Around Russia

Belarus. Negotiation? There are examples

October 5, 2020 Valentin Mikhailov

The meeting in Vilnius of France President Macron with Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, whom the opposition of Belarus recognizes as its representative abroad, added new opportunities to the permission of Klinch, in which Lukashenko and the opposition are located. Moreover, the Chancellor of Germany Merkel announced that she would meet with Tikhanovskaya.

Why does this change the situation? We know that in the coming months and possibly years, the solution to the problem of the outgoing Lukashenko depends largely on Russia. These are such fraternal embrace, within which events take place that are difficult to understand in other countries.

But if there were no Russian factor, what measures could be taken to solve today's Belarusian problems? And are the hugs of Slavic brothers so strong? The opposition uses exclusively peaceful means and therefore has the vast moral superiority in many European countries. But she does not have funds for coercive Lukashenko to care and organize new elections. It cannot convey to the other side its current requirements and, apparently, cannot formulate the following steps. These weaknesses inevitable in this situation could be eliminated if the negotiation process was created.

Negotiations are necessary not only to Protestants. Lukashenko himself needs them so that he can evaluate his position in an equal dialogue, find out the conditions of his departure and, possibly, get guarantees for himself and families after new elections that will be held without his participation. More negotiations are necessary for employees of all administrations and security forces who support the illegitimate president. These people are not just the uncertainty of their future. In the event of an opposition to power, they fear a prison term, and in many cases, personal fears can be greatly exaggerated. Negotiations are also needed by citizens of Belarus. Participants in protests will receive moral support, and their program will acquire a clear form; Neutral and waiting residents will be able to more objectively and without fear of evaluating the whole situation. This uncertainty and fears, on the one hand, are understandable requirements of protesting to Lukashenko (“Leave!”) - on the other, Lukashenko’s unwillingness to negotiate, from the third, constitute the core of the conflict that has arisen.

Who can help reduce the level of fears in Lukashenko supporting security forces and officials? The Belarusian opposition does not have the necessary institutions. Russia does not express the desire to organize the negotiation process. But nearby is the European Union, the three countries of which, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, have the total length of the border with Belarus, equal to the length of its border with Russia. Ukraine, gravitating to the EU, has a slightly smaller border in length.

The position of two large members of the EU - France and Germany - can give a new impetus. Merkel called on Lukashenko, whose victory Germany does not recognize, to enter into a dialogue with the people without interference from the East or West. Macron involves attracting the OSCE and, together with the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel and the chairman of the European Council Charles Michel to encourage Belarus (Lukashenko) to agree with the mediation of the OSCE, the purpose of which is the peaceful transfer of power, the liberation of political prisoners.

In Latin America, there were cases when crises like the Belarusian were resolved after the mediation of a large organization, namely, the organization of American states (OAG). The authoritarian regime of President Fuhimory in Peru held in 2000 dishonest elections that outraged many. The situation arose, in some ways similar to the Belarusian 2020. The OAG took over the role of the organizer of the negotiation process and soon after the start of protests in 2000 created a crowd of negotiations (Mesa de Dialogo). It was not easy for her: until recently, she supported Fuhimory because of his success in the fight against terrorists and in macroeconomics.

Another table was subsequently organized in 2002 in Venezuela in a different situation. Then Hugo Chavez returned to the performance of the duties of President Venezuela after a failed attempt to overthrow it. The table worked for a long time, two years, mainly due to the cool attitude towards him of Chavez himself.

Through the creation of the tables, the OAG was looking for opportunities for creating a dialogue between the sides opposing each other and the search for ways to reconciliation. The main motto of the OAG was “mediation without interference”. So in Peru, the OAG was represented by only one diplomat, the former foreign minister of the Dominican Republic Eduardo Latorre, who was responsible for organizing daily meetings and was a moderator at meetings. Latorra had a small staff of assistants. The remaining eighteen participants were all Peruvians: government ministers, pro -government and opposition members of the Congress, representatives of civil society.

In both cases, in Peru and Venezuela, the negotiation tables were met with strong skepticism regarding their capabilities in resolving the crisis. The Fuchimori government believed that in this mediation, the OAG has a very limited mandate for actions in relation to the internal affairs of Peru and reluctantly approved the work of the table. Of the 18 points, it originally chose only 4 and handed them to the ministers, representatives at the table meetings.

But the opposition of Peru had serious preliminary conditions when organizing the table. At first, they proceeded from the assumption that Fuhimory would rule the country for the next five years and considered the actions of the OAG as supporting the illegitimate regime.

Ultimately, the success of the table has become obvious to everyone. The results were impressive. The Peruvian elite has reached an agreement on sixteen out of twenty -nine subpo points, including reforms that ensure the independence of the judiciary from government intervention, the liquidation of the ominous national intelligence service (SIN), which has so many Peruvians, the organization of electoral reform and the elections of new election commissions, which were supposed to hold the presidential elections in April 2001, 2001 2001

The transfer of power took place quickly and without large conflicts in October-November. Of course, this was facilitated by the publication of the video of the video on which Vladimir Montesinos, the head of the Sin and the support of Fuhimory, tried to bribe the opposition congressman so that he would transfer to the government coalition. At the same time, it can be assumed that negotiations under the auspices of the OAG, which eventually became more and more famous, contributed to such a “leak”.

An example of Peru, given here, of course, cannot be completely transferred to Belarusian political soil. This is not a guide for use, but useful material from the history of the restoration of democratic government in some countries far from us.

The negotiations in Peru filled the institutional vacuum caused by the polarization of political forces after the second round of the presidential election in May 2000. He became the decision of the Fuchimori government during the last days of the Fuchimori government. It was preparing to ensure that the Peruvian opposition won control over the congress and forms the transition government ( Cooper Af , Legler T. A Tale of Two Mesas: The Oas Defense of Democracy in Peru and Venezuel // Global Governance. 2005. No. 11 (4)). It can be seen that in some parameters and structure the conflict in Peru in 2000 is very similar to the conflict in Belarus.

Years after the departure of Fuhimory were not a light road to a democratic bright. But along with this, the country regularly hosts highly competitive elections of parliament and president with the participation of several parties. None of the parties are dominant. Not a single president was more than one period at his post - this is the requirement of the law. All elections of these years take two rounds, because Not a single candidate in the first round is gaining 50%, and very strong politicians turn out to be in third and fourth places.

Evidence that the country has an independent court and the independent parliament is the events of recent years. In 2016, Pedro Kuchinski won the Keiko Fuhimory in the second round of elections with a difference of two tenths of percent and becomes President Peru. Already in March 2018, Kuchinski, under the threat of inevitable impeachment due to accusations of political corruption (Odebrecht), voluntarily leaves his post. In connection with the same case, in October of that year, Keiko was arrested. Soon, the recent president of Kuchinsky and his main competitor Keiko were convicted and sentenced to 36 months of preventive conclusion. In the case of Keiko, the amount of illegal assistance was estimated at $ 1 million, which after Navalny’s revelations looks rather modest and indicates a very tight control of the Pen's society over politicians. These events did not shake the regularity of the presidential and congress elections - they will take place in April 2021

And finally, Frida House, after the departure of Autocrat Fuhimori in his ranking of democracy, steadily reckts to Peru to the group of free countries, which involves a high level of political rights and civil freedoms. On the contrary, Belarus has been defined for all these years as a lack of free country, occupying a place between Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan.

After a conversation with Putin, Macron expressed the opinion that Putin agrees that negotiations are needed to get out of the crisis, as well as the mediation of the OSCE. So far, this is only a minimum hint of the possibility of creating a negotiation process. But he points to the only way that Belarus can bring to the status of a free democratic country.

The mediation of the OSCE could create conditions for real effective negotiations that would answer questions from three parties: society, Lukashenko, security forces and officials: about the essence of the transition process, which would include the departure from the power of the Lukashenko team, the formulation of the conditions of such care, the development of regulatory acts acting during the transition, and the organization of new elections. If one country takes this task - Russia, Germany or France - confidence in negotiations will decrease sharply and they will not achieve their goals.

The transfer of power in Belarus after negotiations under the auspices of the OSCE could be interesting for Russia, which, at any outcome, will maintain a strong influence on the economy of the Western neighbor. EU leaders could convince Russia of this, realizing their intentions to solve the Belarusian problem that they have recently stated. The problem is that at the same time Belarus will become a more free country, and this option, as it seems, the Kremlin will not want to approve.

Photo: Stringer / TASS