[Senate Hearing 112-54]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-54
CRACKDOWN IN BELARUS: RESPONDING
TO THE LUKASHENKO REGIME
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 27, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
67-797 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania MARCO RUBIO, Florida
JIM WEBB, Virginia JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah
Frank G. Lowenstein, Staff Director
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Republican Staff Director
------------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JIM WEBB, Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, opening
statement...................................................... 1
DeMint, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, opening
statement...................................................... 2
Durbin, Hon. Richard , U.S. Senator from Illinois, statement..... 3
Gordon, Hon. Philip, Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC...... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Koliada, Natalia, general director and cofounder, Belarus Free
Theatre, Minsk, Belarus........................................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Kramer, Hon. David, executive director, Freedom House,
Washington, DC................................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Melia, Thomas O., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Wollack, Kenneth, president, National Democratic Institute,
Washington, DC................................................. 29
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Additional Statements Submitted for the Record
Lev Margolin, vice president, United Civil Party (UCP)........... 51
Yury Lavrentiev and Oleg Korban, ``Youth Democrats,'' United
Civil Party (UCP).............................................. 51
Dzianis Sadouski, the Belarusian Christian Democracy Party (BCD). 52
(iii)
CRACKDOWN IN BELARUS: RESPONDING TO THE LUKASHENKO REGIME
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on European Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne
Shaheen (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Shaheen, Risch, and DeMint.
Also present: Senator Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all
for coming.
The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European
Affairs is meeting today to discuss the brutal crackdown on the
citizens of Belarus following last month's fraudulent
Presidential election.
I want to begin by thanking Chairman Kerry and Ranking
Member Lugar for allowing us to go forward with this hearing
while the full committee is still determining its agenda and
structure and membership for the new session.
Before we begin--and I am delighted that Senator Durbin is
here and is going to be making a statement as well. But I want
to make it clear that this subcommittee stands firmly behind
Secretary Clinton and calls on the Lukashenko regime to release
all political prisoners immediately and without preconditions.
We remain committed to the principle that the Belarusian people
be allowed to express their political will freely and without
threat of harassment, imprisonment, or violence.
The government's legacy of fraudulent elections has drawn
the attention of the United States and our European partners,
and the OSCE has repeatedly declared that the country's
elections failed to be either free or fair. Violence against
prodemocracy activists and arrests of political opponents have
repeatedly revealed the nature of the cruel regime under
President Aleksandr Lukashenko.
The United States will continue to make one thing clear:
The pursuit of democracy, freedom, and improved human rights in
Belarus is in the interests of not only the Belarusian people
but of the government itself. The recent violence perpetrated
by the police against a peaceful rally of thousands of
Belarusians, the arrests of several opposition candidates for
President, and the crackdown on independent media and
democratic forces show how far the cause of democracy has been
set back in Belarus just in the last few weeks.
However, the recent crackdown is not an isolated
occurrence. Unfortunately, it is part of an appalling pattern
of abuses. As the government's intimidation tactics have
broadened, so has its abuse of its legal system to charge
opposition forces and threaten them with years in prison.
Independent democratic forces must be allowed to make their
case without harassment and the OSCE mission in the country
must be allowed to resume its work.
In the days to come, the United States and our European
allies will announce measures to respond to Lukashenko's
tactics of intimidation. We should be clear that the pursuit of
sanctions, asset freezes, and a ban on travel by the regime and
those involved in the latest crackdown are intended to compel
the government to treat its people fairly.
I would like to commend the European Parliament for its
resolution last week condemning the crackdown and its calls to
resume measures urging the government to change course. The
United States and Europe will stand together in support of the
Belarusian people, and we encourage other nations, including
Russia, to do the same. The immediate release of opposition
candidates, party leaders, and civil society members must be
the first step and should occur without delay.
With these thoughts in mind, we are here today to discuss
how the United States and Europe can ensure that the Government
in Belarus lives up to its commitments to democracy and human
rights. We will hear from members of the administration
regarding the path forward and outside experts who have
critical insights on the regime. I am delighted that we have
two very knowledgeable panels here. Before I introduce them, I
am going to ask Ranking Member DeMint if he would like to make
a statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DeMINT,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Chairman Shaheen. Thank you for
organizing this so quickly.
I want to thank the witnesses who are here today and
particularly Senator Durbin for taking a special interest and
sharing his recent experiences to give us perspective.
Europe and the United States share a common set of values
and we have a long history that is founded on the ideas of
freedom and economic opportunity. Today's hearing is important
because Belarus is an exception to that. It remains isolated
from Europe. Despite attempts to engage Lukashenko and his
regime, often called ``the last dictator in Europe,'' respect
for human rights and political freedom has continued to decline
in Belarus. The most basic freedoms--freedom of speech,
religion, and assembly--are restricted by authorities.
The most recent reminder of this reality stems from last
month's tragic post-election crackdown resulting in the
detention of 700 people, including 7 of the 9 opposition
candidates, the independent media, and civil society. Over 30
of these individuals are still being held and the situation is
not improving.
The government's behavior is unacceptable in this day and
age, and the regime must be held accountable for its actions.
The United States and our allies in Europe have a
responsibility not only to condemn its behavior, but to review
the policy options at our disposal, including additional visa
bans, asset freezes, and targeted sanctions.
I look forward to hearing from both panels of witnesses
today and to discussing the ongoing situation in Belarus and
our options for a coordinated and strong response in greater
detail.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator DeMint.
Now we are delighted that Senator Durbin is here to share
his recent experiences and his knowledge in this area.
Thank you, Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Senator Shaheen, thank you very much.
Senator DeMint, thanks for the kind words.
I just had a chance over the break to take a trip and visit
two countries in Europe that are neighbors, but what a
contrast.
The first country I visited was Lithuania, the land where
my mother was born, a land which I have had a close attachment
to emotionally and politically since I have been in public life
and even before. And I was invited by the speaker of the
Lithuanian Parliament to address them on the occasion of the
20th anniversary of what is known as Bloody Sunday. Bloody
Sunday was that moment in time when the Lithuanians had
mustered the courage to step up and say we are breaking away
from the Soviet Union. It was an amazing thing for them to do.
This is a small country. They do not have any indigenous army.
What they had was a determination to reclaim their freedom, and
they voted to do so and Gorbachev was mad. So Gorbachev sent in
the tanks and the paratroopers. They were not met with armed
resistance because the Lithuanians had no arms. All they could
do was to stand with their signs and demonstrate.
I had gone there during this period of time and visited
with what they call their Parliament, or Seimas, and the Seimas
is a beautiful building but at that time was surrounded by
sandbag barricades. And all of the people came to Vilnius and
came to those barricades to show their unity with the effort to
break away from the Soviet Union. Children would turn up from
schools to say prayers and light candles and put little crosses
next to the sandbags. And at one point they invited me in and
said we want to show you secretly here the arsenal that we are
gathering to fight the Soviets. Madam Chair, it consisted of
about 10 rifles and guns that you would find in the home of a
hunter or a farmer. No match for what Gorbachev sent in.
Twenty years ago, he sent in the tanks, and they went to
one of the prominent places right outside Vilnius, the TV
tower. And there was this huge gathering and the tanks rolled
in. At the end of 24 hours, 13 people were dead and 1,000
people were injured. These people were not leading politicians.
They were just common people in Lithuania who said we have had
enough. We want to make our own future. We want to have a right
to make our own decisions about our church and our press, the
things we take for granted.
So they invited me to speak to the Parliament and it was an
inspiring moment for me. I do not know if it had any impact on
them. But just to have that chance to be there.
And I remembered that time because I thought at the time
that the United States was too slow in acknowledging what they
were trying to achieve and providing the support that they
needed, the moral support they needed. And not to take away
from any President or administration, because ultimately we did
the right thing, but others went before us. They had the former
Prime Minister of Iceland, the first country to step up and
recognize Lithuania as an independent country, and he is a
national hero, and he came and spoke there. Well, it was a
great gathering and I was proud to be there for the time that I
was.
But then I took a little side trip. It is a 3-hour drive
from Vilnius--this now capital of an independent, free,
democratic country--to Minsk in Belarus, and it is such a trip
back in history. In Belarus, they are led by an authoritarian
figure, some call a dictator, Victor Lukashenko. I had met him
a year before when our colleague, Ben Cardin, took a bipartisan
Helsinki Commission trip to Minsk. So I have seen Lukashenko in
his Presidential role.
But this time I was not there to see him. I came there
because we had heard the stories about what had happened after
the election. The election, December 19, was monitored by
international groups and many had serious questions afterward.
Lukashenko's supporters said, well, the fact that he did not
get 95 percent of the vote shows it was a fair election. He
only had about 79 percent of the vote.
But what happened the night after the election is what
brought us to the point where we are today and the reason for
my trip. There was a march of several blocks in the city of
Minsk from one square to another by the opposition party
leaders who were unhappy, feeling that they had been the
victims of a rigged election. You know, this happens. People
demonstrate in democracies and life goes on. It is an
expression of their free speech and assembly that we take for
granted. But at the end of that march, the police came in and
arrested over 600, Senator DeMint--I do not know if it reached
700, but over 600 of these political activists--and arrested 6
of the 7 Presidential candidates who had run against
Lukashenko. So not only did they lose the election, they threw
them in jail. And today four of those Presidential candidates
are still there.
I had a chance to meet with the parties backing these
candidates, and I might tell you just as an aside--and
Secretary Gordon can add this. We have not had much of a
presence in Belarus for a long time. They expelled our
Ambassador. We are down to literally five Americans who are
representing the United States of America under these
circumstances. Michael Scanlan is their leader. I am not sure
of his official title, but he is the leader of this effort and
we should be thanking him and all that are with him for
literally risking their lives in an oppressive culture trying
to make sure there is a voice for democracy and representing
the United States.
Well, Mike Scanlan said, ``meet with the party leaders, but
then I want you to meet with the families of the people who
were in prison.'' If I can, if you will bear with me, I took--I
did not take--Chris Homan on my staff was with me and took a
few photographs of those who were there, and I would like to
introduce them to you because I think each of their stories
tells us more than anything that I can say.
The first one was Svyatlana Lyabedzka. She is the wife of
Anatol Lyabedzka, chairman of the United Civic Party. But
Anatol has been regularly harassed, fined, and imprisoned for
his political activities in 2004, severely beaten by
Lukashenko's police force. His wife told me in tears that her
husband had been taken to jail 26 days before. She had no
information on charges or what had happened to him. She does
not know where he is. She does not know what is happening.
Tatsyana Sevyarynets is the mother of Paveal Sevyarynets,
the head of Presidential candidate Vitala Rymashevski's
campaign. He has already served several years in prison for
protesting sham elections in Belarus. Tatsyana's letters have
gone unanswered. Her complaints filed against the government
have been ignored. She has been prevented from traveling. Her
passport has been confiscated. She said it is impossible to
find an explanation of what has been happening and my son has
been persecuted for 16 years.
Kanstantsin Sannikau and Ala Sannikava are the son and
mother of a detained Presidential candidate, Anrey Sannikau.
Ala told me she had no contact with her son for 14 days. This
little boy has been the subject of a lot of news stories
because what Lukashenko did was to imprison not only the mother
but the father and then say that the state was going to take
their little boy into custody. The grandmother was there
begging and pleading that she be allowed to keep custody of
this little boy. And just last week--or this week, I should
say, they have announced that they are going to allow her to
continue to keep custody of this little boy. But it shows the
kind of pressure they are putting on these people.
Meanwhile, they are systematically--the Belarusian KGB--
searching their homes, detaining them, harassing them, sending
phone calls their way that are bogus alleging certain things,
if they cooperate, will happen. It is the old Stalinist tactics
that are still alive and well in Belarus. Incredibly what
Lukashenko did was not only arrest the mother and father but
basically to threaten the child.
Milana Mikhalevich is a 34-year-old mother of two. I hope
you get a chance to take a look at this lovely mom and her
beautiful little girl. She is the wife of Ales Mikhalevich who
was a Presidential candidate. Thirty-four years old, she has a
10-year-old son and this beautiful little baby who was crawling
all over us having fun while we were talking about whether she
would ever see her father again, and that is literally what is
at stake. The harassment that this young lady has been
subjected to is incredible. She tried to go to Warsaw, Poland,
to appeal for help. They stopped her. They would not let her
take the train out. They confiscated her passport, and they
continue to search her home and come at her regularly. When we
tried to meet with some of these candidates, they said they
cannot come because the KGB is coming by again today.
It has been a total nightmare for her and her little
daughter, Alena, who is barely 2 years old. As I said here, her
mom wonders if she will ever see her father again. That is what
these families are up against.
Now, the surprise to me was they gave me a visa to visit
Belarus and then said would you like to meet with Lukashenko.
And I said under the circumstances, no, but I will meet with
his Foreign Minister and we did, Sergei Martynov. Now, he has
been an Ambassador to the United States. His English is
flawless. And it was, as they say in diplomatic terms, a frank
and candid meeting as I said to him, how can you claim to be a
democracy and then turn around and arrest everybody who runs
against your President. That is not what a democracy does. His
response is classic, and I want to make sure I get it right. He
said, Senator, you live in a country that has had democracy for
200 years. We have only had it for 20 years. Give us credit.
When we arrested all these people, including the people who ran
against Lukashenko, we did not use tear gas. There were no
rubber bullets and no police dogs. So give us credit. Think
about that for a moment. I said to him you cannot pretend to be
a democracy when the people who lose the election end up in
prison. It is a disincentive to run against your President if
this is what you are going to face.
So we had the meetings and I gave these families my
assurance that their story would be repeated, and I am glad you
are holding this hearing for that purpose.
Right now, the European Union and European Parliament are
stepping forward. I have spoken to Secretary Clinton. You
mentioned earlier a reference to her. We have got to be there.
The reason I brought up the story of Lithuania is to put it
in this context. Twenty years ago, the people who were killed
and injured, the ones who had the courage to step out and
demonstrate were just like these families. We applaud them
today as defenders of freedom, heroes of their country, people
who made a difference when you talk about this 21st century.
People just like them in Belarus are struggling for the things
that we take for granted and they are paying a heavy price. The
United States cannot be silent. We have got to speak up for
them.
Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin, for
being here and for sharing the stories of those families.
As I said earlier, we have two panels this afternoon. I am
going to introduce all of the panelists at once. So while the
first panel is coming forward, I will begin the introductions.
Philip Gordon has served as Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs since May 2009. He previously
served as Director for European Affairs at the National
Security Council and at the Brookings Institution.
Thomas O. Melia--hopefully I pronounced that correctly--is
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy,
Human Rights, and Labor and is responsible for Europe, South
and Central Asia, and international labor rights. He has also
held prominent posts at Freedom House and the National
Democratic Institute.
Our second panel, when it comes forward, will include David
Kramer who serves as the executive director of Freedom House.
He has had a distinguished career in Government and in the
private sector, serving as Assistant Secretary of State for
Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and as Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.
Also on the second panel is Ken Wollack who is president of
the National Democratic Institute and has had a long career in
foreign affairs which has included extensive travel in the
region of Belarus and Eastern Europe supporting democratic
elections and civil society. Under his leadership, NDI has
strengthened its outreach to more than 70 countries to support
democratic institutions, civic engagement, and political
empowerment abroad.
Our third panelist on that second panel--and again, I
apologize if I do not get the name exactly correct--is Natalia
Koliada. She is the general director and cofounder of the
Belarus Free Theatre, a group that has shown enormous bravery
in exercising its members' rights to free expression despite
brutal repression. Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Koliada and other
members of her company were detained in Belarus following the
crackdown.
We thank you all for your willingness to be here and to
speak to the challenges that we face in Belarus.
So I will begin with you, Secretary Gordon.
STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP GORDON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Gordon. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking
Member DeMint. Thank you for holding this hearing and for
inviting me to discuss the situation in Belarus, and I would
also like to thank you for your strong opening statements and
very much appreciate the powerful message of Senator Durbin as
well and his moving comments.
We should all be concerned about the very disturbing recent
events in Belarus and specifically the government's crackdown
on the opposition, civil society, and independent media in the
aftermath of the disputed Presidential election. This is a
crucial moment and I am glad the Senate is focusing attention
on the actions of the Belarusian Government. I welcome the
opportunity to speak on how the U.S. Government is responding.
As you noted, the United States has repeatedly condemned
the actions taken on December 19 and the continuing suppression
of political and human rights in Belarus. That this brutal
crackdown occurred in the heart of Europe in the 21st century
is particularly troubling. The international community must
speak with one voice to support the democratic aspirations of
the people of Belarus, and we are committed to doing our part.
The Obama administration has continued a bipartisan policy
of principled engagement with Belarus that centers on our
consistent advocacy of democracy and human rights. Long before
the recent crackdown, we were pressing for reforms that would
allow space for civil society, independent media, and the
political opposition to operate. I did this personally during
my trip to Minsk in August 2009 when I made clear to the
Belarusian Government that only steps toward democratic reform
and respect for human rights could lead to better relations
with the United States.
Let me also take the opportunity to commend Senators Cardin
and Durbin and Congressman Smith and others who have been
consistently pressing for democracy and human rights in Belarus
and who helped secure the release of the American citizen,
Emmanuel Zeltser, in July 2009, just a month before I went to
Minsk myself.
Unfortunately, the failure of Belarus to respect human
rights or uphold democratic standards is not a new development.
In the aftermath of the flawed elections and the abuse of human
rights in Belarus in 2006, the Bush administration first
imposed sanctions against the Lukashenko Government and then
expanded those sanctions in 2007 and 2008. Despite a release of
political prisoners in August 2008 that led to the easing of
some sanctions, Belarus continued to fail to implement
democratic reforms.
In the runup to the Presidential elections of December 19,
2010, Belarus allowed in an OSCE monitoring mission and allowed
nine opposition candidates to register to run against President
Lukashenko. While voting was relatively uneventful, there were
numerous irregularities.
On the evening of December 19, between 20,000 and 40,000
people rallied against the official claim of Mr. Lukashenko's
overwhelming victory. The government's reaction was brutal, and
its subsequent actions, the detection of a wide range of
political activists, including five of the opposition
Presidential candidates, raids on civil society groups and
media outlets, and a refusal to renew the OSCE mission's
mandate can only be interpreted as a campaign to crush the
opposition and severely weaken civil society and independent
media.
The United States responded immediately to the situation in
Belarus. Within hours, the White House issued a statement
condemning the violence and calling for the release of all
detainees. Secretary Clinton and EU High Representative
Catherine Ashton subsequently issued two joint statements
reiterating this message. On January 6, Secretary Clinton met
with Belarusian and Belarusian-American activists to hear
firsthand their personal stories about the election's
aftermath. The group that Secretary Clinton met with included
Natalia Koliada of Belarus Free Theatre, and we are very
pleased to see that she will be testifying to this committee
later this afternoon. It is important to hear her experience
and stories.
While publicly and privately urging that the detainees be
released, the United States has been putting together a package
of actions if the Government of Belarus does not change course.
There are three specific sets of actions we are planning to
make clear to the Belarusian Government the consequences of
continuing its current course. We are examining additional
sanctions against Belarus, providing assistance to opposition
forces and independent civil society groups, and working
closely with the EU to send a unified international message to
the government.
The specific steps we are taking include: One, the
revocation of the general license authorizing U.S. persons to
do business with the two subsidiaries of state-owned oil and
chemical company Belneftekhim which first was issued in
September 2008; two, an expansion of the list of Belarusian
officials subject to a travel ban; and three, the imposing of
additional financial sanctions against Belarusian individuals
and entities.
As we consider measures against the government, we are
simultaneously planning to increase our support for the
democratic actors and the victims of repression. Last year the
United States provided $11 million in assistance toward
supporting civil society, access to information and political
competition, and providing opportunities for more interaction
between Belarusian citizens and the outside world. In response
to the recent events, we will increase such assistance by
nearly 30 percent this year.
Finally, we are working closely with our European Union
partners to make sure that policy toward Belarus is coordinated
to send the strongest and clearest message to the authorities
in Minsk. The EU Foreign Affairs Council is scheduled to decide
on additional measures with respect to Belarus on January 31.
We plan to announce certain additional measures against the
government on that day as well.
In addition, a U.S. delegation will participate in a
donor's conference in Poland on February 2 to assist
nongovernmental actors in Belarus.
Madam Chair, Senator DeMint, we have no illusions that
persuading the Government of Belarus to adopt a course toward
democracy and the rule of law will be easy or happen quickly.
Our commitment to enhancing democracy and respect for human
rights in Belarus is long-term and it will not weaken. I hope
we can count on continuing bipartisan support for this
approach. We must maintain a resolute stance both with respect
to the government and support of those seeking a democratic
Belarus. As Secretary Clinton and EU High Representative Ashton
said in their joint statement on December 23, ``the Belarusian
people deserve better.''
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Philip H. Gordon
Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member DeMint, members of the
committee, thank you very much for inviting me here today to discuss
the situation in Belarus. We should all be concerned by the very
disturbing recent events there, specifically the government's crackdown
on the opposition, civil society, and independent media in the
aftermath of the disputed Presidential election. This is a crucial
moment, and I am glad the Senate is focusing attention on the actions
of the Belarusian Government. I welcome the opportunity to speak with
you today on how the U.S. Government is responding.
Today, I would like to do three things. First, I would like to give
you an overview of U.S. policy with respect to Belarus in recent years,
which will provide a backdrop to the current situation and our policy
response. Second, I would like to describe the actions that the United
States has taken so far to respond to the repression in Belarus and to
support free political competition, civil society, and the independence
of media. Finally, I will also discuss possible next steps we, along
with our European partners, can take to address the situation.
The United States has repeatedly condemned the actions taken on
December 19 and the continuing suppression of political and human
rights in Belarus. That this crackdown occurred in the heart of Europe
in the 21st century is particularly troubling. The international
community must speak with one voice to support the democratic
aspirations of the people of Belarus, and we are committed to doing our
part.
backdrop to our current policy
The Obama administration has continued a bipartisan policy of
principled engagement with Belarus that centers on our consistent
advocacy for democracy and human rights. Long before the recent
crackdown, we were pressing for reforms that would allow space for
civil society, independent media, and the political opposition to
operate. I did so personally during my trip to Minsk in August 2009,
when I made clear to the Belarusian Government that only steps toward
democratic reform and respect for human rights could lead to better
relations with the United States.
Unfortunately, the failure of Belarus to respect human rights or
uphold democratic standards is not a new development. In the aftermath
of flawed elections and the abuse of human rights in Belarus in 2006,
the Bush administration first imposed sanctions against the Lukashenka
government. These sanctions included a travel ban and asset freeze on
certain officials, followed in 2007 and 2008 by trade sanctions against
the state-owned oil and chemical company, Belneftekhim. The Belarusian
Government reacted in 2008 by asking that our Ambassador leave the
country and requiring that we cut our Embassy staff in Minsk from 33 to
5. The European Union imposed a travel ban and assets freeze of its own
in 2006.
In 2008, following the imposition of sanctions, the Belarusian
Government released all of its political prisoners. Let me also take
this opportunity to commend Senator Cardin, Senator Durbin, Congressman
Smith, and others, who have been pressing for democracy and human
rights in Belarus for many years, and who helped secure the release of
American citizen Emmanuel Zeltser in July 2009. In recognition of the
Belarusian Government's positive step in releasing political prisoners,
the United States issued a general license temporarily authorizing U.S.
persons to do business with two subsidiaries of Belneftekhim in
September 2008. We told the government at the time that the United
States would reciprocate if the government took further positive steps.
Sanctions against Belarus--the visa ban and financial sanctions against
selected officials and Belarusian entities--remained in place and were
continued by the Obama administration. The EU suspended its travel ban,
but it continued its assets freeze.
In the runup to the Presidential elections of December 19, 2010,
the United States and many other countries urged the Belarusian
Government to take steps to improve its respect for human rights and
democracy, including an invitation for an OSCE international monitoring
mission to observe the elections. The government did allow the
monitoring mission and allowed nine opposition candidates to register
and to run against President Lukashenka. On balance, the campaign
represented an improvement over the one in 2006, despite continuing
problems. Voting was relatively uneventful. However, the government did
not conduct a transparent vote count and did not allow opposition
parties to monitor that count. The OSCE election observation team
subsequently singled out this major factor in its criticism of the
process, saying that counting of votes in nearly half of the
constituencies was deemed ``bad or very bad.''
The evening of December 19, between 20,000 and 40,000 people
rallied against the official claim of Mr. Lukashenka's overwhelming
victory. While we may never know all the facts of what happened that
night, we know onething: the government's reaction was brutal, and its
subsequent actions can only be interpreted as a campaign to crush the
opposition and severely weaken civil society and independent media.
Some 600-700 individuals were detained, initially including seven
of the opposition candidates for President. Many of the protestors were
sentenced to 5-15 days of detention without legal representation after
hearings before a judge that often lasted less than 5 minutes.
Five of the candidates, along with at least 32 others, however, now
face charges that could lead to 15 years in prison if convicted. Twelve
more remain suspects and may be charged. On January 11, Amnesty
International declared 16 detainees ``prisoners of conscience,'' and
urged the immediate and unconditional release of all detainees.
However, this is not just about what happened the night of December
19. In the wake of the protests, authorities have continued to raid
homes and offices of activists and staff linked to the political
opposition, civil society groups, including the Belarusian Helsinki
Committee, and journalists.
The government has refused to extend the mandate of the OSCE office
in Minsk. This office must now close by March 31 unless Belarus
reverses its decision, as we and other governments have urged it to do.
the u.s. policy response and next steps
The United States responded immediately and directly to the
situation in Belarus. Hours after the initial detentions on December
20, the White House issued a statement condemning the violence and
calling on the government to release all detainees. On December 23,
Secretary Clinton issued the first of two joint statements with EU High
Representative Catherine Ashton calling the elections and their
aftermath an unfortunate step backward and reiterating the call for the
detainees' release. On January 6, Secretary Clinton met with Belarusian
and Belarusian-American activists to hear firsthand from participants
about the election aftermath and to emphasize our condemnation of the
crackdown and discuss how we might help those facing the greatest
pressure, including the detainees and their families.
While publicly and privately urging that the detainees be released,
the United States has been putting together a package of actions if the
Government of Belarus does not change course, which now unfortunately
appears to be the case. There are three specific sets of actions we are
planning to make clear to the Belarusian Government the consequences of
continuing on its current course: We are pursuing additional sanctions
against Belarus; providing assistance to opposition forces and
independent civil society groups; and working closely with the EU to
send a unified international message to the government.
The steps we are considering include: (1) the revocation of the
general license authorizing U.S. persons to do business with the two
subsidiaries of Belneftekhim that first was issued in September 2008;
(2) an expansion of the list of Belarusian officials subject to the
travel ban; and (3) imposing additional financial sanctions against
Belarusian individuals and entities.
As we consider measures against the government, we are
simultaneously planning to increase our support for democratic actors
and the victims of repression. Last year, the United States provided
$11 million in assistance toward supporting civil society, access to
information and political competition, and providing opportunities for
more interaction between Belarusian citizens and the outside world. In
response to recent events, we will increase such assistance by nearly
30 percent this year. Our assistance includes support for human rights
advocates, trade unions, youth and environment groups, business
associations, and think tanks. We continue to support independent
newspapers, Web sites, and electronic media operating in the country
and broadcasting from Belarus's neighbors. In addition, we provide
assistance to democratic political parties and movements to more
effectively compete in this challenging environment.
Finally, we are working closely with our European Union partners to
make sure policy toward Belarus is coordinated, to send the strongest
and clearest message to the authorities in Minsk. The Belarusian people
seek to be part of Europe, and we wish to see the type of government in
Belarus that can be part of Europe. The EU's Foreign Affairs Council is
scheduled to decide on additional measures with respect to Belarus on
January 31. To emphasize the strong transatlantic concern regarding the
crackdown in Belarus, we plan to announce certain additional measures
against the government on that day as well.
On February 2, a U.S. delegation will join Europeans in a donors'
conference in Warsaw to assist nongovernmental actors in Belarus. At
that conference, which is being organized by the Polish Government, we
plan to announce our proposed increases in assistance to Belarusian
activists and encourage others to do likewise. The United States and
our European partners both understand that even as we take steps
affecting the Belarusian Government, we must do what we can to protect
and foster the organs vital to any democracy: political competition, a
vibrant civil society, and an active independent media that provides
citizens greater access to information.
conclusion
Madame Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, we have no
illusions that helping persuade Belarus to adopt a course toward
democracy and the rule of law will either be easy or happen quickly.
Our commitment to enhancing democracy and respect for human rights in
Belarus is long-term and will not weaken. I hope we can count on
continuing bipartisan support for this approach. We must maintain a
resolute stance, both with respect to the government and in support of
those seeking a democratic Belarus. As Secretary Clinton and EU High
Representative Ashton said in their joint statement on December 23,
``the Belarusian people deserve better.''
With that, I look forward to your questions.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
Mr. Melia.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. MELIA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Melia. Thank you, Chairwoman Shaheen and Senator
DeMint, for inviting me to join Assistant Secretary Gordon in
this timely discussion. I would like to ask that the complete
written statement I had prepared be submitted for the record,
and I will just turn to some current observations from my
recent visit.
I returned on Tuesday, less than 48 hours ago, from Minsk
where I went at the behest of Secretary Clinton to deliver a
strong message to the government about the mounting outrage in
the international community and the imminence of a sharp reply,
which I did both in a face-to-face meeting at the foreign
ministry with ashen-faced officials who realized that their
hopes of rapprochement with the international community are
going up in smoke before their very eyes and through the media
with whom I spoke on several occasions. And also, I went to
demonstrate the U.S. Government's support for the people of
Belarus which I did by meeting with human rights activists,
leaders of the political opposition, key figures in independent
civil society, including the leader of the Democratic Trade
Union Federation and the pastor of an independent evangelical
church whose congregation is under bureaucratic siege from
authorities that want to confiscate the plot of land on which
they have built their church. I met also with independent
journalists and, most importantly, with family members of those
currently being held in custody by the regime. The families in
particular, though anxious about their loved ones, were steely
in their determination to continue to work for a democratic
future for Belarus.
I must say, having traveled widely in this region over the
years but on my first visit to Belarus, that I was astonished
at what I saw in a few days in this country. Since Aleksandr
Lukashenko rose to power in 1994 as an independent candidate in
what is widely considered to be Belarus' last democratic
election, he has consolidated virtually all power into his own
hands through a series of fraudulent referenda and elections
and at the same time suppressing all forms of dissent sometimes
quite brutally. In today's Belarus, civil liberties are sharply
restricted in almost every way imaginable. The government
controls citizens' access to information through near total
domination of television and print media. And through a
restrictive Internet law that entered into force last summer,
July, authorities are working to extend that control even
further.
Belarusians live their lives under the ever-present eye of
the KGB. Yes, it is still called the KGB in Belarus which
employs wiretapping, video surveillance, and a network of
informers to keep the public in line.
I will refer to one particular provision of law that comes
up again and again. Article 191 of the criminal code says that
individuals who engage in activities on behalf of an
organization that the government refuses to register face
criminal prosecution with potential jail terms up to 3 years.
In the present moment, this means that the families of the
imprisoned have decided not to call themselves a committee for
the defense of political prisoners because that alone would
make them liable to prosecution and potential imprisonment for
3 years for, ``operating an unregistered NGO.''
Moreover, just to give you a flavor of daily life in
Belarus, on a monthly basis for more than a decade, quiet
vigils have been organized outside KGB headquarters to mourn
those who have disappeared at the hands of the state, sometimes
10 people, sometimes 100, holding photos of the disappeared.
Frequently one or more of these individuals will be arrested on
administrative charges and sentenced to 5 days or 2 weeks of
detention. Virtually everyone with whom I met earlier this
week, more than 50 people in different meetings, has been
interrogated by the KGB in the last month for the supposed
uprising the government alleges to have been planned for
December 19 or has been in and out of jail on this ``catch and
release'' program of continued harassment and incarceration.
Belarus under Lukashenko has well and truly earned its
designation by the economist intelligence unit as an
authoritarian country and its place on the Freedom House list
of the ``Worst of the Worst.''
We will never know how the people of Belarus actually voted
on December 19, though surely it was not the 80 percent for Mr.
Lukashenko that he claims. It could have been as little as 50
percent or less for all we know despite or because of the heavy
hand of his regime. This week's events in Tunisia and across
the Middle East remind us once again that apparently stable
regimes are stable until they are not, and that means that men
and women everywhere want to live in freedom. That is no less
true in Belarus than in any of the other countries that we are
looking at these days. We, in the United States, have supported
the people of Belarus through the dark period of Lukashenko's
rule and they know that and they welcome it.
We, in the Department's Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor, are proud to be part of America's diplomacy in this
case and to contribute funds through grants to civil society
and journalists in Belarus, and we look forward to working with
you and the Congress to refine our policies going forward for
Monday's announcements.
Senator Shaheen, I would like to conclude with a word about
the terrific, hardy band of Foreign Service professionals that
I met in Minsk. Senator Durbin referred to Mike Scanlan. I
would like to point out that under Assistant Secretary Gordon's
direction, five men and women--count them--five diplomats--led
by Mr. Scanlan are working around the clock in a place that
should have at least 35 or more American diplomats to represent
American interests and to demonstrate what American values
really mean to people living under repression. Belarus is a
place where good people know, despite the crude propaganda of
the official media, that the United States is on the right side
of history. This is done by the forthright principal policies
we have shaped together here in the executive and legislative
branches and it is especially due to the effective diplomacy
being implemented every day by Mike Scanlan and his team in
Minsk.
If time permits, I would like to just provide today's
update because even since I have been back in the last couple
of days, people have asked if the regime is changing course, is
responding to the imminence of sanctions and further isolation
of the government. The overnight report from Mike Scanlan tells
us that as of yesterday raids continue against civil society.
Some of the groups I had met with earlier in the week had the
KGB come in and confiscate their computers and their files and
detain people twice in the last month. So just yesterday a
particular political party was raided in the regional town of
Homiel and all the equipment that they had bought to replace
what had been removed on January 6 was stolen again, just
yesterday.
And yesterday in a press conference, Interior Minister
Kuleshov stated that the ongoing criminal case for,
``organizing and participating in mass disorder that have been
filed against 37 individuals, including five of the
Presidential candidates, would go to trial in early February.''
Kuleshov took personal responsibility for the police actions
calling them, ``adequate and proportionate.'' He accused the
organizers of what we know to be the peaceful December 19th
demonstration of having planned a coupe d'etat and attempting
to seize power by force of arms. He also refused to apologize
to journalists in the press conference who had suffered from
police brutality, instead accusing them of having beaten the
police on December 19. He said he did not know who attacked the
Presidential candidate Nyaklyaeu before the polls closed on
December 19 but he said it was certainly not the police. So in
the face of mounting international opposition and a determined
citizenry, the Government of Belarus shows no imminent signs of
yielding or acknowledging the truth of what has happened or the
consequences that the government will face.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Melia follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas O. Melia
Chairwoman Shaheen and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
inviting me here today to discuss the current crisis in Belarus. I just
returned on Tuesday from Minsk, where I met with human rights
organizations, opposition political leaders, independent journalists,
and the families of many of those currently being held by the regime. I
also expressed directly to representatives of the Belarusian Foreign
Ministry our grave concerns over the present situation.
While the current crackdown may be notable in scale and scope, it
fits within a clearly demonstrated pattern of behavior by the
Belarusian Government stretching back to the mid-1990s. In light of
these recent events, we must continue to speak out against the
detentions, raids, and other human rights abuses, while at the same
time continuing to demonstrate our unwavering support for the
democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people.
overview of belarus' human rights record
Alyaksandr Lukashenka rose to power in 1994 as an independent
candidate running on an anticorruption platform; he won what is widely
considered Belarus' last democratic election. Since that time,
Lukashenka has consolidated virtually all power into his own hands. He
has maintained his authority through a series of fraudulent referenda
and elections, while at the same time suppressing all forms of dissent,
sometimes brutally. Lukashenka oversees a bureaucracy, intelligence
service and economy that remain largely unreformed since the Soviet
period. In the past, political opponents and journalists have
disappeared; security forces were presumed to be responsible. In
today's Belarus, civil liberties--including freedom of speech, press,
assembly, association, and religion--are sharply restricted. The
government controls and limits citizens' access to information through
near-total domination of television and print media. Through a
restrictive Internet law that entered into force in July, authorities
are working to extend that control even further.
Belarusians live their lives under the watchful eye of the KGB,
which employs wiretapping, video surveillance, and a network of citizen
informers to keep the public in line. Authorities arrest, detain, and
imprison people for criticizing members of the government, for
participating in demonstrations, and for other political reasons.
Police routinely beat protesters, use excessive force when dispersing
peaceful demonstrators, and employ physical and psychological torture
during investigations. The regime works to suppress the activities of
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), independent media, political
parties, and religious groups through a mix of nonregistration,
harassment, fines, and prosecutions. Moreover, individuals who engage
in activities on behalf of any organization that the government refuses
to register in any of these sectors face criminal prosecution with
potential jail terms of up to 3 years. State-owned companies, which
employ most Belarusians, routinely fire employees as retribution for
their political activities or for attempting to unionize. Short-term
labor contracts ensure that no citizens can take job security for
granted. University students have been expelled for expressing their
opinions, and young men with ties to the opposition have been forcibly
conscripted. The country's judiciary suffers from blatant political
interference, corruption, and inefficiency; trial outcomes are usually
predetermined, and many trials take place behind closed doors. Over the
years, the regime has held numerous political prisoners for extended
periods of detention. Abuse of prisoners and detainees is pervasive,
and conditions inside prison remain extremely poor; the government does
not permit any independent monitoring of prisons. Belarus under
Lukashenka has well and truly earned its designation by The Economist
Intelligence Unit as an ``authoritarian'' country, and its place on the
Freedom House list of the ``Worst of the Worst.''
While the broader situation in Belarus has changed little over the
past decade and a half, during the past 2 years, the regime began to
indicate at least some interest in exploring improved relations with
the United States and European Union through the loosening of some
restrictions on political and civil society activity. In early 2007,
the United States took concrete action to press the government for the
release of political prisoners through the imposition of unilaterally
targeted sanctions against Lukashenka-controlled, state-owned
petrochemical conglomerate ``Belneftekhim.'' Lukashenka responded in
early 2008 by forcing the departure of our Ambassador and the
reduction, almost overnight, of our Embassy's American staff from 33
diplomats to five. But over the next few months, authorities released
all of the political prisoners. During late 2008 and into 2009, the
government took other small positive steps, including allowing the
registration of a few civil society organizations, and allowing a small
number of independent newspapers to be sold through the government
monopoly distribution system. At the same time, however, authorities
resisted pressure from the United States and EU to undertake any
meaningful systemic changes. The government ignored requests to repeal
Article 191 of the criminal code, a tool routinely used to harass
members of unregistered organizations. In the runup to the 2010
Presidential election, the regime declined to follow through on
repeated requests from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to
bring its election law into compliance with OSCE standards.
the presidential campaign
The campaign environment leading up to the December 19 Presidential
election included a proliferation of opposition candidates, nine of
whom ultimately secured places on the ballot. In marked contrast with
previous election cycles, authorities generally did not interfere with
campaigning by the candidates. The challengers were allowed to appear
together on state-controlled television for a live hour-long debate,
which Lukashenka boycotted. At the same time, however, authorities were
working diligently to ensure that the election machinery remained
firmly in the hands of regime supporters. In order to bypass the legal
requirement that a minimum of one-third of election commission members
must hail from political parties and NGOs, the regime stacked local,
municipal, and regional election commissions with state workers who
claimed to be representatives of fabricated NGOs or nonexistent
proregime political parties. Of the roughly 70,000 precinct-level
electoral commission members at 6,346 polling stations, only 183
members (0.27 percent) hailed from parties or organizations that could
be considered truly independent of the ruling authorities.
On election day, OSCE and U.S. Embassy observers fanned out across
the country, and reported on a heavily stage-managed voting process,
with the regime leaving little to chance. Local ``observers''--who
claimed to be from government-controlled NGOs but often struggled to
recall the names of those organizations--were present at most polling
stations, and in many instances provided written statements to
international observers stating that the elections had been conducted
fairly. Members of the OSCE mission reported meeting few truly
independent local observers. While the voting process generally
followed established procedures at most polling stations, OSCE
observers reported instances of ballot stuffing and other
manipulations, often involving mobile ballot boxes that disappeared
from sight for long periods during the day.
When the polls closed and the vote count began, the situation
deteriorated significantly. OSCE/ODIHR, in its preliminary assessment
of the conduct of the vote, concluded that the vote count was either
``bad'' or ``very bad'' in nearly half of the stations observed. At
many stations, commission members ignored the legal requirement to
conduct separate counts of the votes from the early, mobile, and
stationary election day ballot boxes, and instead mixed the ballots
together. Even where officials conducted separate counts or placed
votes for each candidate in separate piles, the count was generally
conducted in a rushed and silent manner, making it impossible to follow
whether the numbers actually added up. Furthermore, commission members
at most polling stations kept observers at a distance of 10 feet or
more from where the votes were being counted, making it impossible to
independently verify the results. In some instances, OSCE observers
noted that the vote totals for various candidates changed between the
time election officials left their polling stations, and the time they
arrived and submitted the results to the regional election commission.
The OSCE observation mission and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
noted ``some specific improvements'' in the election process, but
underscored the fact that ``the vote count undermin[ed] the steps taken
to improve the election.'' The OSCE also noted that ``election night
was marred by detentions of most Presidential candidates, and hundreds
of activists, journalists, and civil society representatives.'' Geert-
Hinrich Ahrens, head of the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission, summarized
the situation by noting at a December 20 press conference that ``a
positive assessment of this election isn't possible.''
post-election crackdown
Weeks prior to the election, members of the political opposition
(including six of the nine opposition Presidential candidates) and
other civil society leaders announced their intent to hold a large
peaceful rally on election night to protest the already evident uneven
playing field shaping the campaign environment and a clear lack of
integrity of the state electoral machinery. In early December,
Lukashenka's Presidential administration declared that the opposition
was preparing ``groups of fighters, buying warm clothes, pyrotechnics,
and even explosive materials'' to create a ``provocation'' on election
night. Well before the polls closed on election day, thousands of
police took up positions in downtown Minsk in anticipation of the
protest.
That evening, tens of thousands of Belarusians gathered in downtown
Minsk, and held the largest public demonstration seen in the country in
at least 5 years. We may never have a complete and accurate accounting
of the events of that evening, but there are some things we do know. We
know that Presidential candidate Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu and his supporters
were stopped by police and beaten prior to the start of the
demonstration, and that Nyaklyaeu was later removed from his hospital
bed by security forces. We know that the demonstration proceeded
peacefully for a few hours, until unknown individuals began breaking
the windows of the Government House. In the period that followed, we
know that security forces launched a broad and seemingly indiscriminate
crackdown, holding some protesters on the ground with their boots, and
beating people with fists and batons. Among those injured were
Presidential candidate Andrei Sannikau and foreign journalists. In
clearing the square, authorities ultimately detained between 600 and
700 people. According to human rights organizations, these detainees
were held for an initial period with extremely limited access to
physical necessities including water and toilets; they were
subsequently given hearings before judges without the benefit of legal
counsel, and were sentenced to between 10 and 15 days of administrative
detention. The majority of these detainees were then released at the
end of those sentences (in late December or early January).
In the aftermath of the crackdown on the square, authorities began
assembling a group of the most well-known detainees at the KGB
detention center, some of whom were taken from the square, but others
who had been taken from their homes and offices in the days following
the protest. At present, authorities have charged 36 persons with
organizing or participating in mass riots, including five of the
Presidential candidates and many of their campaign aides, as well as
other political leaders, youth activists, and independent journalists.
Thirty-two of these individuals remain in detention, and authorities
continue to deny family members access to the detainees and threaten
the lawyers who have been retained to represent them. Lawyers are
reporting extremely limited access to their clients; nine detainees
have not seen their lawyers since Decermber 29. We simply do not know
the conditions under which these prisoners are being held, but there
are reports that one Presidential candidate is on a hunger strike.
Others, such as Nyaklyaeu and Sannikau were injured by security forces;
we do not know--but are concerned--whether they are currently receiving
appropriate medical attention. According to authorities, at least 12
others (including 2 additional Presidential candidates) remain suspects
but have yet to be formally charged.
In the days that followed, authorities claimed that the events of
December 19 were an attempt at revolution. State-owned newspapers
printed allegations that German and Polish security forces had
organized and financed a plot to overthrow the government. Belarusian
security forces have continued day in and day out to raid the offices
of dozens of independent organizations, media, and human rights groups,
as well as the homes and apartments of leading activists. Targets have
included the two leading Belarusian human rights organizations, the
Belarus Helsinki Committee and ``Vyasna,'' both of which were involved
in actively documenting the electoral fraud and the post-election
repression. During these raids, security officials seized as
``evidence'' the files, computers, flash drives, cameras, and other
equipment belonging to these organizations. Authorities have also
arrested and detained additional activists. These raids are continuing
up to the present.
closure of the osce office
In the wake of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Missions'
findings that the Presidential election failed to meet international
standards, Belarusian authorities announced their intention to close
the OSCE Office in Minsk, one of the few international organizations
that had the ability to work on promoting democratic governance and
respect for human rights inside the country. The office's mission was
to assist the Belarusian Government in developing democratic
institutions, promoting the rule of law, and forging relationships
between government and civil society. The office's work was guided by
OSCE principles and commitments to which all 56 participating states
have agreed, including respect for the rule of law, freedom of assembly
and association, and freedom of the media. Based on the conduct of the
election and the government's subsequent acts, it is clear that the
OSCE office's work was far from complete. We will continue to press
vigorously for reinstating the mandate of the office, just as we did
when Lukashenka briefly expelled the OSCE mission 8 years ago.
visit to minsk
The primary purpose of my recent visit to Minsk was to demonstrate
the U.S. Government's continued solidarity with--and commitment to--the
brave men and women who have been working peacefully to promote
democratic values and political reform. As our Ambassador to the OSCE
Ian Kelly said on January 20, ``[w]e need to make very clear to the
Government of Belarus and to Mr. Lukashenka that business as usual
cannot go on so long as members of the opposition, independent
journalists, and peaceful protestors are detained.'' And as Secretary
Clinton and European Union High Representative Ashton said in their
joint statement on December 23, ``The people of Belarus deserve
better.''
During my visit, I repeated the administration's call for the
immediate release of all those detained in the post-election crackdown.
I met with human rights groups, NGOs, independent think tanks, members
of the democratic opposition, religious groups, and independent media
organizations. I gave interviews to both local and international media
highlighting our commitment to the release of the detainees and to the
longer term survival of Belarusian civil society.
It has also been tremendously heartening to witness the response of
Belarusian human rights NGOs and civil society organizations to this
crisis. The country's embattled independent media has provided up-to-
the minute factual reporting of the elections and crackdown, while NGOs
have worked to document the names and locations of the hundreds
initially detained. The fact that civil society groups from across the
former Soviet Union have joined together to create their own Belarus
monitoring and advocacy group further demonstrates the vital roles
these organizations play, both locally and regionally.
Of course, with so many Belarusian political and civil society
leaders now imprisoned, those who remain out of jail are facing
unprecedented challenges moving forward. While we have long provided
moral and other forms of support to independent actors in Belarus, the
needs now are significant. We are working diligently with our European
colleagues to ensure that these immediate needs are met, and we are
also reviewing our overall assistance approach to Belarus for the
medium and long term.
What struck me most during my time in Belarus was seeing a brave
group of independent journalists, political leaders, student activists,
civic campaigners, and religious leaders--as well as their supportive
families--who remain undeterred in the face of the Lukashenka regime's
efforts over the past decade and a half to suppress them. In fact, they
remain as dedicated as ever to fostering democratic change in their
country. And I am convinced that there are millions of Belarusian
citizens who--in spite of the repression, the brutality, and the
propaganda--want more for themselves and for their children. As
Europe's last remaining dictatorship, Belarus is the final barrier to
what both President George H.W. Bush and President Obama have referred
to as ``a Europe whole and free.'' We owe it to the Belarusian people
to continue supporting them in this critical pursuit.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you both very much for your
testimony, and I especially appreciate your calling attention
to the five diplomats who are still on the ground in Belarus. I
hope you will send them our thanks and let them know that we
will try and do everything we can at our end to call attention
to what is happening there.
Both of you talked about the effort or the sort of
loosening of the regime's imprisoning and harassing of
political prisoners prior to the election. So can you speak, if
we know, to what their reasoning is to suddenly crack down
again post election when, given the outcome, it appeared that
Lukashenko was not in any danger of losing power? So have they
decided that Western views of their behavior are unimportant,
or what do you think has caused the most recent crackdown?
Mr. Gordon. I am happy to start and then Tom can weigh in
as well.
I do not want to seek to get into the mind of Mr.
Lukashenko, try to understand what led him to order his regime
to exercise such a brutal crackdown. Madam Chair, you are
right. We did believe that we were observing steps, limited
steps but nonetheless steps, in a more positive direction over
the previous 2 years. We noted that one of our key demands was
the release of all political prisoners and with the help of
some of your colleagues in the Senate, that goal was achieved
and that is why we in a limited way suspended some of the
sanctions that we had put on in reaction to the holding of
political prisoners. That seemed to us, one, some evidence that
our sanctions were noticed and possibly had some effect and,
two, a sign that maybe the regime was interested in moving in
the right direction.
They had also invited in the OSCE to observe the election.
We had told them if they want this path toward a better
relationship with the West and the United States, they would
need to do the right things on democracy and human rights and
have a free and fair election, and when they invited the OSCE
to observe that election, we too thought that was a sign of
their interest in moving in the right direction.
Why they then chose--and we had made clear. I underscored--
when I traveled there in the summer of 2009, I laid out a clear
roadmap of what Belarus could do and would have to do to have
the better relationship that they told us that they wanted. And
the European Union had done the same thing and even offered
financial incentives if Belarus changed its ways in democracy
and human rights. So the path forward was there.
What led the regime to choose not to take that path and use
brutality we cannot answer for sure and I do not want to
speculate about it. All we can say is that they clearly made
the wrong choice and we need to signal to them that there are
consequences for doing so.
Senator Shaheen. This probably goes without saying, but do
you see an impact on the willingness of civil society leaders
and those affected to come forward and continue to raise
concerns about the oppression? And how can we best support
those folks?
Mr. Melia. I can report that the array of people and the
groups they spoke for in the last few days remain undaunted in
their determination to work for a better future for their
country. There are lots of anecdotal stories they told about
the way that they were getting silent and quiet encouragement
from their friends and neighbors who are not so active in
political life. As I said, we do not know how the people of
Belarus really voted on December 19. We do not know if a
majority voted for or against the guy in power. What we know is
that there is this hardy band of people that are willing to
incur real risks, and as I said, many of them go to prison
often. Somebody told me that when you go to a demonstration, a
peaceful rally, you wear clothes that you think you may be
wearing for the next 2 weeks if you are picked up and detained
under this administrative charge. So it is a regular part of
their lives.
They do not show any signs of backing off or reducing their
work. They are not going to respond in kind to the violence
that the regime is meting out against them. They are going to
remain peaceful and work through political means that they can
inside and outside the system, and they are asking only that we
support them, that we support them politically as we are doing
through our visits and through our statements and that we look
for ways to support them in other ways materially as well, as
the Europeans and we are talking very concretely about doing.
Senator Shaheen. Well, certainly the united front from the
EU and the United States I think is very important. Can you
also talk about Russia's role in what is happening in Belarus?
Mr. Gordon. Sure. Russia plays a major role in Belarus,
obviously a part of the former Soviet Union. The two countries
have linguistic, cultural, and geographic links that we do not
question. And when I said earlier that we were seeking to
provide Belarus a path to the West and a better relationship
with the United States, I want to underscore we do not see that
in zero sum terms. All of the countries in Europe should have
the right to have positive relations not only with us but with
Russia as well.
We have said, however, that we do not see any place for
spheres of influence within Europe and that all countries in
Europe should have their sovereignty and territorial integrity
and independence respected and they should be able to choose
their own alliances and their own relationships. And the
Government of Belarus told us that they wanted a better
relationship with the West, and in turn, we told them that
there was a path to do that but it required movement on
democracy and human rights. And as I said, we thought that they
understood that. So now when they tell us they still want a
better relationship with the West, they do not want to be
dominated by Russia, unfortunately I think the answer is they
are making their own choice.
And let me be clear. We do not have any evidence that any
outside country, Russia or any other, was involved in what took
place on December 19. The responsibility for that is Mr.
Lukashenko and his own regime, but in foreign policy terms, it
is a real setback for any aspirations Belarus might have had to
orient itself in a different direction.
Mr. Melia. There is no love lost between President
Lukashenko and his counterparts in Moscow. It is a very
complicated and conflicting relationship in many ways. In the
runup to the December 19 elections, for instance, Russian
media, state-influenced media, was scathing in its criticism of
Lukashenko's management of Belarus and his qualifications for
office, et cetera. At the same time, Lukashenko's media in
Belarus was complaining about undue Russian influence and
supporting opposition candidates and problems were being
stirred up by Russia.
After election day, his story changed in the days after. As
the story to explain why the crackdown had come on December 19,
evolved--and it has evolved day by day and week by week. It has
become a different story over time--Lukashenko's complaint
about foreign manipulation of his political system shifted
direction. He was no longer complaining about Russia but he
turned to the West. He complained that Poland and Germany in
particular had fomented and supported this imaginary uprising
that they have accused people of launching. So he is as
mercurial in his assessment of who his friends and enemies are
as he is in other ways.
But Russia is very much a part of this. I noticed in the
last day or so that Foreign Minister Lavrov made a statement
noting that the Council of Europe had denounced the election
and the crackdown, and the Russian members of the Council of
Europe Parliamentary Assembly supported that. And Foreign
Minister Lavrov noted that that Russians had supported the
denunciation of the election and the aftermath.
So I think Russia's views are more complicated than they
may seem at first glance. They clearly have commercial and
other security interests in Belarus. They have two military
bases there. So it is a complicated relationship. There is an
opportunity for Russia here too to demonstrate an interest in
democratic fundamentals.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator DeMint.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Secretary Gordon, you said that we already have significant
sanctions, visa bans, assets we are freezing, but you are
looking at ways to strengthen and widen. What are our options
at this point that you think might make a difference?
Mr. Gordon. I outlined a couple of things that we are
looking at. First of all, as I noted, when Minsk finally
released the political prisoners that we had been insisting
they release in 2008, we suspended sanctions on two
subsidiaries of one of their major industrial conglomerates,
Belneftekhim. And what we are looking at doing now and intend
to announce soon is reimposing those sanctions, revoking the
general license to do business with those subsidiaries. There
is a very clear link. We suspended those sanctions because they
released political prisoners.
We have said publicly--I have stated publicly that if those
detained on the December 19 crackdown were not released very
soon, we would have to conclude that they are now political
prisoners. When you arrest people who run for President and put
them in jail, it is hard to escape that conclusion. And
therefore, if they have political prisoners, one of the things
we will do is reimpose those sanctions.
As I noted as you pointed out, we already had a significant
travel ban on categories of officials from the regime and we
are looking at widening those categories so that we make sure
that all of those who were involved in the crackdown are not
able to travel to the United States.
Senator DeMint. But will the EU follow us on that? Will we
be consistent in sanctions with them?
Mr. Gordon. We certainly hope so and that is why we have
been working so closely together. Because our sanctions have
been more extensive from theirs already, we had less additional
room for maneuver, which is why we have tried to so coordinate
with the EU which has greater relationships with Belarus on
which Belarus relies even more. It is obviously for the EU to
decide and announce, but we are hopeful that they too will be
taking steps in similar areas to us so that this is a unified
international message.
Senator DeMint. I am sure you have gamed this out, but if
we and the EU make it harder and harder to do business with us,
are we pushing them into the hands of Russia? How do you see
this playing out?
Mr. Gordon. We have, indeed, thought that through, gamed it
out, however you want to put it. And as I said, this is a
choice they have made. They had told us they did not want to be
uniquely dependent on their big neighbor, and we made clear
that there was a way for them to avoid that. And now I think we
need to maintain our credibility and demonstrate that when we
say something, we mean it.
We have tried to give them, even since December 19--the
reason we did not act immediately was we would like to see
these detainees released. And we said then release them or
there will be further consequences. And again, for our
credibility both with Belarus in the future--because as I had
noted to Senator Shaheen, we would like to believe that past
sanctions actually led them to think about and ultimately
release political prisoners and take other positive steps. But
also if I might in the broader picture, there may be other
``leaders,'' if that is the right word, around the world
thinking about how they are going react to demonstrations. And
if the message we send is there are no consequences, that might
give them more space to act in ways that we do not want to see.
So that is why we feel it is important to carry out these
additional sanctions.
Senator DeMint. And just a couple more questions.
Mr. Kramer, who will be up in the next panel, has said that
Belarus is selling arms to places like Syria and Venezuela, the
Sudan, and Iran. We know this regime is dangerous to its own
people. How big a factor are they in creating dangers in other
parts of the world?
Mr. Gordon. It is something we follow very closely
obviously. There have been cases in the past of Belarus selling
arms to other unsavory regimes. Some of those have the
potential of falling under legal restrictions and legislation
passed by this Congress. And obviously, we will enforce our
laws if we do have evidence of Belarus selling weapons that
violate those laws.
Senator DeMint. I guess I will ask this to Mr. Melia. Do we
need to be looking at things, international broadcasting into
Belarus, ways to communicate to people, encourage them? What do
we need to be doing to assist the people to make sure they know
the world is supporting their freedom?
Mr. Melia. I think you are exactly right, Senator. Among
the things that we are looking at enlarging is our support for
independent media in Belarus. There is a network of printed
newspapers and Web sites that operate inside Belarus almost
entirely due to support from the international community in a
very difficult environment. There is also broadcasting into
Belarus. RFE/RL is doing that. I do not know if there is room
for enlarging the hours per day or the nature of that
programming, but that is certainly one of the things that we
are looking at doing. But that is an important part of our
work, to try to get the message in, just as we want to get the
message out. We want to hear from the people of Belarus as we
can, notwithstanding the difficulties they face in expressing
themselves.
And that is a network that is working. The international
assistance has not only kept hope alive, but it has kept
organized communities of men and women in Belarus active in
communicating with their neighbors and their larger society
about democratic values, about what happens in the West, about
what the future could look like for Belarus. So that is going
on now, again thanks largely to international support.
As Secretary Gordon mentioned, we are planning to announce
an enlargement of that support by the United States in tandem
with enlargement by European allies who are also going to do
that, make it easier for students who may be expelled from
Belarusian universities for their political activism to find
places in western European universities and other ways that
they can be supported in their work so that we can mitigate
some of the punishment that is being dealt to them by the
government.
Senator DeMint. One quick question, Madam Chairman. I guess
this is back to Mr. Gordon.
How does this affect the highly enriched uranium deal that
we signed last year? Are there any growing concerns?
Mr. Gordon. Thank you. We hope it does not in the sense
that getting the highly enriched uranium out of Belarus is a
high priority for this country. It is very consistent with the
President's nonproliferation agenda and his desire to secure
all unsecured nuclear materials, and this would be an important
step in the United States interest. We did not do the HEU deal
with Belarus that Secretary Clinton announced on December 1 as
a favor to them. We did it out of the U.S.'s interest. And even
as we move forward with additional measures, consequences in
response to December 19, we would still like to see Belarus
honor its commitments to ship out all of the HEU out of the
country by 2012, by the time of the next nuclear security
summit. So we hope that these things remain separate and they
uphold their end of the deal and get rid of the HEU.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Let me just follow up very quickly on that point. You said
we hope they will do that. Do we expect them to do that?
Mr. Gordon. We expect them to do that. We have an
agreement. The agreement said that Belarus would ship out of
the country, by the time of the next nuclear security summit in
2012, all of its HEU. I should note that in recent months, they
have already shipped out some HEU. So we have every reason to
believe that--and we expect them to carry out what they agreed
to do.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. Thank you both very much.
Thank you for your ongoing efforts.
While we are switching over panels, let me just point out
that the IRI has assisted the subcommittee in collecting
additional testimony from opposition figures, and without
objection, I would like to add those to the record.
We also as a subcommittee invited political opposition and
civil society figures currently out of the country to offer
written testimony for the hearing today, and I will also enter
those into the record without objection.
[The above mentioned statements can be found in the
``Additional Material Submitted for the Record'' section of
this hearing.]
Senator Shaheen. And we will ask our second panelists to
come forward. Again, thank you all very much for being here. We
appreciate your willingness to take the time today to share
with us your knowledge of what is happening on the ground in
Belarus.
Mr. Kramer, I will ask if you would go first.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID KRAMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FREEDOM
HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kramer. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for
inviting us here today and for holding this very important
meeting, and I am also delighted to see so many people in the
audience reflecting an interest in what is going on in a
country that is, in fact, in the heart of Europe and a country
that is definitely going in the wrong direction posing a
challenge not just to Europe and the United States but to all
democracies around the world.
As you and Senator DeMint have said, we have seen real
brutality conducted by Aleksandr Lukashenko's security forces,
including the arrests of more than 600 protestors. Those also
include seven out of nine Presidential candidates, four of whom
remain in jail, and Lukashenko is personally responsible for
this.
But even in the past week alone, if I may, I would like to
just read a few headlines that have been on Radio Free Europe/
Radio Liberty's Web site that give a flavor that the repression
of Lukashenko continues. ``Belarusian Athlete Fired for Taking
Part in Protest''; ``Belarusian Activist's Home Searched by
Police''; ``Belarusian Newspaper Sues Former Employee for Libel
for Not Condemning the Protest''; Belarusian KGB Confiscates
Opposition Activist Computers''; Journalist Temporarily
Detained in Belarus''; ``Belarusian Union Leader Arrested in
Minsk''; ``Belarusian Opposition Activist's Home Searched by
KGB and Police.'' These are just in the past week and they are
just a snippet of the kinds of repressive measures that
Lukashenko's security forces have been undertaking since
December 19.
And what we have seen is a reflection of Aleksandr
Lukashenko that is not new. This is the Lukashenko who
disappeared four political opposition figures in 1999 and 2000,
who has, as Senator DeMint pointed out, engaged in arms sales
to other repressive regimes. And so Lukashenko is a threat not
only within his borders but beyond his borders as well.
In 2006, he oversaw a fraudulent election, major human
rights abuses, and massive corruption in response to which the
United States and the European Union imposed sanctions against
him and others in his regime. Those sanctions, I would argue,
and having been involved at the State Department at the time
and working with other colleagues in opposing those sanctions,
secured the release of the political prisoners in 2008. They
demonstrated that tough measures do get Lukashenko's attention
and can produce results. They did not turn Belarus into a
democracy, but they did force him to liberalize and take some
positive steps. Those steps, of course, were all undone on
December 19 even though the European Union was hopeful that its
engagement policy toward Belarus might bring about a change.
There have been many in Europe who have been worried that
pressure and sanctions against Lukashenko would push Belarus
toward Russia. I think it is important to keep in mind that we
should be adopting policies toward Belarus based on what
happens inside Belarus not through a Russia prism. We saw a
stream of visitors going to Minsk. We saw Lukashenko travel to
Rome in April 2009 and have a meeting with the Pope. We saw
Belarus being invited to participate in the EU's Eastern
Partnership, although the invitation to Lukashenko to come to
Prague in May 2009 was done with the hope that he would
actually not show. And offers of billions of dollars, $3.5
billion, in assistance if the election passed the ``free and
fair'' test. All of these things were put on the table for
Lukashenko, and his response was essentially, if you will
pardon the expression, a middle finger to the United States and
to the European Union.
The United States also got involved in this with the HEU
deal that has been referenced already. Secretary Clinton met
with Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov in Kazakhstan and
signed the deal on HEU. But unfortunately, this broke with a
longstanding U.S. policy of not having such high level
engagement, a policy I must say that dates back to her
husband's administration, not just the Bush administration.
So what we saw on December 19 and what we have seen since
then has been Lukashenko acting as Lukashenko. My guess is he
got well below 50 percent of the vote and he knew it, and that
is what triggered such a violent response to all those who were
protesting in downtown Minsk. It seemed he flew off the handle
and yet this was also fairly normal behavior for him. And now
the situation is much worse than that in 2006 when the European
Union and United States together imposed sanctions.
What do we do? We need to speak with one voice. The enemy
is Lukashenko, and he is the enemy not just to the European
Union and the United States. He is an enemy to all human rights
and democracy advocates inside his country and in the whole
region. Freedom and democracy are the common goals. We have to
keep up the drum beat so that there is no deafening silence to
those fighting for the right cause in Belarus. We have to
support civil society. We have to support the opposition. We
should be waiving visa fees for citizens, the average
Belarusian citizens, and help students who have been kicked out
of university for having participated in the demonstrations. We
should be providing help to families and those in detention
with lawyer bills, medical support, food, and other kinds of
assistance.
Next week there will be a donors' conference in Warsaw.
This is a very commendable step. The Pols will be hosting this
and I know the United States will also be represented. It is
very important that the United States and European Union,
together, come up with concrete assistance for these
individuals in need. We need to support more media to let the
people inside Belarus know that we are on their side. We need
to resume material support for opposition and civil society.
Neutrality in the case of Belarusian politics is an enemy of
freedom and we cannot continue. We need to meet with activists
and opposition figures, and it is why I particularly commend
Tom Melia for his trip to Minsk in which he provided very
important moral support to those on the ground. And for
Congress, I would strongly urge the passage of the latest
iteration of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011
which I understand is being introduced soon.
At the same time that we provide that kind of support, I
hope that the United States and European Union also ratchet up
the pressure on Lukashenko. Tough talk is not good enough.
There have to be major consequences for what happened, and this
is, as I said before, worse than what happened in 2006. I
welcome the steps that Secretary Gordon announced here today
that the United States will take, and I also understand that
the EU will be taking significant measures when it gets
together next Monday.
We should reimpose the visa ban. The EU should lift its
suspension of the visa ban. And we should include Foreign
Minister Martynov so that he cannot go around Europe peddling
the lies of his dictatorial leader. We should extend the visa
ban to the immediate families of those who engaged in human
rights abuses so that the sons and daughters cannot live in or
study or vacation in Europe or the United States. And they need
to understand the reason they cannot do that is because their
mother or father engages in human rights abuses for a dictator
in Europe.
We need to expand the asset freeze.
We need to go after state-owned enterprises, as Secretary
Gordon mentioned, with Belneftekhim. That worked in securing
the release of political prisoners.
And we need to avoid meetings with senior Belarusian
officials until they take the necessary steps.
No more international financial assistance for Belarus. No
more IMF loans. No more World Bank loans. No more EBRD
assistance.
I would strongly urge the European Union to consider
kicking Belarus out of the Eastern Partnership. Another
invitation to Lukashenko hoping that he actually would not show
up for an Eastern Partnership summit is not good enough.
We need to understand that it is pressure. It is the fist
that Lukashenko understands. That is the language that gets
through his head. It is time to step up for democracy. This has
not been a good couple of months or years in the region with
the growing disregard in Russia for human rights, with concerns
about Ukraine's possibly heading in the wrong direction.
Belarus is a real test for the West. We have tens of
thousands of people, an unprecedented turnout, in the squares
in downtown Minsk showing up to protest against a fraudulent
election and the Lukashenko regime. Our support should be for
those thousands of people, brave people, who turned out facing
adverse circumstances and the brutality of the security
services. We need to protest against Lukashenko's rule. They
are the future of Belarus, and they need our support and
solidarity now.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kramer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David J. Kramer
Madame Chairwoman, members of the committee, it is an honor to
appear before you here today to discuss the latest situation in
Belarus, and I commend you for holding today's session. It is vitally
important that the United States and Europe stay focused on the
deteriorating situation in Belarus, support those in desperate need of
assistance, and take decisive steps in response to the latest assault
on freedom committed by Europe's last dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenka.
In just 4 days, European Union (EU) Foreign Ministers will meet
and, I hope, vote to reimpose a visa ban and other sanctions against
the Lukashenka regime. Frankly, anything short of that is unacceptable
and would constitute a slap in the face to those victims of
Lukashenka's repression. It would also send a signal to authoritarian
regimes around the world that they can get away with massive human
rights abuses cost-free. Five years ago, in response to Belarus'
previous fraudulent Presidential election, human rights abuses, and
corruption, the United States and EU together imposed sanctions against
the Lukashenka regime. Over time, those sanctions--i.e., not engagement
but pressure--secured the release of political prisoners held in
Lukashenka's prisons.
engaging lukashenka has failed
Unfortunately, after the EU in particular eased its sanctions
against the Lukashenka regime in October 2008 (the United States kept
most of its sanctions in place) and launched an engagement strategy
with Minsk, the pressure on Lukashenka went away, and he masterfully
played the West and Russia off of each other. Fearful that continued
sanctions and pressure would drive Lukashenka into Russia's arms,
European leaders tried to lure him toward the West by including him in
their Eastern Partnership initiative in May 2009, offering $3.5 billion
in assistance if last month's election passed the ``free and fair''
test, and paying lots of visits to him in Minsk in the lead-up to the
election. Lukashenka and his 5-year-old son even visited Rome, where
they met with Prime Minister Berlusconi and Pope Benedict XVI in April
2009. In the days before last month's election, some European leaders
essentially endorsed Lukashenka's candidacy, arguing that he was the
best bet against Russian pressure. There were even glimmers of
liberalization in Belarus in the lead-up to the December 19 election,
supporters of engagement claimed.
Europeans were not alone in softening their approach toward
Lukashenka. Despite the fact that Lukashenka expelled the American
Ambassador and almost 30 American staff from the Embassy in Minsk in
March 2008 and has not allowed any of them to return, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton met with Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov in
Kazakhstan on the margins of last November's Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe Summit to sign an agreement on the transfer
of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Such a meeting broke longstanding
policy dating back to her husband's administration against such high-
level encounters. Securing HEU is important but no more so than
standing by principle on freedom and human rights; moreover, the timing
of such a meeting just weeks before the Belarus election sent an
unfortunate signal that the United States was siding with Lukashenka,
too. Only at the end of Clinton's joint statement with her Belarus
counterpart did the two officials briefly mention human rights issues--
and even then the statement praised Belarus for inviting international
observers to monitor the upcoming election and offered no words of
criticism for the grim situation there.
Despite European and American offers of engagement, the situation
inside Belarus was, in fact, deteriorating, not getting better. The
government increased pressure against opposition leaders, arrested
civil society activists, violently broke up protests, harassed the
Polish minority, and denied registration to newspapers. In certain
respects, the regime was less blatant about its repression than it was
in 2006; it avoided high-profile political-prisoner cases, which are
easy for the international community to focus on and cause image
problems for the regime. But make no mistake: The general political and
human rights environment did not appreciably improve in the lead-up to
the election. In Freedom House's Freedom in the World annual rankings,
Belarus has not been rated as ``Not Free'' for years as its government
keeps a vice-like grip on all institutions of democratic
accountability. Meaningful changes have not been in evidence, and the
regime's true essence shined through in this election.
election day to the present
Indeed, the final nail in the coffin came on December 19.
Independent exit poll results, contrary to official rigged numbers,
showed Lukashenka falling well short of the necessary 50-percent
threshold to avoid a runoff second round. Apparently deciding to deal
with the opposition the only way he knew how, Lukashenka ordered his
KGB goons (and yes, they are still called the KGB) to engage in
provocations and crack heads, literally, against peaceful protestors in
downtown Minsk. Their crime: they were expressing their frustration
with rigged elections and Lukashenka's dictatorial rule. The security
services assaulted and arrested more than 600 people, including seven
of nine Presidential challengers, and savagely beat dozens of people.
The KGB has continued to conduct raids and attacks against journalists,
opposition figures, civil society representatives, and their families.
The violence authorized by Lukashenka on December 19 and the abuses
that continue to this day are much worse than those in 2006. If
sanctions were called for in 2006, there should be no debate that they
are warranted this time around, too. Far more people have been detained
and beaten up in the past month than in 2006, and the raids on
journalists and opposition figures continue unabated. Civil society
representatives and opposition figures support the reimposition of
tough sanctions against the Lukashenka regime. Spurning their calls
would be a setback for freedom and democracy in Belarus and elsewhere
around the world. Moreover, it's time to stop viewing Belarus through a
Russia prism. In 2006, the EU and U.S. imposed sanctions against
Lukashenka based on how he abused his own people, not on whether Minsk
and Moscow had good or bad relations. We should not change that
approach now and worry whether new sanctions will push Lukashenka
toward Russia.
enough talk--it's time for action
Tough talk condemning what has happened in Belarus is simply not
good enough. Lukashenka and his henchmen must suffer major consequences
for what happened. A wider visa ban should be imposed on those
responsible for the human rights abuses and be extended to their
immediate families if we want it to have impact. It should also include
Foreign Minister Martynov. While not directly involved in human rights
abuses, Martynov acts as the mouthpiece for an abusive, corrupt
dictator and should not be allowed to peddle his government's lies
anywhere in the West. High-level meetings with him, as EU High
Representative Baroness Ashton held a week ago, lend unwarranted
legitimacy to him and his boss. Moreover, Belarus should be suspended
from participating in the EU's Eastern Partnership; to allow it to
remain a beneficiary of this program is to make a mockery of this
initiative. Nor should Belarus be entitled to any assistance from any
European or international financial institutions as long as political
prisoners remain in jail.
The United States, too, should be doing what it can to ratchet up
the pressure on the regime in Minsk, including imposing sanctions
against state-owned enterprises such as Belneftekhim (the state-run
Belarusian oil-refining enterprise in which Lukashenka himself
reportedly had a stake and which the United States sanctioned in
November 2007). Together, the EU and United States should be speaking
with one voice and state publicly and repeatedly that Lukashenka is a
threat to freedom in his country and to the region. He is the reason
why Belarus suffers from self-imposed isolation from Europe. He is why
the families of officials who engage in human rights abuses should not
be allowed the privilege to travel, live, or study in the West. He is
why their assets are frozen and their credit cards won't work. If they
want to fix these problems, they need to focus their energies on the
reason for their hardships--Aleksander Lukashenka.
showing solidarity with belarus civil society and opposition
Secretary Clinton issued a good joint statement with EU High
Representative Ashton on December 23 condemning the violence in
Belarus. Unfortunately, President Obama remained silent, and the White
House statement of December 20 was issued in the name of the press
secretary. President Obama saw fit to issue a statement December 30
commending Ukrainian President Yanukovych on the transfer of highly
enriched uranium to Russia, but opted to say nothing on the situation
in Belarus (or on the verdict in the Khodorkovsky case in Russia or the
arrest and sentencing of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov). It
matters in whose name such statements are issued, and the President's
silence was noticeable.
Freedom and democracy should be the common cause uniting the EU and
U.S. together with those inside Belarus who are fighting for a better,
more democratic future. We must keep up the drumbeat--and that is why
this hearing is so important I also want to commend Tom Melia, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, for
traveling to Minsk last week. During his trip, he clearly condemned the
regime's abuses while standing with those victimized by Lukashenka's
abuses. Senior-level visits to Minsk these days, to the extent they
occur at all, should be focused solely on lending support to those in
civil society and the opposition who are under relentless attack.
Photo-ops with Belarusian officials, to state the obvious, should be
avoided at all costs.
Assuming the EU takes a tough stance next week toward Lukashenka
and his regime, it should join with the United States in simultaneously
extending significantly more assistance to civil society and opposition
forces inside Belarus. We should be pressing for the release of the
several dozen political prisoners still in jail, for a rerun of the
election given the fraud that delegitimized the last one (and EU
ambassadors were right to have boycotted Lukashenka's inauguration last
Friday), and for restoration of full political rights and civil
liberties. We should be demanding that the Lukashenka regime change its
behavior completely--and if it is unwilling, then it should be
sanctioned until it does. This is a regime that is not serious about
engagement. This is a regime that only understands pressure and
strength--that's the way to get Lukashenka's attention. It is a regime
that a decade ago ``disappeared'' four prominent opposition figures for
crossing the regime; their whereabouts remain unknown. It sells arms to
such places as Syria, Venezuela, Sudan, and Iran, revenue from which
lines not only the state's coffers but Lukashenka's pockets.
Lukashenka's regime, in other words, is not only a threat to its own
people but beyond its borders. By practically any measure, Belarus
under Lukashenka is truly the last dictatorship in Europe, a view
reinforced by developments on December 19 and since.
At the same time, it is critical that the West step up its support
for the opposition and for civil society. This should include waiving
visa fees for citizens to allow more Belarusians to visit the West. We
should ramp up opportunities for university students to study in Europe
and the United States, especially given that some have been expelled
from their studies for participating in the protests. We must help the
families of those in detention to pay for lawyers, medicine, food, and
other needs. We should be expanding efforts to channel media into
Belarus to let the people there know we're on their side. We should
continue to meet with activists and opposition figures traveling around
Europe and to the U.S. to show support for their efforts. In this
regard, I commend Secretary Clinton for meeting with a group of
Belarusians and Belarusian-Americans several weeks ago. These shows of
support are critical. I also welcome next week's donors conference in
Warsaw as an important opportunity to demonstrate support.
Congress has an important role to play as well. I urge Congress to
take up and pass the latest version of the Belarus Democracy
Reauthorization Act of 2011. I commend Members through joint letters
and public statements for urging the EU to take a strong stand. We must
remember that tens of thousands of people turned out in downtown
Minsk--unprecedented numbers--to protest against a fraudulent election
and the Lukashenka regime. They knew they were risking serious injury
and worse at the hands of Lukashenka's repressive security services.
And yet they stood for freedom and human rights. We should be standing
with them. When President George W. Bush signed the original bipartisan
Belarus Democracy Act in 2004, he declared, ``[T]here is no place in a
Europe whole and free for a regime of this kind.'' At the same time,
there is very much a place in Europe for a democratic Belarus--but such
a possibility is unlikely as long as Lukashenka remains in power and we
in the West provide him succor as we did last year. Our support should
be for the tens of thousands of brave people who turned out to protest
Lukashenka's rule. They are the future of Belarus, and they need our
support and solidarity now.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Wollack.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC
INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Wollack. Madam Chairman, Senator DeMint, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee on behalf of
the National Democratic Institute.
The continuing Belarusian crackdown on democracy activists
that began on December 19 is tragic and extreme. It is deeper,
wider, and more violent than any since the late 1990s. But it
is not an exceptional act or a break with the past, rather, it
is consistent with the pattern that the Lukashenko regime first
established in the 1990s and has followed ever since. The
regime may adjust its tactics over time--sometimes the
government is more responsive to the international community,
sometimes less so--but the strategy remains one of holding onto
power at all costs.
Although Belarus conducts regular elections, they are empty
exercises at best. Each has violated the country's commitments
as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. The regime does not tolerate meaningful dissent or
opposition; and it has also sought to suppress independent
voices and organizations. It was 4 years ago, for example, that
the government forcibly disbanded Partnership, a nonpartisan
election monitoring group that was working with NDI assistance
and in accordance with OSCE principles. Its offices were
closed, its equipment confiscated, and its leaders arrested and
imprisoned, along with NDI's resident representative, for 6
months or more.
We are witnessing now a systematic and far-reaching roundup
of journalists, civic and party leaders, and ordinary citizens,
some identified from KGB videos of peaceful post-election
protests.
Before December 19, reasonable people might have differed
about the relative merits of ``carrots versus sticks''
approaches in dealing with Belarus. There were glimmers of
liberalization that led some to hope that Mr. Lukashenko could
be coaxed into constructive cooperation with the transatlantic
community. But these changes proved illusory. Irrespective of
its erratic moves toward the East or the West, the regime's
disrespect for the rights of its citizens remains a constant.
Government-to-government actions and stiff consequences
should, of course, be the front line of the international
response to these events, and coordination with the Euro-
Atlantic community will be essential. In this context, we
commend bipartisan international outreach efforts such as the
recent Senate letter to European Union High Representative
Ashton.
Last year, we witnessed failed elections in such places as
Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt,
and Haiti. Sadly, Belarus was the latest addition to this
group. At the same time, there was evidence that the
international community has the capacity to react decisively.
This has been most evident in Cote d'Ivoire where the United
States, Europe, the African Union, the Economic Community of
West African States, and the United Nations ultimately united
behind a single message, a strong diplomatic response, and
targeted political and economic sanctions. Moreover, Cote
d'Ivoire was expelled from the African Union and the Economic
Community of West African States.
Belarus is, of course, a member of the OSCE, which was
founded on democratic principles. Ironically though, it was Mr.
Lukashenko who expelled the OSCE Mission from Belarus. And the
OSCE might consider finding a suitably reciprocal mechanism to
censure a member's flagrant violation of its core principles.
Likewise, it is difficult to imagine Belarus remaining a
participant in good standing of the European Union's Eastern
Partnership initiative.
At the same time, our assistance should focus on the
citizens of Belarus--on defending, supporting, and expanding
their own aspirations for democratic reforms. Helping the
hundreds who remain in jail, their families, and those who are
still being hunted by the KGB must be our first priority.
Almost as pressing is ensuring the continued existence of the
democratic organizations they represent. With their leaders
jailed, equipment confiscated, and activists threatened, the
survival of many political parties, civic groups, and
independent media outlets is in jeopardy.
A third key priority is maintaining a broad array of
avenues through which more Belarusians can become politically
active. The citizens who signed petitions, gathered on the
square, or were simply jarred out of complacency by the
regime's repression must have ongoing communication links,
organizations to join, projects to support, information to
weigh, and opportunities for dialogue if any good is to follow
from this tragedy.
As we consider assistance going forward, there are certain
basics that have proven their worth in situations like these
around the world.
First, the democrats inside Belarus need ongoing
international attention. Vaclav Havel has spoken eloquently
about how important outside voices were to dissidents behind
the Iron Curtain--as a source of hope and proof that they were
not alone. Meetings with high-level visitors, such as those
that took place recently with Senator Durbin and Tom Melia, are
invaluable.
Second, the activists need practical assistance that is
both responsive to their requests and sensitive to their own
assessments of the risks. Along these lines, there are a number
of activities that merit consideration. First, helping
political parties and civic organizations regroup, strengthen
their structures, and conduct activities that engage citizens
in political life. Second, ensuring that political groups have
access to reliable information about the values and concerns of
the population and the activities of both their government and
the opposition. The Polish-based satellite television channel,
Belsat, is very important in this regard. Third, assisting
Belarusians to find a wide range of entry points into political
life, from low-risk discussion groups and community development
projects to high stakes advocacy on political rights or
campaigning for office. Our emphasis should not be on promoting
individual politicians, but rather on supporting democratic
demand through organizations representing genuine citizen
interests.
We would also caution against making rigid distinctions
between ``political'' and ``nonpolitical'' organizations--so as
to assist only the latter. Support should go to all groups that
are responding to and engaging citizens.
What can the opposition reasonably accomplish in the
current harsh environment, assuming its activists receive
adequate moral and practical support from the international
community? It can defend, expand, and strengthen the popular
aspirations for democratic change. It can present alternative
visions for the future of Belarus. Regardless of what
precipitates a political opening, only grassroots demand will
ensure a democratic outcome.
December 19 was a serious setback for the Belarusian
democratic forces. But I am confident that, with international
solidarity, they will recover and perhaps reemerge stronger. By
continuing to invest in the aspirations of the Belarusian
people, we will bring the country closer to its democratic
potential. Moreover, we will find ourselves on the right side
of history.
Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator DeMint.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth Wollack
Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to appear on behalf of the National Democratic Institute
before the subcommittee on the current situation in Belarus.
The continuing Belarusian crackdown on democracy activists that
began on December 19 is tragic and extreme. It is deeper, wider, and
more violent than any since the late 1990s. But it is not an
exceptional act or a break with the past, rather it is consistent with
the pattern that the Lukashenko regime first established in the 1990s
and has followed ever since. The regime may adjust its tactics over
time--sometimes the government is more responsive to the international
community, sometimes less so--but the strategy remains one of holding
onto power at all costs.
Although Belarus conducts regular elections, they are empty
exercises at best. Each has failed to meet minimum international
standards; each has violated the country's commitments as a member of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The
Lukashenko regime has consistently demonstrated that it will not
tolerate meaningful dissent or opposition; and it has also sought to
suppress independent voices and organizations. It was four years ago,
for example, that the government forcibly disbanded Partnership, a
nonpartisan election monitoring group that was working with NDI
assistance and in accordance with OSCE principles. Its offices were
closed, its equipment confiscated, and its leaders arrested and
imprisoned, along with NDI's resident representative, for 6 months or
more.
In testimony before Senator Cardin and the Commission on Security
and Cooperation in Europe in advance of the 2008 parliamentary
elections, NDI noted that ``most forms of independent political
activity, including [civic] and political party organizing, have been
repressed.'' We cited criminalization of political activity through
denial of registration to all but the most progovernmental
organizations, closure of media outlets and persecution of journalists.
Remarkably, the situation today has worsened. We are witnessing a
systematic and far reaching roundup of journalists, civic and party
leaders, and ordinary citizens, some identified from KGB videos of
peaceful post election protests. Mr. Lukashenko's claim that no more
``senseless democracy'' will be tolerated in Belarus makes clear his
intention to decimate the democratic opposition and independent civic
groups.
Before December 19, reasonable people might have differed about the
relative merits of ``carrots versus sticks'' approaches in dealing with
Belarus. There were glimmers of liberalization that led some to hope
that Mr. Lukashenko could be coaxed into constructive cooperation with
the trans-Atlantic community. But these changes proved illusory. In
addition, the Belarusian economy is struggling and there is evidence
from a variety of opinion polls that Mr. Lukashenko's popularity is
sinking. His capacity to rule through a so-called social compact is
thus diminished. The main tool he has left is repression. The very
nature of the Belarusian regime has made it virtually immune to
entreaties from its democratic neighbors. Any international response to
the current crackdown must be shaped by that fundamental point.
Irrespective of its erratic moves toward the East or the West, the
regime's disrespect for the rights of its citizens remains a constant.
Government-to-government actions and stiff consequences should, of
course, be the front line of the international response to these
events, and coordination within the EuroAtlantic community will be
essential. In this context, we commend bipartisan international
outreach efforts such as the recent Senate letter to European Union
High Representative Ashton.
Last year, we witnessed failed elections in such places as
Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, and
Haiti. Sadly, Belarus was the latest addition to this group. At the
same time, there was evidence that the international community has the
capacity to react decisively. This has been most evident in Cote
d'Ivoire, where the United States, Europe, the African Union (AU) and
the United Nations ultimately united behind a single message, a strong
diplomatic response, and targeted political and economic sanctions.
Moreover, Cote d'Ivoire was expelled from the AU and the Economic
Community of West African States. The outcome of this standoff remains
uncertain, but the forthright international defense of fundamental
political rights sends an important message to the people of Cote
d'Ivoire.
Belarus is of course a member of the OSCE, which was founded on
democratic principles. Ironically, though, it was Mr. Lukashenko who
expelled the OSCE mission from Belarus. The OSCE might consider finding
a suitably reciprocal mechanism to censure this flagrant violation of
its core values. Likewise, it is difficult to imagine Belarus remaining
a participant in good standing of the European Union's Eastern
Partnership initiative.
At the same time, our assistance should focus on the citizens of
Belarus--on defending, supporting, and expanding their own aspirations
for democratic reforms.
The slight liberalization in the preelection period provided a
glimpse of those aspirations and of the grassroots democratic potential
in Belarus. Opposition leaders took advantage of the narrow opening to
create a political environment that genuinely engaged and activated
people. Democratic candidates, when they were briefly allowed to
campaign, found volunteers to carry and sign their petitions in numbers
far exceeding expectations. On election night, thousands of ordinary
Belarusians imbued with a new interest in politics flocked to the
central square in Minsk, despite the very real threat of violence. The
recent crackdown has touched and angered many previously uninvolved
citizens, fueling increased support for the democratic movement. Since
the election, political leaders have put aside differences to rally in
support of political prisoners, forming multiparty organizations such
as Solidarity and the Coordinating Council. Indeed, this swelling of
popular mobilization, along with signs that the regime was losing
popularity, is what seems to have triggered the regime's violent
reaction on December 19.
Helping the hundreds who remain in jail, their families and those
who are still being hunted by the KGB must be our first priority.
Almost as pressing is ensuring the continued existence of the
democratic organizations they represent. With their leaders jailed,
equipment confiscated and activists threatened, the survival of many
political parties, civic groups, and independent media outlets is in
jeopardy. A third key priority is maintaining a broad array of avenues
through which more Belarusians can become politically active. The
citizens who signed petitions, gathered on the square, or were simply
jarred out of complacency by the regime's repression must have ongoing
communication links, organizations to join, projects to support,
information to weigh, and opportunities for dialogue if any good is to
follow from this tragedy.
As we consider democracy assistance going forward, we should bear
in mind that there is no silver bullet, no magic program formula that
will lift Belarus out of its current crisis and toward greater freedom.
But there are certain basics that have proven their worth in situations
like these around the world.
First, the democrats inside Belarus need international
attention. Vaclav Havel has spoken eloquently about how
important outside voices were to dissidents behind the Iron
Curtain--as a source of hope and proof that they were not
alone. We need to stand in public solidarity with the
Belarusians now under attack. Meetings with high-level
visitors, such as those that took place recently with Senator
Durbin and the State Department's Tom Melia, are invaluable. In
these conditions, political neutrality would only translate
into support for the regime.
Second, the activists need practical assistance that is both
responsive to their requests and sensitive to their own
assessments of the risk.
Along these lines, there are a number of activities, including some
that NDI and others are already conducting, that merit consideration:
Helping political parties and civic organizations regroup,
strengthen their structures and conduct activities that engage
citizens in political life.
Ensuring that political groups have access to reliable
information about the values and concerns of the population.
Ensuring that citizens have access to impartial information
about the activities of both their government and the
opposition.
Assisting Belarusians to find a wide range of entry points
into political life, from low-risk discussion groups and
community development projects to high stakes advocacy on
political rights or campaigning for office.
Our emphasis should not be on promoting individual politicians, but
rather on supporting democratic demand through organizations
representing genuine citizen interests.
We would also caution against making rigid distinctions between
``political'' and ``nonpolitical'' organizations--so as to assist only
the latter. Support should go to groups that are responding to and
engaging citizens.
Even though Belarusian democrats bear no responsibility for the
current crisis--on the contrary, they are its victims--nonetheless the
responsibility for democratic progress going forward falls to them.
What can the opposition reasonably accomplish in the current harsh
environment, assuming its activists receive adequate moral and
practical support from the international community?
First, we should acknowledge that there are no quick fixes.
Democracy assistance is a long-term process with an unpredictable
timeline. The objective is to support democrats with networks, skills
and bases of support so they can fill the political vacuum when
openings occur.
Until then, the leaders of the Belarusian opposition can defend,
expand, and strengthen the popular aspirations for democratic change.
They can present alternative visions for the future of Belarus.
Regardless of what precipitates a political opening, only grassroots
demand will ensure a democratic outcome.
December 19 was a serious setback for the Belarusian democratic
forces. But I am confident that, with international solidarity, they
will recover and perhaps reemerge stronger. By continuing to invest in
the aspirations of the Belarusian people, we will bring the country
closer to its democratic potential. Moreover, we will find ourselves on
the right side of history.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Wollack.
Ms. Koliada, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF NATALIA KOLIADA, GENERAL DIRECTOR AND COFOUNDER,
BELARUS FREE THEATRE, MINSK, BELARUS
Ms. Koliada. Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of
the committee, thank you so much for giving me a chance and the
floor to speak today on behalf of those people who are today in
jail. They do not have voices. I still have the voice, so I
will speak on their behalf.
If you allow me to start, I will start.
My name is Natalia Koliada. I am cofounder of Belarus Free
Theatre, together with my husband, Nikolai Khalezin, and
Vladimir Shcherban, and a great group of actors. We gathered
together in order to make the theatre and say whatever we think
wherever and whenever we want and to whom we want by means of
arts. We wanted our spectators to think and this is the most
scary part for the Belarusian dictator, when people start
thinking. As a result of our artistic works, the company
experienced all possible types of repression, from dismissal
from their jobs to arrest of the whole group, together with all
spectators.
But I am here today not as a theatremaker. Today I am here
just as a human being. I am a person who was lucky enough
because of a very simple judicial mistake to leave Belarus
after a 1-day imprisonment. Now my parents and my husband's
parents are under constant control and pressure of the KGB. My
apartment and my husband's apartment was searched three times.
It was under attack of the KGB three times. And of course, it
is not possible to compare a pain of our parents whose children
are free but not with them to the pain of those with relatives
in the KGB jail now. Everything that happens in Belarus now
reminds only Stalin times.
I am here today to talk on behalf of my friends, people
with who I worked and who I even never met in my life, but all
of them are now in the KGB jail, and they face from 5 to 15
years of imprisonment. If I have a voice, I will speak for
them.
I am here today on behalf of all their relatives who do not
have any news about their loved ones because lawyers are not
allowed to those who are in custody. Nobody knows their
destinies and health conditions.
Everything that happened on December 19, 2010, was a big
surprise for the world, but not for us who live under a
dictator for the last 16 years. Belarus has now entered the
third era in its most difficult stage of life beginning a
decade ago. In 1999-2000, Lukashenko eliminated public and
political leaders using a death squad.
Then there was 2006, the year of previous Presidential
elections when European politicians essentially denied help to
the democratic forces of Belarus. On the eve of the election,
one must put the question, Can the European Union really put
pressure on Lukashenko and start exercising sanctions? One of
European diplomats said only if people are starting to be
killed in the streets. Five people are not enough to be killed
in the streets of Minsk?
On September 3, 2010, our friend and journalist, Oleg
Bebenin, founder of the most influential and independent Web
site, Charter 97, was found dead. He was found hanged in his
country cottage. Ridiculously staged suicide would be one of
the key elements in the upcoming election campaign. The killing
led to a so-called international investigation, but European
politicians even then turned a blind eye to the death, limiting
their intervention by the arrival of two experts whose names
were not even announced officially to examine documents offered
by the Belarusian authorities. And Charter 97 Web site was
under the first attack on the night from December 19-20, just
showing to the world that nobody should know what is happening
in Belarus. Nobody needs witnesses.
That should have been the moment when the world stops
talking to the last dictator of Europe. This is the person who
kidnaps, kills people, puts innocent people in jail, and uses
them for blackmail, sells arms to Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq.
The world should call such a person as a terrorist and place
him on the ``most wanted'' list. Generally such people are
hunted down and put on trial, but somehow the rule does not
apply to Lukashenko.
Belarus was one of the main five countries that traded
arms. Lukashenko's elder son, Victor, is in charge of trading
arms, national security's border control and it is obvious that
he was one of those who led the crackdown on a peaceful
demonstration on December 19. His middle son is in charge of
gambling. Such a family. And the whole country is under their
control.
Nevertheless, the West continued to engage this monster. We
felt betrayed by those who we thought should be helping us.
Human rights and democracy took second place to geopolitical
interests, business profits, and historical fears of Russia.
It was a strategic mistake for Europeans to count on Russia
and hope that this country that never cared about any human's
life such as Khodorkovskiy, Politkovskaya, Estimirova would
start to care about human rights in Belarus.
Lukashenko played EU with his fake preelection
liberalization and the EU ate it up. Why did the Europeans buy
this? Belarus is a country without oil, gas, or seaports.
Belarus just has its people. Who needs such things as people?
It was a very bad sign when there was discussion on
December 1 on uranium. It showed Lukashenko a support from both
sides, the visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany
and Poland to Belarus and discussion on uranium on December 1
by Secretary of State.
In the year preceding the 2000 Presidential election,
Lukashenko's claims of liberalization were taken seriously by
the West. We have not experienced this for the most notorious
liberalization ourselves. Talks on the liberalization and
flirting with the dictator led to a wave of terror that began
on December 19, 2010, and continued until now.
I cannot describe the reality of everyday life in Belarus
on December 19 because it would take months to describe all
personal tragedies that take place now in Belarus. But I could
give you just a story of my personal experience and experience
of our theatre manager and those people who I met in jail from
December 19-20.
On December 19, about 50,000 people gathered at the square.
Then it was attack. Then it was provocation by the government.
There were a few attempts to provoke people from the side of
the government. People tried to resist, but it was not possible
to resist. An enormous attack by thousands of people in black,
in uniforms in helmets with their shields moved to people to
arrest.
My husband and I--we were close. But when a company of riot
police struck at the crowd, we became separated. The only thing
that happened next--it was me in a van with total darkness. The
only thing that the special division of police referred to us
at the first moment there were five people at that mobile jail.
The ``animal''--this was the lightest word that we heard
regarding to ourselves.
In the van, there were absolutely darkness. Gradually the
paddy wagon was filled with the detained and eventually 68
people were crammed inside. First we heard: ``Lie on the floor.
Do not move. One move and I'll kill you.'' But by the time
there were about 70 people, it was necessary for people to
stand up despite the fact that the metal shed measuring about 2
by 5 meters.
The car started to move around the city. We had been in the
car for about 4 hours, and we stood on the territory of the
jail where that van came. Two people started to lose their
consciousness, but doctors did not appear, of course.
In the 4 hours, we started to be taken one by one. We had
been told that we need to go to jail head to head. And when I
got to the jail, I saw the corridor. To my right hand, I saw
hundreds of men who were staying along the sides of corridors,
both walls, and they faced the walls with their hands back. And
the only thing that is possible to recall would be from Soviet
films about Nazis. So it was exactly this kind of story.
Women were separated from men and we were moved to the
second floor. And when I got to the second floor, I could not
believe my eyes because it was the same that it was on the
first floor, but they were women facing the walls and with
their hands back. It was the moment when the head of the
special division of police said that Nazis will be like a dream
for you. And it is a very horrible moment to hear because every
third Belarusian was killed by a Nazi, and knowing that the
Belarusian citizen is saying this thing to another Belarusian
citizen, it just shows you the leverage of hate and
dictatorship that exists in Belarus.
Through the night, more than 600 people were arrested,
including six Presidential candidates, two of them Andrei
Sannikov and Vladimir Neklyaev, in horrible health condition.
Nobody knows what is happening to them.
In the detention center when we stood overnight, nobody
even provided us cells. We were not allowed to sleep. We were
not allowed to drink. We were not allowed to use the toilet. If
you asked to get some water, you would say that go and use the
toilet.
In the case of our theatre manager, Artem Zheleznyak, when
he confessed to me, when he was released on December 31, he had
never experienced anything like that during his entire life.
For almost 3 days, he was either in the paddy wagon or in a
stone glass, a tiny concrete cell about 80 centimeters square,
less than 1 square meter, and above all, he was stuffed in with
two other detainees in that tiny cell. He was allowed to use a
bathroom once within 3 days after his arrest.
Many of those who had been sentenced for administrative
arrest were immediately arrested by the KGB after their release
and taken to a KGB jail. These people were charged under the
article of the organization of mass disturbances.
My husband, Nikolai Khalezin, now is also charged under
this article. When we were separated at the square, he managed
to escape, picked up our youngest daughter who was with
friends, and got home. Early in the morning, KGB officers tried
to infiltrate into our house, but my husband, parents, and
daughter stayed silent and gave no sign that anyone was there.
KGB officers returned several times during the morning, but my
husband managed to escape from the house with the help of our
friends.
What began to happen in Belarus on December 20, I would
term a true ``witch hunt.'' Only about two dozen of political
activists could escape from the secret service. All others were
arrested. From the very morning, the all-out searches of the
apartments of social activists began. Editorial offices of
independent newspapers and Web sites were destroyed. Human
rights defenders were detained and interrogated. Almost
everywhere computer equipment and any information media, flash
memory cards, video, and photo cameras, CD, DVD, external
computer disks were confiscated, Belarusian authorities afraid
of any witnesses.
There were no mobile coverage at the square. There was no
Internet. When people referred to Belarus and said that it is
possible to have a Twitter revolution, as it was in Iran; no,
it was not possible because Belarusian authorities bought
Chinese filters and there was no Internet in Belarus.
The country plunged into a deep depression, not knowing how
to resist the total violence and absolute arbitrariness. At the
same time, people increasingly began to show their public
initiative to help the repressed and their families.
We managed to flee the country. On January 3, we were
supposed to fly out on a tour from Minsk to New York. And with
great help--today we were referred to Michael Scanlan and the
U.S. Embassy several times, and it appeared that this is the
Embassy that really helped--we left the country. But the next
day, the KGB came to apartments of our parents and they said
where are your children. How did they manage to leave the
country? And from all the discussion, it was absolutely obvious
that the KGB said organization of mass disturbances is referred
to your children. Already three times, KGB officers came to a
house of our manager. The husband of our actress was arrested.
They also actively searched for the president of We Remember
Foundation, Irina Krasovskaya, who is present today at these
amazing hearings.
Today the number of imprisoned in the KGB jail constantly
varies. Depriving prisoners of information and health treatment
is a secret service tactic for pressuring them to confess to
crimes which they did not commit. Not only do prisoners undergo
this enormous pressure, but it extends to their relatives. On
the day when I met, together with Irina Krasovskaya and the
representatives of Belarusian diaspora in the United States,
with the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, intelligence
officers in Minsk tried to win over the wife of Dmitry
Bondarenko, coordinator of the European Belarus movement. She
was offered to influence her husband so he would begin to
cooperate with the investigation and then would receive a
prison term much less than Sannikov. The next day after the
meeting with the Secretary of State, apartments of my parents
were attacked by KGB again.
Unfortunately, today the simple desire of Belarusians to
get rid of dictatorship is not enough. Lukashenko has created a
huge machine of repression which has no analogs in Europe. We
can resist it only by leaning on the help of those who are able
to influence the last dictatorship of Europe from the outside.
Here in America, we have amazing support of American
artists, Steven Spielberg, Michael Douglas, Tony Kushner, Oskar
Eustis, Catherine Coray, Leigh Jameson, Jeramie Irons, Michael
Lawrence; many, many of them. I can enumerate for a long time
names of those tremendous and great people who rushed to our
aid and embarked on the protection of political prisoners.
I have a dream that we will be able to pronounce with the
same pride the names of American and European politicians who
decide to help a country of 10 million people. But if any way
politicians do their job and think only such the ways, there is
just one political and geopolitical challenge. If there is no
dictatorship in Belarus, it will be for the first time in the
world history when European Continent would be free from
dictators. What a shame if the European Union and the United
States cannot solve this issue.
I would like to get just a few moments of your attention.
This is just a few moments that I need from you and pay
attention just to the names of people who are now in the KGB
jail, and these are just people: Aliaksandr Atroshchankau,
Aliaksandr Arastovich, Bandarenka, Breus, Fiaduta, Fedarkevich,
Khalip, Khamichenka, Klaskouski, Kobets, Korban, Kviatkevich,
Likhavid, Liabedzka, Loban, Malchanau, Martsaleu, Miadzvedz,
Mikhalevich, Novik, Niakliayeu, Palazhanka, Parfiankou, Paulau,
Pazniak, Radzina, Sannikau, Seviarynets, Statkevich, Vazniak,
Vinahradau. No oil, no gas, just people. This list is growing
now.
I wanted to bring you a portrait, but it was not allowed to
bring it here. It is staying on the first floor. It is a
portrait of a son of our friends, Andrei Sannikov and Irina
Khalip. You saw his portrait today. He is only 3 years old but
he personifies all parents. He personifies all children who are
now without parents, and parents who are now without children.
And could you imagine if you put yourself on the position of
his parents, that they would see him or he would see his
parents only when he is 18 years old. He is 3 now.
When we talk about Belarus, let us talk about it like
people, not as politicians or theatre makers, not as
businessmen and geopolitical strategists, but just people. The
American Senate is the voice of American people, and we need
those voices of people of America to stay together with us and
help us to fight against dictatorship.
Our patron, Sir Tom Stoppard, who came to Belarus
underground and met with many of those who are now in KGB and
relatives of those whose relatives were kidnapped and killed by
the regime said: Dictatorship is not a political problem. It is
a moral problem. Let us think about morality in politics toward
Belarus, as well as to other countries that stay under
dictatorships as well. Words are not enough. It is time to act.
Thank you so much for your time and patience.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Koliada follows:]
Prepared Statement of Natalia Koliada
Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of the committee, thank
you for inviting me to share my experience of the political and social
upheaval surrounding the recent fraudulent Presidential elections in my
country, Belarus. With your permission, I would like to present my
story.
My name is Natalia Koliada. I am a director of the Belarus Free
Theatre. I believe that in order to present a complete picture of what
is happening in Belarus, I should start with a history of our theater
itself, an independent creative company which has become a pariah in
its own country.
our theater
My husband Nikolai Khalezin and I created the theater in spring of
2005. A month later, after a director, Vladimir Scherban, joined us, we
were able to release the first show, ``Psychosis 4.48'' based on a play
by British playwright Sarah Kane. Even the first performance provoked a
squall of discontent on behalf of the power structures, and the next
show, ``Breathing Technique in a Vacuum'' based on a play by Russian
playwright, Natalia Moshina, led to the prohibition of the theater. In
the first months of our existence, we could rent small clubs for the
performances. Later, when the theater became known to intelligence
agencies and the Presidential administration, our managers were
visiting on average 30-40 different public spaces, offering to perform
for free, but they were rejected every time.
Exercising our right to freedom of expression, we began to show
performances underground, using every opportunity. We presented them in
the guise of private parties and birthdays in cafes or in private
homes, and even under the guise of weddings at a farm in the forest.
The result was that the professional theater company has become a
pariah, and members of the troupe throughout the 6 years of the
theater's existence experienced all possible types of repression:
expulsion from the universities, dismissal from their job, denial of
residency, beatings, arrests, prison time, and psychological pressure
on members of the troupe and the audience. Three members of the group
were imprisoned, and everyone has been arrested. One of the most
heinous cases occurred in August 2007, when the entire troupe was
arrested along with the audience--more than 60 people. Then the mass
repression was avoided only through the intervention of international
celebrities: British playwright, Sir Tom Stoppard, and Nobel Laureate,
Harold Pinter, along with a rapid response of the leading world media.
Pressure on the theater grew in proportion as the company became
popular abroad. We presented performances on four continents, traveled
more than two dozen countries on tour, receiving brilliant critique in
the world's leading publications. But at home in Belarus, we still
showed performances in secret: we were not allowed to register the
theater officially, rent space, nor sell tickets. The regime continued
to pressure not only actors and managers of the theater, but resorted
to pressure spectators and family members of the troupe.
In the year preceding the 2010 Presidential election, many European
politicians were taking President Alexander Lukashenko's claims of
liberalization seriously. We have not experienced for a single day of
this most notorious ``liberalization'' ourselves. The pressure on the
theater changed its forms, but it has not slackened or faltered for a
moment, being amplified after each great success abroad. Talks on the
liberalization and flirting with the dictator led to a wave of terror
that began on December 19, 2010, and continuing until now.
december 19, 2010
The morning of Election Day did not herald the bloody outcome,
which occurred later in the evening. The authorities cornered about 20
percent of voters on a preliminary vote and all bulletins of those who
had voted before the official Election Day were enrolled in
Lukashenko's advantage. At 4 p.m. the first exit poll data began to
appear. Based on that information it became clear that Alexander
Lukashenko gained no more than 32 percent of the votes whereas the
share of the remaining eight candidates had more than 43 percent.
Knowing the Belarusian political situation in which the overflow of the
votes from opposition candidates to the dictator is impossible, and
taking into account the fact that among the opposition candidates the
majority of the votes were distributed between two leaders--Andrei
Sannikov and Vladimir Neklyaev--it was easy to understand that the
reality of the second round of elections would become absolutely
obvious, in which a Democratic candidate would undoubtedly win.
Based on the exit poll data and information from a number of
polling stations, the indicative results of the first round of the
Presidential elections were as follows: Alexander Lukashenko gained 33-
40 percent; Andrei Sannikov--23-25 percent. In the second round of
voting Sannikova would receive votes from his colleagues in the
Democratic opposition--Vladimir Neklyaev (about 12-15 percent),
Yaroslav Romanchuk (10 percent) and other opposition candidates (about
5-7 percent). Most likely, the realization of his imminent defeat
prompted Lukashenko to radical actions against peaceful demonstrators
who had gathered in that evening in the center of Minsk in order to
hear the final figures of the results of the Presidential elections.
By 8 p.m. at the October Square in Minsk there were about 50,000
people. They were people of different ages belonging to different
social groups. Many came as entire families--even with young children.
For the first time in the last 10 years, so many people took to the
streets. It was a peaceful demonstration--there were no aggressive or
intoxicated people in the crowd; any provocations by dressed in plain
clothes security officers were stopped by the protesters. On the square
a rally with the Presidential candidates, heads of their staffs, and
culture figures took place.
There at the square, it became known that half an hour before the
rally security forces attacked a group of members of the headquarters
of a Presidential candidate, Vladimir Neklyaev. The attack was carried
out with firearms and light stun grenades. The attackers seized a set
of sound-amplifying equipment and took away part of the video and
photography equipment from journalists present there. Nyaklyaev himself
was brutally beaten, and after the attackers withdrew, he, being
unconscious, was moved back into the candidate's headquarters.
After the meeting ended at the square, the demonstrators marched to
Independence Square, where the Central Election Commission was located
at the Government Building. When about 50-60 thousand people came to
the square the final results of the Presidential elections, announced
by the Central Election Commission, became known. According to the
authorities, Alexander Lukashenko had scored more than 79 percent of
the votes.
It was clear that the dictator would not part with his power, even
if nobody voted for him.
The rally at the square continued--one Presidential candidate after
another gave a speech during which they declared their opposition to
the fraudulent results that had been announced by the Central Election
Commission. At some point, there was a sound of breaking glass--a few
unknown people tried to break the glass door in the building that
housed the Central Election Commission. Demonstrators surrounded the
area close to the doors, and did not let anyone to approach them.
Presidential candidate Vitali Rymashevsky, getting to the microphone,
announced that it was a provocation of the intelligence services, but
suddenly another group of sports-dressed young people appeared there
and continued even more actively smashing the glass doors of the
Government Building. Only a few days later, with the active help of
bloggers, journalists, and, thanks to leaks from law enforcement of
audio conversations between special security services, people managed
to reconstruct the event completely, and with absolute certainty to
establish that the destructions of the doors of the Government Building
had been staged by the secret service. Today, all the relevant audio
communications can be found publicly on the Internet.
From the audio communications of special services it became clear
that the breaking of glass in the door of the building was the signal
for the use of the force against peaceful demonstrators. A few minutes
later, after the raid leaders ordered the sweep, the area was filled
with about 7-10 thousand troops. It consisted of different groups of
armed men: from organized riot squads to semicriminal groups without
any recognizable insignia, dressed in black clothes. These groups are
part of semilegal armed forces, carrying out special assignments of the
Presidential structures. They behaved horribly, screaming obscenities
and furiously smashing and brutally beating the peaceful demonstrators.
My husband and I were close, but when a company of riot police
struck at the crowd, we became separated on different sides of armed
men. I, along with a small group of protesters was shoved aside to a
waiting paddy wagon, and we were pushed inside of it. We, the first few
people, were more fortunate than others--we mostly avoid the beatings.
Riot policemen initially only gave orders, interspersing them with foul
language: ``Lie on the floor!'', ``Do not move!'', ``One move and I'll
kill you!'' The gentlest treatment was the word ``animals.'' In the car
there was absolute darkness. Gradually the paddy wagon was filled with
the detained, and eventually 68 people were crammed inside, despite the
fact that it is a metal shed measuring about 2 by 5 meters.
The car started to move around the city--the moving lasted about an
hour, then we stayed in the car for another 3 hours. There was not
enough air, there was no water and we weren't allowed to go to the
toilet. A few hours later after we arrived at a detention center, which
was a jail, where political prisoners sentenced to short prison terms
are usually taken; a few groups were convoyed to the toilet. To our
question whether it was possible to drink somewhere, the guards
replied: ``Drink from the toilet.'' Threats and insults rained
incessantly on us. That evening one of the guards told us: ``Fascists
will look like a fairy tale for you.'' It was true--it was unbearably
difficult to stand the insults, beatings and humiliation for the young
people, the vast majority of whom were in that situation for the first
time in their life.
Throughout the night more than 600 people were arrested, including
six Presidential candidates. At the detention center they did not even
take us to the cells. We were left standing in the hallways waiting for
trials that were due to start in the morning. The guards continued
psychological pressure, periodically giving the command: ``Form up a
file,'' ``Face the wall,'' ``Place your feet shoulder-width apart.'' It
was senseless torture of people throughout the entire night.
december 20, 2010
In the morning they started to take us to the courts. They had to
sentence more than 600 people, so all the courts of the city were
overcrowded. Trials that were taking place one after another, sometimes
took just a few minutes. Police officers were the witnesses, and all
protocols were written in the same way: ``was in the square,'' shouted
the slogans,'' ``violated the order.'' Insisting on the presence of a
lawyer was futile. Without exception, all the trials were behind closed
doors. Lawyers were not allowed in and even the relatives of the
arrested could not find out where the trials on their loved ones had
been taken place. In the most cases the sentences imposed were of two
types--10 or 15 days of imprisonment. In some cases, mostly for young
women with small children younger than 12 years old, they were fined
for 30 basic units (about $400).
In my case a judge was about to pass sentence, but asked me: ``Do
you feel guilty?'' I replied that I did not, and then the judge turned
to me with the words ``Anna Yegorovna . . .'' I immediately responded
to challenge the judge, because my name is Natalia Andreevna, and not
Anna Yegorovna. It turned out that I was tried, not only without any
witnesses, but also based on a charge-sheet which contained someone
else's name. The conflict began to flare up, and the judge decided that
the best solution was to stop it, and announced the sentence--a
penalty.
The manager of our theater, Artem Zheleznyak, was not as lucky--he
was sentenced to 11 days in jail after being arrested in the editorial
office of the most influential independent socio-political Web site,
Charter'97. He had accompanied the Web site editor in chief, Natalia
Radina, to her office to help her with the translation of articles into
English. Natalia was beaten so badly in the square she got a
concussion. That night, the entire editorial staff, including Artem,
was arrested. As he confessed to me, he had never experienced anything
like that during his entire life. For almost 3 days he was either in a
paddy wagon, or in ``a glass''--a tiny concrete cell about 80
centimeters square; less than 1 square meter. And, above all, he was
stuffed in with two other detainees in that tiny cell.
Many of those who had been sentenced for administrative arrest were
immediately arrested by the KGB after their release and taken to a KGB
jail. These people were charged under the article of the organization
of mass disturbances, the maximum penalty for which is 15 years
imprisonment.
My husband, Nikolai Khalezin, now is also charged under this
article. When we were separated at the square, he managed to escape,
picked up our youngest daughter, who was with friends, and got home.
Early in the morning KGB officers tried to infiltrate into our house,
but my husband, parents, and daughter stayed silent and gave no sign
that anyone was there. KGB officers returned several times during the
morning, but my husband managed to escape from the house.
What began to happen in Belarus on December 20, I would term a true
``witch hunt.'' Only about two dozens of political activists could
escape from the secret service--all others were arrested. From the very
morning the all-out searches of the apartments of social activists
began, editorial offices of independent newspapers and Web sites were
destroyed, human rights defenders were detained and interrogated.
Almost everywhere computer equipment and any information media: flash
memory cards, video and photo cameras, CD, DVD, external computer disks
was confiscated.
Mobile phone operators provided the authorities with information on
all subscribers who were present at the center of town in the evening
of December 19. Based on these lists, they started calling in everyone
for questioning in the State Security Committee. Queues for questioning
by the KGB are still there, and searches and new arrests are continued
without interruption. Today we are talking about tens of thousands of
people who have been questioned and who will be called for questioning
in the nearest future.
The country plunged into a deep depression, not knowing how to
resist the total violence and absolute arbitrariness. At the same time,
people increasingly began to show their public initiative to help the
repressed and their families, disseminating information, creating new
professional groups of influence.
today
We managed to flee the country. On January 3, we were supposed to
fly on a tour from Minsk to New York. As it turned out, secret services
were waiting for the troupe at the airport, but we managed to escape
from the country by other means, but on the very next day our
apartments were searched. The main questions they asked our parents
were, ``Where are they?'' and ``How could they manage to leave the
country?'' From the interrogation of our parents, it became clear that
my husband and I were incriminated under the same article as everyone
else who is still imprisoned in the KGB jail: ``organization of mass
disturbances.'' Already three times KGB officers came to a house of
Artem Zheleznyak's parents. They also actively search for the President
of the ``We Remember Foundation,'' Irina Krasovskaya.
Today the number of imprisoned in the KGB jail constantly varies.
Weekly the authorities arrest new people whom they impose the same
absurd accusations. Lawyers are not allowed to see the suspects; they
are deprived of medical care, and denied even the slightest access to
information. To date, the lawyers cannot get to see their clients for
29 days.
Depriving prisoners of information and health treatment is the
secret service tactic for pressuring them to confess to crimes which
they did not commit. Not only do prisoners undergo this enormous
pressure, but it extends to their relatives. On the day when I met with
the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, intelligence officers in
Minsk tried to win over the wife of Dmitry Bondarenko, coordinator of
the ``European Belarus'' movement. She was offered to influence her
husband so he would ``begin to cooperate with the investigation, and
then would receive a prison term much less than Sannikov.''
Vladimir Khalip, father of arrested journalist, Irina Khalip, and
father-in-law of Andrei Sannikov, suffered over the past 2 weeks three
operations on his eyes because of the sudden drop in vision. My father,
a professor of elocution, Andrew Koliada, now cannot practice his
profession--because of the nervous system breakdown a spasm of the
vocal cords occurred.
Belarus has now entered the third era in its most difficult stage
of life, beginning a decade ago. In 1999-2000, Lukashenko eliminated
opposition leaders using a ``death squad.'' Then the militia under the
command of Colonel Dmitri Pavlyuchenko kidnapped and killed opposition
leaders--Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, Viktor Gonchar, former
Interior Minister, Yuri Zakharenko, Anatoly Krasovski--a businessman
who financed the democratic forces, and Gennady Karpenko--another
Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and Head of the Congress of Democratic
Forces also perished under mysterious circumstances.
Then there was 2006--the year of the previous Presidential
election, when European politics essentially denied help to the
democratic forces of Belarus. On the eve of the election, when was put
to the question ``Can the European Union put pressure on Lukashenko?''
one of Europe's politicians replied, ``Only if they start shooting in
the streets.''
On September 3, 2010, the journalist, Oleg Bebenin, one of the
leaders of the electoral headquarters of Andrei Sannikov, was found
hanged at his country cottage. Ridiculously staged suicide would be one
of the key elements in the upcoming election campaign. The killing lead
to an international investigation, but European politicians even then
turned a blind eye to that death, limiting their intervention by the
arrival of two experts to examine the documents offered by the
Belarusian authorities.
Unfortunately, today the simple desire of Belarusians to get rid of
dictatorship is not enough. Lukashenko has created a huge machine of
repression, which has no analogues in Europe. We can resist it only by
leaning on the help of those who are able to influence the last
dictatorship of Europe from the outside.
Here in America we have many friends in theater. When those people
heard about our problems, they, without even thinking twice, began to
do everything to help Belarus: Steven Spielberg, Michael Douglas, Tony
Kushner, Oskar Eustis, Kevin Kline, Stephen Spinella, Laurie Anderson,
Lou Reed, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Olympia Dukakis, Jude Law, Kevin
Spacey, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Jay Sanders, Ian McKellen . . . I can
enumerate for a long time names of these tremendous and great people
who rushed to our aid and embarked on the protection of political
prisoners.
I have a dream that we will be able to pronounce with the same
pride the names of American and European politicians who decide to help
a country of 10 million people that may not have oil or gas, mountains
or a sea, but does have great people who live there.
Danik, a son of Andrei Sannikov and Irina Khalip, is only 3 years
old now. His parents are in KGB prison only because they wished well
for their fellow compatriots. They may only be released when Danik is
18 years old. It is in your power to make sure that this won't happen.
Let's try!
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Ms. Koliada, for your
compelling words and for your courage in being here today.
I am going to ask Senator DeMint if he would begin the
questioning because he has to leave.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Koliada, I have to thank you for your courage. Thanks
for being a voice for the people of Belarus who want to live
free, and I hope we can take your testimony and actually be of
some help.
Mr. Kramer, I am sure you heard the testimony and the
suggestions from Secretary Gordon about how we can put more
pressure on the government there in Belarus. Your
recommendations were much tougher and much more specific in
trying to--whether it be family members or whatever. Where is
the difference? Do you believe--and I might ask Mr. Wollock to
comment too because I think that is what we are trying to sort
here is we know we have got a problem. We know that the
government has not been responsive to requests. Again, just
comment on whether you think we should be as harsh, or is there
a way to pull them along without maybe pushing them away?
Mr. Kramer. Senator DeMint, I think we cannot be harsh
enough, frankly. That we will reimpose the sanctions on the two
subsidiaries of Belneftkekhim is a good step, but we need to be
looking at other state-owned enterprises where Lukashenko
benefits personally. When we imposed a sanction in November
2007 on Belneftekhim, 2 months later a representative of his
administration came to the U.S. Embassy and asked what would
the United States do if we release the political prisoners. In
other words, we found his weak spot. We found where he keeps
his money. We found where he is vulnerable. And the United
States, as well as the European Union, need to continue to find
the weak spots of Lukashenko, go after where he keeps his
money, go after where people in his regime keep their money,
deny them the opportunities to come to the West, extend this to
the families. And I do think the European Union is prepared to
take these steps.
We need to make very clear that we will not support any
international financial institution assistance to Belarus.
And we should also, I would argue, stop talking about the
possibility of reengaging with Lukashenko if he releases the
political prisoners.
The ball should be in his court. He is the one who knows
what he has to do. Unfortunately, I do not think he has any
intention of doing it unless he has no choice through pressure.
And so I would hope that the United States, together with the
EU, would take the toughest stand possible and impose the most
rigid sanctions where Lukashenko really has no out but to
release the political prisoners for starters.
Senator DeMint. But you would agree that if we attempt to
be harsher than the EU is willing to be, then our sanctions
really will not mean that much.
Mr. Kramer. It takes both sides. In 2006, when we first
imposed the sanctions after the February 2006 election, it took
a lot of diplomatic effort but cooperation with Europe to make
sure that the Europeans and the United States move forward on
sanctions together. And in fact, the EU beat us to the
announcement of sanctions that summer, but it was very
important to do this in coordination.
Senator DeMint. Mr. Wollock, what do you think about that
balance?
Mr. Wollack. Well, first of all, I want to say, I think it
was positive that the United States maintained a sanctions
policy prior to the December 19 election when the Europeans
were moving in a different direction.
I think that there are two issues and I think you are
correct, Senator. I think, first of all, that we have to have a
broad sanctions policy, but it is equally as important, if not
even more important, that this be coordinated with the
Europeans so this is a unified approach. And that is why I
talked a little bit about the recent elections in Cote
d'Ivoire. If we can get the Europeans on board, we can get the
intergovernmental organizations on board, the individual
countries to a broad base, coordinated, and consistent
sanctions policy, it will have, I think, a much greater impact
on the regime than if we all go in different directions--both
the EU and the United States and the individual countries
within the European Union.
Senator DeMint. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Senator DeMint.
I certainly agree with what both of you are--really,
everybody who has testified has said about the importance of a
coordinated effort between the United States and the EU to
address what is happening in Belarus.
But given our past experience, how do we avoid responding
to the regime then, assuming we put in place some of the tough
measures that everyone is advocating and they then release the
political prisoners, they then appear to be moving in a more
positive direction, so we then reduce the sanctions--how do we
avoid having this cycle repeat itself over and over again and
political prisoners being used as bargaining chips for whatever
Lukashenko was trying to do? Whoever would like to respond to
that.
Mr. Kramer. Senator, I think it is important that
Lukashenko not be rewarded for undoing bad things. The release
of political prisoners is not something for which he should
then get the lifting or suspension of sanctions. The behavior
that he demonstrated on the 19th of December and since then is
something that he cannot really take back. So releasing
political prisoners would be welcome but not sufficient in my
view for there to then, in turn, be a suspension of the
sanctions again because you are absolutely right. This will be
a circle where we will be right back where we started.
And that is why, as Ken pointed out, the United States
lifted very little in the way of sanctions in 2008 in response
to the release of the political prisoners of that time. The EU
suspended its visa ban. It kept its asset freeze in place. And
the EU, therefore, does have more it can do to pressure
Lukashenko than we do, but at the same time, we have to
understand this is a leader, a dictatorial leader, who has
demonstrated disdain for the West, disdain for freedom and
human rights, and those kinds of leaders in my view do not
deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Senator Shaheen. You all talked a little bit about Russia's
actions, what appeared to be a distancing between Russia and
Belarus and now what appears to be a coming back together. Is
there more that we should be doing to engage Russia with us in
trying to put pressure on Belarus and Lukashenko?
Yes, Ms. Koliada.
Ms. Koliada. If there is engagement of Russia, then it is
necessary to understand that Russia would never care about
human rights. So the only thing that is possible to use is just
to explain to Russia that it is in their geopolitical interest,
that it is good for them to stop it because Russia has
announced that they are main partners, the European Union and
the United States--so how they look in front of the European
Union and the United States. Knowing such political situation
that they have in their own country, they need to exercise some
steps toward changing their situation and changing Belarus'
situation. But in the reality, we do not need Russian
influence.
And it is necessary for us to understand that one of the
fears that appeared before the elections on behalf of the
Lithuanian President who came to Belarus and who sat in some
unofficial meetings, that it is better to keep Lukashenko in
power because he would protect us from Russia. What a shame for
a European leader to make such a statement.
Belarus could protect itself, and the European Union could
protect itself, its borders. But it is necessary to remember
when we talk about Russia, that Russia will never be interested
in human rights. They are only interested in their business
profits and their geopolitical situation. But it is important
to engage and make pressure on them.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Kramer. I would just add, Senator, that I agree with
everything Natalia said. I would also say that the leaders in
Moscow are the ones who are happiest about the current
situation. In the summer, they sent clear signals to Lukashenko
through an anti-Lukashenko campaign, including documentaries
that they aired on Russian TV, that they can mess with him
anytime they want. Then a week before the election, they signed
an energy deal with Lukashenko to help him out come the
election.
They also love the fact now that the West is about to apply
sanctions on him, which means that Lukashenko essentially has
nowhere to turn but to Moscow. From the Russian leadership's
perspective, this is an ideal situation.
Senator Shaheen. Mr. Wollock, did you want to add something
to that?
Mr. Wollack. I would just say I am not somebody that is
against engagement policy as long as engagement is based on
fundamental principles, and if we have a broad diplomatic
strategy based on those principles, I think we would be willing
to talk to anybody, including the Russians. And there have been
situations in other countries where countries have abysmal
records domestically but are willing to take certain actions
outside their borders that are positive. So I would not give up
hope completely, but I would push this very vigorously and very
hard so the Russians understand where we stand and what
hopefully that we would ask from them.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Can I also get you to enumerate, if you will? You talked a
lot about the importance of taking certain actions to help
democratic forces in Belarus, some of the civil society groups.
What specifically would you like to see Congress do, for
example, to help respond to some of those recommendations?
Mr. Wollack. Well, first of all, I think we are all
grateful for what Secretary Gordon said in terms of increasing
funding for Belarus. I think Congress can play a role to ensure
that the assistance package for Belarus be robust and to
respond to what the needs are on the ground. And the needs are
great, particularly since events that have occurred since
December 19. So, therefore, I think we have a responsibility to
respond to those needs. And those needs in a way should be
defined in large measure by the needs that are defined by the
people on the ground and also by the recipients of the
assistance. I think there should be a wide array of recipients
of that assistance that includes both political and
nonpolitical organizations, civil society, political parties,
and they have to determine the risks that they have to take in
terms of the assistance that they receive from the outside. But
I think the assistance should be robust and assistance should
include both material assistance, as well as technical
assistance, and Congress I think can play a role in that,
working with the administration.
Mr. Kramer. If I could just add two things.
Senator Shaheen. Sure.
Mr. Kramer. I think one is to continue to shine a spotlight
on the situation, and this hearing is a terrific example of how
to do that. Bringing someone like Natalia to testify before the
U.S. Senate is a wonderful thing to do to make sure that people
do not lose focus on what is happening.
The other I mentioned is support for the Belarus Democracy
Reauthorization Act which I hope the Congress will move forward
with quickly, and that, too, would send a signal of both
support for people in civil society and the opposition but also
a clear message to the regime in Minsk.
Senator Shaheen. Yes, please.
Ms. Koliada. If I can make a very short comment. It is
wonderful to hear such numbers like $11 million and that it
would be increased for 30 percent. But it is necessary to
understand that there is a need in very deep analysis of the
situation, who will receive this money, and there is a need for
experts to stay in Belarus or it should be a person who is
coming and going to Belarus on a constant basis because there
is a problem of people coming and to be changed by other people
and there is no expertise in Belarus.
It is necessary to understand, for example--just a short
example. Even if we talk about Belarus Free Theatre, the last
time we received help connected to the American Government, it
was 2 years ago and it was from German Marshal Fund and it was
$10,000. And we have a group of 17 people.
So it is a great need in expertise of who does what, and
there is a need in supporting, for example, Web sites like
Charter 97 or Nasha Niva newspaper. And some of them like
Charter 97 is located now out of Belarus, and they need
protection from other governments as well in order to continue
their jobs there. And there is a need in millions of
independent underground newspapers like it was in Poland,
Somerstat. And it should be just distributed because there is
just hunger on information. There is terrible hunger on
information.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Senator Risch.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
I want to follow up on where Senator Shaheen started her
question. It seems to me that if you put sanctions on and you
are not willing to take them off simply because he is undoing
what he did, there has got to be some type of a standard; that
is, there needs to be something in place that says, OK, here
are the sanctions and there has got to be an end game, in
short. I do not think the sanctions should be put on without a
clear idea of where we are going. We have done too much of that
as far as government is concerned.
So I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Let us set
aside that it is an absolute given that you have got to undo
the bad things you did. What do you have to do to get the
sanctions off? I think that is really critical, it seems to me.
Mr. Kramer. In December 2006, the European Union presented
the Lukashenko government with 12 steps that it needed to take
for an engagement policy and for real establishment of strong
diplomatic relations. Lukashenko never paid any attention to
those 12 steps, but the United States endorsed them at the
time. Those 12 steps, as far as I know, are still on the table
should he ever show any interest in following through on them.
There have been efforts over the years, even before the
2006 election, step-by-step, selective engagement to work with
Lukashenko and the Belarusian Government, as well as with other
organizations and civil society in the country, to move forward
and try to get relations on a better track. Unfortunately, he
has never shown interest. And the only reason the sanctions got
suspended by the EU in 2008 is because of the pressure
sanctions implied to force him to release political prisoners.
And that, I think, is an example where Lukashenko only
understands pressure, and he has shown no interest in
liberalizing society. If he were to do that, I too would join
with those who supported an engagement kind of policy with him.
Mr. Wollack. I think it has been frustrating for those of
us who have worked in the region over the years that over
almost two decades, there have been a series of failed, flawed,
and deeply flawed elections that have taken place in this
region of the world. And the OSCE spends an enormous amount of
resources doing good work to monitor those elections, and
usually the reports of those elections can be recycled. After
each election, the OSCE declares an election not meeting
international standards, not meeting the country's commitments
to the OSCE. But there are very few consequences for these
countries holding elections that do not reflect the will of
their people.
In the case of Belarus, not only do you have a failed
election, but you had brutality that took place after the poll.
So, as one condition, I think we ought to go back and not allow
failed elections to stand, and I think there should be a new
election being held for President.
I think that there are other issues, as David said, with
regard to other conditions and freedom of assembly, free
expression, independent media, but I think we should not just
look to the future. The next election is for Parliament. The
next Presidential election is 5 years from now, but I think
before we look to the future, we ought to look at how the past
is dealt with. And I would say redoing that election is
something that should be on that list.
Ms. Koliada. If I may. I mentioned that in 2006 before the
Presidential elections, we talked with some European diplomats
and we asked about sanctions even at that time because it was
already too many years of Lukashenko in power and there were
political kidnappings and murders at that time. But we got the
reply that I told, that there will be sanctions only when
people are killed in the streets. So there are Presidential
candidates who are now in jail.
I was arrested in a particular moment when I was talking to
a British journalist, and there was this crackdown and hundreds
of policemen arresting people and beating them. And he was
asking me, Natalia, do you think this is the end? And I just
started to scream at him because I cannot manage myself, and I
said, could you imagine that you have Prime Minister elections
in the United Kingdom and on the day of the election, people
gather to get to know the results, and suddenly all British
policemen are coming to the streets, they are arresting all
candidates for Prime Minister positions, putting them in jail,
and hundreds of people arrested. Is it the end to the U.K.?
So this is the time when it is necessary for us to ask the
world to start sanctions. First of all, this is the immediate
release of all political prisoners without any negotiations
with the dictator and organize new Presidential elections.
There is no other way out of the situation. It is not possible
to continue these circles. He gets new political prisoners.
After that, he started to blackmail the European Union. The
European Union gives him 3 million euros. He released one
political prisoner and he continues to live for some years. And
then it would be forever. He has sons. The youngest one is 6
years old. So it means that there will be no end to it. So it
is necessary to insist on immediate release of all political
prisoners and new Presidential elections.
Senator Risch. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
I would like to just follow up a little bit on your
suggestion or statement that we should require new elections,
which I certainly would agree with and think that makes sense.
But talk practically about how that would work. In your
statement, Mr. Wollock, you talked about the situation in Cote
d'Ivoire and the coordinated effort there to bring pressure on
the current leadership, but there is still a standoff. So how
practically do you see that working? Is that one of the things
that we keep on our list as demands from Lukashenko, or do you
think there is other action that could be taken in terms of
trying to force a new election?
Mr. Wollack. Well, ultimately he holds the cards. I do not
know how you can force him back to an electoral process. But I
do not think that that issue should be taken off the table. I
think in a sense, in addition to the political prisoner
release, that issue has to be first and foremost on the agenda.
So this notion of impunity that you can hold elections, you can
treat citizens in a way that violates the fundamental
principles of international and intergovernmental organizations
that you belong to should not be allowed to stand. I do not
know how one forces him.
In Cote d'Ivoire, it is slightly different since the
international community, including the United Nations which had
the authority to accredit the result of the election, has
determined that Mr. Ouattara is the winner. This is a different
situation.
We do not know what the results of the election in Belarus
was. The integrity of the process was so bad we do not know
what the results of the process were. And so, therefore, the
integrity of the elections was so flawed and so bad that it
requires that election to be held again. So I think that is an
issue that should be on the agenda and stay on the agenda,
along with all the other actions that are taken.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Mr. Kramer.
Mr. Kramer. Senator Shaheen, I think in thinking about your
question, I cannot help but go back to November 2004 when the
United States and the European Union and hundreds of thousands
of people in downtown Kiev protested against a fraudulent
election there. And Secretary Powell went out into the press
briefing room and said the United States cannot accept as
legitimate these results.
Now, I was struck and pleased that the White House
spokesman issued a similar statement in response to the
December 19 election in Belarus. I wish President Obama had
said it, not the White House spokesman.
The leadership of the United States, the leaders of the
European Union need to take a strong stand and reinforce the
message that you and Ken and others have spoken about, which is
we do not recognize these results, and therefore engaging in
the business-as-usual diplomatic relations with a government
that is headed by a leader whom we do not recognize is hard to
imagine. And so I think supporting the tens of thousands--it
was not hundreds of thousands as it was in Kiev in 2004, but it
was tens of thousands of people in Minsk who turned out to
protest this fraudulent election and protest against this
dictatorial leader. We have to stand with them. They face
tremendously adverse circumstances there. But they are the ones
we should be siding with and they are the ones who also did not
recognize the results of this election.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
And, Ms. Koliada, I think we are all grateful for the
courage that you and so many in the opposition have shown, your
willingness to stand up and take on the repression. One
question that I have for you--and you alluded to this a little
bit in your statement--is where those who have been silent in
Belarus are. Do we have any sense--I am sure the Lukashenko
regime is not polling the people of Belarus. But is there any
reason to believe that the majority of people in Belarus share
this frustration with the repression that everyone is
experiencing?
Ms. Koliada. I am not sure it is an appropriate story, but
I tell you anyway. Before the elections, 2 days before the
elections, knowing the fact that last time in 2006 people stood
up at the square for 4 days, and 1,500 people got arrested. At
that time our theatre manager was arrested because she brought
two blankets to us, and she was arrested right in her car. The
police just stopped her car and they found two blankets. She
stayed in jail for 7 days. She was 19 years old at that time.
But it is not about previous elections. It is about feeling
of people who plan to go to the square this time. We went
together with my husband to buy thermal underwear because
everyone thought that we need to stay for many days in order to
defend our rights. And we were absolutely sure that there was
enough time for us, and we thought that we will go and buy it.
We came to a sports supermarket and we did not believe our
eyes. It was packed by people, and there were lines of people.
It was just one joke that, guys, we need to get underwear tents
and we will be skiing there. And it was an amazing feeling what
people wanted to do. All of them wanted to go and defend their
right. And what is vitally important, that they planned to stay
for many days in order to defend this right.
The only thing is I could tell you that my daughter, who is
12 years old, made a big few liters thermos of hot tea. She was
planning to go there. And many people with who I was in jail--
they came with families, wife, husband, child--wife, husband,
children. And it was absolutely amazing when all this force of
people were split and wives and husbands were at different
floors.
And if you just go back for a second about sanctions and
about new Presidential elections, one of the Dutch deputies of
the Parliament said, if OSCE does not recognize the
Presidential elections in Belarus and Aleksandr Lukashenko is
not a legitimate President, then it means that we could
recognize those people who were Presidential candidates as a
legitimate government and start to appeal and refer to them as
those who would be winners if there is a second tour.
There were independent social exit polls done by
independent Russian agency. Again, it is interesting that
Lukashenko won only from 32 to 37 percent.
There is one more point. We need to use favorite toys of
Lukashenko. His favorite toy is ice hockey. I understand that
it does not connect to the American Senate, but if we talk
about this, there is a World Cup of ice hockey should take
place in 2014 in Belarus. It is not possible for sport to be
connected to the dictator. It is necessary for sport committees
all over the world to start to make the statements as well.
And it is not possible to have Martynov, who is Minister of
Foreign Affairs, allowing him to travel or to meet with
Senators of the U.S. Government. It is not possible even to
start to talk to them. They should start to feel that they are
isolated.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I think the Senate recognizes
the ability to use sports in a way that makes a statement. In
New Hampshire, we have ice hockey and we appreciate how
important that is. So I hear what you are saying.
Do you have any?
Senator Risch. No, thank you.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you all again very much for your
testimony. Obviously, we will continue on this committee and in
the Senate to watch very closely what happens and to do
everything we can to try and address the repression that you
are experiencing. So thank you all again.
The hearing is over.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Prepared Statement of Lev Margolin, Vice President of
United Civil Party (UCP)
The Presidential election was held in Belarus on December 19, 2010,
when nine opposition candidates challenged President Alexander
Lukashenko. In the evening of the same day, tens of thousands of
Belarusians protested on Independence Square in the capital, calling
Presidential election a farce and accused Lukashenko of keeping the
post-Soviet country locked in dictatorship.
More than 700 participants of the peaceful demonstration against
falsified election were detained and penalized with administrative
arrest for up to 15 days. Anatoly Lebedko, the UCP's chairman, as well
as four former Presidential candidates--Uladzimir Nyaklyayew, Alyaksey
Mikhalevich, Andrey Sannikaw, and Mikalay Statkevich--have been charged
for organizing mass disorder and imprisoned in the KGB pretrial
detention centre. They might face up to 15 years of prison. KGB
officers still summon opposition activists, media, and civil society
representatives and conduct searches of their offices and apartments.
UCP's offices in Minsk, Gomel, Grodno, Brest were searched too. All our
office equipment and campaign materials were seized.
Lukashenko's cruel actions against opposition, activists and
journalist destroyed all our democratic efforts undertaken within the
last 3 years to completely transform Belarus into a democratic country.
In these circumstances, all our foreign partners must act in solidarity
and have a common policy regarding Belarus. Lukashenko understands
force. That is the only way to gain his attention. All possible
political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions must be applied against
him and other officials who acted illegally during December 19
crackdown and afterward. I am referring here to effective sanctions
such as those applied when releasing Alexander Kazulin from prison. We
must isolate this regime. The position of the United States and of the
European Union has to be a severe one. Both of them must demand the
release of political prisoners and complete abolishment of all criminal
charges, instead of a simple change of preventive measures for those
imprisoned. Second, there is a need to start building the opposition
parties through providing them with necessary equipment and other
resources. Third, we need to support independent media. Belarusian
state media continues to provide biased information; many of
Belarusians still do not know what happened in the evening of December
19. We must use all available resources to tell people the truth about
the Presidential campaign, Election Day, December 19 events and post
election situation. One million DVDs--that should be our answer to the
false propaganda. We must end the terror in this country. We are ready
to consolidate with each other and fight. We want a democratic Belarus.
______
Prepared Statement of Yury Lavrentiev and Oleg Korban, ``Youth
Democrats,'' United Civil Party (UCP)
While taking office as President of the Republic of Belarus,
Lukashenko solemnly sweared to serve the people of the Republic of
Belarus faithfully, respect and protect their rights and liberties, and
obey the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus. None of these
happened during Lukashenko's regime. The actions that the Government of
Belarus has taken to undermine the democratic forces and use of force
against political activists, civil society representatives and
journalists can not be accepted or tolerated anymore. Lukashenka has
once and for all shown his true colors, a dictator for whom there must
be no longer a place in Europe. The events of December 19, the violent
treatment against demonstrators and the repressions against opposition
activists every day since then, have put an abrupt end to the growth of
our UCP party, and opposition in general.
Even so, we have the will and desire to continue the fight against
Lukashenko's regime. We must continue this work or our country will
never change. We currently do not have the resources to do that
however. This is where we need the help of the U.S. Government. First,
we need immediate direct party support to replace the equipment which
has been confiscated in all our offices. Second, we need resources to
run information and issue campaigns leading up to the parliamentary
elections scheduled in 2012 such as the ability to travel to meet with
voters, conduct Democratic Party meetings and to print campaign
materials in an effort to get our word out and fight the regime
hegemony in the media sphere. Third, we also need continued training
from our partners like IRI and NDI--who provide valuable transfer of
political skills and knowledge, expert consultations and strategy.
Last, but not least, we need strong USA diplomatic support which sends
an unmistakable message to Lukashenka that such actions and treatment
against his own citizens are not tolerable, and ideally will provide us
with the space necessary to continue working with our citizens inside
Belarus. We know, America is with us, we are not forgotten.
______
Prepared Statement of Dzianis Sadouski, the Belarusian Christian
Democracy Party (BCD)
In the evening of December 19, tens of thousands of Belarusians
protested against Lukashenko's regime and falsified election. People
gathered with peaceful intentions to demonstrate solidarity in their
desire to live free. The violent manner in which the protest was put
down displayed that the authorities had planned and intended to
exterminate the existing opposition as much as possible. After the
brutal crackdown, the BCD Party is in a very difficult situation. BCD's
candidate to Presidential election--Vital Rymasheuski is under house
arrest. Pavel Sieviarynets--BCD's cochair and campaign manager--is in
KGB pretrial prison. Both of them, as well as 20 other party activists
are accused of organizing mass riots and face up to 15 years of prison.
Many other party activists faced 10 to 15 days of administrative
arrest, during which they was maltreated by police and KGB forces. They
were also denied access to their lawyers and families. The following
weeks after the crackdown, the BCD's headquarter and regional offices
were searched and raided by KGB officers. Nine computers, three
laptops, six printers, a camera and a copy machine were confiscated.
BCD's party members and activists continue to be interrogated and
arrested. Their apartments and repeatedly searched.
The BCD Party is not willing to give up. We are ready to continue
our fight toward a democratic Belarus. We need a strong cooperation and
support of the United States of America and of the European Union.
Together, we need to isolate the regime, start building democratic
opposition in Belarus from scratch, provide material assistance through
office equipment and informational campaigns, and support independent
media. The United States and the European Union must call for
unconditional release of all political prisoners. Those who are still
in jail, as well as their families must be provided with material,
legal, and psychological assistance.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
