INTERVIEW: Belarusian Popular Front leader on developments in Belarus
Following is the text of an interview with Vintsuk Vyachorka, chairman of the Belarusian Popular Front, conducted in Miensk, Belarus, on December 21, 1999, by David R. Marples and Yulia A. Shimko. On August 1, 1999, at the VI Congress of the BPF in Miensk, the party became polarized with almost equal support for the then leader Zyanon Paznyak (currently living in Warsaw, Poland) and Mr. Vyachorka. Mr. Paznyak then advocated that there should be two organizations: a public association under Mr. Vyachorka and a political party - the Conservative Christian Party of the BPF under his [Paznyak's] leadership. Mr. Vyachorka rejected this idea and when the BPF VI Congress continued on October 30, some 240 delegates elected Mr. Vyachorka as the new leader by a vote of 228 to 11.
PART I
Q: What would you say are the main differences in policy between you and Zyanon Paznyak?
A: I think the main difference lies in tactics, not in strategy. There were some opportunities to promote democracy and to defend our independence during the past several years, but unfortunately sometimes the BPF chose monopolistic tactics. It avoided coalitions. For example, in 1996, when the threat of impeachment posed a real threat to [President Alyaksandr] Lukashenka, a better-coordinated policy between the political parties as a whole and the Supreme Soviet could have been more fruitful. This is one illustration.
Another illustration that is closer to the present: several artificial complaints were elaborated by Mr. Paznyak during his emigration [he was granted political asylum in the United States] that have mobilized many of our members all around the country, but they were devoid of results. One concerned the citizenship of the Belarusian Democratic Republic (BNR). BNR was a real state that existed in 1918, and this age of our history is a critically important symbol for us.
I appreciate very much that we have the government-in-exile. The president of the council today is Ivonka Survilla, and what she is doing is very important for our struggle for democracy and independence. She informs the Canadian and Western societies and governments about events in Belarus. The existence of this symbolic government has long been a kind of banner for us; it was a symbol of hope during all the years of the Communist regime and remains symbolic for us now, under the pro-Moscow regime pressure. The idea of joining the democratic-minded citizens of Belarus with the BNR-in-exile has a symbolic and moral importance. Mr. Paznyak tried to convince Belarusian political circles that this campaign can be an effective political action, that it can prevent us from "integration" with Russia via legitimization of the BNR. Unfortunately, the absolute majority of our people simply don't know what the word BNR means.
There are more realistic scenarios to solve our problems. The more proper instruments can be, for example, the creation of a broad coalition of political parties, mass actions directed to resolving several social issues via these actions organized by political parties together with independent and even so-called official trade unions.
Pressure on the regime for negotiations can serve as a specific kind of political instrument, too. If there is enough pressure from society, it is possible to force the regime to hold free elections or to leave the political scene. The discussion about political realism and romanticism was one of the main motivations of changes within the Belarusian Popular Front.
Q: What is your view of the dialogue that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has initiated between the government and the opposition? Do you think that this can succeed and is a good way to approach the problems?
A: There is no dialogue between the government and the opposition. As of today, there are two separate processes: the real dialogue between the OSCE and the opposition; and the attempt to start a dialogue between the OSCE and the regime. From the very beginning of this initiative we expressed our pessimistic view of its possible results.
We understand that the word "compromise" means completely different things to us and to the West on the one hand, and to the regime on the other. We understand what a compromise means: you make a step and wait for an equivalent step from your counterpart. But Mr. Lukashenka regards compromise as a weakness of his opponent, after which the opponent should be completely destroyed. This is a very important point that our Western friends sometimes do not comprehend.
Thus far, there have been no results. Mr. Lukashenka even rejected such a preliminary result as the agreement about access to the media. It was a demonstration for Belarusian public opinion and for the West: Mr. Lukashenka made it three days before the Istanbul summit, to show in this way his real attitude to the dialogue. If [Mikhail] Chyhir was released thanks to this protracted game, then it is the only real result to date and I am happy that at least one man is now free, but he is awaiting a trial and many others are still imprisoned.
Q: And [Tamara] Vinnikava has just reappeared in the West.
A: Right. But we still know nothing about the destiny of [Yurii] Zakharanka and [Viktar] Hanchar. So the only positive result of this process is coordination to some degree between the opposition forces in the consultative council, in which several parties were included on the initiative of the OSCE. Very different parties, such as BPF and the United Civil Party on the one hand, and the Liberal Democrats Party and the Party of Communists on the other, are involved. If such different parties can agree on several points, it is a real success.
They have agreed that the negotiations should start after implementation of two pre-conditions: release of all political prisoners and regular access of the opposition to the state-controlled mass media. But the only way to convince Mr. Lukashenka that pre-conditions must be fulfilled and free and fair elections must take place in our country is if a strong wave of protests, pressure from society, takes place.
Possible results of this pressure can either be an internal coup d'état (within the regime) or the resignation of the regime, or the regime agreeing to organize these free and fair elections. But without pressure, nothing happens in this country.
Q: In terms of pressure, if you look, not at political parties, but at society, how closely are you working with free trade unions, official trade unions? Is there some cooperation between the trade union movements and the BPF?
A: Yes, there is. Cooperation between the BPF and the independent trade unions has a long history, from 1990-1991, when the first workers' protests took place in Miensk and Salihorsk, and the BPF was one of the organizers that helped the workers formulate their demands. There is sometimes an overlap between both structures.
But for the past few years the independent trade unions have been in crisis because of pressure by the regime, some legislative limitations, some procedures. Only during the past year, thanks to several new initiatives, did we observe reactivation of the independent trade unions in several regions. It occurred first of all in Miensk, and in Salihorsk (the miners), and also in other industrial cities.
One more thing: a successful initiative that served as a catalyst for the work of the trade unions was the Rabocy (The Worker) newspaper, which has a circulation of about 100,000. It was distributed freely in Miensk and other key centers, and it tried to find new activities and to involve them through a correspondence network in a trade union structure. And the BPF structures provided considerable assistance in the distribution of this newspaper. Now the publishers plan to sell it on a regular basis.
Concerning the so-called official trade unions: they were, as you know, a part of Communist power in Russia and this system was very difficult to change. Several political parties were formed on the basis of so-called official trade unions, among them the Labor Party (Alyaksandr Buchvostau) and the Women's Party (Valancina Palevikova). Both parties are participants in the opposition Consultative Council.
And after several mistakes of the social-economic policy of Mr. Lukashenka, the official trade unions had no alternative but to protest. They issued several warnings: we will protest, we will strike locally, we will proclaim a general national strike, and so on. After these warnings the regime usually promised something: that we would receive an additional 50,000 Belarusian rubles a month, etc., and it was an instrument to neutralize this wave of protests.
But this year the threshold of tolerance was overcome. [Uladzimir] Hanaryk, the chairman of the official trade unions, was obliged to declare that real mass action would take place, and it took place. The first demonstration of the official trade unions, with the participation of the independent trade unions - even though officially they never declared that they were working together - was the action of September 30, and from this day the official trade unions became one of the targets of official propaganda. The regime began to declare that they had property, lands, they were too rich, and so on and so forth. This is one difference between Mr. Lukashenka and [Slobodan] Milosevic. Milosevic does not create enemies where it is possible not to do so.
So today the official trade unions are on the way to the opposition camp.
Q: What are your views on the active union signed between Russia and Belarus? In the West there is some skepticism because there have been so many types of unions announced between Russia and Belarus. One wonders why this one is any different, whether it is any more dangerous than the previous versions.
A: We are not so calm about this situation. There is a fairytale about a shepherd and a wolf. The first time and the second time he shouted "Wolf!" but there was no wolf, so people did not trust him when he cried out the third time. Unfortunately it is a matter of psychological immunity - people feel that nothing is changing, nothing is happening, but it is a corridor for future institutional changes to our statehood. It is a corridor for forcing us to take another direction. The Baltic states, Ukraine, etc., are taking steps to the West and we are excluded from this common process. It would be absolutely natural for us to be in the same camp and to come together with our neighbors, but now the first signals are clear.
The Russian military station near Barnaviy started its trial attempt, the Russian generals discuss when they will put missiles once again in shafts that were not destroyed by Belarus. So, first of all, it is a creation of a common military space. At present Mr. Lukashenka promises that our military will not take part in all the imperialist wars, but who knows? If we have a common military space, then a "common space" for the special services [i.e., successors of the Soviet KGB] and then several economic steps tie Belarus to Russia, in a market without a future.
The catastrophe of August 17, 1998, [Russia's financial collapse] was a real tragedy for the directors of many of our state-owned and private enterprises because they hoped that they were under state protection, because all the economic units were protected by the state and these agreements. But now they have failed, so what does it mean if there is no protection, if there is no diversification between several partners, between several countries?
So-called "integration" is dangerous for our statehood, for our prospects of returning to Western civilization. It is dangerous for the stability of the region. Nothing special happens the next day, but something happens every day - small step by small step - we are moving into the Russian orbit. It is not so easy to see this, especially from abroad. But we perceive it, and we think that it is dangerous that all the political forces of Russia, probably with the exception of Yabloko, support this treaty - not only the treaty, but also the "integration." There is no difference in their attitude to Chechnya and to Belarus: both are imperialistic. And "Lukashism" with its promises to "reunite" Belarus plays into the hands of Russian imperialism.
PART I
Copyright © The Ukrainian Weekly, March 19, 2000, No. 12, Vol. LXVIII
| Home Page |