DOCSLIB.ORG

Belarus Diplomatic Relations David H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Belarus Diplomatic Relations David H The First Years of U.S. - Belarus Diplomatic Relations David H. Swartz September, 2020 The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics effectively arrived at its welcome demise on December 8, 1991, at a Belarus government dacha in the Belavezhskaya Pushcha of western Belarus. The signing of the so-called Belavezha Accords by, inter alia, Belarus Supreme Soviet Chairman Stanislau Shushkevich, Russia President Boris Yeltsin, and Ukraine President Leonid Kravchuk was most certainly an event of exceptional importance. “Signing the Agreement to eliminate the USSR and establish the On December 25, 1991, the U.S. Commonwealth of Independent States”. Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk (second from left seated), Chairman of the Supreme recognized Belarus’ independence and Council of the Republic of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich (third from established diplomatic relations when left seated) and Russian President Boris Yeltsin (second from right President George H.W. Bush seated) during the signing ceremony to eliminate the USSR and establish the Commonwealth of Independent States. Viskuly announced these decisions in a Government House in the Belorusian National Park "Belovezhskaya nationwide address regarding the Forest". (Wikipedia) dissolution of the Soviet Union. The U.S. Embassy in Minsk was, according to the State Department’s Office of the Historian, officially opened on January 31, 1992. However, an “Advance Party” of the U.S. Embassy was organized and sent to Minsk earlier in January to undertake the necessary preparations. At about that time I entered the picture, having been selected to preside over the official opening as well as to prepare for appointment as ambassador once the two countries had agreed on exchanges of chiefs of missions and when. My Belarusian counterpart, in that regard, was Syargey Martynau, who was then serving in the Foreign Ministry and eventually became Belarus’ first ambassador to the United States. I arrived in Minsk as charge d’affaires ad interim in mid-January. The Advance Party had been lodged in several rooms of the Hotel Belarus, north of downtown, pending negotiations with the Foreign Ministry over a reciprocal agreement on embassy locations in the two capitals and other housing issues. The staff when I arrived included one consular officer, one administrative officer, and one communications technician. All were unaccompanied by spouses or children. Among other things, I was amazed to find one of the “embassy” rooms completely filled with boxes of MREs—Meals Ready to Eat—which the U.S. military had transported in with the first diplomatic arrivals earlier in January. No one knew in early 1992 whether local food was safe to eat—although Belarusians of course had been eating it right along—even though the Chernobyl nuclear disaster had occurred nearly six years earlier, in April, 1986. The first order of business for the fledgling Advance Party was to find a chancery to house the embassy and possibly some staffers. Soon the Foreign Ministry offered a property for the Embassy Minsk chancery at #46 Starovilenskaya Street, with possession to commence April 13. These premises had in fact been the personal residence of the commanding officer, General Kostenko, of the Byelorussian (sic) Military District of the former Soviet Army. “He is giving it up with the greatest reluctance,” I informed Washington, “and there may yet be serious glitches in our taking possession. The relations between the MFA and the former Soviet Army are extremely tense over this property issue . and Kostenko’s envoy has threated to remove everything from the site that can be removed, down to sinks, toilets, doors, and light fixtures.” Fortunately, that did not happen; the Russians even left behind a fabulous antique pool table. Belarus’ governmental structures included an executive—the Council of Ministers—and a legislature, the Supreme Soviet. The latter reflected the political malaise of those early days of independence. The largest faction were communists, including but not limited to the “Belarus” group. On the other side was the growing nationalist-oriented Belaruski Narodny Front (BNF), headed by Zyanon Paznyak, whose numbers in the Supreme Soviet at that time were small, but growing. Supreme Soviet Chairman (and titular head of state) Stanislau Shushkevich as a non- party, independent deputy was positioned between these two sides, maintaining ties to both and beholding to neither. What all political forces unqualifiedly favored, the embassy reported, was the need to maintain a “socially oriented” system, meaning one with a strong safety net for the citizenry no matter what kind of post-Soviet economic structure would finally be adopted. On a personal note, in retrospect amusing but then very embarrassing was the following event. The ceremony for presenting my ambassadorial credentials to Chairman Shushkevich took place on August 25, 1992. The Foreign Ministry had organized a motorcade led by police vehicles for my wife, me, and the embassy staff to travel from the chancery to the Belarus government’s protocol building. Approaching it, I reached in my suit pocket for the letter of accreditation from President Bush to be handed over to Shushkevich. It was not there. I had absent-mindedly left it behind at the embassy. So the entire motorcade had to turn around then and there, return to the embassy, and wait in bewilderment as I went in and picked up the errant document. Eventually the ceremony did take place. Shushkevich and I recalled the incident many times later, laughing at my faux pas. In promoting U.S. goals and objectives in Belarus, the embassy established and maintained contacts with the political groupings just mentioned; media organizations; commercial firms (both “old-style” ones and new companies, including U.S. and other foreign firms); cultural groups; and ordinary citizens. I developed relationships, indeed in some cases genuine friendships, with inter alia, Chairman Shushkevich, Council of Ministers head Kebich, Foreign Minister Pyotr Krauchanka, Ambassador-designate Martynau, and BNF leader Paznyak. Prime Minister Kebich was a very interesting person. I believe he was sincere in professing his desire for friendship with the United States and its people, despite his communist affiliation and obvious intent on maintaining close ideological and political ties with post-Soviet Russia. I single out Kebich because of another unusual event I experienced during my tenure in Belarus. He invited me to join him for a hunting trip in autumn, 1992. I agreed with a combination of pseudo-enthusiasm and genuine trepidation (this was NOT in my comfort zone). On the appointed day he arrived in mid-morning at my residence in his official limousine. (I had been housed, courtesy of another agreement with MFA, in one of the “dachas,” i.e. mini-mansions, of the former Drazdy (Belarusian: Дразды, Russian: Дрозды, communist elites in the fenced and gated community Drozdy) is a microdistrict in north-west Minsk of Drozdy just north of Minsk.) I climbed in and we where many top state officials lived during the Soviet times and today, including the headed north to a rather remote wooded area. President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko. Turning into a driveway there, I saw what turned out to be a large lodge and on the surrounding grounds covered tables laden with all kinds of food and drink. Numerous aides and KGB security personnel were already there. After much toasting and snacking, we set off in cars for the hunt. Kebich and his guards went one way, I and another of his security force the other. My guard (silent as a tomb, dressed in suit and tie, and carrying the rifle) and I got out and climbed a ladder up to a platform in one of the trees. There we stood silently for about two hours, waiting in vain for any kind of game to show up. I was extremely glad none did, as I had never (and still have not) shot a firearm in my life except for a BB gun when I was a kid. Eventually, Kebich and his guards returned and we drove back to the lodge grounds. There, much more food and drink awaited. Afterward—it was now late evening—we went into the lodge to watch a speech by a certain Mr. Lukashenko on television. I had not met him. Kebich yelled: “I hate him.” Immediately all his minions also shouted out as if in unison, like a chorus from a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta: “And we hate him.” Eventually we got in Kebich’s car and started the journey back to Minsk. On the way, the prime minister suddenly made this request: “Teach me about democracy.” So we talked about that the entire return trip. A very interesting day, to say the least. As of mid-1992, the Embassy and State Department had elaborated a list of assistance projects for Belarus that were intended both to foster improvements in the day-to-day lives of Belarusians as well as to promote identified U.S. interests in Belarus per se as well as more broadly with respect to each new country in the entire region of the former USSR, including Russia itself where appropriate. These fell into the following categories: 1) provide needed medical/food aid; 2) support independence/sovereignty; 3) promote democratization; 4) support market economic reforms; 5) support denuclearization, arms control, and establishment of small, defensive armed forces; 6) foster respect for human rights; 7) foster Euro-Atlantic integration; and 8) promote Chernobyl clean-up. There follow comments on several of these suggested projects. With respect to food aid, the Embassy reported to Washington in late summer 1992 that grain shortages, due particularly to a lengthy and ongoing drought throughout the country, were perhaps the most dire of Belarus’ immediate agricultural—and hence food—problems. The drought and its consequences were evident not just to farmers but also to ordinary citizens (and foreign diplomats).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barriers to Constitutional Rule in Belarus Eric R
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 28 Article 7 Number 1 Fall 2004 1-1-2004 Descent into Authoritarianism: Barriers to Constitutional Rule in Belarus Eric R. Reed Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric R. Reed, Descent into Authoritarianism: Barriers to Constitutional Rule in Belarus, 28 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 147 (2004). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol28/iss1/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Descent into Authoritarianism: Barriers to Constitutional Rule in Belarus By ERIC R. REED* Introduction The collapse of the Soviet Union has allowed the legal community to observe the creation and early trials of several new constitutions. One notable commentator referred to East-Central Europe as a "constitutional laboratory."' Few expected the rule of law to graft easily onto governments and peoples ruled for decades by authoritarian regimes. As expected, the progress made by these states in the last decade varies. Belarus arguably achieved least, and remains classified generally as a state reverting to authoritarianism. 2 President and former collective farm manager Alexander Lukashenka's political abuses deserve some share of blame for this backsliding. However, additional political, social, and judicial factors hinder Belarus' transition to the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • President Clinton's Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign
    President Clinton’s Meetings & Telephone Calls with Foreign Leaders, Representatives, and Dignitaries from January 23, 1993 thru January 19, 20011∗ 1993 Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, January 23, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel, January 23, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine, January 26, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, January 29, 1993, White House Telephone call with Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel of Turkey, February 1, 1993, White House Meeting with Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel of Germany, February 4, 1993, White House Meeting with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, February 5, 1993, White House Meeting with President Turgut Ozal of Turkey, February 8, 1993, White House Telephone call with President Stanislav Shushkevich of Belarus, February 9, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with President Boris Yeltsin of Russia, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with Prime Minister John Major of the United Kingdom, February 10, 1993, White House Telephone call with Chancellor Helmut Kohl of Germany, February 10, 1993, White House declassified in full Telephone call with UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, February 10, 1993, White House 1∗ Meetings that were only photo or ceremonial events are not included in this list. Meeting with Foreign Minister Michio Watanabe of Japan, February 11, 1993,
    [Show full text]
  • OSW Report | Opposites Put Together. Belarus's Politics of Memory
    OPPOSITES PUT TOGETHER BELARUS’S POLITICS OF MEMORY Kamil Kłysiński, Wojciech Konończuk WARSAW OCTOBER 2020 OPPOSITES PUT TOGETHER BELARUS’S POLITICS OF MEMORY Kamil Kłysiński, Wojciech Konończuk © Copyright by Centre for Eastern Studies CONTENT EDITOR Adam Eberhardt EDITOR Szymon Sztyk CO-OPERATION Tomasz Strzelczyk, Katarzyna Kazimierska TRANSLATION Ilona Duchnowicz CO-OPERATION Timothy Harrell GRAPHIC DESIGN PARA-BUCH DTP IMAGINI PHOTOGRAPH ON COVER Jimmy Tudeschi / Shutterstock.com Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, 00-564 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (+48) 22 525 80 00, [email protected] www.osw.waw.pl ISBN 978-83-65827-56-2 Contents MAIN POINTS | 5 INTRODUCTION | 11 I. THE BACKGROUND OF THE BELARUSIAN POLITICS OF MEMORY | 14 II. THE SEARCH FOR ITS OWN WAY. ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE HISTORICAL IDENTITY (1991–1994) | 18 III. THE PRO-RUSSIAN DRIFT. THE IDEOLOGISATION OF THE POLITICS OF MEMORY (1994–2014) | 22 IV. CREATING ELEMENTS OF DISTINCTNESS. A CAUTIOUS TURN IN MEMORY POLITICS (2014–) | 27 1. The cradle of statehood: the Principality of Polotsk | 28 2. The powerful heritage: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania | 32 3. Moderate scepticism: Belarus in the Russian Empire | 39 4. A conditional acceptance: the Belarusian People’s Republic | 47 5. The neo-Soviet narrative: Belarusian territories in the Second Polish Republic | 50 6. Respect with some reservations: Belarus in the Soviet Union | 55 V. CONCLUSION. THE POLICY OF BRINGING OPPOSITES TOGETHER | 66 MAIN POINTS • Immediately after 1991, the activity of nationalist circles in Belarus led to a change in the Soviet historical narrative, which used to be the only permit­ ted one. However, they did not manage to develop a coherent and effective politics of memory or to subsequently put this new message across to the public.
    [Show full text]
  • 25 Li 993 Ju Ocil.0G442
    RFE/RI. INC. DAILY Man, , BROADCAST tR'',1-1 vr ANALYSES 993 ju ociL.0G442. 25 Li RADIO FREE EUROPE RADIO LIBERTY RADIO LIBERTY DAILY BROADCAST ANALYSIS [Asterisk (*) in the margin indicates coverage of lead story(ies) on today's Recommended List] 410 Russian Daily Broadcast Analysis for Friday, 2 July 1993 BAD Russian Staff The broadcast day commenced at 1000 hours. 10 -minute newscasts are aired every hour on the hour except during LIBERTY LIVE broadcasts, when they are incorporated into the show. 1000-1100 LIBERTY LIVE (Moderator, Makhlis) 1. Azerbaijan (Akhundova, Baku 2:30). Surat Husseinov is now the new leader of Azerbaijan. RL's correspondent in Baku discussed his rapid move to reorganize the government and advance his own political agenda, with finding a solution to the military conflict over Karabakh as the number -one issue on his list. 2. The Russian Government (Volkov, Moscow 2:30). The Russian parliament is scheduled to recess for summer vacation on July 15. However, a lot of work remains unfinished, including consideration of a new law on the media. The BD analyzed some of the reasons for the present impasse. 3. Russian Politics. A report filed from Moscow (Kulistikov, 2) said that Vice -President Rutskoy's current official trip to Voronezh and Novosibirsk was made to show that he is acting on his own behalf and does not represent the government in Moscow. 2 2 July 1993 4. A Review of the Russian Press was presented by RL's Moscow bureau (Trukhan, 2:30). 5. Student Meetings in St. Petersburg were reported (Rezunkov, 1:30) to have ended with a threat to strike unless their demands for university reforms are addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Profile – Belarus
    Legal Aid Board, Ireland Refugee Documentation Centre 9th European Country of Origin Information Seminar Organised by the Refugee Documentation Centre, Ireland and UNHCR Dublin, 26-27 May 2004 COUNTRY PROFILE – BELARUS The views and opinions stated in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizers of the workshop. This paper is not, and does not purport to be, fully exhaustive with regard to conditions in the country surveyed, or conclusive as to the merits of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum. Belarus Location: Eastern Europe, east of Poland Area: 80,155 square miles/207,600 sq km Capital: Minsk Independence: 25 August 1991 (from Soviet Union) Constitution: 15 March 1994; revised by national referendum of 24 November 1996 giving the presidency greatly expanded powers and became effective 27 November 1996; revised again 17 October 2004 removing presidential term limits Population: 10,293,011 (July 2006 est.) Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal Ethnic Groups: Belarusian 81.2%, Russian 11.4%, Polish 3.9%, Ukrainian 2.4%, other 1.1% (1999 census) Languages: Belarusian, Russian, other Religions: Eastern Orthodox 80%, other (including Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim) 20% (1997 est.) Head of state Chief of state: President Aleksandr LUKASHENKO (since 20 July 1994) Head of government: Prime Minister Sergei SIDORSKY (since 19 December 2003); First Deputy Prime Minister Vladimir SEMASHKO (since December 2003) Political parties and leaders 1 9th COI Seminar Organised by the RDC - Ireland and UNHCR
    [Show full text]
  • UKRAINIAN and BELARUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: PRELUDE to a CRISIS in the WESTERN BORDERLANDS of RUSSIA an Immediate Aftermath of Elections
    WARNING! The views expressed in FMSO publications and reports are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. UKRAINIAN AND BELARUS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS: PRELUDE TO A CRISIS IN THE WESTERN BORDERLANDS OF RUSSIA An Immediate Aftermath of Elections Dr. Jacob W. Kipp Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. August 1994 In his address to the Polish Sejm last week in Warsaw President Clinton pledged to support the fledgling democracies of Central and Eastern Europe through a three-prong policy of "supporting democracy, advancing free markets and meeting new security challenges." Clinton described the looming security challenge in Europe as a struggle against "would-be dictators and fiery nationalists . promoting ethnic and racial hatred, promoting religious divisions and anti- semitism and aggressive nationalism." From these sources arise those challenges that threatens the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the states of Central and Eastern Europe as they go about the business of building democracies and free-market economies. Clinton declared: "No democracy in this region should ever be consigned to a gray area or a buffer zone, and no country should have the right to veto, compromise or threaten democratic Poland's or any other democracy's integration into Western institutions, including those that ensure our security." 1 This position assumes that consignment of a state or states to a gray area is a function of the actions of another power. But the question of internal stability, i. e., the degree of popular support that the state or states enjoy from their populations and their commitment to the maintenance of their nation's independence, can be a function of internal factors tied to a complex set of circumstances.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Security Crises
    CHAPTER 4 CONTROLLING SOVIET/RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN TIMES OF INSTABILITY Nikolai Sokov Had someone suggested during the Cold War that the Soviet leadership might lose control of its nuclear arsenal, such an outlandish notion would have been brushed aside in an instant. Even as the Soviet Union was sinking ever deeper into economic crisis and polit- ical turmoil in the late-1980s, one undisputable island of stability remained—the Soviet nuclear forces. This island could not remain immune. As the country was undergoing a complex socio-economic transition and eventually fell apart, at least three situ- ations occurred during a relatively short period from early-1990 to mid-1992, when control over nuclear weapons could slip from the hands of authorities. At the same time, one must admit that the system of con- trol over nuclear weapons and materials was the last to succumb to general chaos, that chaos affected it less than other areas, and that control was restored earlier than in other areas. (By the middle of 1992, the Rus- sian leadership, by and large, had acquired control of all Soviet nuclear assets or was firmly on track toward that goal.) Nonetheless, it was a close call in each of the three instances. All three occurred under distinctly different cir- cumstances and represented distinctly different types of loss of control. Each case also took a different amount of time: It was barely a few days each in 1990 and 1991, but in 1992 events gradually unfolded over several months. Each case offers important lessons for 87 averting similar situations in the future and might be fungible across different countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and the Question of Successor State to the Soviet Union
    Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 12 (2017 10) 1840-1855 ~ ~ ~ УДК 94:17.02(47+57)“19/20” From Russianisation to Legalisation: Russia and the Question of Successor State to the Soviet Union Emmanuel Oladipo Ojoa,b* a Ekiti State University Ado-Ekiti, Ekiti State, Nigeria b Siberian Federal University 79 Svobodny, Krasnoyarsk, 660041, Russia Received 09.10.2017, received in revised form 24.11.2017, accepted 08.12.2017 For some supposedly obvious – or oblivious – reasons, Russia is almost always referred to as the successor State to the defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR, just as the USSR itself was the successor to Tsarist Russia. Following the February Revolution and the 15 March 1917 abdication of Emperor Nicolas II, the three–century old Romanov dynasty was thrown off the throne. Also in the same manner, following the October Revolution and the overthrow of the Alexander Kerensky–led Provisional Government, four Socialist Republics were established on the territory of the defunct Russian Empire – these were the Russian and Transcaucasian Soviet Federated Socialist Republics and the Ukrainian and Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republics. On 28 December 1922, these constituent Republics established the USSR and additional union republics were later established. The USSR lasted seven decades and collapsed in 1991 resulting in the dismemberment of the 15–member geo–polity. For some probably fairly clear historical and demographical factors – but oftentimes ‘traditional supposition’ – the Russian
    [Show full text]
  • Sub-Committee on Nato Partnerships Belarus – A
    NATO's Parlamentariske Forsamling 2011-12 NPA alm. del Bilag 7 Offentligt POLITICAL 184 PCNP 11 E bis Original: English NATO Parliamentary Assembly SUB-COMMITTEE ON NATO PARTNERSHIPS BELARUS – A DIFFICULT PARTNER REPORT DANIEL BACQUELAINE (B ELGIUM ) RAPPORTEUR International Secretariat October 2011 Assembly documents are available on its website, http:// www.nato-pa.int 184 PCNP 11 E bis i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DOMESTIC ISSUES 1 III. REGIONAL SECURITY AND RELATIONS WITH NEIGHBOURS 3 A. RUSSIA 4 B. BELARUS-EU RELATIONS 5 C. BELARUS-NATO RELATIONS 7 IV. CONCLUSIONS 7 184 PCNP 11 E bis 1 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Though sharing borders with three NATO member states, Belarus has not been high on the agenda of the Alliance. However, because of its geographical position, the country plays an important role in European stability. Moreover, Belarus serves as an important energy corridor between Russia and Europe. Although Minsk has a close, if sometimes difficult, relationship with Moscow, it is a NATO partner country and participates in a number of its programmes. Co- operation remains limited, though, and Minsk’s crackdown on the opposition following the latest presidential election in Belarus has minimised the chance for short-term improvement in its relations with the West. The latest wave of revolutionary upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa highlights the need for a continuous and serious assessment of the evolving situation in Belarus. This report examines Belarus’ foreign and security policy, its relations with the Alliance and with its neighbours. The paper also briefly refers to the latest domestic developments in the country and includes some recommendations for a conditions-based policy of engagement with Minsk.
    [Show full text]
  • Breakthrough to Freedom
    The International Foundation for SocioEconomic and Political Studies (The Gorbachev Foundation) BREAKTHROUGH TO FREEDOM PERESTROIKA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS R.VALENT PUBLISHERS 2009 Compiled by Viktor Kuvaldin, Professor, Doctor of History Executive Editor: Aleksandr Veber, CONTENTS Doctor of History Translation: Tatiana Belyak, Konstantin Petrenko To the Reader . .5 Page makeup: Viktoriya Kolesnichenko Art design: R.Valent Publishers PART I. Seven Years that Changed the Country and the World Publisher’s Acknowledgement: Special thanks to Mr. Mikhail Selivanov, Vadim Medvedev. Perestroika’s Chance of Success . .8 who helped make this book possible. Stephen F. Cohen. Was the Soviet System Reformable? . .22 ISBN 9785934392629 Archie Brown. Perestroika and the Five Transformations . .40 Aleksandr Galkin. The Place of Perestroika in the History of Russia . .58 Viktor Kuvaldin. Three Forks in the Road of Gorbachev’s Perestroika . .73 Breakthrough to Freedom. Perestroika: A Critical Analysis. Aleksandr Veber. Perestroika and International Social Democracy . .95 M., R.Valent Publishers, 2009, — 304 pages. Boris Slavin. Perestroika in the Mirror of Modern Interpretations . .111 Jack F. Matlock, Jr. Perestroika as Viewed from Washington, 19851991 . .126 Copyright © 2009 by the International PART II. Our Times and Ourselves Foundation for SocioEconomic and Political Studies (The Gorbachev Foundation) Aleksandr Nekipelov. Is It Easy to Catch a Black Cat in a Dark Room, Copyright © R.Valent Publishers Even If It Is There? . .144 All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means Oleg Bogomolov. A Turning Point in History: without written permission of the copyright Reflections of an EyeWitness . .152 holders. Nikolay Shmelev. Bloodshed Is Not Inevitable .
    [Show full text]
  • A Dream Fulfilled: Freedom and Independence
    Conference dedicated to the 30th Anniversary of the Restoration of the Independent State of Latvia A Dream Fulfilled: Freedom and Independence Day 1 23 August 2021 Venue: National Library of Latvia, Ziedonis Hall In compliance with epidemiological safety requirements, all participants will be asked to present a valid digital COVID-19 certificate confirming vaccination or recovery from the disease and a personal identification document. From 9:00 Registration 9:30 Opening addresses Video – 30th anniversary of the restoration of Latvia`s independence Ināra Mūrniece, Speaker of the Saeima of the Republic of Latvia Krišjānis Kariņš, Prime Minister of the Republic of Latvia Velta Čebotarenoka, President of the 4 May Declaration Club Andris Vilks, Director of the National Library of Latvia 10:00 Address by Anatolijs Gorbunovs, Speaker of the Supreme Council (read by Dainis Īvāns, first Chair of the Popular Front of Latvia) 10:05 Video address by Egils Levits, President of the Republic of Latvia 10:20 Presentation by Ineta Ziemele, judge of the European Court of Human Rights: The Path Towards the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutional Law from an International Perspective 10:40 Panel discussion. Dream of Independence and Paths to Its Fulfilment Moderated by Sarmīte Ēlerte, Adviser to the President of Latvia on Cultural Policy 1 Discussion participants: Una Bergmane, researcher at the University of Helsinki Daina Bleiere, Researcher at the Institute of Latvian History, University of Latvia Mārtiņš Kaprāns, Senior Researcher at the
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting with the Opposition in Belarus Written by David R
    Meeting With the Opposition in Belarus Written by David R. Marples This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Meeting With the Opposition in Belarus https://www.e-ir.info/2020/07/23/meeting-with-the-opposition-in-belarus/ DAVID R. MARPLES, JUL 23 2020 This is an excerpt from Understanding Ukraine and Belarus: A Memoir by David R. Marples. Download your free copy on E-International Relations. Since Aliaksandr Lukashenka became Belarus’ first and probably last president, those who disagree with his policies and have the effrontery to suggest that perhaps the country might like a new president after a quarter of a century are known as the ‘oppozitsiia’. The term itself, when phrased by Lukashenka, sound like an obscenity, a motley group that is there to cause problems, undermine society, act as a fifth column for the West, takes western funds and competes for them with each other, and is generally a nuisance. Those who dig somewhat deeper would soon uncover something very obvious. There is no opposition, at least in terms of a unified movement with a common goal. Moreover, even the emergence of a new generation has not changed this dictum. It either follows the footsteps of its predecessor or else supports more radical actions. But it fares no better. It cannot get around the combination of political apathy, ingrained obedience to authority, and a fear of change.
    [Show full text]