After the death of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, the West did not need to look far to find another bogeyman. Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus was on hand and facing re-election.
Journalists routinely report on Belarus as a landlocked Stalinist theme park run by a Hitler-loving tyrant who makes his opponents disappear. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her chief assistant for democracy promotion, Dan Fried, never tire of urging Americans and their NATO allies to sponsor civil-society projects in Belarus to foster true democracy there.
The media, in Britain at any rate, have a split personality when it comes to these two guardians of democracy. On Belarus they are quoted like Old Testament prophets, but mention them in connection with Iraq and people recall that they were the only US officials with US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Jan. 30, 2003, when Bush suggested provoking an incident with Iraq to get the war with Saddam going.
Of course if you believed them about Iraq then you won't choke swallowing their story about Belarus. But let's avoid the slick argument that just because veterans of the US' Central American policy under Reagan allege that Lukashenko has "disappeared" some vocal critics that this cannot be true.
While unsolved cases cast a shadow over the government, the evidence is deeply contradictory: one of the "disappeared," the former National Bank chief Tamara Vinikova, resurfaced in London months before the UK Foreign Office admitted she was no longer missing. The politicization of the issue has obscured the hunt for the truth. Yet Lukashenko faced a question about the claims at his post-election press conference on Monday, when opposition journalists from newspapers widely reported as "banned" asked him questions.
The issue isn't unknown in Belarus, where people don't live in an information black hole. But human-rights charges lack traction because the Western-backed opposition has offered no economic platform, just echoes of these Western allegations against Lukashenko.
Although the West has never batted an eyelid about accepting a 97 percent vote obtained by a favorite such as Georgia's rose-revolutionary President Mikheil Saakashvili, at first sight four-fifths voting for one candidate seems hard to credit. But if you look at the socioeconomic reality of Belarus and compare it with its ex-communist neighbors, as Belarusians do, then the result is not so bizarre.
No communist-era throwback, Belarus has an evolving market economy. But the market is orientated towards serving the needs of the bulk of the population, not a tiny class of nouveau riches and their Western advisers and money launderers. Unlike in Georgia or Ukraine, officials are not getting richer as ordinary folk get poorer. The absence of endemic corruption among civil servants and police is one reason why the wave of so-called "colored revolutions" stopped before Minsk.
Even if the government in Minsk is not corroded by corruption, its opposition depends upon support from abroad. If people resent anyone for getting rich quick undeservedly, they resent the opposition types who receive lavish subsidies from the West to promote civil society and flaunt the latest iPod.
The irony of the West preaching civil society and shock therapy at the same time is that you cannot have both. Western advisers made economic transformation a priority, but wherever their advice was followed it was poverty, not pluralism, that resulted. Across the old communist bloc, "shock therapy" enriched a few dozen oligarchs and their foreign economic advisers, but the mass unemployment it caused and the collapse of public spending it demanded smashed the foundations of the civil society emerging under former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev.
By protecting Belarus from the ravages of free-market fundamentalists and delivering economic growth and prosperity for the mass of Belarusians, Lukashenko has sown the seeds of a pluralistic society far better than by handing the state's assets over to half a dozen cronies of Western advisers.
Belarus is far from perfect, but it is a country where masses of ordinary people are getting on with life and getting a bit better off. That is why Lukashenko inspires fear and loathing in the think tanks and foreign ministries of the West. By saving Belarus from mass unemployment he set a terrible example. What if the neighbors try to copy it?
Mark Almond is a lecturer in modern history at Oriel College, Oxford University.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS