In relations between the Belarusian authorities and the Western countries there are attempts either to mitigate the conflict and to bring together negotiating positions at the top level, or to increase technical cooperation, i.e. at the level of professionals and experts, if obstacles to a political dialogue are not removed, Solidarity with Belarus’ Information Office reports.
On January 21st, President Lukashenka met with a group of American political scientists in Minsk, including two Jamestown Foundation representatives. The meeting was held behind closed doors. One of its participants – Professor H. Joffe from Redford University – spoke to the media about raised issues. According to what he said, Lukashenka said nothing new during the meeting, but listened to the American political scientists’ advice to ‘improve’ image.
Developments of the past 1.5 months allow some experts to talk about rapprochement negotiations between the Belarusian government and its Western partners from the EU and the U.S. The most noticeable were the following factors: 1. Belarusian Foreign Ministry’s increased activity after Uladzimir Makey’s appointment. 2. Lukashenka makes public statements about the necessity and even inevitability of relations’ normalization, while he himself takes an uncompromising stand. 3. Discussions resumed about the restoration of relations between Belarus and the Council of Europe, SBIO experts stress.
On 22nd January, CoE Secretary General Mr. Jagland said that CoE was essentially ready for a constructive dialogue and anticipated Belarus’ moratorium on the death penalty, and the decision about the fate of political prisoners. Undoubtedly his statement was a public response to the visit of the CoE delegation, headed by the CoE Secretary General’s office head Mr. Berge to Minsk on January 14th – 15th, 2013.
In the broad information space Belarusian authorities adhere to the hard anti-Western stance. In late 2012 the national television showed a documentary about European dialogue on modernisation with Belarusian society, which aimed at experts and government executives. The documentary was highly critical and revealed a conspiracy by the West aiming to ‘conquer’ Belarusian elites via partnership and dialogue programmes.
President Lukashenka perceives such expert-level dialogue with mid-ranking officials extremely negatively – he sees a threat to his own power and regards it as an attempt to solve important issues by-passing him. Odds-on, de facto participation in this dialogue will be furnished with many bureaucratic procedures, hampering the participation of Belarusians.
Clearly, the potential resumption of a dialogue and resolution of the political conflict with the West are actually discussed at the highest level, but the principled decision is still pending with the president. A careful probing of the soil for potential gains and losses is ongoing on both sides. In the meanwhile, the state ideology and propaganda media machine operates by inertia, following the previous instructions about Belarus’ tough position in the conflict, the analysts conclude.