David Kramer: Like US, EU should impose sanctions against Belarusian regime

Approaches of Washington and Brussels towards the dictatorial regime in Belarus must be coordinated, believes.

Extension of the US sanctions against officials of Belarus has been commented to Radio Svaboda by David Kramer, a former Assistant Secretary of State or Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor during the George W. Bush administration which imposed these sanctions.

- Mr Kramer, after prolonging sanctions for another year by President Barack Obama, the Foreign Ministry of Belarus stated that they are "unsubstantiated and detached from real life". Besides, Minsk said that these sanctions are "pointless and confrontational". Do you agree with such an evaluation by Minsk?

- I support the decision of our president to extend these sanctions. The sanctions were imposed in 2006 because of the attitude of the Belarusian government to its own citizens. Some of these sanctions were lifted in answer to release in 2008 of persons recognised prisoners of conscience by the world community . But the attitude of the Belarusian government towards its people continued to be cruel and harsh, it concerns human rights. That is why I think that the president has adopted a right decision, and I approve it. As before, we do not have an ambassador in Minsk, as Belarus expelled him in 2008. The regime of Alyaksandr Lukashenka knows what they have to do in order to improve relations with the US and the West -- to put an end to human rights violations and liberalize the life of the society. But I am afraid that the situation in Belaus would deteriorate with approaching presidential elections. So I undoubtedly disagree with the evaluation of Minister Syarhei Martynau.

- Minsk views annulment of the sanctions as an obligatory condition for reopening the dialogue with Washington. It possibly mean that before these sanctions are not lifted, the normal work of the two embassies would not be resumed. Their employees number was reduced two years ago by mutual staff reductions. How do you imagine restoration of normal relations between Minsk and Washington?

- Let us clarify one thing. It was our Ambassador who was thrown out of Minsk first. We were pressed to reduce our embassy staff from more than 30 persons to 5. We replied the steps of Minsk in a way any other governement would answer. So these are not mutual measures, but coercive measures on our part. The action had been initiated by Lukashenka's regime.

In order to put these things right, Minsk regime should stop repressing its population. The United States supported efforts of the EU to involve the regime to a dialogue and cooperation, but the regime should answer to that by steps toward reforming and liberalisation of the political system. We have always brought up this issue clearly. Release of the political prisoners was only one of those steps, though a very important one.

To my mind, the EU should have maintained some sanctions against Belarus as well. But unfortuynately, the EU has lifted all its sanctions against Minsk a week after unfair parliamentary elections. As a result, the pressure on Lukashenka's regime was eased, and now we have a situation in which the US keep most sanctions against Minsk, and the EU does not. I would like approaches of Washington and Brussels to be more coordinated. I hope this fall, addressing relations with Belarus, the European Union will be able to return previous sanctions against Minsk.

- Mr Kramer, and do you personally believe that Alyaksandr Lukashenka would be able to change his political behaviour more or less in the way Washington expects?

- I am rather sceptical to that and doubt that he can change. But undoubtedly, he has a chance for doing so. And if he changed his behavour, the US would be ready to resume the relations with him. The policy of sanctions imposed under the administration of President Bush, was invented not to change the regime, but to change the actions of the regime. It is an important difference. That is it depends on Lukashenka only whether he needs to change the attitude to his nation. I am not sure that he would do so, but if he did, I can say that the US would be ready to respond to that positively.

Source: Charter'97