The past in the past two weeks in several Muslim countries riots have clearly demonstrated not only what political regime was established in the Republic, but that the level of civil, political and national identity of the Belarusian society is a step below even the Tunisian or Egyptian. Belarus is increasingly degraded in the General political sense, becoming more and more like Oriental despotism.
And this becomes a problem for Europe from the Kuril Islands to the Atlantic. And if so, then all the more of a problem for the world community and becomes a regime of personal power, who established the country Alexander Lukashenko, whose legitimacy as President after December 19, is, to put it mildly, questionable.
Last week the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev statement on the meeting with Russian rights activists show how Moscow reacted to the brutal crackdown on the peaceful protest on 19 December last year the Belarusian authorities. The reaction was harshly negative. And could be even sharper if not for the promise of the Russian President to publish in full the contents of the meeting in the media. Despite the fact that since the dispersal of thousands protest in Minsk was quite a long time, the Kremlin's reaction is indicative.
Perhaps if the assessment of events in Minsk from Moscow was made earlier, she would have had more resonance, but, nevertheless, even made one and a half months, the Kremlin's position has serious implications for the current Belarusian regime. Taking into account the expressed position of the Ukrainian President can say that the Belarusian regime was in complete political isolation in Europe, with the exception of the President of Lithuania. That's right - not Lithuania, but the Lithuanian President.
The public message of the President of Russia has three destinations. First, elites and ordinary citizens of Russia, and secondly, the elite and ordinary citizens of Belarus, thirdly, the elites of the West. The citizens and elites of Belarus and Russia stated that despite the strategic and allied character of relations between the two countries, Russia will not turn a blind eye to gross violation of human rights in Belarus. The statement has a rather symbolic character, because made at a meeting with Russian human rights activists. Europe and the United States, in turn, sent a signal that, on what basis, we may develop a common position of the parties against the decision of the "Belarusian problem".
It is also important that the statement of the Russian President made right after Europe finally itself clarified its attitude to events in Belarus: on 31 January the heads of ministries of foreign Affairs of the European Union adopted a decision regarding the imposition of sanctions against those representatives of the Belarusian authorities who are involved in violent dispersal of peaceful protests on 19 December last year. Since EU sanctions were solely limited to visa bans for 160 people, you can say that "the mountain brought forth a mouse". Europe is afraid of his own courage and decided to follow the precepts of Ilyich - after two steps forward one step back. The decision was satisfied and in Minsk and in Brussels. The US went a little further and introduced (resumed) economic sanctions against two Belarusian companies subordinate to the concern "Belneftekhim".
What is remarkable is. When for the first time after December 19 in Europe talking about sanctions, and when showed the first dissent - Lithuania and Italy, the EU quickly enough and was easily able to break their resistance on this issue. However, when after January 31, we were talking about why the EU has failed in contrast to the United States to impose economic sanctions, the first EU officials have begun to refer to some individual countries of the EU who did not support economic sanctions, resulting in the EU failed to adopt a joint decision on their introduction. Interestingly it turns out - in one case a United Europe in the face of the European Parliament was able to push my decisions through, in the other, at the level of heads of Foreign ministries - have been weak. It doesn't look very logical, but rather fits in a conscious foreign policy known as appeasement of an aggressor. So you have to listen more closely to what Europe says because she is already accustomed to the fact that business is very often at odds with the words.
Though very weak, but, nevertheless, at the end of January the progress Europe has made. Moscow on it have responded promptly and showed not only their willingness to dialogue with Europe and the U.S. on "Belarusian issue", but also outlined the original format in which it is ready to hold dialogue with the West on the Belarusian political topics.
The reaction of the US and the EU on the Russian assessment of the actions of the Belarusian authorities will be interesting. At least now neither the West nor Pro-Western Belarusian opposition cannot obscure the head of the Belarusian voters in your own words, that Russia did not pay attention to what is happening in the country after 19 December: Russia in the person of its President support Belarusian civil society and condemned the repression to which the country was immersed, the current Belarusian leadership.
Now it's up to the West. We'll see, will be whether the West is ready for productive dialogue with Russia on Belarusian question or once again his words will disperse his Affairs.
- 13-04-2020"Black death" was a powerful natural factor of natural selection
- 16-03-2020Chinese remedy for the virus. We helped China to take the epidemic of the coronavirus under the control of
- 14-06-2019The electronic state of the future
- 11-03-2019How to change the world, when the Earth's population will reach 10 billion
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success