IFIMES: Belarus between EU imperialism and Russian occupation

The International Institute for Middle Eastern and Balkan Studies (IFIMES)[1] from Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyzes events in the Middle East, the Balkans, and around the world. On the occasion of the presidential elections held in the Republic of Belarus, IFIMES has prepared an analysis of the events in that country. 

Presidential elections were held in the Republic of Belarus on August 9, 2020. The current president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, is the winner of the presidential elections, winning 80.23% of the votes, while the voter turnout was 84.23%.

However, opposition candidates expressed dissatisfaction with the election results, especially Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, who won 10.09% of the votes.

Immediately after the polling stations closed, protests by dissatisfied citizens followed regarding the elections and their results. The opposition's stance went so far as to disseminate information that opposition candidate Tikhanovskaya had won 80% and Lukashenko only 10% of the votes. 

Analysts believe that the held elections were not ideal and had certain shortcomings, and that they could have been conducted in a different atmosphere and circumstances, but an inverted election result is practically impossible, given the structure of Belarus, the way it functions politically, and the mood of the electorate.

Belarus at a Geopolitical Crossroads

Belarus is a specific country in many ways. Its geopolitical position represents a kind of geopolitical crossroads between the EU and NATO countries and Russia as its largest neighbor, and Ukraine. Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia, which are EU and NATO members, have historical memories and interests that can cause mutual tensions and/or conflict at any moment. On the other hand, relations with Russia have never been idyllic, but Russia viewed events in Belarus as its backyard, believing that the West and NATO were trying to move closer to Russia's borders through Belarus. 

The pragmatic President Lukashenko has largely tried to balance his policy between the West (EU) and the Russian Federation. In such a tense neighborhood, Lukashenko's pragmatic policy played an important role in signing the still-valid Minsk peace agreement in 2014 and 2015, which halted the armed conflicts in Ukraine. 

Belarus is in a rather loose union of states with Russia and Belarus, and in a collective defense alliance (CSTO) with Russia. Russia's response to pressure from the West is the establishment of a formal security integration in the Eurasian space. They started in 2001 with the Declaration on the Establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), signed by the presidents of five independent states from the former Soviet Union and the president of the People's Republic of China. Cooperation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) tends to create a unified military-security alliance.

The next step was the establishment of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 2002, as a military alliance of post-Soviet countries, including Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. 

Belarus between EU imperialism and Russian occupation

The reactions of EU leaders to the elections in Belarus were hasty and superficial, as in other important regional and global issues. Therefore, the analysts' view that the EU will not be an important player in international relations for a long time with such reactions and uncoordinated foreign policy is justified. 

President of the European Commission (EC) Ursula von der Leyen stated: "Today we send three clear messages. First, we stand with the Belarusian people who want fundamental freedoms and democracy. Second, we will sanction all those responsible for violence, repression, and falsification of election results. The Belarusian people peacefully took to the streets, and the authorities responded with violence, and this cannot be accepted. Third, we are ready to monitor the peaceful democratic transfer of power in Belarus."

Analysts believe that the statement by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is controversial in some aspects, especially the part concerning offering EU services for a peaceful democratic transition or transfer of power, as it raises the question of whether there has been a change in the EU's foreign policy or a kind of EU imperialism. With such statements about Belarus, the EU is interfering in the overthrow of the constitutional and legal order of a sovereign and independent state. The situation in Belarus cannot be viewed in black and white; it is far more complex, because if we do not know and understand the Soviet model of governance and thinking, we cannot understand Belarus either. Furthermore, one must be very careful not to allow interpretations that would de facto push Belarus into the Russian sphere of interest, which means creating another failed state and a frozen conflict. This is why the EU did not react more sharply regarding Belarus, as it does not want to contribute to the realization of the more than clearly expressed particular interests of Lithuania and Poland towards Belarus. It is important to warn neighboring countries not to interfere in Belarus's internal affairs.

On the other hand, Russia demonstrated a convincing display of renewed strength and decisive protection of its interests in the war against Georgia in 2008, and by recognizing the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This was a clear warning against further NATO territorial aspirations and a message to the US and other countries that the time when actions detrimental to Russia's national interests could be taken almost unhindered has passed. Russia's position has gained particular significance after the annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea by Russia and the beginning of strong resistance to Kyiv's pro-Western policy in the Donbas region. 

Analysts believe that the EU must pursue a far more responsible policy towards Belarus and familiarize itself in detail with the situation in that country before making final decisions. Hasty moves have already harmed the EU not only in Belarus but also in the wider post-Soviet space and the Western Balkans. The EU is not an ideological construct, and what it can offer others is the rule of law and legal order, which has been called into question in many ways, primarily due to the actions of the Visegrad Group of countries (V4) and the (re)interpretation of the rule of law and human rights there. 

Fled Presidential Candidate Tikhanovskaya

Citizens of Belarus and its wider neighborhood have had the opportunity to see examples of failed states such as Georgia, but current events in Ukraine also do not inspire hope for a better outcome. Therefore, citizens want to maintain peace and stability and do not want a failed state. The Soviet model remains in the minds of many Belarusian citizens as an expression of nostalgia for past times, something similar to what is happening with a part of the population in the former Yugoslavia, mourning the life they had during the SFRY. 

It was precisely the Soviet mindset that developed a high degree of patriotism among citizens. This is particularly evident in Belarus, and any external interference can have negative effects. 

Analysts believe that presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya made a cardinal mistake by choosing neighboring Lithuania as her refuge, with which Belarus has a number of political disagreements and disputes, especially now that Lithuania has officially imposed sanctions on Belarus and its president Lukashenko. Analysts draw a comparison for such a situation, stating that in Serbia, citizens would watch if a defeated presidential candidate in Serbia found refuge in neighboring Croatia and demanded to come to power from the neighboring country. Events in and around Belarus show a strong external factor engagement, which strengthens the position of the current president, and it is unknown whether this is the West's goal? 

The aforementioned is not the only allusion to this situation with that in the Western Balkans. By delaying the negotiation process with North Macedonia and Albania, the EU has reduced its rating and credibility among citizens. By not opening chapters in the case of Serbia during Croatia's presidency of the Council of the EU, the EU further reduces its credibility as a correct democratic orientation for the region, which is neither good nor necessary. 

The most concrete parallel, however, can be drawn between Belarus and Montenegro, or whether the EU has double standards in treating Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko and Montenegrin President Milo Đukanović (DPS), whose regime has been in power for 31 years in Montenegro, and Đukanović is directly linked to war crimes (1991-1995) and (international) crime and corruption. At the same time, Montenegro has become a full member of the strongest military-political alliance, NATO, where meeting democratic standards is paramount. Therefore, the question arises whether the EU will recognize the results of the parliamentary elections in the smallest Balkan country, Montenegro, which will be held on August 30, 2020, and subsequently convene an extraordinary EU summit due to the rigged and irregular elections by Đukanović's regime. Analysts also warn of a parallel between Belarusian leader Lukashenko and Montenegrin President Đukanović, given their long tenure in leading positions in their countries. Đukanović has even five years longer regime duration than Lukashenko, who, moreover, was not involved in committed war crimes like Đukanović. 

Initiate Internal Dialogue and Reforms in Belarus

Given all this, the central question of how to start resolving the tense situation in Belarus inevitably and clearly arises. This situation is very complex and vulnerable internally, and in the international context, it requires a lot of subtle feeling and wisdom in its approach.

Analysts believe that it is necessary to immediately calm political passions in Belarus and start an internal dialogue with all social and political actors. This step should be taken by the current president, Lukashenko. This would be an introduction to constitutional changes in the country. Repression and disregard for citizens' views can lead Belarus, which is effectively between EU imperialism and the possibility of Russian occupation, in an undesirable direction. And this is a serious threat to peace and stability and the creation of another failed state in the former post-Soviet space. 

This is not in anyone's interest, least of all the citizens of Belarus. The experiences of countries that have gone through a painful transition to democratization in the period after the end of the "cold war" show that such an internal dialogue is the only instrument towards democracy. Modern democratic states, where the rule of law and human rights are the basis of their functioning, differ from those with autocratic, undemocratic tendencies in this regard. 

All social and political forces should participate in this dialogue, and the authorities should accept it, and it is best if they initiate it themselves. The prevailing opinion among analysts is that there is such potential in Belarusian society today and that the authorities, i.e., President Lukashenko, are capable of undertaking such a project and initiating the necessary reforms in the interest of the citizens and the preservation of the state. It is evident that Belarus wants to maintain its independence and sovereignty towards the political East and West, and therefore rejected the exorbitant financial offer from the EU, because behind that offer lies the West's interest in reaching the border with Russia through Belarus. Belarus has a similar stance towards Russia. Every day is precious and useful here, because strengthening tensions and conflict radically reduces the potential and possibilities for such a development of events, and the priority of all priorities is the preservation of Belarus as a state, as it can become collateral damage and a victim of the confrontation between the West and Russia.