
M. Guy Verhofstadt
The man of the
year
L'homme de l'an
De man van het jaar
2009
A proven Democrat, protector and
fighter for justice and human rights in the World.
Een bewezen Democraat, beschermer en strijder voor rechtvaardigheid
en mensenrechten in de Wereld.
Un prouvé démocrate, protecteur et combattant pour la justice et des
droits de l'homme dans le Mond.
Eine bewährte Demokrat, Beschützer und Kämpfer für Gerechtigkeit und
Menschenrechte in der Welt.
Dokazani demokrat,
zaštitnik i borac za pravdu i ljudska prava u Svijetu.

M. Barak Hossein Obama
Guarantee
peace in the world
Garantie
vrede in de wereld
Garantie
la paix dans le monde
Garantie des Friedens in der Welt
Zabezpečenie
mieru vo svete
Garancija
mira u svijetu
|

Bosnian
Važne vijesti
Bulgarian
Важни новини
Catalan
Notícies importants
Czech
Důležité zprávy
Danish
Vigtige nyheder
Dutch
Belangrijke nieuws
English
Important News
Estonian
Tähtis Uudised
French
Nouvelles importantes
German
Wichtige News
Greek
Σημαντικές ειδήσεις
Hungarian
Fontos hírek
Irish
Fógra tábhachtach Nuacht
Italian
Importanti novità
Latvian
Svarīga Jaunumi
Lithuanian
Svarbu Naujienos
Portuguese
Importante Notícias
Slovenian
Pomembne novice
Spanish
Noticias importantes
Swedish
Viktiga nyheter
|
World Security Network reporting from Wiesbaden in Germany,
September 27, 2011
Dear Cavkic
Salih,
 |
Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann, President of the independent World
Security Network Foundation met His Holiness, the 14th
Dalai Lama in Wiesbaden, Germany:
"China should re-set its relationship with the Dalai Lama
and start a new policy of buddhist harmony in Tibet in the
interest of its own harmony, stability and progress, not to
please the West. Beijing should start a new improved Tibet
policy of reconciliation and respect including the
protection and promotion of the Tibetan culture within the
design of 'soft autonomy' to heal a bleeding wound in
China."
Photo by Erhard Blatt
|
Meeting the
Dalai Lama for the second time in August 2011 - for the first
meeting in May 2006 in Buenos Aires see
Hubertus Hoffmann, Dalai Lama Exclusive: Thoughts of Tibet’s
Spiritual Leader
- now in the German state
of Hessen, near Frankfurt in the heart of Europe, and having
discussed the breath-taking progress in the People’s Republic of
China in Beijing and Hong Kong as well with members of the Central
Committee, generals, some of the most successful Chinese
businessmen, journalists, intellectuals and China experts, you get
the clear impression that:
China should re-set its
relationship with the Dalai Lama and start a new policy of harmony
in Tibet from 2012/2013 in the interests of its own harmony,
stability and progress, not to please the West. Beijing should start
a new improved Tibet policy of reconciliation and respect including
the protection and promotion of the Tibetan culture within the
design of ‘soft autonomy’.
After nine
unsuccessful rounds of talks with Beijing, His Holiness the 14th
Dalai Lama should on the other side establish and publish a precise,
fresh and convincing
Autonomy
and Reconciliation Plan
for Tibet
integrating a new pragmatic approach, professionalize his
negotiation team with top foreign advisors, contain the more radical
youth in Tibet who have once already got out of control in the riots
of 2008 and persuade them to continue his peaceful Buddhist “Middle
Way” for Tibet.
The aim is not independence
any more but an acceptable kind of autonomy only for Tibet as agreed
in 1951 by the communists with the Tibetans under chairman Mao, thus
a re-set of this delicate relationship against cultural nihilism
within the People’s Republic of China promoting respect and peace
between the Han-Chinese and the Tibetans.
To give up the desire for
independence and to focus on concrete talks about improvements with
the representatives of the Dalai Lama was a strategy promoted by
Premier Wen Jiabao in 2009 and even paramount Chinese leader Deng
Xiaoping already in 1979 - until now without positive results.
China has the flexibility
to initiate various sets of 'soft autonomy' in several different
ways letting a hundred new flowers of real harmony blossom: with or
without an agreement with the Dalai Lama, in the larger traditional
region of Old Tibet or in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) only.
Beijing’s focus on economic
progress is not enough to stabilize Tibet. What is needed is a
double strategy of progress and respect to harmonize the delicate
relationship and avoid further frustrations and riots.
New 5th
generation leadership needs better policies
Just like last year, for
the next 18 months a struggle for positions and power takes place in
the 24 members b Politburo and the 300 people large Central
Committee of the Communist Party in Beijing prior to the takeover of
the top leaders from the 4th to the 5th
generation planned for autumn 2012 and 2013.
Then the current No. 6
ranking Vice President Xi Jinping (58) will take over the position
as new party general secretary and a year later as president. Former
Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew praised Xi as a “thoughtful
man who has gone through many trials and tribulations. I would put
him in the Nelson Mandela class of persons.”
Li Keqiang (56), currently
the No 7 ranking Vice Premier, will become the new Premier in 2013.
Both men represent a new
generation and have a very strategic approach. China needs that. Up
to now it has focused on economic growth only, and it next needs a
clever double strategy of growth and domestic harmony, integrating
fresh new thinking and public justice into politics, including
cutting back the corruption and mismanagement of the too b local
government level.
Until 2013 policy-design in
China will be frozen, and no changes are to be expected in main
political arenas like Tibet.
The harsh actions within
the last months versus China’s most famous artist Ai Weiwei, as well
as other intellectuals, the punishment of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize
winner Liu Xiaobo who was recognised for his long and non-violent
struggle for fundamental human rights in China, or the removal of
the status of ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius from the front
of the new National Museum in Beijing in April 2011 after it was
placed there opposite Tiananmen Square only three months before, are
all signs of a longer game of power-poker leading to a freeze in
social harmony and progress.
But behind the stiff
curtains in Beijing and within the top committees of the communist
party there are astonishingly controversial and open discussions
about political options and the way China should reform and best
treat other countries, its population and minorities.
One important area of
interest is how to treat the two frustrated ethnic groups in
Xinjiang (Muslims) and Tibet and to reconcile them with the
Han-Chinese. This article intends to address these internal
discussions and describe some political options for China’s next
leadership for Tibet.
I am convinced that a true
harmonious peace is possible in Tibet which is not only good for the
five million Tibetans but the whole 1.3 bn. b population of big
mother China as well and the Han-Chinese living there.
This had been intended by
Chairman Mao for Tibet in 1951 – and he was right – but later the
lust for totalitarian power, the neglect of the diverse cultural and
religious heritage of China, and the destructive cultural evolution
of nihilism led Beijing for too long on the path of disharmony with
its ethnic minorities which today continues to frustrate both sides.
This – and not the desire for respect of the minorities – still
leads to frictions with the central power and threatens stability in
the Chinese Empire.
It is in the national
interest for Beijing to make a fresh assessment of its policies with
regard to the national minorities – which are local majorities - in
order to stabilize the country internally.
As a less important
side-effect it will also increase China’s prestige and influence
globally and give its foreign policy the credibility desperately
needed in our globalized world. China’s main challenge in becoming a
respected new centre of power is not that it has only one aircraft
carrier and less than the US but instead that so far it has no
credibility as a front-runner of human ethnic progress and freedom.
In Libya it recently lost
its influence by sticking to dictator Col Gaddafi for too long and
for being very late in recognizing the Benghazi based diverse
rebel-movement. In several other African countries anti-Chinese
sentiments are popping up. Yet, the dictator in Sudan wanted by the
International Criminal Court is still China’s best friend. The same
could happen in the much more important Iran several years from now.
China depends by 65 percent – and in some years 70 percent – on
oil-imports from those regions and must therefore ensure its
influence which declined this year.
China’s foreign policy is
still too static, old communist style influenced, and missing a
respected soul. It needs renovation and new direction and it must
adapt to the new world which is diverse and multi-polar.
Respect and
cultural sensitivity are important elements of a harmonious global
order where no majority suppresses any minority. A promotion of
codes of tolerance and respect is needed to stabilize our global
village (see
www.codesoftolerance.com). This is fully in line with the design
of a new global order which China has promoted for years. But a
logical strategic approach is still missing with a domestic start
first, and not in foreign countries.
The Beijing government
faces many problems in the next decades internally and must start to
reduce all areas of conflict step by step now – the sooner the
better – before it is too late.
Premier Wen Jiabao told CNN
on September 29, 2008:
“China
is NOT a superpower. Although China has a population of 1.3 billion
and although in recent years China has registered fairly fast
economic and social development since reform and opening up, China
still has this problem of unbalanced development between different
regions and between China's urban and rural areas. China remains a
developing country.
We
still have 800 million farmers in rural areas, and we still have
dozens of million people living in poverty. As a matter of fact,
over 60 million people in rural and urban areas in China still live
on allowances for basic living costs in my country. And each year,
we need to take care of about 23 million unemployed in urban areas
and about 200 million farmers come and go to cities to find jobs in
China. We need to make committed and very earnest efforts to address
all these problems.
To
address our own problems, we need to do a great deal. China is not a
superpower. That's why we need to focus on our own development and
on our efforts to improve people's lives.”
 |
The Dalai Lama told the Parliament of the German state
Hessen"The
world belongs to humanity and to the people, not to any
party."
Photo by Hubertus Hoffmann
|
Can a
policy of no
experiments and no changes
promote Chinese interests better than a continuous reform-process
which is not stopped again and again but flows smoothly?
Should
Angst about a Jasmine-revolution
stop any
reforms needed and
dominate or
cool new design and forward looking political management of
progress?
Should China’s policy be
stiff and exclusive or flexible and inclusive, integrating also the
critical ethnic, religious and political elements or just contain
and destroy them?
This is the discussion
within the communist party now.
China’s economic policies
are excellent and this country is also sometimes better than the EU
and the US in longer-term planning and implementation. The last 30
years the annual growth rate was 9.6 percent. It lifted 400m people
out of poverty in just three decades – a world record and AAA.
According to the Five Year
Plan for 2010-2015, it needs a minimum of 7 to 8 percent annual
growth to absorb the 23m people who enter the job-market each year.
Missing this – President Hu Jintao told German Chancellor Merkel –
would start “social destabilization”. Growth at almost any price is
the new God of China. Exactly the same amount of growth is eaten up
each year by environmental sins and wasted, so Beijing needs a
totally new approach to protect nature in the interests of stability
as well.
In 2009 exports dropped by
20 percent showing how vulnerable China is as it lives 70 percent
from export and needs demands from the US, Europe and the rest of
Asia as well.
The Chinese save too much
money, with almost 60 percent of income saved compared to only 5
percent in the US and 11 percent in the EU in 2010, so consumption
has to be stimulated for growth which requires the 1.3bn Chinese to
have a positive perception of their future and safety.
It is often forgotten that
China’s Communist Party has no ideological legitimacy left but is
only respected by people for the high growth rate. What happens if
growth is slowed as we see in the US or Europe now?
Gucci, Prada, and Audi and
BMW cars are now the new religion for the rich and the poor. Missing
is a non-materialistic soul. The Chinese leadership needs to fill
this spiritual vacuum with the elements of traditional wisdom from
Confucius, Buddha and the Christian beliefs.
Beijing is fixated on
fighting any regional autonomy at any price as dangerous
“separatism” along with “terrorism” still. Is this wise or
frustrating the people?
Are these the lessons
learned from the Arabellion?
Or did those autocrats in
Egypt, Libya and Tunisia fall so quickly within a few months because
they reformed nothing or did too little too late?
Is there a danger of China
becoming an empty shell of stability?
Or making the mistakes of
the Emperors who thought wrongly that they did not need Western
know-how when the British offered cooperation in the 18th
century?
We should not transfer our
Western thinking onto the Chinese who follow their own world and see
it through different glasses and filters, but the logic of the
downfall of autocrats is the same all over the world.
China’s
leadership is in danger of a new
Mandarin
Syndrome:
- Too much China-centred
thinking, and tight administration control as in 1793 during the
Lord George Macartney mission, when it missed the opportunity to
peacefully adopt diplomatic relations and share essential know-how
with England.
- Overrating the power of
the state – which in revolutionary times can be overtaken quickly by
mass-movements – and
-Under-estimating the need
for steady reforms, a balance of power system to avoid its misuse
and the desire of the different groups within China for social and
legal justice.
There is always a b group
within the leadership who realize these dangers, but they are
blocked and repeatedly neutralized by so called conservative
rival-groups who halt reforms in order to preserve the old system
and the status quo as long as possible.
The task is not to adopt
democratic values, human rights and a perfect Westminster democracy
over night per se but to design and implement a new durable and
credible Chinese concept of stability for a China designed by the
communist party.
Like a good cook, China
must mix its own spices with elements of freedom, power-control,
economic progress and environmental protection.
Without human rights and
the integration of the interests of the people and ethnic
minorities, this Wok-dish will be not be digestible and will keep
China hungry and unstable forever.
In 1992 Premier Li Peng
wrote to Henry Kissinger that he is convinced that the Chinese
people should have “more democratic rights and more influence on
policy” – a clear sign that the leadership understands well the
needs for reform. But where is the implementation?
The trauma and mantra of
Chinese policy is to avoid being manipulated again by foreign
powers. But in reality its own wrong stiff and arrogant
Mandarin-policy in the 18th century enabled exactly this,
and by a freeze of reforms and a policy of ignorance shifted China
from the status of a great power to impotence.
The loss of realism and the
arrogance of the power of the Chinese Emperor in the 18th
century stopped progress and enabled the Western powers to obtain
superiority over this large country: any new Red Mandarin should
always remember this. Deng Xiaoping warned them, as did Foreign
Minister Qian Qichen, whom Henry Kissinger praised as the most
capable foreign minister he had met.
At the moment the
legitimacy of communist rule is based purely on economic growth of
more than 8 percent annually, ensuring a better standard of living
for millions. If this growth cannot persist other conflicts can pop
up quickly and the communist party will lose respect.
Is it not better to reduce
all major factors causing tension now than to bet on stability by
endless growth only? Is the current strategy of no political reforms
not too risky for China?
Often we think that the
Chinese politicians and diplomats are wise and super-smart as they
represent a culture 3,000 years old and the biggest country on
earth. In reality the movers-and-shakers are no better than those in
Washington or Berlin, Paris or London. Many super-smarts are mainly
involved in business. Most politicians and diplomats make a stiff
impression, avoid risk-taking, and follow stereotypes and the demand
for a broad consensus. Thus they could become victims of their own
limited world-view – like the super-b autocrats in the Arab world.
One lesson from the
revolutions in the USSR, all over Eastern Europe, Egypt, Tunisia and
Libya is this: never wait too long with reforms – it will be too
late. In politics it is better to be bamboo than porcelain – broken
later.
China has reformed its
economic policy in the past 30 years but its foreign policy and
policies towards minorities are still old-style and a risk for
China.
Beijing missed its chance
to get rid of the old elements of the cultural-revolution versus
minorities and the stereotypes and old reflexes in foreign affairs.
Both lack progress and new thinking.
It has not yet implemented
its new strength in a modern self-confident and more relaxed foreign
policy.
It is missing a Bismarck or
Kissinger type of genius foreign minister to give it direction.
It is losing face and
reputation by alignments with obscure dictators from Sudan to Iran
to North Korea whom none of the other respected 190 countries would
like to have as best friends and allies.
China’s foreign policy is
still un-reformed in its teenage-phase and lacks strategic depth
which is no good for the country and the world.
 |
"At the moment the legitimacy of communist rule is based
purely on economic growth of more than 8 percent annually,
ensuring a better standard of living for millions. If this
growth cannot persist other conflicts can pop up quickly and
the communist party will lose respect. Gucci, Prada, and
Audi and BMW cars are now the new religion for the rich and
the poor. Missing is a non-materialistic soul. The Chinese
leadership needs to fill this spiritual vacuum with the
elements of traditional wisdom from Confucius, Buddha and
the Christian beliefs."
|
China’s
policies in some aspects remind me of the many mistakes which German
Kaiser Wilhelm II made after Germany had been united under Bismarck
in 1871 and the genius Iron Chancellor was dismissed. The ambiguous
Emperor set out on an aggressive and fatal course – including
establishing a German colony from 1897 to 1914 in Qingdao (Tsingtau)
in China and invading Beijing in 1900 with allied troops during the
Boxer uprising. International adventures of the late-comer, too b
nationalisms, an aggressive policy towards the United Kingdom and
France and the stop of inner reforms ended in the ruins of WWI and
his resignation in 1918 and as well paved the way to the hell of
WWII. Newcomer Germany became the best land- and economical power
for four decades in Europe but lost everything within four years.
Any Chinese politician
should study this phase in detail and avoid repeating the mistakes
of a country coming late onto the stage of world politics without
moderate, fair and balanced policies for its neighbours and its
people.
New China is not the old
Kaiserreich. Until now China has been defensive as in its previous
history and promotes a multi-polar world-order where not only the US
dominates. In his article “China’s peaceful Rise to Great-Power
Status” in Foreign Affairs in September 2005, Zheng Bijian labelled
the rise of China as a “democratization of the international order
with China avoiding the mistakes of Germany prior to WWI and WWII
and promoting open and harmonious relations on the basis of
equality”.
In December 2010 Dai
Bingguo, the highest ranking official in the foreign office, argued
with Deng Xiaoping “who demanded that China should behave in a
modest and careful way, seeking no leadership, hegemony or
expansion” (in “Persisting with Taking the Path of Peaceful
Development”).
But nationalism is also
booming like nationalistic teenagers. In two best-sellers from 2009
and 2010 the authors argue that China has become hugely powerful and
America has been weakened. The US will be always be aggressive
therefore China needs powerful forces. China should become the
number one country in the world and promote its values as well as
its goods abroad.
Both groups will struggle
from 2012 onwards when the 5th leadership will take over
command in Beijing.
As a long-time admirer of
China for more than 30 years, I am impressed by several of the
excellent decisions of the central government and the progress which
has been made.
I disagree with some
American views that this country presents a threat to others and see
the rise of China as a normal and positive development. As yet there
has been no aggressiveness as there was with the German Kaiserreich.
China has the right to have safe borders and to play a greater role
in Asia. But it must reform its foreign policy and is behind
schedule to do so.
Beijing
should cut cosy alliances with North Korea, Iran and Sudan, turn the
minority policy 180 degrees from confrontation to reconciliation and
also establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican (see
Dr. Hubertus Hoffmann: The Pope and Beijing) as part of a fresh
empowerment of China in foreign affairs und the reduction of ethnic
tensions domestically – in its own interest for real harmony. After
these steps forward China will be more powerful.
This change is not a
reaction to pressure from outside or foreign intervention into
internal affairs but a reaction to requirements from inside China;
it is not necessary to please the West but to make China more stable
and ber.
I also 100 percent agree
with the main policy directive of the 4th generation of
leaders under President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao to form a
Chinese society and a world of harmony.
In his CNN interview in
2008 Wen Jiabao stressed the need for the respect for human rights:
“China
has actually become more open. Anyone without biases will see --
have seen that. The freedom of speech and the freedom in news media
coverage are guaranteed in China. The Chinese government attaches
importance to, and protects, human rights. We have incorporated
these lines into the Chinese constitution, and we also implement the
stipulation in real earnest. I think for any government, what is
most important, is to ensure that its people enjoy each and every
right given to them by the constitution.
Including their right to survival, freedom and to pursue their
happiness.
We
don't think that we are impeccable in terms of human rights. It is
true that in some places and in some areas, we do have problems of
this kind or that kind. Nonetheless, we are continuing to make
efforts to make improvements, and we want to further improve human
rights in our country.”
But the
middle-class-members of the Communist Party and bureaucracy and the
local authorities have until now ignored this wise leadership. Even
worse when Wen Jiabao spoke in CNN about the protection of freedom
the propaganda officials dared to cut his words out of the
news-stream in China. I have never before heard about the head of
the government of any authoritarian government to be censored by
people of much lower rank.
In January 2011 a statute
of the great Chinese philosopher Confucius was placed in front of
the new national museum in Beijing but removed and hidden months
later on the demand of the old guard.
It shows division within
the government which is dangerous and unacceptable: when the left
hand struggles with the right hand to lead this huge country into
the future – it is paralysing China.
Change of Tibetan government is opportunity to re-set relations
In August 2011 Zhang Qingli
was removed – he had followed a hard-line policy in Tibet as the
leader of the communist party there for five years including the
suppression of the uprisings in 2008. His successor is Chen Quanguo
– until recently the governor of the north-Chinese province Hebei.
The Dalai Lama stepped down
as the political head of the Tibetan government in exile in March
2011.
In a first democratic
process the Tibetans in exile elected in March 2011 with 55 percent
of the vote Lobsang Sangay (43), who has a PhD in law from Harvard,
as new Premier or Kalon Tripa and their new political leader. In his
speech in the parliament of Hessen the Dalai Lama argued in August
2011: "The world belongs to humanity and to the people, not to any
party." (see WSN TV Interview: Dalai Lama, The world belongs to
humanity)
Together with the
influential monk Gyakwang Karmapa, who is only 26 years old, this
new government of Tibet-in-exile brings fresh young faces and a new
dynamic.
The obstacle of the Dalai
Lama as political figure-head of Tibet in exile is now gone, so
Beijing could and should re-set the button for better relations with
its tiny minority on the roof of the world .
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao
told CNN journalist Fareed Zakaria in 2008:
“Our
issue with the Dalai Lama is not an ethnic, religious or cultural
issue in the ordinary sense. It's a major principled issue
concerning safeguarding the country's unity or allowing efforts to
separate a country.
And we
must adopt a two-pronged approach in viewing the Dalai Lama. On one
hand, it is true that the Dalai is a religious leader, and he enjoys
certain influence in the Tibetan region, and particularly in regions
in which the inhabitants believe in Buddhism. And, on the other
hand, we must also be aware that he is not an ordinary religious
figure. The so-called government in exile founded by the Dalai Lama
practices a theocratic rule. And the purpose of this so-called
government in exile is to separate Tibet from China.
In many
places all over the world, the Dalai Lama keeps preaching about the
idea of a so-called autonomy in the greater Tibetan region. In fact,
the so-called autonomy that he pursues is actually to use religion
to intervene in politics. They want to separate the so-called
greater Tibetan region from the motherland. Many people have no idea
how big the so-called greater Tibetan region is – this region as
preached by the Dalai Lama actually covers Tibet, Sichuan, Yunnan,
Qinghai and Gansu – five provinces altogether. Moreover, the
so-called called greater Tibetan region accounts for a quarter of
China's territory.
For
decades, our policy towards the Dalai Lama remains unchanged: that
is, as long as the Dalai Lama is willing to recognize that Tibet is
an inalienable part of China's territory, and as long as the Dalai
Lama gives up his separatist activities, we're willing to have
contact and hold talks with him or his representatives.
Now,
sincerity holds the key to producing a result out of the talks.
After the Tibet incident back in the 1950s, the highest leader of
the central government, Mr. Deng Xiaoping, also met the
representatives of the Dalai Lama.
We hope
that he can use real actions to show sincerity – by giving up
separatist activities – and break the deadlock.”
So the doors are open for
talks and compromises.
These thoughts are in line
with Chinese ruler Deng Xiaoping. In 1979, this late Chinese
paramount leader proposed to His Holiness the Dalai Lama that
"except independence, all other issues can be resolved through
negotiations". This was very much in agreement with the Dalai Lama's
long-held belief of finding a mutually-beneficial solution.
Immediately, the Dalai Lama gave a favourable response by agreeing
to undertake negotiations and decided to change the policy of
restoring Tibet's independence to that of the Middle-Way Approach
seeking autonomy only.
This fresh approach should
be re-vitalized in the interest of China in 2013 by its new
leadership.
 |
"60 years later China should return to the wise Tibet policy
of Chairman Mao: On May 23, 1951, the Central People’s
Government and the local government of Tibet agreed on a 17
point plan to rule the relationship which was forced upon
the Tibetans by superior China: 3. In accordance with the
policy towards nationalities laid down in the Common
Programme of the Chinese People's Political Consultative
Conference, the Tibetan people have the right of exercising
national regional autonomy under the unified leadership of
the Central People's Government. 4. The Central Authorities
will not alter the existing political system in Tibet. The
Central Authorities also will not alter the established
status, functions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of
various ranks shall hold office as usual....... 7. The
policy of freedom of religious belief laid down in the
Common Programme of the Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference will be protected. The Central
Authorities will not affect any change in the income of the
monasteries.”
|
Stop
protests but ignore meetings with the Dalai Lama
First action is to give up
the policy of protest when the Dalai Lama meets politicians – this
harms China’s national interests more than it promotes them. Just
ignoring these meetings makes much more sense for now.
Until now third-ranking
spokesmen and -women from the Foreign Ministry, asked about the
Dalai Lama by foreign correspondents, repeat negative stereotypes
about him (“separatist” or “damon”) and protest about any meetings.
When the Prime Minister of Hessen met the Dalai Lama in August 2011
the Chinese General Council protested as usual and intervened when
the President of the Hessen parliament invited the Dalai Lama to
speak.
First, is it not always an
internal affair when you invite a foreigner to speak in your
home-country?
Second, it is illogical, as
the Beijing government holds decreed talks with ambassadors from the
Dalai Lama - so who meets whom for discussion after now nine rounds
of meetings in China? Why should a foreign dignity not meet him when
the Chinese meet his delegates?
Third, the Western
countries never complain when the Chinese President meets with
Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir even though he is wanted since
2009 by the International Court of Justice for crimes against
humanity in Darfur.
Fourth, all Western
politicians have a positive effect on the Dalai Lama as they all
promote peaceful dialogue. After the 2008 riots in Lhasa it is good
for Beijing to have the Western friends of the Dalai Lama on their
side as well. You never know what will happen next, so never act
aggressively against someone you may need in years to come.
Fifth, Beijing may even
need His Holiness to make a deal before a more aggressive young
generation takes full control - remembering the riots in 2008.
Sixth, (most important from
the view of politicians who want to contain the influence of the
Dalai Lama), only the over-reaction of the Foreign Office makes
headlines in the international news and make him politically
important. The effect created is the opposite of the intension.
Seventh, it looks very
strange when the b Chinese dragon complains about such a minor event
over and over again. Thus China reduces itself in the eyes of the
global community and loses face.
If I were a hard-core
nationalist in China I would feel ashamed: too much attention is
given to the Dalai Lama. And is it really important for the 1.3bn
Chinese when he meets whom?
These over-reactions are a
clear sign of insecurity and an inferiority-complex among some in
the Foreign Office which has to be stopped soon and supplemented by
much better just-ignore-it policy for now.
No Separatism but Autonomy only
In an interview with German
newsmagazine Der Spiegel in August 2011, Chinese Deputy Foreign
Minister Fu Ying argued again that the problem with the Dalai Lama
is “that when you read his website he promotes an independent Tibet
and Tibet is a part of China”. This statement shows that even
high-ranking officials become victims of their own propaganda and
lose face when not telling the truth to the world which should never
be the PR of an up-coming super-power.
In a speech
in March 2011 published on the Dalai Lama’s official website (www.dalailama.com)
he said:
“In our
efforts to solve the issue of Tibet, we have consistently pursued
the mutually beneficial Middle-Way Approach, which seeks genuine
autonomy for the Tibetan people within the PRC. In our talks with
officials of the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department
we have clearly explained in detail the Tibetan people’s hopes and
aspirations. The lack of any positive response to our reasonable
proposals makes us wonder whether these were fully and accurately
conveyed to the higher authorities.”
On his website the Dalai
Lama describes in detail how autonomy should be established:
“Without
seeking independence for Tibet, the Central Tibetan Administration
strives for the creation of a political entity comprising the three
traditional provinces of Tibet; Such an entity should enjoy a status
of genuine national regional autonomy; This autonomy should be
governed by the popularly-elected legislature and executive through
a democratic process and should have an independent judicial system;
As soon as the above status is agreed upon by the Chinese
government, Tibet would not seek separation from, and remain within,
the People's Republic of China; Until the time Tibet is transformed
into a zone of peace and non-violence, the Chinese government can
keep a limited number of armed forces in Tibet for its protection;
The Central Government of the People's Republic of China has the
responsibility for the political aspects of Tibet’s international
relations and defence, whereas the Tibetan people should manage all
other affairs pertaining to Tibet, such as religion and culture,
education, economy, health, ecological and environmental protection;
The Chinese government should stop its policy of human rights
violations in Tibet and the transfer of Chinese population into
Tibetan areas; To resolve the issue of Tibet, His Holiness the Dalai
Lama shall take the main responsibility of sincerely pursuing
negotiations and reconciliation with the Chinese government.”
In our
first meeting in Buenos Aires in May 2006 the Dalai Lama argued:
(see
Hubertus
Hoffmann, Dalai Lama Exclusive: Thoughts of Tibet’s Spiritual Leader)
“Tibet
does not strive to become independent from China, but rather to
receive cultural and domestic autonomy. Foreign and security policy
can continue to be represented by Beijing. Despite massive
oppression for almost 50 years, more than 90 percent of Tibetans
continue to refuse to accept the excessive control from Beijing.
Murder, torture and intimidation have had and continue to have no
effect. This is why Tibet is unstable-only autonomy can bring about
real stability.”
60 years later China should
return to the wise Tibet policy of Chairman Mao:
On May 23, 1951, the
Central People’s Government and the local government of Tibet agreed
on a 17 point plan to rule the relationship which was forced upon
the Tibetans by superior China:
“3.
In accordance with the policy towards nationalities laid down in the
Common Programme of the Chinese People's Political Consultative
Conference, the Tibetan people have the
right of
exercising national regional autonomy
under the unified leadership of the Central People's Government.
4. The
Central Authorities will
not alter
the existing political system in Tibet.
The Central Authorities also will not alter the established status,
functions and powers of the Dalai Lama. Officials of various ranks
shall hold office as usual.......
7. The policy of freedom of
religious belief laid down in the Common Programme of the Chinese
People's Political Consultative Conference will be protected. The
Central Authorities will not affect any change in the income of the
monasteries.”
In the preamble of this
agreement the relationship between the Chinese and the Tibetans is
precisely described as a harmonious big family of nationalities with
guaranteed autonomy:
“In accordance with the
Common Programme passed by the Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference, the Central People's Government declared
that all nationalities within the boundaries of the People's
Republic of China are equal, and that they shall establish unity and
mutual aid and oppose imperialism and their own public enemies, so
that the People's Republic of China may become one big family of
fraternity and cooperation, composed of all its nationalities.
Within this
big family of nationalities of the People's Republic of China,
national regional autonomy is to be exercised in areas where
national minorities are concentrated, and all national minorities
are to have freedom to develop their spoken and written languages
and to preserve or reform their customs, habits, and religious
beliefs,
and the Central People's Government will assist all national
minorities to develop their political, economic, cultural, and
educational construction work. Since then, all nationalities within
the country, with the exception of those in the areas of Tibet and
Taiwan, have gained liberation. Under the unified leadership of the
Central People's Government and the direct leadership of the higher
levels of People's Governments,
all
national minorities have fully enjoyed the right of national
equality and have exercised, or are exercising, national regional
autonomy.”
Was Mao wrong or wise?
Although he first disliked
this agreement, now the Dalai Lama demands with his
Middle-way-approach only what Mao already agreed in this document
from 1951, so it should be in line with the Communist Party and the
central government as well to come back to this fundamental
agreement.
The local government still
ignores the fair rules from 1951, and the need for cultural autonomy
and identity, instead following a policy of suppression showing too
little respect.
The Tibetan culture is
linked to nomadic life with 2.25 million people still following this
way of life. The Chinese want to re-locate them in
ghetto-style-housing blocks. In the next five years 100,000 families
living as nomads are to be forced to give up their 1000-year way of
life and abandon their cattle to live in new anonymous housing
complexes. 50,000 nomad families have been forced into this
Han-Chinese life-style in the last few years, losing their
traditional homes, life-style, independence and dignity.
Still there are few street
signs in both Chinese and Tibetan language and official documents
have Chinese as the only official language.
The numbers of monks and
nuns are restricted and the monasteries controlled despite the
guarantee in the 1982 constitution of the PRC granting freedom of
religious belief.
Land is given to Chinese
colonists and the focus of the economy is on resource extraction for
Chinese companies.
In 2007 the Chinese
government issued a report outlining the discovery of a large
deposit of zinc, copper, and lead under the Tibetan Plateau
estimated at USD 128 bn.
The Qingzang railway links
the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) with Qinghai province since 2006.
In January 2010 a national
conference on Tibet called for an increase of the Tibetan income to
national standards by 2020 and free education for all children.
The annual growth of TAR
GDP was 12.3 percent over the last nine years with USD 46bn invested
by the central government.
Development is welcomed but
not the domination of the Chinese over the traditional culture and
life-style.
The Tibetans have become
second class citizens and inferior to the Han Chinese in their own
country missing real harmony and respect for the majority. This
makes them angry and aggressive and caused the riots of 2008 out of
sheer frustration.
Just waiting for the Dalai
Lama to pass away may be the wrong strategy as more aggressive
younger leaders could take over and complicate any settlement.
The Dalai Lama needs a new Autonomy and Reconciliation Plan for
Tibet and a better team
On the other side the
position of the Tibetans and the Dalai Lama are weakened by two
factors:
First:
no clear
and short
Autonomy and Reconciliation Plan for Tibet
has been
published and promoted by him with precise demands and proposals and
outlining the first pragmatic steps forward. His negotiation team
has concentrated in the nine rounds on confidence building measures,
which lead only to vagueness and produce not even small results.
It must be made clearer
which areas should be included in the Tibetan autonomy. The Dalai
Lama wants to include “Old Tibet” with all three original provinces:
U’sang, Kham and Amdo. But Kham and Amdo are now largely
incorporated into the Chinese provinces of Qinghai and Sichuan.
Old Tibet is very large and
covers 25 percent of the territory of the PRC now. When talking
about Tibet the Chinese politicians mean only the Tibet Autonomous
Region (TAR) established in 1965 which includes less than half of
the traditional Tibetan land.
According to a Chinese
census in 2000, ethnic Tibetans comprise 92 percent (2.4 million) of
the population in TAR. Another one million Tibetans live in the
province of Qinghai (23 percent), 455,000 in the province of Sichuan
(53 percent), 117,000 in Kunan and 330,000 (51 percent) in Gansu.
In total approx. five
million Tibetans live in China with a focus in TAR and Qinghai. So
any autonomy must consider this population outside the TAR as well.
Second: his team of
negotiators with China looks weak. It is headed by the Dalai Lama’s
Special Envoy Lodi G. Gyari and Envoy Kelsang Gyaltsen and supported
by senior assistants Tenzin P. Atisha, Bhuchung K. Tseringnand
Jigmey Passang from the Tibetan Task Force on Negotiations without
long-term political experience in diplomacy and politics.
The negotiations with
Beijing since the 1980s are burdened by these negative influences.
The Dalai Lama is weak because his team is. He must integrate
experienced foreign advisors and make a visionary plan for Tibet out
of all elements known to be successful or he will not prevail within
the next years.
The
Autonomy and Reconciliation Plan
for Tibet should start with elements from the 1951 agreement with
the Communist Government and integrate the following points as a
compromise:
1. In the next five
negotiation rounds a pragmatic reconciliation approach and double
strategy of economic progress and cultural respect implemented in
small steps discussed and agreed between the Chinese and the
representatives of the Dalai Lama. Both sides should enter the next
rounds with a list of first steps and a time-table. Beijing could
show goodwill to improve the cultural identity of the Tibetans. The
Dalai Lama should praise the PRC for it and as well for economic
progress. Thus trust can be build up in several small steps.
2. Separate standing
working-groups to focus on important areas of progress like
education, language and culture, religion in more detail.
3. It could even be
possible to carve out the issue of political autonomy and which
parts of Old Tibet should be included and agree on a ‘soft autonomy’
providing more religious and cultural autonomy all over Old Tibet
only. After five years the second round could discuss the more
complicated issues. Maybe by then China will have reformed itself
and become self-confident enough to give more political rights to
local communities.
4. The basis of the status
of Tibet and reconciliation with China should be the re-vitalization
of the 17 point agreement from May 23, 1951, between the Central
People’s Government and the local government of Tibet including:
- The right of national
equality and regional autonomy of Tibet.
- The Central Authorities
will not alter the established status, functions and powers of the
14th Dalai Lama who is also entitled to pick his
successor as a purely religious matter.
- The policy of freedom of
religious belief will be protected as well as language, life-style,
monasteries, Tibetan Buddhism and culture.
- Tibetan and Chinese as
equal official languages for all documents, street-signs, and at
schools.
5. No independence for
Tibet but a ‘soft autonomy’ in domestic and cultural affairs. There
are several benchmarks and best practices to learn from with
concrete improvements such as the Accord on South Tyrol by the
Republics of Italy and Austria from 1972; the bilateral agreement
and treatment of the Danish and the German minorities in the state
of Schleswig-Holstein in North Germany or the Sorbian minority in
the German state of Saxony. Autonomy can have different faces. It is
never separatism but a maximum of respect and cultural diversity
avoiding the domination of the central state over the wishes of the
local population. Small steps and signs are important and good-will
day by day as well. Foreign, security and macro-economic policies
will continue to be represented by Beijing.
6. ‘Flexible autonomy’
which can be limited to the Tibet Autonomous Region as the core of
Tibet but with all cultural guarantees for all other parts of old
Tibet in Qinhai and Sichuan as a territorial compromise. The term
‘autonomy’ could be filled with more or less content and maybe even
changed to the term ‘harmonious friendship”. Important is real
respect and preservation of the Tibetan culture and religion –
including full autonomy of all monasteries and the Dalai Lama as
religious leader – in all parts of Old Tibet and concrete
reconciliation of the five million Tibetans with the Han-Chinese and
the Beijing government. The benchmark in China could be the
agreement and successful experience in Hong Kong.
7. Use of peaceful means
only and a polite wording in the public.
8. General amnesty for both
sides for any previous violations and establishment of a Tibetan
Truth and Reconciliation Commission as was very successfully done by
Bishop Desmond Tutu after the Apartheid in South Africa and copied
by more than 20 countries to promote deeper reconciliation. Release
of all prisoners.
9.
Establishment of a Permanent Round Table in Lhasa with the local
government promoting reconciliation efforts on all levels (see
www.codesoftolerance.com for details for politicians).
10.Annual Progress Report
Tibet published by the Round Table to be presented to Beijing.
Before such an agreement is reached the exiled government of Tibet
should publish an annual Progress Report Tibet including positive
and negative developments.
The implementation of such
an original best practice Reconciliation Plan for Tibet from 2013 to
2020 – based on Mao’s principles from 1951 and the wisdom of Deng
Xiaoping from 1979 – will be one important corner-stone of a fresh
stabilization-policy of the 5th leadership generation
with several positive effects within China and outside.
Stability and progress of
the Chinese society by integration and not domination is the golden
path of the future. This has been shown very well in Hong Kong in
the last few years by the policies of Beijing and the local
authorities as best practice in China.
Only such a policy of true
harmony and consensus fits into the 3,000 year-old Chinese wisdom
and native traditions of Confucius and Buddha – and our global
village. There rests truth, justice, peace and prosperity for China
and its 1.3bn people. Any true China-loving nationalist must follow
that path of the Chinese souls as well.
China will learn that it is
in its own interests not only to preserve Mother Nature such as the
few famous Panda bears that are now left but also its minorities
with their cultural heritage as a bonus for the empire and internal
and external harmony.
Harmony will prevail and
cultural nihilism decline as the last element remaining from the
destructive period of the Cultural Revolution.
Eight years ago, the now
elected Kalon Tripa (Premier) of the exile government, Lobsang
Sangay speculated in a discussion panel in Harvard:
“
If a
Chinese leader resolves the issue of Tibet and shows that China is
changing, he may be the first Chinese to win the Nobel Peace Prize."
After the decoration of Liu
Xiaobo with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 he now would be the second
Chinese recipient, but the first Chinese politician and also equal
to decorated US Presidents Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama and China
door-opener Henry Kissinger.
Dr.
Hubertus Hoffmann
President and Founder
World
Security Network Foundation
 |
World Security Network reporting from Minsk in Belarus , September 07, 2011
Dear Cavkic Salih,
 |
"Establish a Council of Transition uniting the
Belarusian opposition and representatives of civil
society, especially youth movements and work to
peacefully dispose and immediately trial Lukashenka." |
In the course of the Arab Spring the dictators of Tunisia, Egypt
and Libya have been ousted. Yet, there is one forgotten dictator
at the eastern border of Europe in Belarus. During the last
presidential election December 19, 2010, Alyaksandr Lukashenka
garnered a Soviet-like result: 79.65 % of the votes. (The
spelling of the name may vary, in Russia it is Alexander
Lukashenko). The OSCE declared the election as fundamentally
flawed. The evening ended with 10,000 protesters demanding
Lukashenka’s resignation. Massive arrests and brutal beatings
ensued. The majority of members of the opposition were arrested.
But more disturbing was the spectacular betrayal of Jaraslau
Ramanchuk who came in third in the election with 1.98%, and
publicly accused other members of the opposition of being
responsible for the unrests. Coming in 9th with only 1.02% of
the votes, Ales Michalevich had been pressed into delivering a
similar public testimony on TV, but refused and was eventually
released after signing an agreement with the KGB which he
immediately retracted. Ramanchuk was not as courageous, he
offered a justification for the arrest of several activists,
including Andrei Sannikau’s wife, award-winning Russian
journalist Irina Khalip. He was then free to go wherever he
pleased and was no longer bothered. He chose to go on winter
holiday to Austria...
Former diplomat Andrei Sannikau, 2nd result with 2.43
% of the votes, did not have that luxury. He was violently
beaten and taken to prison with severe head injuries. On May 14,
he was sentenced to five years on charges of allegedly
organizing a “mass disturbance.”
Another member of the opposition, author Uladzimir Niaklajeu
sustained a head injury during a beating on Election Day and was
apprehended from intensive care by Belarusian security forces.
Meanwhile over 40 major figures of civil society have been
convicted. On August 12, nine were pardoned. They were pressed
into signing declarations accusing themselves of having
organized civil unrests and pledged to discontinue any form of
political activities, a de facto surrender of their Freedom of
assembly and Freedom of expression.
This is the way former collective farm Director Lukashenka
understands “free and fair elections.” In response, the United
States has imposed harsh sanctions. They concern Belarusian
state owned companies and travel restrictions. "These sanctions
are not designed to harm the people of Belarus, but rather to
deny funds to those responsible for the repression in Belarus
following the December 19th [2010] presidential elections,"
State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland sated. Similar
measures were adopted by the European Union banning 158
Belarusian officials from entering the European Union.
Europe’s Last Dictator: A Racist, Stalinist, Anti-Semite?
 |
Opposition candidate
Andrei Sannikau at his trial May 14, 2011.
"Lukashenka could torture and murder at the front door
of the EU with complete impunity. Times have changed
now. With Germany joining a value-driven alliance of
Balts, Czechs, Poles and Swedes within the EU,
Lukashenka’s quiet days are over." |
The quote about the collapse of the Soviet Union being the worst
catastrophe of the 20th century is often attributed to Vladimir
Putin. It is not entirely correct. Putin quoted Alyaksandr
Ryhoravich Lukashenka, the only deputy of the Supreme Soviet
Council to vote against the ratification of the dissolution of
the Soviet Union in December 1991. Lukashenka has been in power
since 1994. His country has not seen a free and fair election by
international monitoring standards since then. What it has seen,
however, are mysterious disappearances of high profile opponents
to Lukashenka, such as former Minister of Interior Yuri
Zakharanka, MP Viktar Hanchar and businessman Anatoly Krasovsky.
Belarusian diplomats will assure you that their president is the
world’s most misquoted politician. In fact, he is a constant
victim of bad translations. Speaking to Germany’s Handelsblatt
in 1995, Lukashenka argued that Germany’s history was similar to
the history of Belarus, praising Adolf Hitler who after all “did
not only do bad things.” Bad translation, they claimed. In 2007
he was commenting on the terrible state of the city of Babruysk
as follows: “This is a Jewish city. The Jews are not concerned
about the city they live in. They have turned Babruysk into a
pigsty. Look at Israel. I was there and saw it myself. I call on
the Jews to come back to Babruysk.” Broadcasted on national
television, Lukashenka could not blame it on poor translation.
This time, it was “humor,” a spokesman for the administration
argued. Belarusian diplomats again came to his rescue claiming
that Mr. Lukashenka, was, after all, known for not being a
racist.
Perhaps, but Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s political actions speak a
different language. From the repression of the Polish minority
in Belarus to his closest ties and arms deliveries to Israel’s
worst enemies, Alyaksandr Lukashenka has proved that he is not
just a “clumsy” head of state with an odd sense of humor.
Actually, it may very well be that the Western World does not
share his presidential “sense of humor,” especially when
European lawmakers read reports of arbitrary arrests and torture
in Belarusian prisons in the worst Stalinist tradition of
repression. After the latest wave of arrests in December 2010,
protesters were beaten unconscious by the squads of the Ministry
of Interior, dragged into cars and transported to interrogation
centers, where they were systematically tortured. Several
political prisoners were forced to stand outside naked in the
cold. They were forced into excruciating positions during
searches and forced to sleep in cells where the temperature was
kept at 10C. They were also denied access to basic hygiene
during interrogation (including the use of a toilet). Seriously
ill detainees were refused their daily medications causing
severe liver and kidney failures after beatings.
For German MP Marieluise Beck, the facts speak for themselves
and there is no need for translation. After massive arrests
following peaceful demonstrations in June 2011, she confronted
Lukashenka personally: Alyaksandr Lukashenka proves again with
the massive arrests of peaceful protesters that democracy and
human rights are being grossly violated. People in Belarus are
suffering immensely with cost of living hikes and food
shortages. Lukashenka is the one responsible for the economic
ruin, yet he has anyone protesting against his mismanaged
economy arrested, she said. According to Beck, the Belarusian
regime has put itself outside of the European value system.
Meanwhile, Minsk police have received orders to arrest anyone
participating in the allegedly subversive "clapping" protests in
the Belarusian capital. Belarusian Absurdistan is the only
country in the world where applauding can send you to jail.
The Awakening of the EU
Seven years ago it was nearly impossible to attract the
attention of European lawmakers on Belarus. George W. Bush and
John McCain had taken the lead sounding the alarm on behalf of
the Free World. The Belarus Democracy Act was passed on October
4, 2004, then amended and renewed on December 8, 2006. The US
administration tried to engage its partner into taking action.
"We will work with our allies and partners to assist those
seeking to return Belarus to its rightful place among the
Euro-Atlantic community of democracies," President Bush stated.
But in the EU, most continental Western diplomats were
contemplating the actions of US politicians with disbelief--if
not disdain. For 11 years until October 2009, Germany’s foreign
policy was entirely based on pleasing the Kremlin, while
ignoring Ukraine and systematically appeasing Belarus.
Especially during Chancellor Schröder years in office and later
with Frank-Walter Steinmeier as Foreign Minister, cooperation
with Moscow was to be preserved at any cost, be it the cost of
lives in what Moscow considered its sphere of influence.
Political positions in Paris and Berlin did not differ much in
this regard; stability with Belarus was the keyword. Especially
since Lukashenka had questioned the security surrounding
Yamal Europe,
a pipeline transporting gas from Russia to Germany and crossing
Belarus, securing safe gas deliveries suddenly advanced to a top
priority. German diplomats left the first newcomers of the
European Union, particularly Poland and the Czech Republic alone
in their fight, almost labelling them as agitated children, some
sort of loose cannons and troublemakers.
This constant disharmony within the EU, but also between EU and
US policies played into the hands of Lukashenka. While the US
opposed the IMF granting a loan to Belarus in 2009, the European
Union supported it arguing that “change through engagement,”
inspired by Chancellor Willy Brandt’s policy applied to East
Germany and its neighbors and known under the name “Wandel durch
Annäherung,” would bring favourable developments. The only
visible development, however, was a Stalinization of the
official rhetorics and massive repression. A yo-yo policy of
sanctions imposed later lifted and again re-imposed have added a
certain inconsistency in the European policy towards Lukashenka.
And the Belarusian tyrant quickly understood how to play the
“Russian card” when pressured by the EU.
While some countries in the EU were very cautious in
implementing the sanctions (the first had already been passed in
April 1998), others had no problem with having Mr Lukashenka
enter EU territory, later delivering Schengen visas to
compromised Belarusian officials and even providing safe haven
for the Belarusian capital.
Lukashenka could torture and murder at the front door of the EU
with complete impunity. Meanwhile, Eurocrats in Brussels were
essentially busy with the standardization of the size of bananas
and the major European capitals were busy pleasing the Kremlin.
Times have changed and these diplomats are now gone. With
Germany suddenly joining a value-driven alliance of Balts,
Czechs, Poles and Swedes within the EU, Lukashenka’s quiet days
are over.
Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski managed to win the support of
Germany’s FM Guido Westerwelle. Sikorski led an uncrompomising
group of European Foreign Ministers, among whom longtime freedom
fighters such as Carl Bildt and Karel Schwarzenberg. They
intended to straight talk Lukashenka with one firm European
voice. Very soon thereafter, Europe’s last dictator understood
that this group of political leaders meant business. With their
joint letter after the fraudulent election of December 2010,
these European chief diplomats actually put a diplomatic end to
Brussels’ “constructive dialogue” based on political
conditionality which tried to create incentives for Belarus to
reform and join the European Community of values. The statement
issued on December 23, 2010 could not have been clearer:
“Continued positive engagement with Mr. Lukashenka at the moment
seems a waste of time and money. He has made his choice--it is a
choice against everything the European Union stands for.”
The massive repression after Dec 19th was also the occasion for
former President George W. Bush to break his self-imposed
silence. He joined Radio Free Europe’s “Voices of Solidarity”
with several personalities, including Vaclav Havel and Elena
Bonner, and read out the names of Belarusian political
prisoners.
Lukashenka always remained the same old dictator
It took a long time for European decision-makers to realize that
Belarus was not only geographically, but also culturally in
Europe. Many were very willing to let Belarus drift apart from
the rest of Europe, granting it a right to exceptionalism
outside of any shared democratic value system. Austrian
political scientist Martin Malek of the Academy of Defense in
Vienna summed up the internal Belarusian status quo soberly:
“Lukashenka’s policy never really changed much”. It is the only
state in which November 7, the Anniversary of the October
Revolution is officially celebrated. It is also the only
European state in which the death penalty is still carried out.
It is a country where loyalty to the president is the only
credential required to become a state official. A former
president of the Academy of Science, current PM Michael
Myasnikovich was a low rank civil servant in the Municipalty of
Minsk with no scientific background whatsoever and the former
attorney general, Viktor Sheyman (2000-2004) never was a real
lawyer. Lukashenka’s singular sense for human resources
culminated in him nominating a construction engineer as chairman
of the National Bank of Belarus, Malek said.
Paranoia is another trait of Lukashenka’s ruling style. Obsessed
with the fear of an Orange Revolution, he has put Belarusian
civil society under constant observation, especially its youth
movements. He even managed to completely fragment the political
forces of the country. The KGB regularly foments discord and
manipulates the weakest into reporting fellow members of the
opposition to the authorities.
An Odd Circle of Friends Abroad and Less and Less Support at
Home
The fact that Belarus is in Europe seems to elude Alyaksandr
Lukashenka as well.
His allies read like the
Who’s Who
of rogue states and Third World dictatorships. Russia, which
championed the entente with Belarus out of geo-strategic
consideration, has seen its turbulent relations with Lukashenka
deteriorate, culminating in Lukashenka accusing the Kremlin of
plotting against him before the presidential election. Other
heads of failed states are full of praise for the Belarusian
dictator: “We see a model of social states like the one we are
beginning to establish,” Hugo Chavez said during a visit. These
are the partners with whom he preferably cuts lucrative arms
deals: Iran, Libya, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, North Korea,
Vietnam, Syria, Sudan, China, various African rebel movements
preferably involved in genocides and Marxist or Islamist
terrorist groups. Belarus is not very picky in choosing its
customers. Recently, Belarus was even caught delivering weapons
to Pakistani terrorists. Trade with such partners is booming,
yet when it comes to the production of basic consumer goods,
Lukashenka’s declining industry is unable to provide for its own
population.
Ignoring such blatant political failures, Lukashenka’s
supporters argue that he still enjoys a broad support within the
population. This is mostly explained by “brain drain,” the
enormous digital divide in the country, and also by the fact
that his base, the rural population, hardly has access to free
information. The main pillar of his power, the security forces
support him for self-serving reasons. He guarantees them
relatively good wages with the assurance of a comfortable status
quo. Any type of reform of the state system would compromise
their status as seen in many Post-Soviet states. They fear
nothing more than the specter of a post-Revolutionary “lustratsia”,
the systematic eviction of collaborationists.
However times are changing even there. Belarus is encountering a
daunting economic crisis. Lukashenka, who had been threatening
that the harshest economic threats would hit Belarus should the
opposition come to power, is now running out of excuses.
It is slowly becoming clear in even the most remote corners of
Belarus that Lukashenka has not only politically isolated the
country, but also completely ruined it economically. His
oxymoronic “market socialism” was mistakenly understood as the
reason for constant growth in recent years (10% GDP in 2010).
This was in fact the result of a boom which gratified all
members of the Commonwealth of Independent States with growth
due to their position as either oil producers or transit
countries. In fact, the centrally-planned economy is on the
verge of collapsing, the currency is in free fall, and the
poorest classes cannot keep up with the inflation. Belarus had
to borrow $3 billion from the Community of Independent States.
Its long-time creditor, the Russian Federation put a
not-so-altruistic condition to any loan: reform of the economic
system and privatization of Belarusian industry. The Belarusian
government inquired with the IMF if an additional $8 billion in
stabilization funding could be granted. But major voices in the
Senate opposed this and wrote a letter to Timothy Geithner
stating that this money would just consolidate Lukashenka’s
regime and that they instead favored broader sanctions against a
number of state-owned Belarusian firms.
The senators -- Independent Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut),
Republicans Mark Kirk (Illinois) and John McCain (Arizona);
Democrats Richard Durbin (Illinois), Benjamin Cardin (Maryland),
and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) rejected any type of support
stating that this "would only subsidize Lukashenka's continued
illegitimate and repressive regime and would not advance real
economic reforms." As a response to the US sanctions, Belarus
has started a nuclear blackmail over highly-enriched nuclear
fuel exchange, in clear breach of its agreement with the U.S.
Department of Energy’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative.
Wannabe historian Alyaksandr Lukashenka, who has never seen a
Faculty of History from the inside, was perhaps partly right
with his historical parallel. Belarus will recover and stand up
from the ruins he has left behind. As Germany survived two
dictatorships, Belarus will have a bright future, too, without
him. At the occasion of the worldwide global day manifestation
for Belarus, symbolically taking place on August 25th, the
Independence Day of Belarus, WSN spoke with Belarusian
politician Ales Lahviniec and with Swedish MP Walburga
Habsburg Douglas about the future of Belarus.
The WSN Foundation has been lobbying since 2005 for a more
assertive policy towards Belarus. We suggest the following steps
be taken to support a peaceful transition in Belarus.
-
EU member states should apply the sanctions thoroughly and
implement a strict and careful handling of their bilateral
relations with Belarus. No concession to the Lukashenka
regime should be tolerated on the basis of a “special
relationship” with the Russian Federation as neither the
European Union nor the United States recognize the concept
of Russian “Sphere of influence”.
-
A Council of Transition uniting the Belarusian opposition
and representatives of civil society, especially youth
movements should be officially established. It should
nominate a body of international advisors comprising former
Freedom Fighters of Central and Eastern Europe who now are
active politicians in the EU.
-
It should firstly work to peacefully depose and immediately
trial Lukashenka.
-
Best practice examples in the field of economic transition
should be gathered and submitted to the Council of
Transition.
-
A strict lustratsia should be prerequisite to any political
action, as seen with the Estonian transition. This will
allow a radical change of elite.
-
An archive on the model of the Gauk-Behörde should be
established allowing each citizen of Belarus to assess the
extent of the repression he or she has been submitted to.
---------------------------
Belarussian oppositional politician
Ales Lahviniec works as
assistant to the head of the Belarus "Movement for Freedom"
party, Dr.
Milinkievic.
 |
Meeting of the Belarusian Opposition in Prague, 2009.
From l. to r.: Alyaksandr Kazulin, Ivonka Survilla,
Zianon Pazniak, Stanislau Shushkievich,
Ales Lahviniec, Alyaksandr Milinkievich
"The bankruptcy of the regime weighs on the entire
population." |
Ales Lahviniec:
Now the bankruptcy of the regime weighs on the entire
population.
Nathalie Vogel:
Belarusian students have been reported being under constant
observation, what does this observation look like?
Ales Lahviniec:
There is an ideological control within universities. Besides a
designated official especially in charge of prevention, the
regime puts pressure on students involved in political and civil
activities. Forms of intimidation can go as far as
“conversations” in the Dean’s office in the presence of KGB
officers, parents being called in or even universities expelling
students under the false pretext of failing academic standards
and of course not officially on the ground of their political
involvement.
Nathalie Vogel: Is
there a digital divide within Belarus, do you know of young
people being completely cut off from information?
Ales Lahviniec:
There are some who have less access to modern technologies,
especially in small towns and villages. The economic crisis in
Belarus is probably going to hit them first. So they might be
the most eager to get alternative information.
Nathalie Vogel: You have taught political sciences in the
European Union. In comparison to other European students, are
Belarusian students aware of what the European Union represents?
Ales Lahviniec:
There is little knowledge about the United Europe and about the
possibilities it offers. At the same time, there is a genuine
attraction to it. Today many more Belarusian young people study
abroad, more than ten years ago. They travel more even with the
obstacles not only on the side of the regime, but also because
of the rigidity of the Schengen system.
Nathalie Vogel: Generally speaking, who is affected by the
sanctions, the regime or the Belarusian population?
Ales Lahviniec:
I do not think that the sanctions have an important impact. Now
it is the bankruptcy of the regime that weighs on the entire
population. Certain companies suffer, but I would not say that
these sanctions have a direct effect. Although for the regime,
they are not an asset for sure.
Nathalie Vogel: Should Lukashenka’s regime come to an end are
you ready to take over?
Ales Lahviniec:
If he falls, this new situation will require much greater
efforts on our part. I think that at least one part of the
opposition is aware of the responsibility resulting from it.
However one is never 100% ready, that is only in theory.
Swedish
MP Walburga Habsburg Douglas, daughter of Otto von
Habsburg, is Vice-President of the Paneuropean Union.
Nathalie Vogel:
You are a driving force in support of the opposition in Belarus.
Tell us about your latest initiatives.
Walburga Habsburg Douglas:
Well, today, the 25th of August, is the 20th
anniversary of the independence of Belarus. Last week we had the
celebration of the 20 years of the independence of the Baltic
States, a real success-story. So today we have to think of our
friends in Belarus, who suffer under the dictatorial regime of
Alyaksandr Lukashenka. So what happened was the youth
organization of the Swedish Moderata party, MUF, and a couple of
Swedish MPs together decided to organize the “Global
Manifestation for Freedom for Belarus”. We had demonstrations
and meetings in many places around the world: Miami, Stockholm,
Berlin – to just name a few. Here in Stockholm we met on
Norrmalmstorg, which has become famous for our protests for the
freedom of the Baltic States 20 years ago. And we have decided
to introduce once more our manifestations on Norrmalmstorg,
until the regime of Lukashenka is over.
Nathalie Vogel: How can we help the Belarusian people,
concretely?
Walburga Habsburg Douglas:
For us it is paramount that we do not forget our friends in
Belarus. There are so many ways to keep in touch: Twitter,
Facebook, all social media, and normal mail. And we are aware
that they are dependent on what we here in the West are doing.
As long as we notice their fate, they feel that their fight is
not in vain. To give you an example: I reported about our
manifestation today in my Facebook-status and published photos
from our meeting. It did not take longer than 3 minutes until I
got a comment from my Belarusian friends!
Nathalie Vogel: Any doubt in your mind that Belarus' future is
in the European Union?
Walburga Habsburg Douglas:
No doubt at all! Belarus already today is a part of the Eastern
Partnership of the EU, which means a country with a European
prospect. Precisely like Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan. These countries will become members as soon as they
fulfil the Copenhagen-criteria. Moldova already has done a fair
share of their work. And: let Belarus become a country with a
democratic government, and then they will make enormous
progress!
Nathalie Vogel: We celebrated the anniversary of one of your
greatest achievements recently, the Paneuropean picnic of August
19th, 1989. Do you have any plans to organize a similar
Paneuropean picnic at the Polish-Lithuanian-Belarusian or
Lithuanian- Latvian- Belarusian border?
Walburga Habsburg Douglas:
This is a marvellous idea! I have to present it to my friends!
And I only hope that the political climate will be the same, and
that we can – in 10 years time – welcome Belarus as a member in
the European Union!
Nathalie Vogel
Editor Eastern Europe
World Security Network Foundation






Maasmechelen Village

Maasmechelen Village
Language Codes
DOWNLOAD
BOGUMILS
as Inspiration


| |