Lenin once said that capitalists were so cynical that they would sell the Soviets the rope with which they would hang them. Lenin and communism have passed away, but that cynical indifference to suffering when profits are involved remains.
Belarus provides a glaring example. The European parliament has consistently denounced Belarus as Europe's last dictatorship, yet EU member governments continue business as usual with Aleksander Lukashenka, the country's wayward and near lunatic despot.
This is especially true when there is a chance to save or make money. For example, for more than a decade, Germany's police forces, customs service, and even the Bundeswehr have been ordering uniforms from a state-owned factory in the city of Dzherzinsky, named after the father of the Red Terror and founder of the Soviet KGB, Feliks Dzherzinsky. Similar examples of such indifferent cynicism abound.
By treating Lukashenka as a favored business partner at the same time that the EU is trying to isolate him as an international pariah, European hypocrisy stands naked. Instead of indirectly propping up Lukashenka's regime through such cozy deals, Europe's governments must begin to act in accordance with what Europe's parliament has long understood: underwriting Lukashenka economically only prolongs his misrule. It is more important than ever that European parliamentarians unite and make their position clear.
The European Parliament has, indeed, taken the lead. Since last year it has been enlisting people with historic knowledge and understanding of totalitarian regimes to help guide its response. This advice helped shape the parliament's strong stance against maintaining unnecessary economic engagement with Lukashenka and his henchmen.
But there are two radically different attitudes regarding Belarus's participation in European activities. On one hand, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has denied Belarusian politicians even informal access to meetings in Strasbourg. The Assembly condemned Lukashenka's usurpation of power when he twisted the constitution to grant himself a virtual lifetime presidency, and it has denounced the disappearance of those Belarussians who have dared to think differently from the regime.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has also taken a strong stand against the Belarusian dictator. As the Final Report of its mission last year to observe the Belarusian parliamentary elections clearly stated, the vote "fell significantly short of OSCE commitments."
Similarly, last year's referendum to eliminate term limits on the presidency "took place with unrestrained Government bias in favor of the referendum," and without "the conditions, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of the media, to ensure that the will of the people serves as the basis of government authority." But at the same time the OSCE is condemning these anti-democratic practices, its own Parliamentary Assembly maintains full-fledged cooperation with the Belarusian parliament. Indeed, the OSCE treats the Lukashenka-controlled parliament in the same way it does any EU parliament. So real parliaments and sham parliaments are treated as equals. The idea would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
This absurd situation must change. It is the duty of all members of EU national parliaments to reject this affront to their democratic dignity. Only democratic parliaments should sit as equals in Europe's democratic forums. The goal is not to ensure Europe's democratic purity, but to change the nature of Belarus's government. For that to happen, Europe's democratic voice must be heard within Belarus.
That won't be easy. Of the 1,500 different media outlets in Belarus today, only a dozen or so retain any form of independence. Even that small number is likely to diminish, as Lukashenka keeps up political, financial, and legal pressure on them. Indeed, Belarus's last independent daily newspaper recently went out of business.
The European Commission has allocated two million euros (US$2.3 million) to establish an independent radio station for Belarus, which must operate outside of the country because of Lukashenka. Working with the Belarusian association of journalists, this independent media outlet will broadcast from Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and perhaps Ukraine.
This meager effort, however, is an insufficient response by Europe's democracies to the full panoply of Lukashenka's dictatorship: his docile courts, brutal jails, and corrupt police. Are a few hours of radio broadcasting really all Europe and the democratic West can muster? If so, Lukashenka must be laughing.
Parliamentarians across Europe and the West must join their voice together in a well-defined, united and ringing declaration that forces Western leaders to apply real pressure to Europe's last dictator. Such pressure brought results a year ago, with the success of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Nothing less than a united position against the despot of Belarus is necessary if Lukashenka -- and his Russian backers -- are to be forced to change their ways.
Aldis Kuskis, a member of the European parliament from Latvia, is vice-chairman of its Delegation for Relations with Belarus.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Russian President Vladimir Putin is an expert at bluffing and keeping the West on its toes, pushing relations to the edge before pivoting without warning. However, hemmed in and fuming, he is deadly serious about being heard on Ukraine. Those close to the Kremlin said that the Russian president does not want to start another war in Ukraine. Still, he must show he is ready to fight if necessary in order to stop what he sees as an existential security threat: the creeping expansion of the NATO in a country that for centuries had been part of Russia. After years of disillusionment
The Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) sixth plenary session has ended and from all appearances, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has set the stage to rule for the rest of his life. Some might be tempted to declare that this calls for Xi to do a victory lap, but all is not well on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. To parody a line from Ya Got Trouble, a song from Broadway musical The Music Man: “There’s trouble in River City, (aka, Beijing). Trouble with a capital T, which rhymes with C for CCP.” Why? Taking control of a nation is always much
Among the voices expressing concern for Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai (彭帥) over the past two weeks, one was barely audible — that of her long-time former doubles partner Hsieh Su-wei (謝淑薇). Following their defeat in the WTA Finals championship match in Mexico on Nov. 18, Taiwan’s Hsieh and her Belgian partner Elise Mertens fielded questions via a Zoom call. Chinese state media had just released an incredibly suspicious e-mail, purportedly from Peng, and Canadian tennis Web site Open Court broached the issue. With the entire tennis world chiming in, seeking Hsieh’s opinion seemed obvious. However, the Web site’s reporter prefaced her question
When analyzing Taiwan-China tensions, most people assume that the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) consists of rational actors. Embedded within this belief are three further suppositions: First, Beijing would only launch an attack on Taiwan if it were in China’s national interest; second, it would only attack if the odds were overwhelmingly in its favor; and third, Chinese decisionmakers interpret information objectively and through the same lens as other actors. These assumptions have underpinned recent analyses — including by Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) — concluding that there is no