The volume offers an in-depth analysis of contemporary Belarus, focusing on four basic aspects: domestic politics, economy, security, and possible challenges for the West. It contributes in a significant sense to an understanding of the Belarusian puzzle, which has been discussed in the historiography since the early 1990s.^[1]
What is of great importance and value, the analysis is based on comparisons between Belarus and other central and east European countries. Thanks to this approach, it is possible to notice Belarusian exceptionalism, which consists, as the authors claim, of the weakness of Belarusian national identity and the dominant role of the president, Aleksandr Lukashenka. Another significant issue dealt with in the volume is the “exportability” of Belarusian experience. It has been neglected, the book argues, that the country, ignored frequently in the international sphere, can become a role model for other economically troubled former Soviet republics.
The articles selected by Balmaceda try to address the complexity of the Belarusian situation. Importantly, the book argues that it is short-sighted to perceive the rule of Lukashenka as the effect of the application of force and violence. Rather, Lukashenka gained his position and power at least to some extent due to real popular support. Thus, the contributors of the volume dispute what the editors call “a comforting picture of a long-suffering Belarusian society oppressed by an authoritarian despot lacking popular support – and of a popular and united opposition” (P. 9). This attempt to challenge the stereotypical perception of Belarus is one of the most important contributions of the volume. Moreover, there is a practical aim that the authors seem to aspire to: they try to present those elements of Belarusian reality that can provide the basis for democratic changes and propose concrete actions. The nuanced view of Belarusian domestic and international politics allows for discovering the “cracks in the monolith” that can be creatively exploited by Western policies.
Inevitably, the volume contains numerous academic approaches, ranging from traditional and quantitative analyses to those employing qualitative and deconstructive methodologies. At the same time, it should be noticed that the texts are of unequal academic standard.
Within the domestic politics section (part one of the volume), public opinion analysis conducted by Colton brings some interesting conclusions. Educated and better-off classes are not, aďs one might expect, prone to welcome the national ideology. Surprisingly, the Belarusian language does not provide the basis for national self-assertion either. Colton claims, furthermore, that the West functions in Belarus as a menace, rather than the model to be emulated. He sees “friendlier” and more linguistically accessible Western broadcasts to Belarus as a potential step that might ameliorate the situation.
Linder addresses the “Lukashenka phenomenon”, and attributes the coming to power of this “post-Soviet non-politician” (P. 79) to the failed process of elite formation in Belarus. The contemporary Belarusian leadership recalls the nomenklatura of the past era, lacking the intellectual and reflective capabilities that would attract the population. This absence of a modern functional elite helps Lukashenka win. Because the isolation of Belarus by the West may result in dangerous “exportability” of her experience to near neighbours, Linder proposes it is necessary to reinstitutionalize dialogue with the Belarusian administration. He believes that the internal contradictions visible in Belarusian political declarations produce opportunities for influencing the situation in the country in a peaceful way. Participating in international conferences, fairs, and meetings could broaden Lukashenka’s horizons and “integrate” him into the contemporary democratic scene. This approach seems justifiable to Linder as he recognizes the significance of the support that Lukashenka still manages to garner among his people. Although it is necessary to demand the preservation of human rights in Belarus, it is as well justifiable to treat the country in the same way as China, Cuba, and North Korea, he concludes, that is, to allow for some economic and political engagement.
The second part, devoted to economic matters, illustrates the country’s dependence on Russia and her subsidies and oil. The location of Belarus may be seen as its great asset, but is not taken advantage of as the country decided to limit itself to transit links involving solely Russia. The construction of the Yamal pipeline may bring new elements into Belarusian-Russian relations. The pipeline is likely to affect the Lukashenka regime. It may vindicate his position through new employment opportunities and investments. On the other hand, as Balmaceda argues, tensions are likely to mount as Russian oil companies will certainly demand rights to buy the shares in Mozyr and Novopolotsk refineries.
The current economic situation is seen to be the effect of the “conservative revolution” of 1994 when Lukashenka came to power. Zlotnikov compares his election to the events that took place in 1917 in Russia and in 1933 in Germany. He maps the particular mindset of the Belarusian voter who, while not necessarily against the market economy is hostile to capitalism and businessmen (P. 129), votes for Lukashenka, displaying paradoxically at the same time a tolerant and democratic mentality. Thus a significant trait of the population is its appreciation of egalitarian values and equality, even if this means “equality in poverty”. Zlotnikov sees the possibilities of increasing the “democratic” electorate by capturing hesitant voters. It is still possible as the great part of the population is torn by contradictory expectations.
One of the articles in this section, authored by Drakokhrust and Furman, deserves attention due to analysis of the “virtual” integration process between Belarus and Russia. Common dependencies described in the previous texts do not lead to a coherent political line. Rather, one may observe a puzzling process in which periodical bilateral negotiations culminate in meaningless agreements (P. 233). Lukashenka advocates simultaneously both full unification and sovereignty, accusing Russia at times of lacking integrationist zeal and denouncing her ambition to make the sovereign Belarus one of Russia’s regions. The authors suggest that integration was, indeed, a game played by Yeltsin and Lukashenka and that no one was truly interested in the ultimate resolution, focusing rather on the benefits that could arise from a “struggle for integration”. For Yeltsin the rhetoric of unification was a way of diverting public opinion from the failures of the Chechen war, whereas for Lukashenka it was a method of extracting financial assistance and securing cheap energy supplies. The appearance of Putin is perceived by the authors as the harbinger of new directions in the integration processes.
The third part of the book takes up the problem of security in the region and the policies that neighbouring states adopt vis-а-vis Belarus. A lot is said about the dangers of the military union between Belarus and Russia, but, as Reppert argues, the impact of the alliance is mainly psychological because “Russian ICBMs are currently capable of striking any point on the globe, and a 300-mile forward movement would mean, in the case of the United States for example, that warning time would be reduced from 30 minutes to 29 minutes” (P. 261). That is the only point, however, where the mainstream interpretation of the union is challenged by the author. In the remaining part of the chapter he limits himself to a conventional description of military cooperation.
The three chapters that follow deal with the perception of Belarus in Ukraine, Lithuania, and Poland. Perepelytsia reminds us that in the mid-1990s both Ukraine and Belarus promoted the idea of creating a nuclear-free zone in Central and Eastern Europe. Ukraine was vitally interested both in reducing the intensity of Belarusian-Russian accords and in engaging Belarus in regional cooperation. The Ukrainian side was concerned over the activities of Lukashenka aimed at advertising “the Belarusian model” in the Ukrainian regions with pro-Russian and pro-Soviet tendencies. Perepelytsia concludes his chapter by sketching out several possible scenarios for future developments. It is surprising that he includes among feasible options such unrealistic solutions as restoration of the Soviet Union or Belarus joining NATO. Generally, his scenarios are grossly simplified and ignore more complex possibilities.
Gricius examines the differences between Belarusian and Lithuanian national identities that resulted from alternative interpretations of history, particularly of the period between 1918 and 1940. He points at co-dependency between the two countries, for Belarus is Lithuania’s export partner and relies on Lithuania’s electricity (25% of total national consumption). Also it is significant to Lithuania as a transit route to Ukraine and Russia. Although the stability and democratization of Belarus are very much in Lithuania’s interest, contacts between the parties and political organizations from two countries are weak. Besides, Lithuania’s foreign policy priorities and visions of state organization differ from those of Belarus. Nevertheless, Gricius claims that relations between Belarus and Lithuania are much more advanced than between Belarus and Ukraine or Poland.
Magdziak-Miszewska explicates differences in historical “trajectories” of two parts of Belarus – the one that was Soviet in the interwar period and the one that formed part of Poland. She mentions as well the feeling of injury that was produced by the fact that Poles constituted a dominant social stratum in the Belarusian-populated regions. She attempts to understand what prevented Poland from a more constructive foreign policy towards Belarus, particularly in the early 1990s. On the one hand, Poland was focusing her attention solely on the West, yet on the other, cool reaction from the Belarusian side made her even less willing to engage. Moreover, some political forces, such as the Belarusian Popular Front, in their effort to resuscitate national identity, turned against the Poles, accusing them of imperialistic ambitions. Even children from Chernobyl sent to Poland for health reasons were claimed to be “Polonized” on the occasion. Nevertheless, since 1998 Poland has been trying to avoid the freezing of relations with Belarus as she comprehends the danger of becoming a frontline state in case contacts deteriorate.
The fourth part of the book focuses on the possible strategies of the West’s engagement in Belarus. It opens with an article by Hans-Georg Wieck, a former ambassador of the OSCE to Belarus. The analysis offered by Wieck is overburdened with details and vagueness. The data he quotes seem to be selected with certain bias; for example he refers to the 1999 “Zerkalo” opinion poll to show a low level of support for Lukashenka (P. 368). He does not mention at all the numerous studies and polls that suggest exactly the opposite, i.e., a stable and significant (even if melting) popularity of the president. The chapter passes in silence over the ambivalent attitude of Belarusians (including the political opposition) to the AMG OSCE and its role in Belarus.
Sherman Garnett presents the thesis that he developed in Belarus at the Crossroads, namely, that the West categorized Belarus as a space of no importance, and, consequently, ignored its possible destabilizing influence in the region. He perceives the constraints on Belarus’s integration with Russia. Political and economic differences between the countries, antagonisms between the integration supporters, and strong opposition to the process are listed as the most evident obstacles. He is also aware of the change coming with the new generation of more educated and demanding Belarusians, who perceive themselves as citizens of an independent state. At the same time he acknowledges that beneath the corrupt referenda and elections under Lukashenka lies a “solid political majority that brought him to power in a fair election in 1994” (P. 401) yet warns against the isolationist attitude that might affect the stability of the region.
Generally, the book provides abundant material and information useful for students of Belarus. Its strength consists in bringing together academics and practitioners, and both Western and Belarusian authors. As a result, we do not lack the insider’s perspective. The second asset of the volume is its clearly pragmatic ambition to serve those who might be in a position to alter the international isolation of Belarus and foster democratization within the country. Still. the unequal quality of the chapters undermines the academic value of the book. Next to profound analyses supported by arguments and coherent hypotheses one can find purely descriptive texts. Another problem is related to the repetitiveness of some sections; better editing would have improved the volume.