes had to leave his residence in Drozdy.

Probably it is hard to define certain steps which americans can make now. I am inclined to think that United States step by step relinquish Lukashenko.The arsenal of possible responses by US is extremely great. Let us not forget that for protection of its interests, international influence and authority the White House has always found possibilities, resources and creativity.

What does the closure of american ambassy means in diplomatic relations. What circumstances it might have for Belarus if it happens? 

The ambassy closure is always a significant event for bilateral relations. It is sad that situation may come to this escalation. First, what we can admit is that Lukashenko regime again demonstrated that the interests of belarussian citizens do not mean anything to it, especially when it comes to the protection of its authoritarian values. In other words, when it comes to the protection of its authoritarian power and solely private, not justified with anything, ambitions.

	citation

The United States don’t have economic interests in our country or if they do, we can call them minimal.

Did they think on K. Marksa 38, for instance, that many belarussian citizens will face big difficulties to get necessary consular attendance which are provided by the US ambassy? Why should they be deprived of comfortable conditions for this right, and would have to go to another country to get american visa?

This is only one of the aspects of a whole picture. From the first sight it may seam, and many peole are disguised in this way, that Lukashenko was fortunate again, and came a winner out of this political clash. But it is only skin-deep. Interstate conflicts of such a scale which reach the point of mutual ambassy closures bear negative consequence for both sides. Belarus as a result of irresponsible policy of Lukashenko gains severely tense relations with one of the most powerfull states of modern world. AS a result our country and our people lose the unique possibility to use all the political, economic, cultural and scientific potential which United States possess for our own benefit. And Lukashenko as the president of our state should bear legal responsibility for such a great damage to our nation.

In its turn the US also lose some important mechanisms of influence in a strategic region. Full-scale diplomatic presence in Belarus would allow americans a broad frames of monitoring the actions of unfriendly Belarussian dictator, as well what concerns contacts of belarussian political establishment with the odious regimes of present day time. Certainly we can consider this close to liquidation of US ambassy as a trump card of Lukashenko on the eve of new pre-election compaign in Belarus.

What is the essence of present policy of belarussian government in pumping the hysteria around the foreign relations with the United States.

The essense can be observed in everything except for the most significant point — undeviatingly following belarussian national interests.But still I don’t think that all the decisions concerning the presence of american diplomats were made by Lukashenko himself or by the recommendations of foreign affairs minister Martynov. Belarusian foreign policy administration still has little experience and frankly speaking little courage for implication of such political steps. It is also hard to believe that freezing of “Belneftehim“ bank accounts served a reason for that. Costs of such actions for Belarus are not large and easy to be fixed, especially if we keep in mind rampant oil prices.

Belarussian dictator dcided to do that, only having obtained a certain support of more authoritative and experienced structures. To my mind – that can be russian special services, which since 1994 consider Belarus a proving ground and have been trying to realize all those ideas and plans which are hard to or impossible to realize in Russia.

Russian special services traditionally - since Soviet Union times – have a strong and professional team concerning United States. No doubt that most of the Lukashenko actions in relations with odious regime states, as well connected with the support of Columbia terrorist organization FARC, are revealed by US intelligence, and later that information is intercepted by Russian intelligence in United States and is sent via secret channels directly to Lukashenko. The level of dependence of the regime on russian special services is certainly very high, but no doubt belarussian people do not get any use of such kind of “help“. This service is provided only for one man and his unlimited power.

Interviewed by Pavel Marozau