ADVERTISEMENT

Belarus Needs the Right Kind of U.S. Help

Belarus Needs the Right Kind of U.S. Help

The people of Belarus continue to protest by the tens of thousands against a manufactured election victory by President Alexander Lukashenko. Their courage in the face of brutality by security forces and the looming threat of Russian intervention deserves our support. The challenge is finding ways to help that don’t make the situation worse or run risks that Western publics wouldn’t support. Yet by using the tools of free societies — transparency , the rule of law, market access, asylum — we can make a difference on the side of human dignity and political liberty.

Lukashenko falsely accused NATO of deploying forces to the Belarussian border, insisting he won’t “surrender the country.” The Institute for the Study of War assesses that “Continuous accusations by Lukashenko and the Kremlin that NATO is stoking the protests indicate that Lukashenko may take continued demonstrations as a pretext for requesting Russian aid against an ‘external enemy’.” That appears to be happening.

The fate of Belarus matters for our security, even if we in the West are hesitant to risk confrontation with Russia. We ought not to encourage pretenses of military support. But there are numerous ways to assist positive change that do not cede to Russia the power to determine Belarus’ fate.

We in the West can bear witness, pay attention, pressure our businesses to advance our values and hold governments accountable. Doing so can help give heart to people facing down danger in Belarus. We should be amplifying the work of open-source analysts such as Bellingcat, the Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project that shine light on the actions of the Belarussian and Russian governments; supporting groups such as the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute that strengthen civil society; encouraging tech companies to shield activists’ communications from government surveillance. Congress should threaten international scrutiny of Lukashenko’s banking and the corporate financing of his cronies’ businesses.

Governments, however, should be careful not to increase the danger to protesters in Belarus. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo tweeted, “Whether it’s in Belarus or Lebanon or Hong Kong, people just want to live in freedom,” then proceeded to make it about the Chinese Communist Party. He’s right, but universalizing the protests in Belarus — making them about the global issue of advancing freedom — will actually make freedom harder for the people of Belarus to achieve. It will stoke Putin’s fears of encirclement by stable, prosperous, Western-oriented countries, and could precipitate Russian intervention. We help the people of Belarus most by treating their desire for an end to corrupt government as a local issue. 

Call for the election to be re-run with international observers, as the European Union has.  Appeal for restraint by security services and government. But don’t use the struggle in Belarus to score points on China or to increase the likelihood of Russian intervention. And save the trumpeting of success for when the people of Belarus achieve it.

The president and secretary of state should be privately telling their Russian counterparts that NATO is not marshalling forces to intervene, and that Russia would incur disadvantages if it did so — including a shift in the public focus of responsibility from Minsk to Moscow. We should be making clear to Russia that attempts to claw back control of countries yearning for freedom will only increase their desire for NATO protection and EU membership, and also make us more likely to agree. And we should coordinate those conversations with allies to ensure Russia hears a consistent message.

The Treasury Department should slap sanctions on Lukashenko as well as on the corrupt forces keeping him in power. Identify the individuals committing violence against protestors and ensure they have no ability to travel or invest in western countries. Make public their identities and shun their money. If Russia intervenes, sanctions should be extended to any Russians involved.

The U.S. Embassy in Minsk should offer shelter to protest leaders if they are targeted by the government or at risk from Russian agents. Our top diplomat there should attend funerals of people killed by security forces, make prison visits and appear often with opposition politicians when there is concern for their safety. 

We and our allies should press the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to prevent assistance to the Lukashenko government unless it steps back from violence against protesters. All of these things would be easier if the Trump Administration hadn’t spent the last three and a half years denigrating allies and institutions that magnify America’s power and advance our interests.

Finally, and morally repugnant as it is, we should offer Lukashenko asylum if he peacefully leaves the country. While the rise of international legal prosecutions has many advantages, it can discourage dictators from leaving power. Violence on a massive scale would almost certainly have been the outcome in the Philippines in 1986 if the Reagan Administration had not negotiated the departure of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos from the Philippines. Here, the U.S. position on the International Criminal Court, and even President Trump’s distasteful camaraderie with dictators, could help persuade Lukashenko that we would allow him to live quietly under U.S. protection to achieve peaceful regime change.  

These are mostly small measures, but taken in concert they add up to consequence. They also put us on the side of protesters without making their hard work more dangerous.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Kori Schake leads the foreign and defense policy team at the American Enterprise Institute.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.