Andrei Khrapavitski: Belarusian American Blog

I’ve just finished reading Timothy Snyder’s impressive volume “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999.” Although this book is not as detailed about Belarus as about the intricacies of Polish-Ukrainian and Polish-Lithuanian relations within the nation-building process, I’d still highly recommend this book to anyone interested in Belarus as part of the greater regional context. The author offered quite a realistic and unbiased narrative about the occurrence of nation-states in place of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which Belarus and Ukraine were integral parts of. Whereas Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine succeeded in this “reconstruction” process, Belarus failed due to a bunch of reasons enumerated in this book. Here’s just a small extract on this issue:

Tradition involves what people actually do now, whereas history narrates what people supposedly once did. Where tradition stops and history begins appears to depend a great deal upon the social origins of national activists. Here again the Lithuanians enjoyed an unexpected advantage over the Belarusians. Activists of humble social origins, whose families never played any role in early modern politics, found it easier to treat the entire past as history. Lithuanian activists, often Russian-educated peasant sons, happily skipped over several centuries and spoke of rebirth. Belarusian activists, Polish-speaking Roman Catholic gentry, were bogged down in the received truth of the actual tradition they learned from their parents and grandparents.

I can’t agree more.

OK, here’s another laughable story for you. As I wrote earlier, BPF Party has recently elected a new leader, Yanukevich, who was in opposition to the old party elite.

The party did not split as it had happened in the past when an old party leader could not accept to cooperate with a new one. The old leader would just bang the door, taking his supporters with him. That was before. Now our democratic parties are becoming more democratic and tolerant, aren’t they?

Well, let’s just say that somebody’s hands are itching to put stokes into the wheels of the newly elected party leader and council. According to the Belarusian blogosphere, a webmaster, loyal to the previous leader, is refusing to pass passwords and website requisites to the new team. Thus they can’t update the party website. A source in the party revealed that they are now thinking of registering a new domain to bypass the obstacle.

Can you imagine anything like that happening in your country? For example, what if Bush web team refused to pass control to Obama’s team over whitehouse.gov? Belarus is surely a pretty odd place.

For quite a while, I’ve been intrigued by Estonia, the fatherland of Skype and Hotmail, the most wired country in Europe, the only Nordic post-soviet state, as it is often portrayed in the media. True, some of it is just hype, clever image-making, but Estonians have, indeed, shown some staggering progress in IT sphere, even conducted the first Internet elections (in spite of being not quite prepared for it, as diagnosed by many experts).

Now it seems, if nothing goes wrong, this country will be the first Baltic state to adopt euro. Way to go, Estonia, way to go!

Go to the most popular Lithuanian news site, delfi.lt, and glance at the comment section below any politically charged article. You will most definitely see how Lithuanian residents of major local ethnicities – Lithuanians, Russians, Poles, Belarusians – verbally battle one another. And what a heated debate that is! The sad thing is that this arguing is not resorted to politics, tastes, preferences, etc.; it is way distant from a polite conversation. It often crosses into the realm of culture battles where the ethnic groups recall the battles of old: Polish occupation, disfranchisement of minority groups, Lithuanization of Vilnius, Belarusian claims for Vilnius…

The historical argument is heated by the modern-day nationalism spearheaded by differing traditions of historiography in Poland, Belarus, and Lithuania and channeled through national and diasporal media, education, and politics. Everyone is a historian here, everyone is preoccupied arguing who Vilnius belonged to in the past, whose it should be now, and whether true Lithuanians were of Slavic or Baltic origin. It almost seems as if Lithuanian modernity was nonexistent. The discourse is so much history-related that even current political status quo is weighed in vis-à-vis “the historical truth,” which is always different depending on who you ask.

The nationalism in Lithuania, maybe not as dismal as in Latvia, Estonia, or even Poland, is still so much of a mainstream weltanschauung. And it is sad to see how it traumatizes Lithuanian youth and leaves Lithuania far behind its Western European counterparts as it comes to cross-cultural understanding and mutual respect.

Here are just few examples. Two days ago Lithuanian patriotic youth celebrated the 70th anniversary of liberation of Vilnius from Polish occupation. Some 200 young nationalists – many clad in military – marched through Vilnius center chanting patriotic songs and carrying torches. Boy, that creepy site truly reminded of Nazifying Berlin in 1939.

Another event dedicated to this date was an exhibition of children’s paintings about the liberation of Vilnius from Polish occupants. Just think how screwed up the minds of those kids get when they are raised to hate a large minority group in their own country.

What Lithuanian history books teach Lithuanian kids? Russians, Poles, Germans are bad because they occupied us; Belarusians are bad because they also dreamt to tear off Vilnius from Lithuania. The world around is a scary place, isn’t it? And then here’s a positive message: our country was once huge, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania expanded from sea to sea. So, yeah, there’s something we can pride ourselves into. But doesn’t it make us despise our neighbors even more?

Yeah, any nation-state is pretty much like that. The same kind of scaremongering, history entwined with geopolitics, etc. Local minorities are heated up by their national and diasporal media, Internet blogs, and nationalistic politicians. So, no, it’s not just Lithuanian nationalism causing dissent from minorities, it’s also nationalism from Russians, Belarusians, and Poles, as well, adding to the clash of differences in Babylonian Vilnius.

Something has to be done to appease these dangerous trends for the sake of all. Maybe the state itself needs to be more welcoming towards the minorities. For instance, the language law could be made more liberal so as to reflect the historical diversity of Vilnius. Maybe the Card of the Pole should not be seen as a threat to the national security, or maybe this card itself is a mere effort to bring back the ideas from the XIX century. I don’t know what the cure could be from nationalistic rhetoric, as it is so deeply rooted in our national identities. But if we want to get better, we might want to start looking for commonalities, not differences.

Seems like this blog has gradually taken form of a rather critical one as it comes to analysis of the Belarusian political reality. And it’s not just the current political regime that I find some inner urge to grumble about. There are many problems in the opposition camp, as well. Take, for instance, a new-born right-wing coalition that united For Freedom Movement of Alaksandr Milinkevich, BPF Party, the Belarusian Christian Democracy and some others.

The coalition had been nameless until today. Finally, the leaders convened and decided that it would be called a Belarusian pro-Independence Block.

Come on, guys! Belarus is already an independent state. Is there anyone who seriously believes that Lukashenka is about to give up his power and sell out our independence? How are you going to approach voters with such an unclear title? “Independent from what?” – many a voter would wonder when he or she hears the title of your block. And one more thing. Had you consulted PR experts, political think tanks? Gee, had you consulted your own activists before you got to choose that name? Was there any brainstorming involved? Hardly…

Here’s an interesting take from TED Fellow and Belarusian journalist Evgeny Morozov on the ways the Internet can actually help oppressive regimes stifle dissent.

I agree with most of his points. Especially, I concur with him that support for NGOs, dissidents, intellectuals is very important. Simply relying on the spread of Internet per capita won’t do the job. However, we shouldn’t underestimate the role of the new media in democratization. What is basically flawed (not in Evgeny’s speech, but in general) is how the pace of Internetization in Belarus is measured by various statistical institutions. Yes, there are lots of people who have access to the Internet, but the availability of a computer connected to the Web does not necessarily presuppose quality usage. Still too few Belarusians buy stuff online, read news, work online, etc. Due to Internet expensiveness, far too many simply check their e-mail accounts or read anecdotes. This may change when Internet becomes more widely available and less expensive.

Evgeny is right to say that the authoritarian governments have learned to use the Net for their cause (I like the term Spinsternet he invented). In fact, it would be naive to hope that the regime would keep out of the Web while opposition used it so voraciously. Yes, it makes our job harder when government spin doctors infest the Belarusian segment of the Web with pro-Lukashenka propaganda (it is already happening). However, I wouldn’t look at this as at the online battle of opposition vs the dictatorship. The Web is an invaluable source for disseminating news. It our job (journalists, NGOs, intellectuals) to make our sites more attractive, more interesting, more regularly updated, more inventive, more user-friendly, more Web2.0, more next-gen. Yes, if we allow discussion, spin doctors might join. But so will others, those who can tell truth from lies and who can post counterarguments. We shouldn’t worry about them infiltrating our sites, we should work hard to make our online presence as high quality as possible.

19 September, 1991, the white-red-white flag was voted to become the official flag of Belarus. Just in few years, it would be scrapped by Alexander Lukashenka. Since 1995, Belarus has lived under the soviet-style symbols again.

There’s a myth circulated by some media outlets that back in 1991 Lukashenka was the one who carried the white-red-white banner into the house of the Belarusian parliament after the flag was voted to become an official symbol of the country. Well, he wasn’t the one who carried the flag, but, indeed, he partook in the procession by walking next to Uladzimir Kavalyonak, the one with the flag.

As RFE\RL reports, Lukashenka continued to wear a Belarusian Soviet Republic flag pin on his lapel even after the historical symbol change. And soon after Lukashenka had become president, he scrapped the white-red-white flag together with historical Pahonia emblem and returned our country under the soviet symbols. Since then the white-red-white banner has been tabooed from public use. It is mostly seen at opposition rallies, nonprofit organizations’ offices, etc. Even the most casual use, for instance, a white-red-white flag pin, may raise some eyebrows when spotted by the police.

Wearing a now-official red-green flag is also a political statement. Of course, there are many people who simply have to wear the current symbols on their military or police uniforms, athletes wear red-green T’s, so on. But apart from these groups of people, common folk hardly ever put a flag on unless they want to demonstrate their political standpoint (it’s not just in Belarus but in many countries). The red-green is usually pinned on by members of the Belarusian Republican Union of Youth (the union is pro-Lukashenka), but even many of these youngsters are not true believers in the symbolism of Lukashenka-styled Belarus, they just submit.

Lukashenka, similarly to many dictators, has used pots of money to nurture love for his symbols. Remember military parades, social billboards and placards, various patriotic events. I don’t know. Maybe this has yielded some fruit. But youth is not so inclined to show love for the red-green. The white-red-white is a statement of dissent and many young people are attracted to the flag endorsed by many a rock band and their counterparts. For them, the white-red-white flag is not just about Belarusian history, it’s about the European choice, it’s about the future they do not see possible under the soviet symbols.

It’s a pity so little is written on Belarus in English these days. No, I don’t mean blunt news translations published on a bunch of websites. I don’t mean analytical summaries printed by think tanks, RFE\RL, some foundations, etc. There are just a handful of English-language blogs focusing on this country. Very few are regularly updated. Blogs on Belarusian issues is what we badly lack. Wouldn’t it be great to read more personal stories, unspoiled by heavy analytical argot, party politics, etiquette prescriptions, etc. Bloggers, however unqualified, mediocre, amateurish they may be, are a great source to find out about the real state of things, because bloggers tend to write about the things they are personally involved with, worried about, agree or disagree with. Blogs are always fun.

That is exactly why we, at westki.info (a regional news project I work for), allow each and every user to have a blog on our Web site. Of course, there are some downsides of this. Once in a while, somebody registers and posts a slandering piece or something that only a KGB agent may write. Sometimes, the editors need to take it down or even block an abusive user’s account. But such cases are rare. Blogs have given our site the vibe of unpredictability and personal involvement of the people from our target audience.

In fact, blogs have become, I guess, the most vibrant part of the Belarusian Internet with users galore in both Belarusian and Russian on popular blogging platforms such as Livejournal.com and TUT.by. It’s a pity there are very few in English.

I’ve been running this blog for almost four years. It is now one of the oldest English-language blogs about Belarus. With so few colleagues I have, I feel a need to continue.

It’s been an unforgettable summer. On a personal note, I have changed my marital status. Yep, not single any more. Our honeymoon was the best journey I’ve ever been to. We traveled Germany, Austria, Luxembourg, France, and Netherlands. Made new friends, swam in the Northern Sea, which turned out to be pretty warm if compared with the Baltic… But the summer is over. It means back to the usual stuff - reporting, policy analyses, research, what have you…

Today is the day when the Belarusian Popular Front is holding its convention. BPF is the oldest and arguably the largest opposition party in the country. The big question of the day was who would become the new leader of the party as the incumbent chairman Liavon Barsceuski had refused to run for reelection. The two candidates were Viktar Ivashkevich and Aliaksiei Yanukevich. The former, BPF old-timer, backed by both Barsceuski and Viacorka, presented himself as a man of action. His strategy would be to secure Barsceuski as the sole candidate of the United Democratic Forces and insist on democratization of the electoral laws. His rival, Yanukevich is of the Front younger generation. Although not a vocal opponent of the old BPF elite, he promised to shake up somewhat stagnant party. Yanukevich offered to withdraw from political unions compromising the party principles but he suggested that a new coalition of rightwing forces should be created.

At least, from my encounters with regional BPF activists, I sensed that Yanukevich was an acceptable choice for many unsatisfied with the old party bosses while Ivashkevich was seen as one of the old tribe.
As the convention neared, seems like it was becoming clear that Ivashkevich was going to lose. The party elite sensed it, too, so when the day X came I guess they tried to play a Barsceuski card again, i.e., to persuade him to run for reelection. Remember how Barsceuski surfaced as a compromise figure when Viacorka and Michalevich clashed at the previous convention without a clear winner. So guess what, this time around, Ivashkevich withdrew making way for Barsceuski to reclaim the throne. His initial refusal to run for reelection disappeared somewhere. He accepted the offer saying that he would spend most of his time preparing for the presidential elections while he would commit majority of administrative functions to his deputy Ivashkevich.

The party members didn’t buy it. Yanukevich came out as a clear winner. As I am writing this, the convention continues. Yanukevich’s chairmanship sounds like a fresh anchor face for BPF, but will it really mean fresh ideas and decisive actions? Time for observation and reflection is necessary.

Another interesting news from the convention is that Ales Michalevic officially announced that he was planning to run for the presidential office. Michalevic is a young politician who unsuccessfully ran for BPF leadership at the previous convention and was ousted from the party by Barseuski people later on. For a while he was absent from national news. Will his effort to return to big politics be successful?

VIRGINIA – on July 17, 2009 a federal judge sentenced Viktar Krus to 7 years in prison for creating and running an illegal ring that supplied cheap workers to the East Coast resorts and railroad yards. 22 other co-defendants have been convicted in the case.

(read on at Bielar.us blog)