Belarus has the grim distinction of being the sole dictatorship in Europe. Democracy activists, campaigning in advance of next year's presidential elections, have been targeted and suppressed by the regime.

Belarus is known as the last dictatorship in Europe, and ironically borders on the first of the Soviet Socialist republics to win its independence through peaceful revolution, Lithuania.

Its neighbours include Poland, Latvia, Ukraine, all of which are now politically open countries, so it seems unlikely that Alexander Lukashenko, a widely hated and reviled dictator who has held power though strong-handed tactics and outright election fraud, should still remain firmly in charge.

A false dawn for the forces of democracy was followed by elections in 1994, at which Lukashenko's term of office began. He came in on a platform of reform, and it is a cruel twist of fate that Belarussians, who suffered under Stalinism for some 70 years, and believed they were at last released, should again have to struggle for their freedom. Since taking office he has consolidated power and sought to stamp out all dissent. He dismissed legislators in 1996, effectively drawing all power to himself as president.

In 2001 fraudulent elections returned another victory, and Lukashenko has remained in place. A position he jealously guards with all the assistance a ferocious secret police, still known as the KGB, can provide.

The list of governments friendly towards Lukashenko's regime abroad include: Iran, Sudan,Angola, Libya and Cuba. These contacts are both current and, apparently mutually beneficial. Only last week, president Ahmadinejad's special envoy, Mehdi Safari, met with Victor Shimin, Lukashenko's chief of staff. The meeting confirmed Belarus's support for Iran's nuclear programme and there were discussions about expanding economic and trade relations.

It is also widely reported that Minsk is a staging post on the international arms route and a haven for black market dealers ands state sponsored terrorists, and may even provide a training ground for terrorists, if it has not served as such already. And Belarus is thought to be sixth in worldwide ranking of countries known to export weaponry. Its clients include some of the friendly governments listed above.

Increasingly we do hear of Belarus in the mainstream media, though coverage is patchy -- a series of pieces in the IHT suggested there might be a growing interest in the nascent democracy movement's efforts in Belarus, though these articles have, perhaps rightly, been less than sanguine about Belarus's chances for change in the near future. But there is work being done: there are two notable activist groups which have carried out a campaign of non-violence in the most difficult conditions and at great risk to political activists themselves: Zubr, named for the wild bison of the region, and Charter '97.

In recent weeks the arrests and detentions have continued, and there has been a systematic campaign to muzzle voices of dissent.

In line with these systematic efforts, the authorities are preventing all organisations from conducting opinion polls unless they have been accredited through the Belarus Academy of Science. But it is not simply accreditation of NGOs and polling organisations that are being targeted, even the street vendors who sell papers can be subjected to trumped-up charges by a security service that is determined to instill fear. Marharyta Makavetskaya, who was selling "Mestnaya Gazeta", was detained and fined 10,000 rubles for selling the newspapers in an improper place.

The aim of Lukashenko's government is clearly intimidation of individuals and a break-up of any organisations that present a challenge to his sustained dictatorship.

Known supporters of democracy have been imprisoned, and entrepreneurs who are believed to support them have been targeted by the Belarussian KGB. And the list of political prisoners lengthens. There has also been a systematic attempt to close all outlets providing alternative views, with NGOs shut and independent newspapers closed down if they do not spout Lukashenko's line.

The aim is to clear all these voices of dissent well in advance of the upcoming presidential elections in 2006, Lukashenko and his coterie are making it plain they will not be easily deflected. But there are signs of hope and their cause deserves to be supported in all the ways we have at our disposal. Zubr and Charter '97 have established a campaign of peaceful protest.

Given the gravity of the situation many Belarussians are understandably reluctant to be seen in public supporting democracy, but last month, a nationwide campaign (www.solidarity16.org), supported by both of these groups, managed to gain the support of 100,000 people. The protest was simple, those wishing for democracy and in solidarity with the many who have disappeared or been taken as political prisoners in Belarus, switched off their lights for 15 minutes at 8 PM on 16 October and lit candles, which they placed in their windows for all to see. These groups are again promoting this action this month, to be held on the day I am writing this (Wednesday 16 November), and the aim is to mount a sustained campaign on the 16th of every month.

Whilst I was attending a conference in neighbouring Lithuania last month, just days before the eve of the 16 October Solidarity night, a colleague from Belarus who was expected failed to appear. We were all very concerned for his safety, as he had, in the past, been pursued by the security forces -- fearing he might become yet another political prisoner or one of the many who have disappeared off the streets of Belarus.

But what are the EU and US doing about this? Well, it is a tricky one. It has recently been mooted that the EU might freeze Belarussian bank accounts in the west if 2006 presidential elections do not comply with international standards. And Lukashenko and his cronies have for some time now been barred from visiting western countries.

But the real concern for Lukashenko comes from Russia. Belarus's flagging economy is maintained by cheap oil and gas provided by Russia. A change in Russian policy, specifically Putin's attitude towards Lukashenko, would go a long way towards changing this, the last dictatorship in Europe.

The Russian government has issued a statement this week that says it disagrees with the EU's assessment of Belarus and do not accept that Belarus is "a problem zone in relation to democracy". So much for the hope that a spontaneous change will be forthcoming from that quarter. America too needs to direct more support to this region, and intensify international pressure for a change, specifically drawing on Putin's influence. Belarus needs democracy and it is in all our interests to see that she gets it.

posted by Ziba Norman

Permanent link to this post: http://www.t-i.org.uk/blog/index.php?post=1132182372

.

The two months that have passed since Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans have offered an opportunity to consider the longer term implications and risks highlighted by this disaster.

Hurricane Katrina provided the news media with several days of dramatic coverage and human interest stories in August and September 2005. But subsequently, constructive policy proposals were in short supply, as, for political partisans, Katrina was a blank surface on which they could project their own preoccupations. The Left took the opportunity to kick against everything that President George W. Bush stands for -- in particular to highlight issues of social cohesion, to blame the administration for obstinacy over the Kyoto Treaty and its failure to recognise the reality of global warming, and to criticise the reorganisation of federal emergency management under the Department of Homeland Security. Meanwhile, Bush's comments, and much of the rhetoric of the administration, aimed to build confidence in the possibility of reconstructing New Orleans. The 'powerful American determination to clear the ruins and build better than before' boasted by the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/09/20050915-8.html ) will offer a shining example of man's power over nature. The many tens of billion dollars made available as compensation thus demonstrated compassionate conservatism's care for the people of New Orleans, and the disaster was recast as a triumph. But there were doubting voices such as those of House Speaker Dennis Hastert who raised a thorny question when he stated in an interview (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202156.html ) that it made 'no sense' to spend billions rebuilding a city that lies below sea level. He was shouted down.

In strict terms of policy analysis, Katrina's lessons were simple, indeed commonplace. First, natural disasters happen, and coastal areas in the Gulf of Mexico are at risk whether or not the incidence of hurricanes has been increased by global warming. Second, information is vital to citizens, rich or poor, who wish to look out for their own interests. Commentators suggested that New Orleans was America's 'Third World' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4210674.stm), but if New Orleans really had been in the developing world, patchy or absent communications could have led to deaths on the scale of the tsunami in December 2004 (http://web.idrc.ca/panasia/ev-68766-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html). As it was, the approach and course of Katrina were predicted several days in advance, and the vast majority of New Orleans' population successfully evacuated. Third, bureaucratic systems at whatever level of government tend to be inefficient and unresponsive, particularly if corruption is involved, as was notorious in New Orleans: thus they are shown at their worst in a crisis. Fourth, government powers will expand when given an opportunity.

The challenge of Katrina is twofold: policy responses that take these lessons into account cannot themselves be simple; and, given the current political dialogue, there was no way these policy responses could easily have been aired.

A system in which the initial responsibility for handling disasters lies at the local level, with escalation to state and then to federal level only if the disaster cannot be handled locally, reflects the view that knowledge and incentives exist locally and that citizens who are able to take the initiative to secure their own safety are the best judges of their own interests. Diffusing that responsibility risks reducing citizens to a condition of passivity and victimhood, and enables remote politicians and bureaucrats to evade accountability for their actions and for their failure to act, both in response to a crisis and when preparing for a crisis. Katrina, however, demonstrated that the sum total of local individual decisions can have disastrous unforeseen consequences, and that therefore collective decisions and actions facilitated by genuine political leadership are vitally necessary. Planning and designing effective responses to natural disasters, and indeed to security issues generally, relies on being able to distinguish between situations where citizens have the correct incentives and can take their own decisions, and situations where individual actions must be constrained in the common interest: any politician trying to forge a democratic consensus on this distinction is bound to face difficulties and tensions, yet this is where leadership must be shown. Equally, detailed planning for disasters must not neglect or undermine America's main source of strength, identified by Wildavsky:

...it is the institutional structure of nations -- their possession of democracy, market capitalism, and science, rather than any special plan -- that protects them against disasters.

(--Aaron Wildavsky, But Is it True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues, Harvard University Press, 1995: p. 443.)

The New Orleans port complex near the mouth of the Mississippi is the fifth largest port in the world and its essential role in America's river transport system is central to US market capitalism, along with the petrochemical industry operating in the Gulf which produces about 15% of US-produced petroleum. Such a concentration of infrastructure in any location would be a security vulnerability, but in a location which is prone to hurricanes the threat is likely to be unacceptable. It may now be time to consider the construction of an alternative transport infrastructure such that road and rail can offer an economically-viable alternative to the river system converging on the Mississippi. Energy policies should encourage the exploitation of alternative and renewable sources of energy.

Attempts to enhance a rebuilt New Orleans's defences against future flooding will merely weigh down the terrain and cause it to sink more quickly into the Gulf of Mexico than it is currently. If New Orleans is not abandoned entirely, the city should be rebuilt in restricted borders on higher ground: a policy that has wider relevance. The popularity of residential development on the coast of the United States has, in the last fifty years, almost doubled population density within a mile of the coastline (http://www.nola.com/washingaway/temptingfate_2.html). This not only puts residents in harm's way, but also makes the evacuation of a threatened coastline a much longer task in a country whose transport system was designed for the motorist. Federal policy on disasters should proactively limit the creation of new vulnerabilities through more effective land-use planning including restrictions on coastal development, rather than simply providing compensation to victims after the event.

In pursing such policies, Bush must be prepared to take criticism from various constituencies on the right -- those who see the expenditure entailed by the response to Katrina as yet another example of profligacy on the part of the administration, and those who see any affirmation that sometimes nature has humans beaten as an unwelcome concession to the left, leaving Bush open to the charge that the USA should have signed up to Kyoto. Bush should also be ready to face criticism from those on the left whose only answer to the inequality and poverty disclosed by the hurricane is an expansion of the type of welfare programs that inculcate dependency and which will in the long run do nothing to help the residents of New Orleans. Bush's initial proposal of 'Worker Recovery Accounts' of up to $5,000 should be expanded, and the billions saved on reconstructing a city in a doomed location instead put toward relocation grants, money which could be used by individuals to rebuild their own lives. The people of New Orleans deserve better than to be misled with promises that their town and their way of life can be reinstated. Nature makes no promises, and President Bush must be able, despite the political fallout, to say he cannot either.

posted by William Arthurs

Permanent link to this post: http://www.t-i.org.uk/blog/index.php?post=1131719444

.

2007
June (1)

2006
August (1)
May (2)
March (1)
February (1)
January (1)

2005
December (4)
November (2)
      16-November-2005 (1)
      10-November-2005 (1)
June (2)
April (2)