How Europe Can Help Belarus Through Its 1989-Moment
Clara Ferreira Marques
5 min read
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- After 26 years at the helm, Alexander Lukashenko’s days are numbered. European prudence can help accelerate his demise.
Protests of unprecedented scale have filled the streets of Belarus since the president claimed an implausible landslide re-election just over a week ago. A brutal crackdown, mass arrests and savage beatings followed, angering even those previously indifferent. Yet in the past few days, security forces have largely stood aside, as they did on Sunday when huge crowds again demonstrated in the capital and beyond. Strikes have been spreading too, with growing numbers of workers walking out last week even at crown jewel state enterprises such as Minsk Tractor Works, and government television.
It’s a turning point for the most enduringly Soviet of the former Soviet nations, and one with echos of 1989, the year that saw communist regimes toppled across Europe. Post-election demonstrations have been violently quashed before in Belarus, but this time the movement is far broader. It has spread to villagers, and those employed in heavy industry — the very people who once backed Lukashenko for supporting them and their jobs when the Soviet Union collapsed. Like Svetlana Tikhanovskaya — the accidental leader of the opposition, now across the border in Lithuania — many of those marching are women. In a video address on Monday, she said she was ready to be a transitional leader and to allow a new, fair, vote.
There are signs of modest cracks within the pro-Lukashenko elite, with unverified videos and reports circulating on Twitter, Telegram and elsewhere of security forces resigning, throwing away their uniforms, or lowering their shields. Even if, as analyst Franak Viacorka in Minsk points out, the largely technocratic political establishment remains loyal for now.
Endgames are slow and messy. They are always hard to predict with precision. What we do know is that decisions made beyond Belarus’s borders will help determine what happens next.
Most obviously, that means neighbor Russia.
Moscow, in an invidious position, has so far hedged its bets. President Vladimir Putin last week congratulated his counterpart on the electoral victory, but he also made a point of mentioning the continued push toward a merger between the two countries. A unified state was agreed two decades ago, but has stalled. The Kremlin has also allowed significant critical voices to speak up, both in Russian media and among prominent politicians — one lawmaker said the results were not credible, and the election falsified.
The trouble is that while Russia does not want an authoritarian leader overthrown on its doorstep — the resonance is too great — it also has little to gain from backing yesterday’s man, not least one with whom it has had a troubled relationship.
Hawks are pressing Russia to step in. Certainly, Moscow is watching closely. The Kremlin on Sunday noted “external” pressure, a potential trigger for action, and said it could provide security support.
While Belarus is a vital buffer for Russia, and a country it sees as its backyard, this is not Ukraine in 2014, when it stepped in after protests triggered the ouster of the pro-Moscow president. Lukashenko’s regime predates Putin. This struggle against the leadership is not about Russia, or the West. Indeed, rather than another 2014, this is another 1989, or, better yet, 1991 — the delayed denouement for an unreconstructed remnant of the Soviet Union. In that context, it would be understandable if Putin, who has enough to deal with at home, preferred not to step into a quagmire that could fuel anti-Russian sentiment in a sympathetic neighboring state.
That, of course, doesn’t mean he won’t.
Which brings us to Europe. Here, there is room for a proactive stance, but also the risk of causing plenty of damage. It will be imperative for Europe to steer clear of grandiloquent promises and statements that risk alarming Moscow, and fuel hard-liners’ talk of an external threat. Lukashenko is already making claims NATO troops are massing on the border.
In public, that will mean swiftly imposing the sanctions it has threatened on individuals in the Lukashenko administration and on Belarusian security forces complicit in the crackdown. The effectiveness of sanctions may be debatable, but the message will be clear.
As important, then, is what Europe does not do.
That means leaving out of its pronouncements the red-line issues bound to inflame Moscow, such as talk of European Union membership — in any case a distant prospect. Simply, Europe must not bring itself into the fight, says Nigel Gould-Davies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a former British ambassador to Belarus. That does not mean being passive: He argues the the EU should start thinking now about what help it can offer — once Belarus is ready. That could be loans, given the need for external financing, aid or investment assistance. Generosity is warranted.
In the meantime, diplomats from Europe and indeed the U.S. can listen to the opposition, and make quietly clear to the military and the elites that their interests will be better served in a free country with open economic relations, which is able to receive foreign capital. With the Belarus economy stagnating, the question of future opportunities should sharpen minds.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Clara Ferreira Marques is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities and environmental, social and governance issues. Previously, she was an associate editor for Reuters Breakingviews, and editor and correspondent for Reuters in Singapore, India, the U.K., Italy and Russia.
