U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

67–797 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–54 

CRACKDOWN IN BELARUS: RESPONDING 

TO THE LUKASHENKO REGIME 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JANUARY 27, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

FRANK G. LOWENSTEIN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

——————

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire, Chairman

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 1 

DeMint, Hon. Jim, U.S. Senator from South Carolina, opening statement ....... 2 

Durbin, Hon. Richard , U.S. Senator from Illinois, statement ............................ 3 

Gordon, Hon. Philip, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian 

Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC ................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Koliada, Natalia, general director and cofounder, Belarus Free Theatre, 

Minsk, Belarus ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Kramer, Hon. David, executive director, Freedom House, Washington, DC ...... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Melia, Thomas O., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor, Department of State, Washington, DC .............................. 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Wollack, Kenneth, president, National Democratic Institute, Washington, DC 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Lev Margolin, vice president, United Civil Party (UCP) ...................................... 51 

Yury Lavrentiev and Oleg Korban, ‘‘Youth Democrats,’’ United Civil Party 

(UCP) ..................................................................................................................... 51 

Dzianis Sadouski, the Belarusian Christian Democracy Party (BCD) ................ 52 

(III)

(1) 

CRACKDOWN IN BELARUS: RESPONDING TO 

THE LUKASHENKO REGIME 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:18 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeanne Shaheen 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Shaheen, Risch, and DeMint. 

Also present: Senator Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all for 

coming. 

The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs 

is meeting today to discuss the brutal crackdown on the citizens of 

Belarus following last month’s fraudulent Presidential election. 

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Lugar for allowing us to go forward with this hearing while the 

full committee is still determining its agenda and structure and 

membership for the new session. 

Before we begin—and I am delighted that Senator Durbin is here 

and is going to be making a statement as well. But I want to make 

it clear that this subcommittee stands firmly behind Secretary 

Clinton and calls on the Lukashenko regime to release all political 

prisoners immediately and without preconditions. We remain committed to the principle that the Belarusian people be allowed to express their political will freely and without threat of harassment, 

imprisonment, or violence. 

The government’s legacy of fraudulent elections has drawn the 

attention of the United States and our European partners, and the 

OSCE has repeatedly declared that the country’s elections failed to 

be either free or fair. Violence against prodemocracy activists and 

arrests of political opponents have repeatedly revealed the nature 

of the cruel regime under President Aleksandr Lukashenko. 

The United States will continue to make one thing clear: The 

pursuit of democracy, freedom, and improved human rights in 

Belarus is in the interests of not only the Belarusian people but of 

the government itself. The recent violence perpetrated by the police 

against a peaceful rally of thousands of Belarusians, the arrests of 

several opposition candidates for President, and the crackdown on 

2 

independent media and democratic forces show how far the cause 

of democracy has been set back in Belarus just in the last few 

weeks. 

However, the recent crackdown is not an isolated occurrence. Unfortunately, it is part of an appalling pattern of abuses. As the government’s intimidation tactics have broadened, so has its abuse of 

its legal system to charge opposition forces and threaten them with 

years in prison. Independent democratic forces must be allowed to 

make their case without harassment and the OSCE mission in the 

country must be allowed to resume its work. 

In the days to come, the United States and our European allies 

will announce measures to respond to Lukashenko’s tactics of intimidation. We should be clear that the pursuit of sanctions, asset 

freezes, and a ban on travel by the regime and those involved in 

the latest crackdown are intended to compel the government to 

treat its people fairly. 

I would like to commend the European Parliament for its resolution last week condemning the crackdown and its calls to resume 

measures urging the government to change course. The United 

States and Europe will stand together in support of the Belarusian 

people, and we encourage other nations, including Russia, to do the 

same. The immediate release of opposition candidates, party leaders, and civil society members must be the first step and should 

occur without delay. 

With these thoughts in mind, we are here today to discuss how 

the United States and Europe can ensure that the Government in 

Belarus lives up to its commitments to democracy and human 

rights. We will hear from members of the administration regarding 

the path forward and outside experts who have critical insights on 

the regime. I am delighted that we have two very knowledgeable 

panels here. Before I introduce them, I am going to ask Ranking 

Member DeMint if he would like to make a statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM DEMINT, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Chairman Shaheen. Thank you for 

organizing this so quickly. 

I want to thank the witnesses who are here today and particularly Senator Durbin for taking a special interest and sharing his 

recent experiences to give us perspective. 

Europe and the United States share a common set of values and 

we have a long history that is founded on the ideas of freedom and 

economic opportunity. Today’s hearing is important because 

Belarus is an exception to that. It remains isolated from Europe. 

Despite attempts to engage Lukashenko and his regime, often 

called ‘‘the last dictator in Europe,’’ respect for human rights and 

political freedom has continued to decline in Belarus. The most 

basic freedoms—freedom of speech, religion, and assembly—are restricted by authorities. 

The most recent reminder of this reality stems from last month’s 

tragic post-election crackdown resulting in the detention of 700 

people, including 7 of the 9 opposition candidates, the independent 

media, and civil society. Over 30 of these individuals are still being 

held and the situation is not improving. 

3 

The government’s behavior is unacceptable in this day and age, 

and the regime must be held accountable for its actions. The 

United States and our allies in Europe have a responsibility not 

only to condemn its behavior, but to review the policy options at 

our disposal, including additional visa bans, asset freezes, and targeted sanctions. 

I look forward to hearing from both panels of witnesses today 

and to discussing the ongoing situation in Belarus and our options 

for a coordinated and strong response in greater detail. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Senator DeMint. 

Now we are delighted that Senator Durbin is here to share his 

recent experiences and his knowledge in this area. 

Thank you, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Senator Shaheen, thank you very much. Senator DeMint, thanks for the kind words. 

I just had a chance over the break to take a trip and visit two 

countries in Europe that are neighbors, but what a contrast. 

The first country I visited was Lithuania, the land where my 

mother was born, a land which I have had a close attachment to 

emotionally and politically since I have been in public life and even 

before. And I was invited by the speaker of the Lithuanian Parliament to address them on the occasion of the 20th anniversary 

of what is known as Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday was that moment in time when the Lithuanians had mustered the courage to 

step up and say we are breaking away from the Soviet Union. It 

was an amazing thing for them to do. This is a small country. They 

do not have any indigenous army. What they had was a determination to reclaim their freedom, and they voted to do so and Gorbachev was mad. So Gorbachev sent in the tanks and the paratroopers. They were not met with armed resistance because the 

Lithuanians had no arms. All they could do was to stand with their 

signs and demonstrate. 

I had gone there during this period of time and visited with what 

they call their Parliament, or Seimas, and the Seimas is a beautiful 

building but at that time was surrounded by sandbag barricades. 

And all of the people came to Vilnius and came to those barricades 

to show their unity with the effort to break away from the Soviet 

Union. Children would turn up from schools to say prayers and 

light candles and put little crosses next to the sandbags. And at 

one point they invited me in and said we want to show you secretly 

here the arsenal that we are gathering to fight the Soviets. Madam 

Chair, it consisted of about 10 rifles and guns that you would find 

in the home of a hunter or a farmer. No match for what Gorbachev 

sent in. 

Twenty years ago, he sent in the tanks, and they went to one of 

the prominent places right outside Vilnius, the TV tower. And 

there was this huge gathering and the tanks rolled in. At the end 

of 24 hours, 13 people were dead and 1,000 people were injured. 

These people were not leading politicians. They were just common 

people in Lithuania who said we have had enough. We want to 

4 

make our own future. We want to have a right to make our own 

decisions about our church and our press, the things we take for 

granted. 

So they invited me to speak to the Parliament and it was an inspiring moment for me. I do not know if it had any impact on them. 

But just to have that chance to be there. 

And I remembered that time because I thought at the time that 

the United States was too slow in acknowledging what they were 

trying to achieve and providing the support that they needed, the 

moral support they needed. And not to take away from any President or administration, because ultimately we did the right thing, 

but others went before us. They had the former Prime Minister of 

Iceland, the first country to step up and recognize Lithuania as an 

independent country, and he is a national hero, and he came and 

spoke there. Well, it was a great gathering and I was proud to be 

there for the time that I was. 

But then I took a little side trip. It is a 3-hour drive from 

Vilnius—this now capital of an independent, free, democratic country—to Minsk in Belarus, and it is such a trip back in history. In 

Belarus, they are led by an authoritarian figure, some call a dictator, Victor Lukashenko. I had met him a year before when our 

colleague, Ben Cardin, took a bipartisan Helsinki Commission trip 

to Minsk. So I have seen Lukashenko in his Presidential role. 

But this time I was not there to see him. I came there because 

we had heard the stories about what had happened after the election. The election, December 19, was monitored by international 

groups and many had serious questions afterward. Lukashenko’s 

supporters said, well, the fact that he did not get 95 percent of the 

vote shows it was a fair election. He only had about 79 percent of 

the vote. 

But what happened the night after the election is what brought 

us to the point where we are today and the reason for my trip. 

There was a march of several blocks in the city of Minsk from one 

square to another by the opposition party leaders who were unhappy, feeling that they had been the victims of a rigged election. 

You know, this happens. People demonstrate in democracies and 

life goes on. It is an expression of their free speech and assembly 

that we take for granted. But at the end of that march, the police 

came in and arrested over 600, Senator DeMint—I do not know if 

it reached 700, but over 600 of these political activists—and 

arrested 6 of the 7 Presidential candidates who had run against 

Lukashenko. So not only did they lose the election, they threw 

them in jail. And today four of those Presidential candidates are 

still there. 

I had a chance to meet with the parties backing these candidates, and I might tell you just as an aside—and Secretary Gordon can add this. We have not had much of a presence in Belarus 

for a long time. They expelled our Ambassador. We are down to 

literally five Americans who are representing the United States of 

America under these circumstances. Michael Scanlan is their 

leader. I am not sure of his official title, but he is the leader of this 

effort and we should be thanking him and all that are with him 

for literally risking their lives in an oppressive culture trying to 

5 

make sure there is a voice for democracy and representing the 

United States. 

Well, Mike Scanlan said, ‘‘meet with the party leaders, but then 

I want you to meet with the families of the people who were in 

prison.’’ If I can, if you will bear with me, I took—I did not take— 

Chris Homan on my staff was with me and took a few photographs 

of those who were there, and I would like to introduce them to you 

because I think each of their stories tells us more than anything 

that I can say. 

The first one was Svyatlana Lyabedzka. She is the wife of Anatol 

Lyabedzka, chairman of the United Civic Party. But Anatol has 

been regularly harassed, fined, and imprisoned for his political activities in 2004, severely beaten by Lukashenko’s police force. His 

wife told me in tears that her husband had been taken to jail 26 

days before. She had no information on charges or what had happened to him. She does not know where he is. She does not know 

what is happening. 

Tatsyana Sevyarynets is the mother of Paveal Sevyarynets, the 

head of Presidential candidate Vitala Rymashevski’s campaign. He 

has already served several years in prison for protesting sham elections in Belarus. Tatsyana’s letters have gone unanswered. Her 

complaints filed against the government have been ignored. She 

has been prevented from traveling. Her passport has been confiscated. She said it is impossible to find an explanation of what 

has been happening and my son has been persecuted for 16 years. 

Kanstantsin Sannikau and Ala Sannikava are the son and 

mother of a detained Presidential candidate, Anrey Sannikau. Ala 

told me she had no contact with her son for 14 days. This little boy 

has been the subject of a lot of news stories because what 

Lukashenko did was to imprison not only the mother but the father 

and then say that the state was going to take their little boy into 

custody. The grandmother was there begging and pleading that she 

be allowed to keep custody of this little boy. And just last week— 

or this week, I should say, they have announced that they are 

going to allow her to continue to keep custody of this little boy. But 

it shows the kind of pressure they are putting on these people. 

Meanwhile, they are systematically—the Belarusian KGB— 

searching their homes, detaining them, harassing them, sending 

phone calls their way that are bogus alleging certain things, if they 

cooperate, will happen. It is the old Stalinist tactics that are still 

alive and well in Belarus. Incredibly what Lukashenko did was not 

only arrest the mother and father but basically to threaten the 

child. 

Milana Mikhalevich is a 34-year-old mother of two. I hope you 

get a chance to take a look at this lovely mom and her beautiful 

little girl. She is the wife of Ales Mikhalevich who was a Presidential candidate. Thirty-four years old, she has a 10-year-old son 

and this beautiful little baby who was crawling all over us having 

fun while we were talking about whether she would ever see her 

father again, and that is literally what is at stake. The harassment 

that this young lady has been subjected to is incredible. She tried 

to go to Warsaw, Poland, to appeal for help. They stopped her. 

They would not let her take the train out. They confiscated her 

passport, and they continue to search her home and come at her 

6 

regularly. When we tried to meet with some of these candidates, 

they said they cannot come because the KGB is coming by again 

today. 

It has been a total nightmare for her and her little daughter, 

Alena, who is barely 2 years old. As I said here, her mom wonders 

if she will ever see her father again. That is what these families 

are up against. 

Now, the surprise to me was they gave me a visa to visit Belarus 

and then said would you like to meet with Lukashenko. And I said 

under the circumstances, no, but I will meet with his Foreign Minister and we did, Sergei Martynov. Now, he has been an Ambassador to the United States. His English is flawless. And it was, as 

they say in diplomatic terms, a frank and candid meeting as I said 

to him, how can you claim to be a democracy and then turn around 

and arrest everybody who runs against your President. That is not 

what a democracy does. His response is classic, and I want to make 

sure I get it right. He said, Senator, you live in a country that has 

had democracy for 200 years. We have only had it for 20 years. 

Give us credit. When we arrested all these people, including the 

people who ran against Lukashenko, we did not use tear gas. There 

were no rubber bullets and no police dogs. So give us credit. Think 

about that for a moment. I said to him you cannot pretend to be 

a democracy when the people who lose the election end up in prison. It is a disincentive to run against your President if this is what 

you are going to face. 

So we had the meetings and I gave these families my assurance 

that their story would be repeated, and I am glad you are holding 

this hearing for that purpose. 

Right now, the European Union and European Parliament are 

stepping forward. I have spoken to Secretary Clinton. You mentioned earlier a reference to her. We have got to be there. 

The reason I brought up the story of Lithuania is to put it in this 

context. Twenty years ago, the people who were killed and injured, 

the ones who had the courage to step out and demonstrate were 

just like these families. We applaud them today as defenders of 

freedom, heroes of their country, people who made a difference 

when you talk about this 21st century. People just like them in 

Belarus are struggling for the things that we take for granted and 

they are paying a heavy price. The United States cannot be silent. 

We have got to speak up for them. 

Thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin, for 

being here and for sharing the stories of those families. 

As I said earlier, we have two panels this afternoon. I am going 

to introduce all of the panelists at once. So while the first panel 

is coming forward, I will begin the introductions. 

Philip Gordon has served as Assistant Secretary of State for 

European and Eurasian Affairs since May 2009. He previously 

served as Director for European Affairs at the National Security 

Council and at the Brookings Institution. 

Thomas O. Melia—hopefully I pronounced that correctly—is 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor and is responsible for Europe, South and 

Central Asia, and international labor rights. He has also held 

7 

prominent posts at Freedom House and the National Democratic 

Institute. 

Our second panel, when it comes forward, will include David 

Kramer who serves as the executive director of Freedom House. He 

has had a distinguished career in Government and in the private 

sector, serving as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

State for European and Eurasian Affairs. 

Also on the second panel is Ken Wollack who is president of the 

National Democratic Institute and has had a long career in foreign 

affairs which has included extensive travel in the region of Belarus 

and Eastern Europe supporting democratic elections and civil society. Under his leadership, NDI has strengthened its outreach to 

more than 70 countries to support democratic institutions, civic engagement, and political empowerment abroad. 

Our third panelist on that second panel—and again, I apologize 

if I do not get the name exactly correct—is Natalia Koliada. She 

is the general director and cofounder of the Belarus Free Theatre, 

a group that has shown enormous bravery in exercising its members’ rights to free expression despite brutal repression. Just a few 

weeks ago, Ms. Koliada and other members of her company were 

detained in Belarus following the crackdown. 

We thank you all for your willingness to be here and to speak 

to the challenges that we face in Belarus. 

So I will begin with you, Secretary Gordon. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP GORDON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking 

Member DeMint. Thank you for holding this hearing and for inviting me to discuss the situation in Belarus, and I would also like 

to thank you for your strong opening statements and very much 

appreciate the powerful message of Senator Durbin as well and his 

moving comments. 

We should all be concerned about the very disturbing recent 

events in Belarus and specifically the government’s crackdown on 

the opposition, civil society, and independent media in the aftermath of the disputed Presidential election. This is a crucial moment and I am glad the Senate is focusing attention on the actions 

of the Belarusian Government. I welcome the opportunity to speak 

on how the U.S. Government is responding. 

As you noted, the United States has repeatedly condemned the 

actions taken on December 19 and the continuing suppression of 

political and human rights in Belarus. That this brutal crackdown 

occurred in the heart of Europe in the 21st century is particularly 

troubling. The international community must speak with one voice 

to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Belarus, and 

we are committed to doing our part. 

The Obama administration has continued a bipartisan policy of 

principled engagement with Belarus that centers on our consistent 

advocacy of democracy and human rights. Long before the recent 

crackdown, we were pressing for reforms that would allow space for 

civil society, independent media, and the political opposition to 

8 

operate. I did this personally during my trip to Minsk in August 

2009 when I made clear to the Belarusian Government that only 

steps toward democratic reform and respect for human rights could 

lead to better relations with the United States. 

Let me also take the opportunity to commend Senators Cardin 

and Durbin and Congressman Smith and others who have been 

consistently pressing for democracy and human rights in Belarus 

and who helped secure the release of the American citizen, 

Emmanuel Zeltser, in July 2009, just a month before I went to 

Minsk myself. 

Unfortunately, the failure of Belarus to respect human rights or 

uphold democratic standards is not a new development. In the 

aftermath of the flawed elections and the abuse of human rights 

in Belarus in 2006, the Bush administration first imposed sanctions against the Lukashenko Government and then expanded 

those sanctions in 2007 and 2008. Despite a release of political 

prisoners in August 2008 that led to the easing of some sanctions, 

Belarus continued to fail to implement democratic reforms. 

In the runup to the Presidential elections of December 19, 2010, 

Belarus allowed in an OSCE monitoring mission and allowed nine 

opposition candidates to register to run against President Lukashenko. While voting was relatively uneventful, there were numerous irregularities. 

On the evening of December 19, between 20,000 and 40,000 people rallied against the official claim of Mr. Lukashenko’s overwhelming victory. The government’s reaction was brutal, and its 

subsequent actions, the detection of a wide range of political activists, including five of the opposition Presidential candidates, raids 

on civil society groups and media outlets, and a refusal to renew 

the OSCE mission’s mandate can only be interpreted as a campaign to crush the opposition and severely weaken civil society and 

independent media. 

The United States responded immediately to the situation in 

Belarus. Within hours, the White House issued a statement condemning the violence and calling for the release of all detainees. 

Secretary Clinton and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton 

subsequently issued two joint statements reiterating this message. 

On January 6, Secretary Clinton met with Belarusian and 

Belarusian-American activists to hear firsthand their personal stories about the election’s aftermath. The group that Secretary Clinton met with included Natalia Koliada of Belarus Free Theatre, 

and we are very pleased to see that she will be testifying to this 

committee later this afternoon. It is important to hear her experience and stories. 

While publicly and privately urging that the detainees be released, the United States has been putting together a package of 

actions if the Government of Belarus does not change course. There 

are three specific sets of actions we are planning to make clear to 

the Belarusian Government the consequences of continuing its current course. We are examining additional sanctions against 

Belarus, providing assistance to opposition forces and independent 

civil society groups, and working closely with the EU to send a unified international message to the government. 

9 

The specific steps we are taking include: One, the revocation of 

the general license authorizing U.S. persons to do business with 

the two subsidiaries of state-owned oil and chemical company 

Belneftekhim which first was issued in September 2008; two, an 

expansion of the list of Belarusian officials subject to a travel ban; 

and three, the imposing of additional financial sanctions against 

Belarusian individuals and entities. 

As we consider measures against the government, we are simultaneously planning to increase our support for the democratic actors and the victims of repression. Last year the United States 

provided $11 million in assistance toward supporting civil society, 

access to information and political competition, and providing opportunities for more interaction between Belarusian citizens and 

the outside world. In response to the recent events, we will increase such assistance by nearly 30 percent this year. 

Finally, we are working closely with our European Union partners to make sure that policy toward Belarus is coordinated to send 

the strongest and clearest message to the authorities in Minsk. The 

EU Foreign Affairs Council is scheduled to decide on additional 

measures with respect to Belarus on January 31. We plan to announce certain additional measures against the government on 

that day as well. 

In addition, a U.S. delegation will participate in a donor’s conference in Poland on February 2 to assist nongovernmental actors 

in Belarus. 

Madam Chair, Senator DeMint, we have no illusions that persuading the Government of Belarus to adopt a course toward democracy and the rule of law will be easy or happen quickly. Our 

commitment to enhancing democracy and respect for human rights 

in Belarus is long-term and it will not weaken. I hope we can count 

on continuing bipartisan support for this approach. We must maintain a resolute stance both with respect to the government and 

support of those seeking a democratic Belarus. As Secretary Clinton and EU High Representative Ashton said in their joint statement on December 23, ‘‘the Belarusian people deserve better.’’ 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PHILIP H. GORDON

Chairwoman Shaheen, Ranking Member DeMint, members of the committee, 

thank you very much for inviting me here today to discuss the situation in Belarus. 

We should all be concerned by the very disturbing recent events there, specifically 

the government’s crackdown on the opposition, civil society, and independent media 

in the aftermath of the disputed Presidential election. This is a crucial moment, and 

I am glad the Senate is focusing attention on the actions of the Belarusian Government. I welcome the opportunity to speak with you today on how the U.S. Government is responding. 

Today, I would like to do three things. First, I would like to give you an overview 

of U.S. policy with respect to Belarus in recent years, which will provide a backdrop 

to the current situation and our policy response. Second, I would like to describe 

the actions that the United States has taken so far to respond to the repression in 

Belarus and to support free political competition, civil society, and the independence 

of media. Finally, I will also discuss possible next steps we, along with our European partners, can take to address the situation. 

The United States has repeatedly condemned the actions taken on December 19 

and the continuing suppression of political and human rights in Belarus. That this 

crackdown occurred in the heart of Europe in the 21st century is particularly trouVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
10 

bling. The international community must speak with one voice to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Belarus, and we are committed to doing our part. 

BACKDROP TO OUR CURRENT POLICY

The Obama administration has continued a bipartisan policy of principled engagement with Belarus that centers on our consistent advocacy for democracy and 

human rights. Long before the recent crackdown, we were pressing for reforms that 

would allow space for civil society, independent media, and the political opposition 

to operate. I did so personally during my trip to Minsk in August 2009, when I 

made clear to the Belarusian Government that only steps toward democratic reform 

and respect for human rights could lead to better relations with the United States. 

Unfortunately, the failure of Belarus to respect human rights or uphold democratic standards is not a new development. In the aftermath of flawed elections and 

the abuse of human rights in Belarus in 2006, the Bush administration first imposed sanctions against the Lukashenka government. These sanctions included a 

travel ban and asset freeze on certain officials, followed in 2007 and 2008 by trade 

sanctions against the state-owned oil and chemical company, Belneftekhim. The 

Belarusian Government reacted in 2008 by asking that our Ambassador leave the 

country and requiring that we cut our Embassy staff in Minsk from 33 to 5. The 

European Union imposed a travel ban and assets freeze of its own in 2006. 

In 2008, following the imposition of sanctions, the Belarusian Government released all of its political prisoners. Let me also take this opportunity to commend 

Senator Cardin, Senator Durbin, Congressman Smith, and others, who have been 

pressing for democracy and human rights in Belarus for many years, and who 

helped secure the release of American citizen Emmanuel Zeltser in July 2009. In 

recognition of the Belarusian Government’s positive step in releasing political prisoners, the United States issued a general license temporarily authorizing U.S. persons to do business with two subsidiaries of Belneftekhim in September 2008. We 

told the government at the time that the United States would reciprocate if the 

government took further positive steps. Sanctions against Belarus—the visa ban 

and financial sanctions against selected officials and Belarusian entities—remained 

in place and were continued by the Obama administration. The EU suspended its 

travel ban, but it continued its assets freeze. 

In the runup to the Presidential elections of December 19, 2010, the United States 

and many other countries urged the Belarusian Government to take steps to improve its respect for human rights and democracy, including an invitation for an 

OSCE international monitoring mission to observe the elections. The government 

did allow the monitoring mission and allowed nine opposition candidates to register 

and to run against President Lukashenka. On balance, the campaign represented 

an improvement over the one in 2006, despite continuing problems. Voting was relatively uneventful. However, the government did not conduct a transparent vote 

count and did not allow opposition parties to monitor that count. The OSCE election 

observation team subsequently singled out this major factor in its criticism of the 

process, saying that counting of votes in nearly half of the constituencies was 

deemed ‘‘bad or very bad.’’ 

The evening of December 19, between 20,000 and 40,000 people rallied against 

the official claim of Mr. Lukashenka’s overwhelming victory. While we may never 

know all the facts of what happened that night, we know onething: the government’s reaction was brutal, and its subsequent actions can only be interpreted as 

a campaign to crush the opposition and severely weaken civil society and independent media. 

Some 600–700 individuals were detained, initially including seven of the opposition candidates for President. Many of the protestors were sentenced to 5–15 days 

of detention without legal representation after hearings before a judge that often 

lasted less than 5 minutes. 

Five of the candidates, along with at least 32 others, however, now face charges 

that could lead to 15 years in prison if convicted. Twelve more remain suspects and 

may be charged. On January 11, Amnesty International declared 16 detainees ‘‘prisoners of conscience,’’ and urged the immediate and unconditional release of all 

detainees. 

However, this is not just about what happened the night of December 19. In the 

wake of the protests, authorities have continued to raid homes and offices of activists and staff linked to the political opposition, civil society groups, including the 

Belarusian Helsinki Committee, and journalists. 

The government has refused to extend the mandate of the OSCE office in Minsk. 

This office must now close by March 31 unless Belarus reverses its decision, as we 

and other governments have urged it to do. 

11 

THE U.S. POLICY RESPONSE AND NEXT STEPS

The United States responded immediately and directly to the situation in Belarus. 

Hours after the initial detentions on December 20, the White House issued a statement condemning the violence and calling on the government to release all detainees. On December 23, Secretary Clinton issued the first of two joint statements with 

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton calling the elections and their aftermath 

an unfortunate step backward and reiterating the call for the detainees’ release. On 

January 6, Secretary Clinton met with Belarusian and Belarusian-American activists to hear firsthand from participants about the election aftermath and to emphasize our condemnation of the crackdown and discuss how we might help those facing 

the greatest pressure, including the detainees and their families. 

While publicly and privately urging that the detainees be released, the United 

States has been putting together a package of actions if the Government of Belarus 

does not change course, which now unfortunately appears to be the case. There are 

three specific sets of actions we are planning to make clear to the Belarusian Government the consequences of continuing on its current course: We are pursuing additional sanctions against Belarus; providing assistance to opposition forces and 

independent civil society groups; and working closely with the EU to send a unified 

international message to the government. 

The steps we are considering include: (1) the revocation of the general license authorizing U.S. persons to do business with the two subsidiaries of Belneftekhim that 

first was issued in September 2008; (2) an expansion of the list of Belarusian officials subject to the travel ban; and (3) imposing additional financial sanctions 

against Belarusian individuals and entities. 

As we consider measures against the government, we are simultaneously planning 

to increase our support for democratic actors and the victims of repression. Last 

year, the United States provided $11 million in assistance toward supporting civil 

society, access to information and political competition, and providing opportunities 

for more interaction between Belarusian citizens and the outside world. In response 

to recent events, we will increase such assistance by nearly 30 percent this year. 

Our assistance includes support for human rights advocates, trade unions, youth 

and environment groups, business associations, and think tanks. We continue to 

support independent newspapers, Web sites, and electronic media operating in the 

country and broadcasting from Belarus’s neighbors. In addition, we provide assistance to democratic political parties and movements to more effectively compete in 

this challenging environment. 

Finally, we are working closely with our European Union partners to make sure 

policy toward Belarus is coordinated, to send the strongest and clearest message to 

the authorities in Minsk. The Belarusian people seek to be part of Europe, and we 

wish to see the type of government in Belarus that can be part of Europe. The EU’s 

Foreign Affairs Council is scheduled to decide on additional measures with respect 

to Belarus on January 31. To emphasize the strong transatlantic concern regarding 

the crackdown in Belarus, we plan to announce certain additional measures against 

the government on that day as well. 

On February 2, a U.S. delegation will join Europeans in a donors’ conference in 

Warsaw to assist nongovernmental actors in Belarus. At that conference, which is 

being organized by the Polish Government, we plan to announce our proposed 

increases in assistance to Belarusian activists and encourage others to do likewise. 

The United States and our European partners both understand that even as we 

take steps affecting the Belarusian Government, we must do what we can to protect 

and foster the organs vital to any democracy: political competition, a vibrant civil 

society, and an active independent media that provides citizens greater access to 

information. 

CONCLUSION

Madame Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, we have no illusions that 

helping persuade Belarus to adopt a course toward democracy and the rule of law 

will either be easy or happen quickly. Our commitment to enhancing democracy and 

respect for human rights in Belarus is long-term and will not weaken. I hope we 

can count on continuing bipartisan support for this approach. We must maintain a 

resolute stance, both with respect to the government and in support of those seeking 

a democratic Belarus. As Secretary Clinton and EU High Representative Ashton 

said in their joint statement on December 23, ‘‘the Belarusian people deserve 

better.’’ 

With that, I look forward to your questions. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. 

12 

Mr. Melia. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. MELIA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MELIA. Thank you, Chairwoman Shaheen and Senator 

DeMint, for inviting me to join Assistant Secretary Gordon in this 

timely discussion. I would like to ask that the complete written 

statement I had prepared be submitted for the record, and I will 

just turn to some current observations from my recent visit. 

I returned on Tuesday, less than 48 hours ago, from Minsk 

where I went at the behest of Secretary Clinton to deliver a strong 

message to the government about the mounting outrage in the 

international community and the imminence of a sharp reply, 

which I did both in a face-to-face meeting at the foreign ministry 

with ashen-faced officials who realized that their hopes of rapprochement with the international community are going up in 

smoke before their very eyes and through the media with whom I 

spoke on several occasions. And also, I went to demonstrate the 

U.S. Government’s support for the people of Belarus which I did by 

meeting with human rights activists, leaders of the political opposition, key figures in independent civil society, including the leader 

of the Democratic Trade Union Federation and the pastor of an 

independent evangelical church whose congregation is under 

bureaucratic siege from authorities that want to confiscate the plot 

of land on which they have built their church. I met also with independent journalists and, most importantly, with family members of 

those currently being held in custody by the regime. The families 

in particular, though anxious about their loved ones, were steely in 

their determination to continue to work for a democratic future for 

Belarus. 

I must say, having traveled widely in this region over the years 

but on my first visit to Belarus, that I was astonished at what I 

saw in a few days in this country. Since Aleksandr Lukashenko 

rose to power in 1994 as an independent candidate in what is 

widely considered to be Belarus’ last democratic election, he has 

consolidated virtually all power into his own hands through a series of fraudulent referenda and elections and at the same time 

suppressing all forms of dissent sometimes quite brutally. In today’s Belarus, civil liberties are sharply restricted in almost every 

way imaginable. The government controls citizens’ access to information through near total domination of television and print 

media. And through a restrictive Internet law that entered into 

force last summer, July, authorities are working to extend that 

control even further. 

Belarusians live their lives under the ever-present eye of the 

KGB. Yes, it is still called the KGB in Belarus which employs wiretapping, video surveillance, and a network of informers to keep the 

public in line. 

I will refer to one particular provision of law that comes up again 

and again. Article 191 of the criminal code says that individuals 

who engage in activities on behalf of an organization that the government refuses to register face criminal prosecution with potential 

jail terms up to 3 years. In the present moment, this means that 

13 

the families of the imprisoned have decided not to call themselves 

a committee for the defense of political prisoners because that 

alone would make them liable to prosecution and potential imprisonment for 3 years for, ‘‘operating an unregistered NGO.’’ 

Moreover, just to give you a flavor of daily life in Belarus, on a 

monthly basis for more than a decade, quiet vigils have been organized outside KGB headquarters to mourn those who have disappeared at the hands of the state, sometimes 10 people, sometimes 100, holding photos of the disappeared. Frequently one or 

more of these individuals will be arrested on administrative 

charges and sentenced to 5 days or 2 weeks of detention. Virtually 

everyone with whom I met earlier this week, more than 50 people 

in different meetings, has been interrogated by the KGB in the last 

month for the supposed uprising the government alleges to have 

been planned for December 19 or has been in and out of jail on this 

‘‘catch and release’’ program of continued harassment and incarceration. 

Belarus under Lukashenko has well and truly earned its designation by the economist intelligence unit as an authoritarian 

country and its place on the Freedom House list of the ‘‘Worst of 

the Worst.’’ 

We will never know how the people of Belarus actually voted on 

December 19, though surely it was not the 80 percent for Mr. 

Lukashenko that he claims. It could have been as little as 50 percent or less for all we know despite or because of the heavy hand 

of his regime. This week’s events in Tunisia and across the Middle 

East remind us once again that apparently stable regimes are stable until they are not, and that means that men and women everywhere want to live in freedom. That is no less true in Belarus than 

in any of the other countries that we are looking at these days. We, 

in the United States, have supported the people of Belarus through 

the dark period of Lukashenko’s rule and they know that and they 

welcome it. 

We, in the Department’s Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor, are proud to be part of America’s diplomacy in this case 

and to contribute funds through grants to civil society and journalists in Belarus, and we look forward to working with you and the 

Congress to refine our policies going forward for Monday’s 

announcements. 

Senator Shaheen, I would like to conclude with a word about the 

terrific, hardy band of Foreign Service professionals that I met in 

Minsk. Senator Durbin referred to Mike Scanlan. I would like to 

point out that under Assistant Secretary Gordon’s direction, five 

men and women—count them—five diplomats—led by Mr. Scanlan 

are working around the clock in a place that should have at least 

35 or more American diplomats to represent American interests 

and to demonstrate what American values really mean to people 

living under repression. Belarus is a place where good people know, 

despite the crude propaganda of the official media, that the United 

States is on the right side of history. This is done by the forthright 

principal policies we have shaped together here in the executive 

and legislative branches and it is especially due to the effective diplomacy being implemented every day by Mike Scanlan and his 

team in Minsk. 

14 

If time permits, I would like to just provide today’s update because even since I have been back in the last couple of days, people 

have asked if the regime is changing course, is responding to the 

imminence of sanctions and further isolation of the government. 

The overnight report from Mike Scanlan tells us that as of yesterday raids continue against civil society. Some of the groups I had 

met with earlier in the week had the KGB come in and confiscate 

their computers and their files and detain people twice in the last 

month. So just yesterday a particular political party was raided in 

the regional town of Homiel and all the equipment that they had 

bought to replace what had been removed on January 6 was stolen 

again, just yesterday. 

And yesterday in a press conference, Interior Minister Kuleshov 

stated that the ongoing criminal case for, ‘‘organizing and participating in mass disorder that have been filed against 37 individuals, 

including five of the Presidential candidates, would go to trial in 

early February.’’ Kuleshov took personal responsibility for the police actions calling them, ‘‘adequate and proportionate.’’ He accused 

the organizers of what we know to be the peaceful December 19th 

demonstration of having planned a coupe d’etat and attempting to 

seize power by force of arms. He also refused to apologize to journalists in the press conference who had suffered from police brutality, instead accusing them of having beaten the police on December 19. He said he did not know who attacked the Presidential 

candidate Nyaklyaeu before the polls closed on December 19 but he 

said it was certainly not the police. So in the face of mounting 

international opposition and a determined citizenry, the Government of Belarus shows no imminent signs of yielding or acknowledging the truth of what has happened or the consequences that 

the government will face. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Melia follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS O. MELIA

Chairwoman Shaheen and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting 

me here today to discuss the current crisis in Belarus. I just returned on Tuesday 

from Minsk, where I met with human rights organizations, opposition political leaders, independent journalists, and the families of many of those currently being held 

by the regime. I also expressed directly to representatives of the Belarusian Foreign 

Ministry our grave concerns over the present situation. 

While the current crackdown may be notable in scale and scope, it fits within a 

clearly demonstrated pattern of behavior by the Belarusian Government stretching 

back to the mid-1990s. In light of these recent events, we must continue to speak 

out against the detentions, raids, and other human rights abuses, while at the same 

time continuing to demonstrate our unwavering support for the democratic aspirations of the Belarusian people. 

OVERVIEW OF BELARUS’ HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD

Alyaksandr Lukashenka rose to power in 1994 as an independent candidate running on an anticorruption platform; he won what is widely considered Belarus’ last 

democratic election. Since that time, Lukashenka has consolidated virtually all 

power into his own hands. He has maintained his authority through a series of 

fraudulent referenda and elections, while at the same time suppressing all forms of 

dissent, sometimes brutally. Lukashenka oversees a bureaucracy, intelligence service and economy that remain largely unreformed since the Soviet period. In the 

past, political opponents and journalists have disappeared; security forces were presumed to be responsible. In today’s Belarus, civil liberties—including freedom of 

speech, press, assembly, association, and religion—are sharply restricted. The government controls and limits citizens’ access to information through near-total domiVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
15 

nation of television and print media. Through a restrictive Internet law that entered 

into force in July, authorities are working to extend that control even further. 

Belarusians live their lives under the watchful eye of the KGB, which employs 

wiretapping, video surveillance, and a network of citizen informers to keep the public in line. Authorities arrest, detain, and imprison people for criticizing members 

of the government, for participating in demonstrations, and for other political reasons. Police routinely beat protesters, use excessive force when dispersing peaceful 

demonstrators, and employ physical and psychological torture during investigations. 

The regime works to suppress the activities of nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs), independent media, political parties, and religious groups through a mix of 

nonregistration, harassment, fines, and prosecutions. Moreover, individuals who engage in activities on behalf of any organization that the government refuses to register in any of these sectors face criminal prosecution with potential jail terms of 

up to 3 years. State-owned companies, which employ most Belarusians, routinely 

fire employees as retribution for their political activities or for attempting to 

unionize. Short-term labor contracts ensure that no citizens can take job security 

for granted. University students have been expelled for expressing their opinions, 

and young men with ties to the opposition have been forcibly conscripted. The country’s judiciary suffers from blatant political interference, corruption, and inefficiency; 

trial outcomes are usually predetermined, and many trials take place behind closed 

doors. Over the years, the regime has held numerous political prisoners for extended 

periods of detention. Abuse of prisoners and detainees is pervasive, and conditions 

inside prison remain extremely poor; the government does not permit any independent monitoring of prisons. Belarus under Lukashenka has well and truly 

earned its designation by The Economist Intelligence Unit as an ‘‘authoritarian’’ 

country, and its place on the Freedom House list of the ‘‘Worst of the Worst.’’ 

While the broader situation in Belarus has changed little over the past decade 

and a half, during the past 2 years, the regime began to indicate at least some interest in exploring improved relations with the United States and European Union 

through the loosening of some restrictions on political and civil society activity. In 

early 2007, the United States took concrete action to press the government for the 

release of political prisoners through the imposition of unilaterally targeted sanctions against Lukashenka-controlled, state-owned petrochemical conglomerate 

‘‘Belneftekhim.’’ Lukashenka responded in early 2008 by forcing the departure of our 

Ambassador and the reduction, almost overnight, of our Embassy’s American staff 

from 33 diplomats to five. But over the next few months, authorities released all 

of the political prisoners. During late 2008 and into 2009, the government took other 

small positive steps, including allowing the registration of a few civil society organizations, and allowing a small number of independent newspapers to be sold through 

the government monopoly distribution system. At the same time, however, authorities resisted pressure from the United States and EU to undertake any meaningful 

systemic changes. The government ignored requests to repeal Article 191 of the 

criminal code, a tool routinely used to harass members of unregistered organizations. In the runup to the 2010 Presidential election, the regime declined to follow 

through on repeated requests from the Organization for Security and Cooperation 

in Europe (OSCE) Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to bring its 

election law into compliance with OSCE standards. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

The campaign environment leading up to the December 19 Presidential election 

included a proliferation of opposition candidates, nine of whom ultimately secured 

places on the ballot. In marked contrast with previous election cycles, authorities 

generally did not interfere with campaigning by the candidates. The challengers 

were allowed to appear together on state-controlled television for a live hour-long 

debate, which Lukashenka boycotted. At the same time, however, authorities were 

working diligently to ensure that the election machinery remained firmly in the 

hands of regime supporters. In order to bypass the legal requirement that a minimum of one-third of election commission members must hail from political parties 

and NGOs, the regime stacked local, municipal, and regional election commissions 

with state workers who claimed to be representatives of fabricated NGOs or nonexistent proregime political parties. Of the roughly 70,000 precinct-level electoral 

commission members at 6,346 polling stations, only 183 members (0.27 percent) 

hailed from parties or organizations that could be considered truly independent of 

the ruling authorities. 

On election day, OSCE and U.S. Embassy observers fanned out across the country, and reported on a heavily stage-managed voting process, with the regime 

leaving little to chance. Local ‘‘observers’’—who claimed to be from governmentVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
16 

controlled NGOs but often struggled to recall the names of those organizations— 

were present at most polling stations, and in many instances provided written statements to international observers stating that the elections had been conducted 

fairly. Members of the OSCE mission reported meeting few truly independent local 

observers. While the voting process generally followed established procedures at 

most polling stations, OSCE observers reported instances of ballot stuffing and 

other manipulations, often involving mobile ballot boxes that disappeared from sight 

for long periods during the day. 

When the polls closed and the vote count began, the situation deteriorated significantly. OSCE/ODIHR, in its preliminary assessment of the conduct of the vote, concluded that the vote count was either ‘‘bad’’ or ‘‘very bad’’ in nearly half of the 

stations observed. At many stations, commission members ignored the legal requirement to conduct separate counts of the votes from the early, mobile, and stationary 

election day ballot boxes, and instead mixed the ballots together. Even where officials conducted separate counts or placed votes for each candidate in separate piles, 

the count was generally conducted in a rushed and silent manner, making it impossible to follow whether the numbers actually added up. Furthermore, commission 

members at most polling stations kept observers at a distance of 10 feet or more 

from where the votes were being counted, making it impossible to independently 

verify the results. In some instances, OSCE observers noted that the vote totals for 

various candidates changed between the time election officials left their polling stations, and the time they arrived and submitted the results to the regional election 

commission. 

The OSCE observation mission and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly noted 

‘‘some specific improvements’’ in the election process, but underscored the fact that 

‘‘the vote count undermin[ed] the steps taken to improve the election.’’ The OSCE 

also noted that ‘‘election night was marred by detentions of most Presidential candidates, and hundreds of activists, journalists, and civil society representatives.’’ 

Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, head of the OSCE/ODIHR observation mission, summarized 

the situation by noting at a December 20 press conference that ‘‘a positive assessment of this election isn’t possible.’’ 

POST-ELECTION CRACKDOWN

Weeks prior to the election, members of the political opposition (including six of 

the nine opposition Presidential candidates) and other civil society leaders announced their intent to hold a large peaceful rally on election night to protest the 

already evident uneven playing field shaping the campaign environment and a clear 

lack of integrity of the state electoral machinery. In early December, Lukashenka’s 

Presidential administration declared that the opposition was preparing ‘‘groups of 

fighters, buying warm clothes, pyrotechnics, and even explosive materials’’ to create 

a ‘‘provocation’’ on election night. Well before the polls closed on election day, thousands of police took up positions in downtown Minsk in anticipation of the protest. 

That evening, tens of thousands of Belarusians gathered in downtown Minsk, and 

held the largest public demonstration seen in the country in at least 5 years. We 

may never have a complete and accurate accounting of the events of that evening, 

but there are some things we do know. We know that Presidential candidate 

Uladzimir Nyaklyaeu and his supporters were stopped by police and beaten prior 

to the start of the demonstration, and that Nyaklyaeu was later removed from his 

hospital bed by security forces. We know that the demonstration proceeded peacefully for a few hours, until unknown individuals began breaking the windows of the 

Government House. In the period that followed, we know that security forces 

launched a broad and seemingly indiscriminate crackdown, holding some protesters 

on the ground with their boots, and beating people with fists and batons. Among 

those injured were Presidential candidate Andrei Sannikau and foreign journalists. 

In clearing the square, authorities ultimately detained between 600 and 700 people. 

According to human rights organizations, these detainees were held for an initial 

period with extremely limited access to physical necessities including water and toilets; they were subsequently given hearings before judges without the benefit of 

legal counsel, and were sentenced to between 10 and 15 days of administrative detention. The majority of these detainees were then released at the end of those sentences (in late December or early January). 

In the aftermath of the crackdown on the square, authorities began assembling 

a group of the most well-known detainees at the KGB detention center, some of 

whom were taken from the square, but others who had been taken from their homes 

and offices in the days following the protest. At present, authorities have charged 

36 persons with organizing or participating in mass riots, including five of the Presidential candidates and many of their campaign aides, as well as other political leadVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
17 

ers, youth activists, and independent journalists. Thirty-two of these individuals remain in detention, and authorities continue to deny family members access to the 

detainees and threaten the lawyers who have been retained to represent them. Lawyers are reporting extremely limited access to their clients; nine detainees have not 

seen their lawyers since Decermber 29. We simply do not know the conditions under 

which these prisoners are being held, but there are reports that one Presidential 

candidate is on a hunger strike. Others, such as Nyaklyaeu and Sannikau were injured by security forces; we do not know—but are concerned—whether they are currently receiving appropriate medical attention. According to authorities, at least 12 

others (including 2 additional Presidential candidates) remain suspects but have yet 

to be formally charged. 

In the days that followed, authorities claimed that the events of December 19 

were an attempt at revolution. State-owned newspapers printed allegations that 

German and Polish security forces had organized and financed a plot to overthrow 

the government. Belarusian security forces have continued day in and day out to 

raid the offices of dozens of independent organizations, media, and human rights 

groups, as well as the homes and apartments of leading activists. Targets have included the two leading Belarusian human rights organizations, the Belarus Helsinki 

Committee and ‘‘Vyasna,’’ both of which were involved in actively documenting the 

electoral fraud and the post-election repression. During these raids, security officials 

seized as ‘‘evidence’’ the files, computers, flash drives, cameras, and other equipment 

belonging to these organizations. Authorities have also arrested and detained additional activists. These raids are continuing up to the present. 

CLOSURE OF THE OSCE OFFICE

In the wake of the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Missions’ findings that the 

Presidential election failed to meet international standards, Belarusian authorities 

announced their intention to close the OSCE Office in Minsk, one of the few international organizations that had the ability to work on promoting democratic governance and respect for human rights inside the country. The office’s mission was to 

assist the Belarusian Government in developing democratic institutions, promoting 

the rule of law, and forging relationships between government and civil society. The 

office’s work was guided by OSCE principles and commitments to which all 56 participating states have agreed, including respect for the rule of law, freedom of assembly and association, and freedom of the media. Based on the conduct of the election and the government’s subsequent acts, it is clear that the OSCE office’s work 

was far from complete. We will continue to press vigorously for reinstating the mandate of the office, just as we did when Lukashenka briefly expelled the OSCE mission 8 years ago. 

VISIT TO MINSK

The primary purpose of my recent visit to Minsk was to demonstrate the U.S. 

Government’s continued solidarity with—and commitment to—the brave men and 

women who have been working peacefully to promote democratic values and political reform. As our Ambassador to the OSCE Ian Kelly said on January 20, ‘‘[w]e 

need to make very clear to the Government of Belarus and to Mr. Lukashenka that 

business as usual cannot go on so long as members of the opposition, independent 

journalists, and peaceful protestors are detained.’’ And as Secretary Clinton and 

European Union High Representative Ashton said in their joint statement on 

December 23, ‘‘The people of Belarus deserve better.’’ 

During my visit, I repeated the administration’s call for the immediate release of 

all those detained in the post-election crackdown. I met with human rights groups, 

NGOs, independent think tanks, members of the democratic opposition, religious 

groups, and independent media organizations. I gave interviews to both local and 

international media highlighting our commitment to the release of the detainees 

and to the longer term survival of Belarusian civil society. 

It has also been tremendously heartening to witness the response of Belarusian 

human rights NGOs and civil society organizations to this crisis. The country’s embattled independent media has provided up-to-the minute factual reporting of the 

elections and crackdown, while NGOs have worked to document the names and locations of the hundreds initially detained. The fact that civil society groups from 

across the former Soviet Union have joined together to create their own Belarus 

monitoring and advocacy group further demonstrates the vital roles these organizations play, both locally and regionally. 

Of course, with so many Belarusian political and civil society leaders now imprisoned, those who remain out of jail are facing unprecedented challenges moving forward. While we have long provided moral and other forms of support to independent 

18 

actors in Belarus, the needs now are significant. We are working diligently with our 

European colleagues to ensure that these immediate needs are met, and we are also 

reviewing our overall assistance approach to Belarus for the medium and long term. 

What struck me most during my time in Belarus was seeing a brave group of 

independent journalists, political leaders, student activists, civic campaigners, and 

religious leaders—as well as their supportive families—who remain undeterred in 

the face of the Lukashenka regime’s efforts over the past decade and a half to suppress them. In fact, they remain as dedicated as ever to fostering democratic change 

in their country. And I am convinced that there are millions of Belarusian citizens 

who—in spite of the repression, the brutality, and the propaganda—want more for 

themselves and for their children. As Europe’s last remaining dictatorship, Belarus 

is the final barrier to what both President George H.W. Bush and President Obama 

have referred to as ‘‘a Europe whole and free.’’ We owe it to the Belarusian people 

to continue supporting them in this critical pursuit. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you both very much for your testimony, 

and I especially appreciate your calling attention to the five diplomats who are still on the ground in Belarus. I hope you will send 

them our thanks and let them know that we will try and do everything we can at our end to call attention to what is happening 

there. 

Both of you talked about the effort or the sort of loosening of the 

regime’s imprisoning and harassing of political prisoners prior to 

the election. So can you speak, if we know, to what their reasoning 

is to suddenly crack down again post election when, given the outcome, it appeared that Lukashenko was not in any danger of losing 

power? So have they decided that Western views of their behavior 

are unimportant, or what do you think has caused the most recent 

crackdown? 

Mr. GORDON. I am happy to start and then Tom can weigh in as 

well. 

I do not want to seek to get into the mind of Mr. Lukashenko, 

try to understand what led him to order his regime to exercise such 

a brutal crackdown. Madam Chair, you are right. We did believe 

that we were observing steps, limited steps but nonetheless steps, 

in a more positive direction over the previous 2 years. We noted 

that one of our key demands was the release of all political prisoners and with the help of some of your colleagues in the Senate, 

that goal was achieved and that is why we in a limited way suspended some of the sanctions that we had put on in reaction to the 

holding of political prisoners. That seemed to us, one, some evidence that our sanctions were noticed and possibly had some effect 

and, two, a sign that maybe the regime was interested in moving 

in the right direction. 

They had also invited in the OSCE to observe the election. We 

had told them if they want this path toward a better relationship 

with the West and the United States, they would need to do the 

right things on democracy and human rights and have a free and 

fair election, and when they invited the OSCE to observe that election, we too thought that was a sign of their interest in moving in 

the right direction. 

Why they then chose—and we had made clear. I underscored— 

when I traveled there in the summer of 2009, I laid out a clear 

roadmap of what Belarus could do and would have to do to have 

the better relationship that they told us that they wanted. And the 

European Union had done the same thing and even offered finanVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
19 

cial incentives if Belarus changed its ways in democracy and 

human rights. So the path forward was there. 

What led the regime to choose not to take that path and use brutality we cannot answer for sure and I do not want to speculate 

about it. All we can say is that they clearly made the wrong choice 

and we need to signal to them that there are consequences for 

doing so. 

Senator SHAHEEN. This probably goes without saying, but do you 

see an impact on the willingness of civil society leaders and those 

affected to come forward and continue to raise concerns about the 

oppression? And how can we best support those folks? 

Mr. MELIA. I can report that the array of people and the groups 

they spoke for in the last few days remain undaunted in their determination to work for a better future for their country. There are 

lots of anecdotal stories they told about the way that they were getting silent and quiet encouragement from their friends and neighbors who are not so active in political life. As I said, we do not 

know how the people of Belarus really voted on December 19. We 

do not know if a majority voted for or against the guy in power. 

What we know is that there is this hardy band of people that are 

willing to incur real risks, and as I said, many of them go to prison 

often. Somebody told me that when you go to a demonstration, a 

peaceful rally, you wear clothes that you think you may be wearing 

for the next 2 weeks if you are picked up and detained under this 

administrative charge. So it is a regular part of their lives. 

They do not show any signs of backing off or reducing their work. 

They are not going to respond in kind to the violence that the regime is meting out against them. They are going to remain peaceful and work through political means that they can inside and outside the system, and they are asking only that we support them, 

that we support them politically as we are doing through our visits 

and through our statements and that we look for ways to support 

them in other ways materially as well, as the Europeans and we 

are talking very concretely about doing. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, certainly the united front from the EU 

and the United States I think is very important. Can you also talk 

about Russia’s role in what is happening in Belarus? 

Mr. GORDON. Sure. Russia plays a major role in Belarus, obviously a part of the former Soviet Union. The two countries have 

linguistic, cultural, and geographic links that we do not question. 

And when I said earlier that we were seeking to provide Belarus 

a path to the West and a better relationship with the United 

States, I want to underscore we do not see that in zero sum terms. 

All of the countries in Europe should have the right to have positive relations not only with us but with Russia as well. 

We have said, however, that we do not see any place for spheres 

of influence within Europe and that all countries in Europe should 

have their sovereignty and territorial integrity and independence 

respected and they should be able to choose their own alliances and 

their own relationships. And the Government of Belarus told us 

that they wanted a better relationship with the West, and in turn, 

we told them that there was a path to do that but it required 

movement on democracy and human rights. And as I said, we 

thought that they understood that. So now when they tell us they 

20 

still want a better relationship with the West, they do not want to 

be dominated by Russia, unfortunately I think the answer is they 

are making their own choice. 

And let me be clear. We do not have any evidence that any outside country, Russia or any other, was involved in what took place 

on December 19. The responsibility for that is Mr. Lukashenko and 

his own regime, but in foreign policy terms, it is a real setback for 

any aspirations Belarus might have had to orient itself in a different direction. 

Mr. MELIA. There is no love lost between President Lukashenko 

and his counterparts in Moscow. It is a very complicated and conflicting relationship in many ways. In the runup to the December 

19 elections, for instance, Russian media, state-influenced media, 

was scathing in its criticism of Lukashenko’s management of 

Belarus and his qualifications for office, et cetera. At the same 

time, Lukashenko’s media in Belarus was complaining about undue 

Russian influence and supporting opposition candidates and problems were being stirred up by Russia. 

After election day, his story changed in the days after. As the 

story to explain why the crackdown had come on December 19, 

evolved—and it has evolved day by day and week by week. It has 

become a different story over time—Lukashenko’s complaint about 

foreign manipulation of his political system shifted direction. He 

was no longer complaining about Russia but he turned to the West. 

He complained that Poland and Germany in particular had 

fomented and supported this imaginary uprising that they have 

accused people of launching. So he is as mercurial in his assessment of who his friends and enemies are as he is in other ways. 

But Russia is very much a part of this. I noticed in the last day 

or so that Foreign Minister Lavrov made a statement noting that 

the Council of Europe had denounced the election and the crackdown, and the Russian members of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly supported that. And Foreign Minister Lavrov 

noted that that Russians had supported the denunciation of the 

election and the aftermath. 

So I think Russia’s views are more complicated than they may 

seem at first glance. They clearly have commercial and other security interests in Belarus. They have two military bases there. So 

it is a complicated relationship. There is an opportunity for Russia 

here too to demonstrate an interest in democratic fundamentals. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator DeMint. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Secretary Gordon, you said that we already have significant 

sanctions, visa bans, assets we are freezing, but you are looking at 

ways to strengthen and widen. What are our options at this point 

that you think might make a difference? 

Mr. GORDON. I outlined a couple of things that we are looking 

at. First of all, as I noted, when Minsk finally released the political 

prisoners that we had been insisting they release in 2008, we suspended sanctions on two subsidiaries of one of their major industrial conglomerates, Belneftekhim. And what we are looking at 

doing now and intend to announce soon is reimposing those sanctions, revoking the general license to do business with those subVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
21 

sidiaries. There is a very clear link. We suspended those sanctions 

because they released political prisoners. 

We have said publicly—I have stated publicly that if those detained on the December 19 crackdown were not released very soon, 

we would have to conclude that they are now political prisoners. 

When you arrest people who run for President and put them in jail, 

it is hard to escape that conclusion. And therefore, if they have political prisoners, one of the things we will do is reimpose those 

sanctions. 

As I noted as you pointed out, we already had a significant travel 

ban on categories of officials from the regime and we are looking 

at widening those categories so that we make sure that all of those 

who were involved in the crackdown are not able to travel to the 

United States. 

Senator DEMINT. But will the EU follow us on that? Will we be 

consistent in sanctions with them? 

Mr. GORDON. We certainly hope so and that is why we have been 

working so closely together. Because our sanctions have been more 

extensive from theirs already, we had less additional room for maneuver, which is why we have tried to so coordinate with the EU 

which has greater relationships with Belarus on which Belarus relies even more. It is obviously for the EU to decide and announce, 

but we are hopeful that they too will be taking steps in similar 

areas to us so that this is a unified international message. 

Senator DEMINT. I am sure you have gamed this out, but if we 

and the EU make it harder and harder to do business with us, are 

we pushing them into the hands of Russia? How do you see this 

playing out? 

Mr. GORDON. We have, indeed, thought that through, gamed it 

out, however you want to put it. And as I said, this is a choice they 

have made. They had told us they did not want to be uniquely dependent on their big neighbor, and we made clear that there was 

a way for them to avoid that. And now I think we need to maintain 

our credibility and demonstrate that when we say something, we 

mean it. 

We have tried to give them, even since December 19—the reason 

we did not act immediately was we would like to see these detainees released. And we said then release them or there will be further consequences. And again, for our credibility both with Belarus 

in the future—because as I had noted to Senator Shaheen, we 

would like to believe that past sanctions actually led them to think 

about and ultimately release political prisoners and take other 

positive steps. But also if I might in the broader picture, there may 

be other ‘‘leaders,’’ if that is the right word, around the world 

thinking about how they are going react to demonstrations. And if 

the message we send is there are no consequences, that might give 

them more space to act in ways that we do not want to see. So that 

is why we feel it is important to carry out these additional 

sanctions. 

Senator DEMINT. And just a couple more questions. 

Mr. Kramer, who will be up in the next panel, has said that 

Belarus is selling arms to places like Syria and Venezuela, the 

Sudan, and Iran. We know this regime is dangerous to its own 

22 

people. How big a factor are they in creating dangers in other parts 

of the world? 

Mr. GORDON. It is something we follow very closely obviously. 

There have been cases in the past of Belarus selling arms to other 

unsavory regimes. Some of those have the potential of falling under 

legal restrictions and legislation passed by this Congress. And obviously, we will enforce our laws if we do have evidence of Belarus 

selling weapons that violate those laws. 

Senator DEMINT. I guess I will ask this to Mr. Melia. Do we need 

to be looking at things, international broadcasting into Belarus, 

ways to communicate to people, encourage them? What do we need 

to be doing to assist the people to make sure they know the world 

is supporting their freedom? 

Mr. MELIA. I think you are exactly right, Senator. Among the 

things that we are looking at enlarging is our support for independent media in Belarus. There is a network of printed newspapers and Web sites that operate inside Belarus almost entirely 

due to support from the international community in a very difficult 

environment. There is also broadcasting into Belarus. RFE/RL is 

doing that. I do not know if there is room for enlarging the hours 

per day or the nature of that programming, but that is certainly 

one of the things that we are looking at doing. But that is an important part of our work, to try to get the message in, just as we 

want to get the message out. We want to hear from the people of 

Belarus as we can, notwithstanding the difficulties they face in 

expressing themselves. 

And that is a network that is working. The international assistance has not only kept hope alive, but it has kept organized communities of men and women in Belarus active in communicating 

with their neighbors and their larger society about democratic values, about what happens in the West, about what the future could 

look like for Belarus. So that is going on now, again thanks largely 

to international support. 

As Secretary Gordon mentioned, we are planning to announce an 

enlargement of that support by the United States in tandem with 

enlargement by European allies who are also going to do that, 

make it easier for students who may be expelled from Belarusian 

universities for their political activism to find places in western 

European universities and other ways that they can be supported 

in their work so that we can mitigate some of the punishment that 

is being dealt to them by the government. 

Senator DEMINT. One quick question, Madam Chairman. I guess 

this is back to Mr. Gordon. 

How does this affect the highly enriched uranium deal that we 

signed last year? Are there any growing concerns? 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. We hope it does not in the sense that 

getting the highly enriched uranium out of Belarus is a high priority for this country. It is very consistent with the President’s nonproliferation agenda and his desire to secure all unsecured nuclear 

materials, and this would be an important step in the United 

States interest. We did not do the HEU deal with Belarus that Secretary Clinton announced on December 1 as a favor to them. We 

did it out of the U.S.’s interest. And even as we move forward with 

additional measures, consequences in response to December 19, we 

23 

would still like to see Belarus honor its commitments to ship out 

all of the HEU out of the country by 2012, by the time of the next 

nuclear security summit. So we hope that these things remain separate and they uphold their end of the deal and get rid of the HEU. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Let me just follow up very quickly on that point. You said we 

hope they will do that. Do we expect them to do that? 

Mr. GORDON. We expect them to do that. We have an agreement. 

The agreement said that Belarus would ship out of the country, by 

the time of the next nuclear security summit in 2012, all of its 

HEU. I should note that in recent months, they have already 

shipped out some HEU. So we have every reason to believe that— 

and we expect them to carry out what they agreed to do. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. Thank you both very much. 

Thank you for your ongoing efforts. 

While we are switching over panels, let me just point out that 

the IRI has assisted the subcommittee in collecting additional testimony from opposition figures, and without objection, I would like 

to add those to the record. 

We also as a subcommittee invited political opposition and civil 

society figures currently out of the country to offer written testimony for the hearing today, and I will also enter those into the 

record without objection. 

[The above mentioned statements can be found in the ‘‘Additional 

Material Submitted for the Record’’ section of this hearing.] 

Senator SHAHEEN. And we will ask our second panelists to come 

forward. Again, thank you all very much for being here. We appreciate your willingness to take the time today to share with us your 

knowledge of what is happening on the ground in Belarus. 

Mr. Kramer, I will ask if you would go first. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID KRAMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. KRAMER. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for inviting us here today and for holding this very important meeting, 

and I am also delighted to see so many people in the audience reflecting an interest in what is going on in a country that is, in fact, 

in the heart of Europe and a country that is definitely going in the 

wrong direction posing a challenge not just to Europe and the 

United States but to all democracies around the world. 

As you and Senator DeMint have said, we have seen real brutality conducted by Aleksandr Lukashenko’s security forces, including the arrests of more than 600 protestors. Those also include 

seven out of nine Presidential candidates, four of whom remain in 

jail, and Lukashenko is personally responsible for this. 

But even in the past week alone, if I may, I would like to just 

read a few headlines that have been on Radio Free Europe/Radio 

Liberty’s Web site that give a flavor that the repression of 

Lukashenko continues. ‘‘Belarusian Athlete Fired for Taking Part 

in Protest’’; ‘‘Belarusian Activist’s Home Searched by Police’’; 

‘‘Belarusian Newspaper Sues Former Employee for Libel for Not 

Condemning the Protest’’; Belarusian KGB Confiscates Opposition 

Activist Computers’’; Journalist Temporarily Detained in Belarus’’; 

24 

‘‘Belarusian Union Leader Arrested in Minsk’’; ‘‘Belarusian Opposition Activist’s Home Searched by KGB and Police.’’ These are just 

in the past week and they are just a snippet of the kinds of repressive measures that Lukashenko’s security forces have been undertaking since December 19. 

And what we have seen is a reflection of Aleksandr Lukashenko 

that is not new. This is the Lukashenko who disappeared four political opposition figures in 1999 and 2000, who has, as Senator 

DeMint pointed out, engaged in arms sales to other repressive regimes. And so Lukashenko is a threat not only within his borders 

but beyond his borders as well. 

In 2006, he oversaw a fraudulent election, major human rights 

abuses, and massive corruption in response to which the United 

States and the European Union imposed sanctions against him and 

others in his regime. Those sanctions, I would argue, and having 

been involved at the State Department at the time and working 

with other colleagues in opposing those sanctions, secured the release of the political prisoners in 2008. They demonstrated that 

tough measures do get Lukashenko’s attention and can produce results. They did not turn Belarus into a democracy, but they did 

force him to liberalize and take some positive steps. Those steps, 

of course, were all undone on December 19 even though the European Union was hopeful that its engagement policy toward Belarus 

might bring about a change. 

There have been many in Europe who have been worried that 

pressure and sanctions against Lukashenko would push Belarus toward Russia. I think it is important to keep in mind that we should 

be adopting policies toward Belarus based on what happens inside 

Belarus not through a Russia prism. We saw a stream of visitors 

going to Minsk. We saw Lukashenko travel to Rome in April 2009 

and have a meeting with the Pope. We saw Belarus being invited 

to participate in the EU’s Eastern Partnership, although the invitation to Lukashenko to come to Prague in May 2009 was done with 

the hope that he would actually not show. And offers of billions of 

dollars, $3.5 billion, in assistance if the election passed the ‘‘free 

and fair’’ test. All of these things were put on the table for 

Lukashenko, and his response was essentially, if you will pardon 

the expression, a middle finger to the United States and to the 

European Union. 

The United States also got involved in this with the HEU deal 

that has been referenced already. Secretary Clinton met with Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov in Kazakhstan and signed the 

deal on HEU. But unfortunately, this broke with a longstanding 

U.S. policy of not having such high level engagement, a policy I 

must say that dates back to her husband’s administration, not just 

the Bush administration. 

So what we saw on December 19 and what we have seen since 

then has been Lukashenko acting as Lukashenko. My guess is he 

got well below 50 percent of the vote and he knew it, and that is 

what triggered such a violent response to all those who were protesting in downtown Minsk. It seemed he flew off the handle and 

yet this was also fairly normal behavior for him. And now the situation is much worse than that in 2006 when the European Union 

and United States together imposed sanctions. 

25 

What do we do? We need to speak with one voice. The enemy is 

Lukashenko, and he is the enemy not just to the European Union 

and the United States. He is an enemy to all human rights and 

democracy advocates inside his country and in the whole region. 

Freedom and democracy are the common goals. We have to keep 

up the drum beat so that there is no deafening silence to those 

fighting for the right cause in Belarus. We have to support civil society. We have to support the opposition. We should be waiving 

visa fees for citizens, the average Belarusian citizens, and help 

students who have been kicked out of university for having participated in the demonstrations. We should be providing help to families and those in detention with lawyer bills, medical support, food, 

and other kinds of assistance. 

Next week there will be a donors’ conference in Warsaw. This is 

a very commendable step. The Pols will be hosting this and I know 

the United States will also be represented. It is very important 

that the United States and European Union, together, come up 

with concrete assistance for these individuals in need. We need to 

support more media to let the people inside Belarus know that we 

are on their side. We need to resume material support for opposition and civil society. Neutrality in the case of Belarusian politics 

is an enemy of freedom and we cannot continue. We need to meet 

with activists and opposition figures, and it is why I particularly 

commend Tom Melia for his trip to Minsk in which he provided 

very important moral support to those on the ground. And for Congress, I would strongly urge the passage of the latest iteration of 

the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011 which I understand is being introduced soon. 

At the same time that we provide that kind of support, I hope 

that the United States and European Union also ratchet up the 

pressure on Lukashenko. Tough talk is not good enough. There 

have to be major consequences for what happened, and this is, as 

I said before, worse than what happened in 2006. I welcome the 

steps that Secretary Gordon announced here today that the United 

States will take, and I also understand that the EU will be taking 

significant measures when it gets together next Monday. 

We should reimpose the visa ban. The EU should lift its suspension of the visa ban. And we should include Foreign Minister 

Martynov so that he cannot go around Europe peddling the lies of 

his dictatorial leader. We should extend the visa ban to the immediate families of those who engaged in human rights abuses so that 

the sons and daughters cannot live in or study or vacation in 

Europe or the United States. And they need to understand the reason they cannot do that is because their mother or father engages 

in human rights abuses for a dictator in Europe. 

We need to expand the asset freeze. 

We need to go after state-owned enterprises, as Secretary Gordon 

mentioned, with Belneftekhim. That worked in securing the release 

of political prisoners. 

And we need to avoid meetings with senior Belarusian officials 

until they take the necessary steps. 

No more international financial assistance for Belarus. No more 

IMF loans. No more World Bank loans. No more EBRD assistance. 

26 

I would strongly urge the European Union to consider kicking 

Belarus out of the Eastern Partnership. Another invitation to 

Lukashenko hoping that he actually would not show up for an 

Eastern Partnership summit is not good enough. 

We need to understand that it is pressure. It is the fist that 

Lukashenko understands. That is the language that gets through 

his head. It is time to step up for democracy. This has not been a 

good couple of months or years in the region with the growing disregard in Russia for human rights, with concerns about Ukraine’s 

possibly heading in the wrong direction. 

Belarus is a real test for the West. We have tens of thousands 

of people, an unprecedented turnout, in the squares in downtown 

Minsk showing up to protest against a fraudulent election and the 

Lukashenko regime. Our support should be for those thousands of 

people, brave people, who turned out facing adverse circumstances 

and the brutality of the security services. We need to protest 

against Lukashenko’s rule. They are the future of Belarus, and 

they need our support and solidarity now. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kramer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID J. KRAMER

Madame Chairwoman, members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before 

you here today to discuss the latest situation in Belarus, and I commend you for 

holding today’s session. It is vitally important that the United States and Europe 

stay focused on the deteriorating situation in Belarus, support those in desperate 

need of assistance, and take decisive steps in response to the latest assault on freedom committed by Europe’s last dictator, Aleksandr Lukashenka. 

In just 4 days, European Union (EU) Foreign Ministers will meet and, I hope, 

vote to reimpose a visa ban and other sanctions against the Lukashenka regime. 

Frankly, anything short of that is unacceptable and would constitute a slap in the 

face to those victims of Lukashenka’s repression. It would also send a signal to authoritarian regimes around the world that they can get away with massive human 

rights abuses cost-free. Five years ago, in response to Belarus’ previous fraudulent 

Presidential election, human rights abuses, and corruption, the United States and 

EU together imposed sanctions against the Lukashenka regime. Over time, those 

sanctions—i.e., not engagement but pressure—secured the release of political prisoners held in Lukashenka’s prisons. 

ENGAGING LUKASHENKA HAS FAILED

Unfortunately, after the EU in particular eased its sanctions against the 

Lukashenka regime in October 2008 (the United States kept most of its sanctions 

in place) and launched an engagement strategy with Minsk, the pressure on 

Lukashenka went away, and he masterfully played the West and Russia off of each 

other. Fearful that continued sanctions and pressure would drive Lukashenka into 

Russia’s arms, European leaders tried to lure him toward the West by including him 

in their Eastern Partnership initiative in May 2009, offering $3.5 billion in assistance if last month’s election passed the ‘‘free and fair’’ test, and paying lots of visits 

to him in Minsk in the lead-up to the election. Lukashenka and his 5-year-old son 

even visited Rome, where they met with Prime Minister Berlusconi and Pope Benedict XVI in April 2009. In the days before last month’s election, some European 

leaders essentially endorsed Lukashenka’s candidacy, arguing that he was the best 

bet against Russian pressure. There were even glimmers of liberalization in Belarus 

in the lead-up to the December 19 election, supporters of engagement claimed. 

Europeans were not alone in softening their approach toward Lukashenka. 

Despite the fact that Lukashenka expelled the American Ambassador and almost 

30 American staff from the Embassy in Minsk in March 2008 and has not allowed 

any of them to return, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Belarusian Foreign Minister Martynov in Kazakhstan on the margins of last November’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Summit to sign an agreement on the 

transfer of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Such a meeting broke longstanding policy dating back to her husband’s administration against such high-level encounters. 

27 

Securing HEU is important but no more so than standing by principle on freedom 

and human rights; moreover, the timing of such a meeting just weeks before the 

Belarus election sent an unfortunate signal that the United States was siding with 

Lukashenka, too. Only at the end of Clinton’s joint statement with her Belarus 

counterpart did the two officials briefly mention human rights issues—and even 

then the statement praised Belarus for inviting international observers to monitor 

the upcoming election and offered no words of criticism for the grim situation there. 

Despite European and American offers of engagement, the situation inside 

Belarus was, in fact, deteriorating, not getting better. The government increased 

pressure against opposition leaders, arrested civil society activists, violently broke 

up protests, harassed the Polish minority, and denied registration to newspapers. 

In certain respects, the regime was less blatant about its repression than it was in 

2006; it avoided high-profile political-prisoner cases, which are easy for the international community to focus on and cause image problems for the regime. But make 

no mistake: The general political and human rights environment did not appreciably 

improve in the lead-up to the election. In Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 

annual rankings, Belarus has not been rated as ‘‘Not Free’’ for years as its government keeps a vice-like grip on all institutions of democratic accountability. Meaningful changes have not been in evidence, and the regime’s true essence shined through 

in this election. 

ELECTION DAY TO THE PRESENT

Indeed, the final nail in the coffin came on December 19. Independent exit poll 

results, contrary to official rigged numbers, showed Lukashenka falling well short 

of the necessary 50-percent threshold to avoid a runoff second round. Apparently 

deciding to deal with the opposition the only way he knew how, Lukashenka ordered 

his KGB goons (and yes, they are still called the KGB) to engage in provocations 

and crack heads, literally, against peaceful protestors in downtown Minsk. Their 

crime: they were expressing their frustration with rigged elections and 

Lukashenka’s dictatorial rule. The security services assaulted and arrested more 

than 600 people, including seven of nine Presidential challengers, and savagely beat 

dozens of people. The KGB has continued to conduct raids and attacks against journalists, opposition figures, civil society representatives, and their families. 

The violence authorized by Lukashenka on December 19 and the abuses that continue to this day are much worse than those in 2006. If sanctions were called for 

in 2006, there should be no debate that they are warranted this time around, too. 

Far more people have been detained and beaten up in the past month than in 2006, 

and the raids on journalists and opposition figures continue unabated. Civil society 

representatives and opposition figures support the reimposition of tough sanctions 

against the Lukashenka regime. Spurning their calls would be a setback for freedom 

and democracy in Belarus and elsewhere around the world. Moreover, it’s time to 

stop viewing Belarus through a Russia prism. In 2006, the EU and U.S. imposed 

sanctions against Lukashenka based on how he abused his own people, not on 

whether Minsk and Moscow had good or bad relations. We should not change that 

approach now and worry whether new sanctions will push Lukashenka toward 

Russia. 

ENOUGH TALK—IT’S TIME FOR ACTION

Tough talk condemning what has happened in Belarus is simply not good enough. 

Lukashenka and his henchmen must suffer major consequences for what happened. 

A wider visa ban should be imposed on those responsible for the human rights 

abuses and be extended to their immediate families if we want it to have impact. 

It should also include Foreign Minister Martynov. While not directly involved in 

human rights abuses, Martynov acts as the mouthpiece for an abusive, corrupt dictator and should not be allowed to peddle his government’s lies anywhere in the 

West. High-level meetings with him, as EU High Representative Baroness Ashton 

held a week ago, lend unwarranted legitimacy to him and his boss. Moreover, 

Belarus should be suspended from participating in the EU’s Eastern Partnership; 

to allow it to remain a beneficiary of this program is to make a mockery of this initiative. Nor should Belarus be entitled to any assistance from any European or 

international financial institutions as long as political prisoners remain in jail. 

The United States, too, should be doing what it can to ratchet up the pressure 

on the regime in Minsk, including imposing sanctions against state-owned enterprises such as Belneftekhim (the state-run Belarusian oil-refining enterprise in 

which Lukashenka himself reportedly had a stake and which the United States 

sanctioned in November 2007). Together, the EU and United States should be 

speaking with one voice and state publicly and repeatedly that Lukashenka is a 

28 

threat to freedom in his country and to the region. He is the reason why Belarus 

suffers from self-imposed isolation from Europe. He is why the families of officials 

who engage in human rights abuses should not be allowed the privilege to travel, 

live, or study in the West. He is why their assets are frozen and their credit cards 

won’t work. If they want to fix these problems, they need to focus their energies on 

the reason for their hardships—Aleksander Lukashenka. 

SHOWING SOLIDARITY WITH BELARUS CIVIL SOCIETY AND OPPOSITION

Secretary Clinton issued a good joint statement with EU High Representative 

Ashton on December 23 condemning the violence in Belarus. Unfortunately, President Obama remained silent, and the White House statement of December 20 was 

issued in the name of the press secretary. President Obama saw fit to issue a statement December 30 commending Ukrainian President Yanukovych on the transfer 

of highly enriched uranium to Russia, but opted to say nothing on the situation in 

Belarus (or on the verdict in the Khodorkovsky case in Russia or the arrest and sentencing of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov). It matters in whose name such 

statements are issued, and the President’s silence was noticeable. 

Freedom and democracy should be the common cause uniting the EU and U.S. 

together with those inside Belarus who are fighting for a better, more democratic 

future. We must keep up the drumbeat—and that is why this hearing is so important I also want to commend Tom Melia, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, for traveling to Minsk last week. During his trip, 

he clearly condemned the regime’s abuses while standing with those victimized by 

Lukashenka’s abuses. Senior-level visits to Minsk these days, to the extent they 

occur at all, should be focused solely on lending support to those in civil society and 

the opposition who are under relentless attack. Photo-ops with Belarusian officials, 

to state the obvious, should be avoided at all costs. 

Assuming the EU takes a tough stance next week toward Lukashenka and his 

regime, it should join with the United States in simultaneously extending significantly more assistance to civil society and opposition forces inside Belarus. We 

should be pressing for the release of the several dozen political prisoners still in jail, 

for a rerun of the election given the fraud that delegitimized the last one (and EU 

ambassadors were right to have boycotted Lukashenka’s inauguration last Friday), 

and for restoration of full political rights and civil liberties. We should be demanding that the Lukashenka regime change its behavior completely—and if it is unwilling, then it should be sanctioned until it does. This is a regime that is not serious 

about engagement. This is a regime that only understands pressure and strength— 

that’s the way to get Lukashenka’s attention. It is a regime that a decade ago ‘‘disappeared’’ four prominent opposition figures for crossing the regime; their whereabouts remain unknown. It sells arms to such places as Syria, Venezuela, Sudan, 

and Iran, revenue from which lines not only the state’s coffers but Lukashenka’s 

pockets. Lukashenka’s regime, in other words, is not only a threat to its own people 

but beyond its borders. By practically any measure, Belarus under Lukashenka is 

truly the last dictatorship in Europe, a view reinforced by developments on December 19 and since. 

At the same time, it is critical that the West step up its support for the opposition 

and for civil society. This should include waiving visa fees for citizens to allow more 

Belarusians to visit the West. We should ramp up opportunities for university students to study in Europe and the United States, especially given that some have 

been expelled from their studies for participating in the protests. We must help the 

families of those in detention to pay for lawyers, medicine, food, and other needs. 

We should be expanding efforts to channel media into Belarus to let the people 

there know we’re on their side. We should continue to meet with activists and opposition figures traveling around Europe and to the U.S. to show support for their 

efforts. In this regard, I commend Secretary Clinton for meeting with a group of 

Belarusians and Belarusian-Americans several weeks ago. These shows of support 

are critical. I also welcome next week’s donors conference in Warsaw as an important opportunity to demonstrate support. 

Congress has an important role to play as well. I urge Congress to take up and 

pass the latest version of the Belarus Democracy Reauthorization Act of 2011. I 

commend Members through joint letters and public statements for urging the EU 

to take a strong stand. We must remember that tens of thousands of people turned 

out in downtown Minsk—unprecedented numbers—to protest against a fraudulent 

election and the Lukashenka regime. They knew they were risking serious injury 

and worse at the hands of Lukashenka’s repressive security services. And yet they 

stood for freedom and human rights. We should be standing with them. When President George W. Bush signed the original bipartisan Belarus Democracy Act in 2004, 

29 

he declared, ‘‘[T]here is no place in a Europe whole and free for a regime of this 

kind.’’ At the same time, there is very much a place in Europe for a democratic 

Belarus—but such a possibility is unlikely as long as Lukashenka remains in power 

and we in the West provide him succor as we did last year. Our support should be 

for the tens of thousands of brave people who turned out to protest Lukashenka’s 

rule. They are the future of Belarus, and they need our support and solidarity now. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Kramer. 

Mr. Wollack. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH WOLLACK, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. WOLLACK. Madam Chairman, Senator DeMint, I appreciate 

the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee on behalf of the 

National Democratic Institute. 

The continuing Belarusian crackdown on democracy activists 

that began on December 19 is tragic and extreme. It is deeper, 

wider, and more violent than any since the late 1990s. But it is not 

an exceptional act or a break with the past, rather, it is consistent 

with the pattern that the Lukashenko regime first established in 

the 1990s and has followed ever since. The regime may adjust its 

tactics over time—sometimes the government is more responsive to 

the international community, sometimes less so—but the strategy 

remains one of holding onto power at all costs. 

Although Belarus conducts regular elections, they are empty 

exercises at best. Each has violated the country’s commitments as 

a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe. The regime does not tolerate meaningful dissent or opposition; and it has also sought to suppress independent voices and 

organizations. It was 4 years ago, for example, that the government 

forcibly disbanded Partnership, a nonpartisan election monitoring 

group that was working with NDI assistance and in accordance 

with OSCE principles. Its offices were closed, its equipment confiscated, and its leaders arrested and imprisoned, along with NDI’s 

resident representative, for 6 months or more. 

We are witnessing now a systematic and far-reaching roundup of 

journalists, civic and party leaders, and ordinary citizens, some 

identified from KGB videos of peaceful post-election protests. 

Before December 19, reasonable people might have differed about 

the relative merits of ‘‘carrots versus sticks’’ approaches in dealing 

with Belarus. There were glimmers of liberalization that led some 

to hope that Mr. Lukashenko could be coaxed into constructive cooperation with the transatlantic community. But these changes 

proved illusory. Irrespective of its erratic moves toward the East or 

the West, the regime’s disrespect for the rights of its citizens 

remains a constant. 

Government-to-government actions and stiff consequences 

should, of course, be the front line of the international response to 

these events, and coordination with the Euro-Atlantic community 

will be essential. In this context, we commend bipartisan international outreach efforts such as the recent Senate letter to European Union High Representative Ashton. 

Last year, we witnessed failed elections in such places as 

Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Burma, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, 

and Haiti. Sadly, Belarus was the latest addition to this group. At 

the same time, there was evidence that the international commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
30 

nity has the capacity to react decisively. This has been most evident in Cote d’Ivoire where the United States, Europe, the African 

Union, the Economic Community of West African States, and the 

United Nations ultimately united behind a single message, a strong 

diplomatic response, and targeted political and economic sanctions. 

Moreover, Cote d’Ivoire was expelled from the African Union and 

the Economic Community of West African States. 

Belarus is, of course, a member of the OSCE, which was founded 

on democratic principles. Ironically though, it was Mr. Lukashenko 

who expelled the OSCE Mission from Belarus. And the OSCE 

might consider finding a suitably reciprocal mechanism to censure 

a member’s flagrant violation of its core principles. Likewise, it is 

difficult to imagine Belarus remaining a participant in good standing of the European Union’s Eastern Partnership initiative. 

At the same time, our assistance should focus on the citizens of 

Belarus—on defending, supporting, and expanding their own aspirations for democratic reforms. Helping the hundreds who remain 

in jail, their families, and those who are still being hunted by the 

KGB must be our first priority. Almost as pressing is ensuring the 

continued existence of the democratic organizations they represent. 

With their leaders jailed, equipment confiscated, and activists 

threatened, the survival of many political parties, civic groups, and 

independent media outlets is in jeopardy. 

A third key priority is maintaining a broad array of avenues 

through which more Belarusians can become politically active. The 

citizens who signed petitions, gathered on the square, or were simply jarred out of complacency by the regime’s repression must have 

ongoing communication links, organizations to join, projects to support, information to weigh, and opportunities for dialogue if any 

good is to follow from this tragedy. 

As we consider assistance going forward, there are certain basics 

that have proven their worth in situations like these around the 

world. 

First, the democrats inside Belarus need ongoing international 

attention. Vaclav Havel has spoken eloquently about how important outside voices were to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain—as 

a source of hope and proof that they were not alone. Meetings with 

high-level visitors, such as those that took place recently with Senator Durbin and Tom Melia, are invaluable. 

Second, the activists need practical assistance that is both responsive to their requests and sensitive to their own assessments 

of the risks. Along these lines, there are a number of activities that 

merit consideration. First, helping political parties and civic organizations regroup, strengthen their structures, and conduct activities 

that engage citizens in political life. Second, ensuring that political 

groups have access to reliable information about the values and 

concerns of the population and the activities of both their government and the opposition. The Polish-based satellite television channel, Belsat, is very important in this regard. Third, assisting 

Belarusians to find a wide range of entry points into political life, 

from low-risk discussion groups and community development 

projects to high stakes advocacy on political rights or campaigning 

for office. Our emphasis should not be on promoting individual poliVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
31 

ticians, but rather on supporting democratic demand through organizations representing genuine citizen interests. 

We would also caution against making rigid distinctions between 

‘‘political’’ and ‘‘nonpolitical’’ organizations—so as to assist only the 

latter. Support should go to all groups that are responding to and 

engaging citizens. 

What can the opposition reasonably accomplish in the current 

harsh environment, assuming its activists receive adequate moral 

and practical support from the international community? It can defend, expand, and strengthen the popular aspirations for democratic change. It can present alternative visions for the future of 

Belarus. Regardless of what precipitates a political opening, only 

grassroots demand will ensure a democratic outcome. 

December 19 was a serious setback for the Belarusian democratic 

forces. But I am confident that, with international solidarity, they 

will recover and perhaps reemerge stronger. By continuing to invest in the aspirations of the Belarusian people, we will bring the 

country closer to its democratic potential. Moreover, we will find 

ourselves on the right side of history. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Senator DeMint. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wollack follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH WOLLACK

Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear on behalf of the National Democratic Institute before the subcommittee on the current situation in Belarus. 

The continuing Belarusian crackdown on democracy activists that began on December 19 is tragic and extreme. It is deeper, wider, and more violent than any 

since the late 1990s. But it is not an exceptional act or a break with the past, rather 

it is consistent with the pattern that the Lukashenko regime first established in the 

1990s and has followed ever since. The regime may adjust its tactics over time— 

sometimes the government is more responsive to the international community, 

sometimes less so—but the strategy remains one of holding onto power at all costs. 

Although Belarus conducts regular elections, they are empty exercises at best. 

Each has failed to meet minimum international standards; each has violated the 

country’s commitments as a member of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Lukashenko regime has consistently demonstrated that 

it will not tolerate meaningful dissent or opposition; and it has also sought to suppress independent voices and organizations. It was four years ago, for example, that 

the government forcibly disbanded Partnership, a nonpartisan election monitoring 

group that was working with NDI assistance and in accordance with OSCE principles. Its offices were closed, its equipment confiscated, and its leaders arrested and 

imprisoned, along with NDI’s resident representative, for 6 months or more. 

In testimony before Senator Cardin and the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe in advance of the 2008 parliamentary elections, NDI noted that 

‘‘most forms of independent political activity, including [civic] and political party organizing, have been repressed.’’ We cited criminalization of political activity through 

denial of registration to all but the most progovernmental organizations, closure of 

media outlets and persecution of journalists. 

Remarkably, the situation today has worsened. We are witnessing a systematic 

and far reaching roundup of journalists, civic and party leaders, and ordinary citizens, some identified from KGB videos of peaceful post election protests. Mr. 

Lukashenko’s claim that no more ‘‘senseless democracy’’ will be tolerated in Belarus 

makes clear his intention to decimate the democratic opposition and independent 

civic groups. 

Before December 19, reasonable people might have differed about the relative 

merits of ‘‘carrots versus sticks’’ approaches in dealing with Belarus. There were 

glimmers of liberalization that led some to hope that Mr. Lukashenko could be 

coaxed into constructive cooperation with the trans-Atlantic community. But these 

changes proved illusory. In addition, the Belarusian economy is struggling and there 

is evidence from a variety of opinion polls that Mr. Lukashenko’s popularity is sinking. His capacity to rule through a so-called social compact is thus diminished. The 

32 

main tool he has left is repression. The very nature of the Belarusian regime has 

made it virtually immune to entreaties from its democratic neighbors. Any international response to the current crackdown must be shaped by that fundamental 

point. Irrespective of its erratic moves toward the East or the West, the regime’s 

disrespect for the rights of its citizens remains a constant. 

Government-to-government actions and stiff consequences should, of course, be 

the front line of the international response to these events, and coordination within 

the EuroAtlantic community will be essential. In this context, we commend bipartisan international outreach efforts such as the recent Senate letter to European 

Union High Representative Ashton. 

Last year, we witnessed failed elections in such places as Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, 

Bahrain, Burma, Coˆte d’Ivoire, Egypt, and Haiti. Sadly, Belarus was the latest addition to this group. At the same time, there was evidence that the international community has the capacity to react decisively. This has been most evident in Coˆte 

d’Ivoire, where the United States, Europe, the African Union (AU) and the United 

Nations ultimately united behind a single message, a strong diplomatic response, 

and targeted political and economic sanctions. Moreover, Coˆte d’Ivoire was expelled 

from the AU and the Economic Community of West African States. The outcome of 

this standoff remains uncertain, but the forthright international defense of fundamental political rights sends an important message to the people of Coˆte d’Ivoire. 

Belarus is of course a member of the OSCE, which was founded on democratic 

principles. Ironically, though, it was Mr. Lukashenko who expelled the OSCE mission from Belarus. The OSCE might consider finding a suitably reciprocal mechanism to censure this flagrant violation of its core values. Likewise, it is difficult to 

imagine Belarus remaining a participant in good standing of the European Union’s 

Eastern Partnership initiative. 

At the same time, our assistance should focus on the citizens of Belarus—on defending, supporting, and expanding their own aspirations for democratic reforms. 

The slight liberalization in the preelection period provided a glimpse of those aspirations and of the grassroots democratic potential in Belarus. Opposition leaders 

took advantage of the narrow opening to create a political environment that genuinely engaged and activated people. Democratic candidates, when they were briefly 

allowed to campaign, found volunteers to carry and sign their petitions in numbers 

far exceeding expectations. On election night, thousands of ordinary Belarusians imbued with a new interest in politics flocked to the central square in Minsk, despite 

the very real threat of violence. The recent crackdown has touched and angered 

many previously uninvolved citizens, fueling increased support for the democratic 

movement. Since the election, political leaders have put aside differences to rally in 

support of political prisoners, forming multiparty organizations such as Solidarity 

and the Coordinating Council. Indeed, this swelling of popular mobilization, along 

with signs that the regime was losing popularity, is what seems to have triggered 

the regime’s violent reaction on December 19. 

Helping the hundreds who remain in jail, their families and those who are still 

being hunted by the KGB must be our first priority. Almost as pressing is ensuring 

the continued existence of the democratic organizations they represent. With their 

leaders jailed, equipment confiscated and activists threatened, the survival of many 

political parties, civic groups, and independent media outlets is in jeopardy. A third 

key priority is maintaining a broad array of avenues through which more 

Belarusians can become politically active. The citizens who signed petitions, gathered on the square, or were simply jarred out of complacency by the regime’s repression must have ongoing communication links, organizations to join, projects to support, information to weigh, and opportunities for dialogue if any good is to follow 

from this tragedy. 

As we consider democracy assistance going forward, we should bear in mind that 

there is no silver bullet, no magic program formula that will lift Belarus out of its 

current crisis and toward greater freedom. But there are certain basics that have 

proven their worth in situations like these around the world. 

• First, the democrats inside Belarus need international attention. Vaclav Havel 

has spoken eloquently about how important outside voices were to dissidents 

behind the Iron Curtain—as a source of hope and proof that they were not 

alone. We need to stand in public solidarity with the Belarusians now under 

attack. Meetings with high-level visitors, such as those that took place recently 

with Senator Durbin and the State Department’s Tom Melia, are invaluable. In 

these conditions, political neutrality would only translate into support for the 

regime. 

• Second, the activists need practical assistance that is both responsive to their 

requests and sensitive to their own assessments of the risk. 

33 

Along these lines, there are a number of activities, including some that NDI and 

others are already conducting, that merit consideration: 

• Helping political parties and civic organizations regroup, strengthen their structures and conduct activities that engage citizens in political life. 

• Ensuring that political groups have access to reliable information about the values and concerns of the population. 

• Ensuring that citizens have access to impartial information about the activities 

of both their government and the opposition. 

• Assisting Belarusians to find a wide range of entry points into political life, 

from low-risk discussion groups and community development projects to high 

stakes advocacy on political rights or campaigning for office. 

Our emphasis should not be on promoting individual politicians, but rather on 

supporting democratic demand through organizations representing genuine citizen 

interests. 

We would also caution against making rigid distinctions between ‘‘political’’ and 

‘‘nonpolitical’’ organizations—so as to assist only the latter. Support should go to 

groups that are responding to and engaging citizens. 

Even though Belarusian democrats bear no responsibility for the current crisis— 

on the contrary, they are its victims—nonetheless the responsibility for democratic 

progress going forward falls to them. What can the opposition reasonably accomplish 

in the current harsh environment, assuming its activists receive adequate moral 

and practical support from the international community? 

First, we should acknowledge that there are no quick fixes. Democracy assistance 

is a long-term process with an unpredictable timeline. The objective is to support 

democrats with networks, skills and bases of support so they can fill the political 

vacuum when openings occur. 

Until then, the leaders of the Belarusian opposition can defend, expand, and 

strengthen the popular aspirations for democratic change. They can present alternative visions for the future of Belarus. Regardless of what precipitates a political 

opening, only grassroots demand will ensure a democratic outcome. 

December 19 was a serious setback for the Belarusian democratic forces. But I 

am confident that, with international solidarity, they will recover and perhaps reemerge stronger. By continuing to invest in the aspirations of the Belarusian people, 

we will bring the country closer to its democratic potential. Moreover, we will find 

ourselves on the right side of history. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Wollack. 

Ms. Koliada, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF NATALIA KOLIADA, GENERAL DIRECTOR AND 

COFOUNDER, BELARUS FREE THEATRE, MINSK, BELARUS 

Ms. KOLIADA. Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you so much for giving me a chance and the floor 

to speak today on behalf of those people who are today in jail. They 

do not have voices. I still have the voice, so I will speak on their 

behalf. 

If you allow me to start, I will start. 

My name is Natalia Koliada. I am cofounder of Belarus Free 

Theatre, together with my husband, Nikolai Khalezin, and Vladimir Shcherban, and a great group of actors. We gathered together 

in order to make the theatre and say whatever we think wherever 

and whenever we want and to whom we want by means of arts. 

We wanted our spectators to think and this is the most scary part 

for the Belarusian dictator, when people start thinking. As a result 

of our artistic works, the company experienced all possible types of 

repression, from dismissal from their jobs to arrest of the whole 

group, together with all spectators. 

But I am here today not as a theatremaker. Today I am here just 

as a human being. I am a person who was lucky enough because 

of a very simple judicial mistake to leave Belarus after a 1-day imprisonment. Now my parents and my husband’s parents are under 

34 

constant control and pressure of the KGB. My apartment and my 

husband’s apartment was searched three times. It was under attack of the KGB three times. And of course, it is not possible to 

compare a pain of our parents whose children are free but not with 

them to the pain of those with relatives in the KGB jail now. 

Everything that happens in Belarus now reminds only Stalin 

times. 

I am here today to talk on behalf of my friends, people with who 

I worked and who I even never met in my life, but all of them are 

now in the KGB jail, and they face from 5 to 15 years of imprisonment. If I have a voice, I will speak for them. 

I am here today on behalf of all their relatives who do not have 

any news about their loved ones because lawyers are not allowed 

to those who are in custody. Nobody knows their destinies and 

health conditions. 

Everything that happened on December 19, 2010, was a big surprise for the world, but not for us who live under a dictator for the 

last 16 years. Belarus has now entered the third era in its most 

difficult stage of life beginning a decade ago. In 1999–2000, 

Lukashenko eliminated public and political leaders using a death 

squad. 

Then there was 2006, the year of previous Presidential elections 

when European politicians essentially denied help to the democratic forces of Belarus. On the eve of the election, one must put 

the question, Can the European Union really put pressure on 

Lukashenko and start exercising sanctions? One of European diplomats said only if people are starting to be killed in the streets. 

Five people are not enough to be killed in the streets of Minsk? 

On September 3, 2010, our friend and journalist, Oleg Bebenin, 

founder of the most influential and independent Web site, Charter 

97, was found dead. He was found hanged in his country cottage. 

Ridiculously staged suicide would be one of the key elements in the 

upcoming election campaign. The killing led to a so-called international investigation, but European politicians even then turned 

a blind eye to the death, limiting their intervention by the arrival 

of two experts whose names were not even announced officially to 

examine documents offered by the Belarusian authorities. And 

Charter 97 Web site was under the first attack on the night from 

December 19–20, just showing to the world that nobody should 

know what is happening in Belarus. Nobody needs witnesses. 

That should have been the moment when the world stops talking 

to the last dictator of Europe. This is the person who kidnaps, kills 

people, puts innocent people in jail, and uses them for blackmail, 

sells arms to Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq. The world should call 

such a person as a terrorist and place him on the ‘‘most wanted’’ 

list. Generally such people are hunted down and put on trial, but 

somehow the rule does not apply to Lukashenko. 

Belarus was one of the main five countries that traded arms. 

Lukashenko’s elder son, Victor, is in charge of trading arms, national security’s border control and it is obvious that he was one 

of those who led the crackdown on a peaceful demonstration on 

December 19. His middle son is in charge of gambling. Such a family. And the whole country is under their control. 

35 

Nevertheless, the West continued to engage this monster. We felt 

betrayed by those who we thought should be helping us. Human 

rights and democracy took second place to geopolitical interests, 

business profits, and historical fears of Russia. 

It was a strategic mistake for Europeans to count on Russia and 

hope that this country that never cared about any human’s life 

such as Khodorkovskiy, Politkovskaya, Estimirova would start to 

care about human rights in Belarus. 

Lukashenko played EU with his fake preelection liberalization 

and the EU ate it up. Why did the Europeans buy this? Belarus 

is a country without oil, gas, or seaports. Belarus just has its people. Who needs such things as people? 

It was a very bad sign when there was discussion on December 

1 on uranium. It showed Lukashenko a support from both sides, 

the visit of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany and Poland 

to Belarus and discussion on uranium on December 1 by Secretary 

of State. 

In the year preceding the 2000 Presidential election, Lukashenko’s claims of liberalization were taken seriously by the West. 

We have not experienced this for the most notorious liberalization 

ourselves. Talks on the liberalization and flirting with the dictator 

led to a wave of terror that began on December 19, 2010, and continued until now. 

I cannot describe the reality of everyday life in Belarus on 

December 19 because it would take months to describe all personal 

tragedies that take place now in Belarus. But I could give you just 

a story of my personal experience and experience of our theatre 

manager and those people who I met in jail from December 19–20. 

On December 19, about 50,000 people gathered at the square. 

Then it was attack. Then it was provocation by the government. 

There were a few attempts to provoke people from the side of the 

government. People tried to resist, but it was not possible to resist. 

An enormous attack by thousands of people in black, in uniforms 

in helmets with their shields moved to people to arrest. 

My husband and I—we were close. But when a company of riot 

police struck at the crowd, we became separated. The only thing 

that happened next—it was me in a van with total darkness. The 

only thing that the special division of police referred to us at the 

first moment there were five people at that mobile jail. The ‘‘animal’’—this was the lightest word that we heard regarding to 

ourselves. 

In the van, there were absolutely darkness. Gradually the paddy 

wagon was filled with the detained and eventually 68 people were 

crammed inside. First we heard: ‘‘Lie on the floor. Do not move. 

One move and I’ll kill you.’’ But by the time there were about 70 

people, it was necessary for people to stand up despite the fact that 

the metal shed measuring about 2 by 5 meters. 

The car started to move around the city. We had been in the car 

for about 4 hours, and we stood on the territory of the jail where 

that van came. Two people started to lose their consciousness, but 

doctors did not appear, of course. 

In the 4 hours, we started to be taken one by one. We had been 

told that we need to go to jail head to head. And when I got to the 

jail, I saw the corridor. To my right hand, I saw hundreds of men 

36 

who were staying along the sides of corridors, both walls, and they 

faced the walls with their hands back. And the only thing that is 

possible to recall would be from Soviet films about Nazis. So it was 

exactly this kind of story. 

Women were separated from men and we were moved to the second floor. And when I got to the second floor, I could not believe 

my eyes because it was the same that it was on the first floor, but 

they were women facing the walls and with their hands back. It 

was the moment when the head of the special division of police said 

that Nazis will be like a dream for you. And it is a very horrible 

moment to hear because every third Belarusian was killed by a 

Nazi, and knowing that the Belarusian citizen is saying this thing 

to another Belarusian citizen, it just shows you the leverage of hate 

and dictatorship that exists in Belarus. 

Through the night, more than 600 people were arrested, including six Presidential candidates, two of them Andrei Sannikov and 

Vladimir Neklyaev, in horrible health condition. Nobody knows 

what is happening to them. 

In the detention center when we stood overnight, nobody even 

provided us cells. We were not allowed to sleep. We were not 

allowed to drink. We were not allowed to use the toilet. If you 

asked to get some water, you would say that go and use the toilet. 

In the case of our theatre manager, Artem Zheleznyak, when he 

confessed to me, when he was released on December 31, he had 

never experienced anything like that during his entire life. For 

almost 3 days, he was either in the paddy wagon or in a stone 

glass, a tiny concrete cell about 80 centimeters square, less than 

1 square meter, and above all, he was stuffed in with two other detainees in that tiny cell. He was allowed to use a bathroom once 

within 3 days after his arrest. 

Many of those who had been sentenced for administrative arrest 

were immediately arrested by the KGB after their release and 

taken to a KGB jail. These people were charged under the article 

of the organization of mass disturbances. 

My husband, Nikolai Khalezin, now is also charged under this 

article. When we were separated at the square, he managed to 

escape, picked up our youngest daughter who was with friends, and 

got home. Early in the morning, KGB officers tried to infiltrate into 

our house, but my husband, parents, and daughter stayed silent 

and gave no sign that anyone was there. KGB officers returned 

several times during the morning, but my husband managed to 

escape from the house with the help of our friends. 

What began to happen in Belarus on December 20, I would term 

a true ‘‘witch hunt.’’ Only about two dozen of political activists 

could escape from the secret service. All others were arrested. From 

the very morning, the all-out searches of the apartments of social 

activists began. Editorial offices of independent newspapers and 

Web sites were destroyed. Human rights defenders were detained 

and interrogated. Almost everywhere computer equipment and any 

information media, flash memory cards, video, and photo cameras, 

CD, DVD, external computer disks were confiscated, Belarusian 

authorities afraid of any witnesses. 

There were no mobile coverage at the square. There was no 

Internet. When people referred to Belarus and said that it is posVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
37 

sible to have a Twitter revolution, as it was in Iran; no, it was not 

possible because Belarusian authorities bought Chinese filters and 

there was no Internet in Belarus. 

The country plunged into a deep depression, not knowing how to 

resist the total violence and absolute arbitrariness. At the same 

time, people increasingly began to show their public initiative to 

help the repressed and their families. 

We managed to flee the country. On January 3, we were supposed to fly out on a tour from Minsk to New York. And with great 

help—today we were referred to Michael Scanlan and the U.S. Embassy several times, and it appeared that this is the Embassy that 

really helped—we left the country. But the next day, the KGB 

came to apartments of our parents and they said where are your 

children. How did they manage to leave the country? And from all 

the discussion, it was absolutely obvious that the KGB said organization of mass disturbances is referred to your children. Already 

three times, KGB officers came to a house of our manager. The 

husband of our actress was arrested. They also actively searched 

for the president of We Remember Foundation, Irina Krasovskaya, 

who is present today at these amazing hearings. 

Today the number of imprisoned in the KGB jail constantly varies. Depriving prisoners of information and health treatment is a 

secret service tactic for pressuring them to confess to crimes which 

they did not commit. Not only do prisoners undergo this enormous 

pressure, but it extends to their relatives. On the day when I met, 

together with Irina Krasovskaya and the representatives of 

Belarusian diaspora in the United States, with the U.S. Secretary 

of State Hillary Clinton, intelligence officers in Minsk tried to win 

over the wife of Dmitry Bondarenko, coordinator of the European 

Belarus movement. She was offered to influence her husband so he 

would begin to cooperate with the investigation and then would receive a prison term much less than Sannikov. The next day after 

the meeting with the Secretary of State, apartments of my parents 

were attacked by KGB again. 

Unfortunately, today the simple desire of Belarusians to get rid 

of dictatorship is not enough. Lukashenko has created a huge machine of repression which has no analogs in Europe. We can resist 

it only by leaning on the help of those who are able to influence 

the last dictatorship of Europe from the outside. 

Here in America, we have amazing support of American artists, 

Steven Spielberg, Michael Douglas, Tony Kushner, Oskar Eustis, 

Catherine Coray, Leigh Jameson, Jeramie Irons, Michael Lawrence; many, many of them. I can enumerate for a long time names 

of those tremendous and great people who rushed to our aid and 

embarked on the protection of political prisoners. 

I have a dream that we will be able to pronounce with the same 

pride the names of American and European politicians who decide 

to help a country of 10 million people. But if any way politicians 

do their job and think only such the ways, there is just one political 

and geopolitical challenge. If there is no dictatorship in Belarus, it 

will be for the first time in the world history when European Continent would be free from dictators. What a shame if the European 

Union and the United States cannot solve this issue. 

38 

I would like to get just a few moments of your attention. This 

is just a few moments that I need from you and pay attention just 

to the names of people who are now in the KGB jail, and these are 

just people: Aliaksandr Atroshchankau, Aliaksandr Arastovich, 

Bandarenka, Breus, Fiaduta, Fedarkevich, Khalip, Khamichenka, 

Klaskouski, Kobets, Korban, Kviatkevich, Likhavid, Liabedzka, 

Loban, Malchanau, Martsaleu, Miadzvedz, Mikhalevich, Novik, 

Niakliayeu, Palazhanka, Parfiankou, Paulau, Pazniak, Radzina, 

Sannikau, Seviarynets, Statkevich, Vazniak, Vinahradau. No oil, 

no gas, just people. This list is growing now. 

I wanted to bring you a portrait, but it was not allowed to bring 

it here. It is staying on the first floor. It is a portrait of a son of 

our friends, Andrei Sannikov and Irina Khalip. You saw his portrait today. He is only 3 years old but he personifies all parents. 

He personifies all children who are now without parents, and parents who are now without children. And could you imagine if you 

put yourself on the position of his parents, that they would see him 

or he would see his parents only when he is 18 years old. He is 

3 now. 

When we talk about Belarus, let us talk about it like people, not 

as politicians or theatre makers, not as businessmen and geopolitical strategists, but just people. The American Senate is the 

voice of American people, and we need those voices of people of 

America to stay together with us and help us to fight against dictatorship. 

Our patron, Sir Tom Stoppard, who came to Belarus underground and met with many of those who are now in KGB and relatives of those whose relatives were kidnapped and killed by the 

regime said: Dictatorship is not a political problem. It is a moral 

problem. Let us think about morality in politics toward Belarus, as 

well as to other countries that stay under dictatorships as well. 

Words are not enough. It is time to act. 

Thank you so much for your time and patience. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Koliada follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATALIA KOLIADA

Madam Chairperson, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to share my experience of the political and social upheaval surrounding 

the recent fraudulent Presidential elections in my country, Belarus. With your permission, I would like to present my story. 

My name is Natalia Koliada. I am a director of the Belarus Free Theatre. I believe that in order to present a complete picture of what is happening in Belarus, 

I should start with a history of our theater itself, an independent creative company 

which has become a pariah in its own country. 

OUR THEATER

My husband Nikolai Khalezin and I created the theater in spring of 2005. A 

month later, after a director, Vladimir Scherban, joined us, we were able to release 

the first show, ‘‘Psychosis 4.48’’ based on a play by British playwright Sarah Kane. 

Even the first performance provoked a squall of discontent on behalf of the power 

structures, and the next show, ‘‘Breathing Technique in a Vacuum’’ based on a play 

by Russian playwright, Natalia Moshina, led to the prohibition of the theater. In 

the first months of our existence, we could rent small clubs for the performances. 

Later, when the theater became known to intelligence agencies and the Presidential 

administration, our managers were visiting on average 30–40 different public 

spaces, offering to perform for free, but they were rejected every time. 

Exercising our right to freedom of expression, we began to show performances 

underground, using every opportunity. We presented them in the guise of private 

39 

parties and birthdays in cafes or in private homes, and even under the guise of weddings at a farm in the forest. 

The result was that the professional theater company has become a pariah, and 

members of the troupe throughout the 6 years of the theater’s existence experienced 

all possible types of repression: expulsion from the universities, dismissal from their 

job, denial of residency, beatings, arrests, prison time, and psychological pressure 

on members of the troupe and the audience. Three members of the group were imprisoned, and everyone has been arrested. One of the most heinous cases occurred 

in August 2007, when the entire troupe was arrested along with the audience—more 

than 60 people. Then the mass repression was avoided only through the intervention of international celebrities: British playwright, Sir Tom Stoppard, and Nobel 

Laureate, Harold Pinter, along with a rapid response of the leading world media. 

Pressure on the theater grew in proportion as the company became popular 

abroad. We presented performances on four continents, traveled more than two 

dozen countries on tour, receiving brilliant critique in the world’s leading publications. But at home in Belarus, we still showed performances in secret: we were not 

allowed to register the theater officially, rent space, nor sell tickets. The regime continued to pressure not only actors and managers of the theater, but resorted to pressure spectators and family members of the troupe. 

In the year preceding the 2010 Presidential election, many European politicians 

were taking President Alexander Lukashenko’s claims of liberalization seriously. We 

have not experienced for a single day of this most notorious ‘‘liberalization’’ ourselves. The pressure on the theater changed its forms, but it has not slackened or 

faltered for a moment, being amplified after each great success abroad. Talks on the 

liberalization and flirting with the dictator led to a wave of terror that began on 

December 19, 2010, and continuing until now. 

DECEMBER 19, 2010

The morning of Election Day did not herald the bloody outcome, which occurred 

later in the evening. The authorities cornered about 20 percent of voters on a preliminary vote and all bulletins of those who had voted before the official Election 

Day were enrolled in Lukashenko’s advantage. At 4 p.m. the first exit poll data 

began to appear. Based on that information it became clear that Alexander 

Lukashenko gained no more than 32 percent of the votes whereas the share of the 

remaining eight candidates had more than 43 percent. Knowing the Belarusian political situation in which the overflow of the votes from opposition candidates to the 

dictator is impossible, and taking into account the fact that among the opposition 

candidates the majority of the votes were distributed between two leaders—Andrei 

Sannikov and Vladimir Neklyaev—it was easy to understand that the reality of the 

second round of elections would become absolutely obvious, in which a Democratic 

candidate would undoubtedly win. 

Based on the exit poll data and information from a number of polling stations, 

the indicative results of the first round of the Presidential elections were as follows: 

Alexander Lukashenko gained 33–40 percent; Andrei Sannikov—23–25 percent. In 

the second round of voting Sannikova would receive votes from his colleagues in the 

Democratic opposition—Vladimir Neklyaev (about 12–15 percent), Yaroslav 

Romanchuk (10 percent) and other opposition candidates (about 5–7 percent). Most 

likely, the realization of his imminent defeat prompted Lukashenko to radical actions against peaceful demonstrators who had gathered in that evening in the center 

of Minsk in order to hear the final figures of the results of the Presidential elections. 

By 8 p.m. at the October Square in Minsk there were about 50,000 people. They 

were people of different ages belonging to different social groups. Many came as entire families—even with young children. For the first time in the last 10 years, so 

many people took to the streets. It was a peaceful demonstration—there were no 

aggressive or intoxicated people in the crowd; any provocations by dressed in plain 

clothes security officers were stopped by the protesters. On the square a rally with 

the Presidential candidates, heads of their staffs, and culture figures took place. 

There at the square, it became known that half an hour before the rally security 

forces attacked a group of members of the headquarters of a Presidential candidate, 

Vladimir Neklyaev. The attack was carried out with firearms and light stun grenades. The attackers seized a set of sound-amplifying equipment and took away part 

of the video and photography equipment from journalists present there. Nyaklyaev 

himself was brutally beaten, and after the attackers withdrew, he, being unconscious, was moved back into the candidate’s headquarters. 

After the meeting ended at the square, the demonstrators marched to Independence Square, where the Central Election Commission was located at the Government Building. When about 50–60 thousand people came to the square the final 

40 

results of the Presidential elections, announced by the Central Election Commission, 

became known. According to the authorities, Alexander Lukashenko had scored 

more than 79 percent of the votes. 

It was clear that the dictator would not part with his power, even if nobody voted 

for him. 

The rally at the square continued—one Presidential candidate after another gave 

a speech during which they declared their opposition to the fraudulent results that 

had been announced by the Central Election Commission. At some point, there was 

a sound of breaking glass—a few unknown people tried to break the glass door in 

the building that housed the Central Election Commission. Demonstrators surrounded the area close to the doors, and did not let anyone to approach them. Presidential candidate Vitali Rymashevsky, getting to the microphone, announced that 

it was a provocation of the intelligence services, but suddenly another group of 

sports-dressed young people appeared there and continued even more actively 

smashing the glass doors of the Government Building. Only a few days later, with 

the active help of bloggers, journalists, and, thanks to leaks from law enforcement 

of audio conversations between special security services, people managed to reconstruct the event completely, and with absolute certainty to establish that the destructions of the doors of the Government Building had been staged by the secret 

service. Today, all the relevant audio communications can be found publicly on the 

Internet. 

From the audio communications of special services it became clear that the breaking of glass in the door of the building was the signal for the use of the force against 

peaceful demonstrators. A few minutes later, after the raid leaders ordered the 

sweep, the area was filled with about 7–10 thousand troops. It consisted of different 

groups of armed men: from organized riot squads to semicriminal groups without 

any recognizable insignia, dressed in black clothes. These groups are part of 

semilegal armed forces, carrying out special assignments of the Presidential structures. They behaved horribly, screaming obscenities and furiously smashing and 

brutally beating the peaceful demonstrators. 

My husband and I were close, but when a company of riot police struck at the 

crowd, we became separated on different sides of armed men. I, along with a small 

group of protesters was shoved aside to a waiting paddy wagon, and we were 

pushed inside of it. We, the first few people, were more fortunate than others—we 

mostly avoid the beatings. Riot policemen initially only gave orders, interspersing 

them with foul language: ‘‘Lie on the floor!’’, ‘‘Do not move!’’, ‘‘One move and I’ll kill 

you!’’ The gentlest treatment was the word ‘‘animals.’’ In the car there was absolute 

darkness. Gradually the paddy wagon was filled with the detained, and eventually 

68 people were crammed inside, despite the fact that it is a metal shed measuring 

about 2 by 5 meters. 

The car started to move around the city—the moving lasted about an hour, then 

we stayed in the car for another 3 hours. There was not enough air, there was no 

water and we weren’t allowed to go to the toilet. A few hours later after we arrived 

at a detention center, which was a jail, where political prisoners sentenced to short 

prison terms are usually taken; a few groups were convoyed to the toilet. To our 

question whether it was possible to drink somewhere, the guards replied: ‘‘Drink 

from the toilet.’’ Threats and insults rained incessantly on us. That evening one of 

the guards told us: ‘‘Fascists will look like a fairy tale for you.’’ It was true—it was 

unbearably difficult to stand the insults, beatings and humiliation for the young 

people, the vast majority of whom were in that situation for the first time in their 

life. 

Throughout the night more than 600 people were arrested, including six Presidential candidates. At the detention center they did not even take us to the cells. 

We were left standing in the hallways waiting for trials that were due to start in 

the morning. The guards continued psychological pressure, periodically giving the 

command: ‘‘Form up a file,’’ ‘‘Face the wall,’’ ‘‘Place your feet shoulder-width apart.’’ 

It was senseless torture of people throughout the entire night. 

DECEMBER 20, 2010

In the morning they started to take us to the courts. They had to sentence more 

than 600 people, so all the courts of the city were overcrowded. Trials that were taking place one after another, sometimes took just a few minutes. Police officers were 

the witnesses, and all protocols were written in the same way: ‘‘was in the square,’’ 

shouted the slogans,’’ ‘‘violated the order.’’ Insisting on the presence of a lawyer was 

futile. Without exception, all the trials were behind closed doors. Lawyers were not 

allowed in and even the relatives of the arrested could not find out where the trials 

on their loved ones had been taken place. In the most cases the sentences imposed 

41 

were of two types—10 or 15 days of imprisonment. In some cases, mostly for young 

women with small children younger than 12 years old, they were fined for 30 basic 

units (about $400). 

In my case a judge was about to pass sentence, but asked me: ‘‘Do you feel 

guilty?’’ I replied that I did not, and then the judge turned to me with the words 

‘‘Anna Yegorovna . . .’’ I immediately responded to challenge the judge, because my 

name is Natalia Andreevna, and not Anna Yegorovna. It turned out that I was 

tried, not only without any witnesses, but also based on a charge-sheet which contained someone else’s name. The conflict began to flare up, and the judge decided 

that the best solution was to stop it, and announced the sentence—a penalty. 

The manager of our theater, Artem Zheleznyak, was not as lucky—he was sentenced to 11 days in jail after being arrested in the editorial office of the most influential independent socio-political Web site, Charter’97. He had accompanied the 

Web site editor in chief, Natalia Radina, to her office to help her with the translation of articles into English. Natalia was beaten so badly in the square she got 

a concussion. That night, the entire editorial staff, including Artem, was arrested. 

As he confessed to me, he had never experienced anything like that during his entire life. For almost 3 days he was either in a paddy wagon, or in ‘‘a glass’’—a tiny 

concrete cell about 80 centimeters square; less than 1 square meter. And, above all, 

he was stuffed in with two other detainees in that tiny cell. 

Many of those who had been sentenced for administrative arrest were immediately arrested by the KGB after their release and taken to a KGB jail. These people were charged under the article of the organization of mass disturbances, the 

maximum penalty for which is 15 years imprisonment. 

My husband, Nikolai Khalezin, now is also charged under this article. When we 

were separated at the square, he managed to escape, picked up our youngest daughter, who was with friends, and got home. Early in the morning KGB officers tried 

to infiltrate into our house, but my husband, parents, and daughter stayed silent 

and gave no sign that anyone was there. KGB officers returned several times during 

the morning, but my husband managed to escape from the house. 

What began to happen in Belarus on December 20, I would term a true ‘‘witch 

hunt.’’ Only about two dozens of political activists could escape from the secret service—all others were arrested. From the very morning the all-out searches of the 

apartments of social activists began, editorial offices of independent newspapers and 

Web sites were destroyed, human rights defenders were detained and interrogated. 

Almost everywhere computer equipment and any information media: flash memory 

cards, video and photo cameras, CD, DVD, external computer disks was confiscated. 

Mobile phone operators provided the authorities with information on all subscribers who were present at the center of town in the evening of December 19. 

Based on these lists, they started calling in everyone for questioning in the State 

Security Committee. Queues for questioning by the KGB are still there, and 

searches and new arrests are continued without interruption. Today we are talking 

about tens of thousands of people who have been questioned and who will be called 

for questioning in the nearest future. 

The country plunged into a deep depression, not knowing how to resist the total 

violence and absolute arbitrariness. At the same time, people increasingly began to 

show their public initiative to help the repressed and their families, disseminating 

information, creating new professional groups of influence. 

TODAY

We managed to flee the country. On January 3, we were supposed to fly on a tour 

from Minsk to New York. As it turned out, secret services were waiting for the 

troupe at the airport, but we managed to escape from the country by other means, 

but on the very next day our apartments were searched. The main questions they 

asked our parents were, ‘‘Where are they?’’ and ‘‘How could they manage to leave 

the country?’’ From the interrogation of our parents, it became clear that my husband and I were incriminated under the same article as everyone else who is still 

imprisoned in the KGB jail: ‘‘organization of mass disturbances.’’ Already three 

times KGB officers came to a house of Artem Zheleznyak’s parents. They also 

actively search for the President of the ‘‘We Remember Foundation,’’ Irina 

Krasovskaya. 

Today the number of imprisoned in the KGB jail constantly varies. Weekly the 

authorities arrest new people whom they impose the same absurd accusations. Lawyers are not allowed to see the suspects; they are deprived of medical care, and denied even the slightest access to information. To date, the lawyers cannot get to see 

their clients for 29 days. 

42 

Depriving prisoners of information and health treatment is the secret service tactic for pressuring them to confess to crimes which they did not commit. Not only 

do prisoners undergo this enormous pressure, but it extends to their relatives. On 

the day when I met with the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, intelligence 

officers in Minsk tried to win over the wife of Dmitry Bondarenko, coordinator of 

the ‘‘European Belarus’’ movement. She was offered to influence her husband so he 

would ‘‘begin to cooperate with the investigation, and then would receive a prison 

term much less than Sannikov.’’ 

Vladimir Khalip, father of arrested journalist, Irina Khalip, and father-in-law of 

Andrei Sannikov, suffered over the past 2 weeks three operations on his eyes because of the sudden drop in vision. My father, a professor of elocution, Andrew 

Koliada, now cannot practice his profession—because of the nervous system breakdown a spasm of the vocal cords occurred. 

Belarus has now entered the third era in its most difficult stage of life, beginning 

a decade ago. In 1999–2000, Lukashenko eliminated opposition leaders using a 

‘‘death squad.’’ Then the militia under the command of Colonel Dmitri Pavlyuchenko 

kidnapped and killed opposition leaders—Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, Viktor 

Gonchar, former Interior Minister, Yuri Zakharenko, Anatoly Krasovski—a businessman who financed the democratic forces, and Gennady Karpenko—another Deputy Speaker of the Parliament and Head of the Congress of Democratic Forces also 

perished under mysterious circumstances. 

Then there was 2006—the year of the previous Presidential election, when European politics essentially denied help to the democratic forces of Belarus. On the eve 

of the election, when was put to the question ‘‘Can the European Union put pressure 

on Lukashenko?’’ one of Europe’s politicians replied, ‘‘Only if they start shooting in 

the streets.’’ 

On September 3, 2010, the journalist, Oleg Bebenin, one of the leaders of the electoral headquarters of Andrei Sannikov, was found hanged at his country cottage. 

Ridiculously staged suicide would be one of the key elements in the upcoming election campaign. The killing lead to an international investigation, but European politicians even then turned a blind eye to that death, limiting their intervention by 

the arrival of two experts to examine the documents offered by the Belarusian 

authorities. 

Unfortunately, today the simple desire of Belarusians to get rid of dictatorship is 

not enough. Lukashenko has created a huge machine of repression, which has no 

analogues in Europe. We can resist it only by leaning on the help of those who are 

able to influence the last dictatorship of Europe from the outside. 

Here in America we have many friends in theater. When those people heard about 

our problems, they, without even thinking twice, began to do everything to help 

Belarus: Steven Spielberg, Michael Douglas, Tony Kushner, Oskar Eustis, Kevin 

Kline, Stephen Spinella, Laurie Anderson, Lou Reed, Philip Seymour Hoffman, 

Olympia Dukakis, Jude Law, Kevin Spacey, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Jay Sanders, Ian 

McKellen . . . I can enumerate for a long time names of these tremendous and 

great people who rushed to our aid and embarked on the protection of political 

prisoners. 

I have a dream that we will be able to pronounce with the same pride the names 

of American and European politicians who decide to help a country of 10 million 

people that may not have oil or gas, mountains or a sea, but does have great people 

who live there. 

Danik, a son of Andrei Sannikov and Irina Khalip, is only 3 years old now. His 

parents are in KGB prison only because they wished well for their fellow compatriots. They may only be released when Danik is 18 years old. It is in your power 

to make sure that this won’t happen. Let’s try! 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Ms. Koliada, for your 

compelling words and for your courage in being here today. 

I am going to ask Senator DeMint if he would begin the questioning because he has to leave. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. Koliada, I have to thank you for your courage. Thanks for 

being a voice for the people of Belarus who want to live free, and 

I hope we can take your testimony and actually be of some help. 

Mr. Kramer, I am sure you heard the testimony and the suggestions from Secretary Gordon about how we can put more pressure 

on the government there in Belarus. Your recommendations were 

43 

much tougher and much more specific in trying to—whether it be 

family members or whatever. Where is the difference? Do you 

believe—and I might ask Mr. Wollock to comment too because I 

think that is what we are trying to sort here is we know we have 

got a problem. We know that the government has not been responsive to requests. Again, just comment on whether you think we 

should be as harsh, or is there a way to pull them along without 

maybe pushing them away? 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator DeMint, I think we cannot be harsh 

enough, frankly. That we will reimpose the sanctions on the two 

subsidiaries of Belneftkekhim is a good step, but we need to be 

looking at other state-owned enterprises where Lukashenko benefits personally. When we imposed a sanction in November 2007 on 

Belneftekhim, 2 months later a representative of his administration came to the U.S. Embassy and asked what would the United 

States do if we release the political prisoners. In other words, we 

found his weak spot. We found where he keeps his money. We 

found where he is vulnerable. And the United States, as well as the 

European Union, need to continue to find the weak spots of 

Lukashenko, go after where he keeps his money, go after where 

people in his regime keep their money, deny them the opportunities 

to come to the West, extend this to the families. And I do think the 

European Union is prepared to take these steps. 

We need to make very clear that we will not support any international financial institution assistance to Belarus. 

And we should also, I would argue, stop talking about the possibility of reengaging with Lukashenko if he releases the political 

prisoners. 

The ball should be in his court. He is the one who knows what 

he has to do. Unfortunately, I do not think he has any intention 

of doing it unless he has no choice through pressure. And so I 

would hope that the United States, together with the EU, would 

take the toughest stand possible and impose the most rigid sanctions where Lukashenko really has no out but to release the political prisoners for starters. 

Senator DEMINT. But you would agree that if we attempt to be 

harsher than the EU is willing to be, then our sanctions really will 

not mean that much. 

Mr. KRAMER. It takes both sides. In 2006, when we first imposed 

the sanctions after the February 2006 election, it took a lot of diplomatic effort but cooperation with Europe to make sure that the 

Europeans and the United States move forward on sanctions 

together. And in fact, the EU beat us to the announcement of 

sanctions that summer, but it was very important to do this in 

coordination. 

Senator DEMINT. Mr. Wollock, what do you think about that 

balance? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, first of all, I want to say, I think it was positive that the United States maintained a sanctions policy prior to 

the December 19 election when the Europeans were moving in a 

different direction. 

I think that there are two issues and I think you are correct, 

Senator. I think, first of all, that we have to have a broad sanctions 

policy, but it is equally as important, if not even more important, 

44 

that this be coordinated with the Europeans so this is a unified approach. And that is why I talked a little bit about the recent 

elections in Cote d’Ivoire. If we can get the Europeans on board, 

we can get the intergovernmental organizations on board, the individual countries to a broad base, coordinated, and consistent sanctions policy, it will have, I think, a much greater impact on the regime than if we all go in different directions—both the EU and the 

United States and the individual countries within the European 

Union. 

Senator DEMINT. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Senator DeMint. 

I certainly agree with what both of you are—really, everybody 

who has testified has said about the importance of a coordinated 

effort between the United States and the EU to address what is 

happening in Belarus. 

But given our past experience, how do we avoid responding to 

the regime then, assuming we put in place some of the tough measures that everyone is advocating and they then release the political 

prisoners, they then appear to be moving in a more positive direction, so we then reduce the sanctions—how do we avoid having this 

cycle repeat itself over and over again and political prisoners being 

used as bargaining chips for whatever Lukashenko was trying to 

do? Whoever would like to respond to that. 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator, I think it is important that Lukashenko 

not be rewarded for undoing bad things. The release of political 

prisoners is not something for which he should then get the lifting 

or suspension of sanctions. The behavior that he demonstrated on 

the 19th of December and since then is something that he cannot 

really take back. So releasing political prisoners would be welcome 

but not sufficient in my view for there to then, in turn, be a suspension of the sanctions again because you are absolutely right. 

This will be a circle where we will be right back where we started. 

And that is why, as Ken pointed out, the United States lifted 

very little in the way of sanctions in 2008 in response to the release of the political prisoners of that time. The EU suspended its 

visa ban. It kept its asset freeze in place. And the EU, therefore, 

does have more it can do to pressure Lukashenko than we do, but 

at the same time, we have to understand this is a leader, a dictatorial leader, who has demonstrated disdain for the West, disdain for 

freedom and human rights, and those kinds of leaders in my view 

do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. 

Senator SHAHEEN. You all talked a little bit about Russia’s actions, what appeared to be a distancing between Russia and 

Belarus and now what appears to be a coming back together. Is 

there more that we should be doing to engage Russia with us in 

trying to put pressure on Belarus and Lukashenko? 

Yes, Ms. Koliada. 

Ms. KOLIADA. If there is engagement of Russia, then it is necessary to understand that Russia would never care about human 

rights. So the only thing that is possible to use is just to explain 

to Russia that it is in their geopolitical interest, that it is good for 

them to stop it because Russia has announced that they are main 

partners, the European Union and the United States—so how they 

look in front of the European Union and the United States. KnowVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
45 

ing such political situation that they have in their own country, 

they need to exercise some steps toward changing their situation 

and changing Belarus’ situation. But in the reality, we do not need 

Russian influence. 

And it is necessary for us to understand that one of the fears 

that appeared before the elections on behalf of the Lithuanian 

President who came to Belarus and who sat in some unofficial 

meetings, that it is better to keep Lukashenko in power because he 

would protect us from Russia. What a shame for a European leader 

to make such a statement. 

Belarus could protect itself, and the European Union could protect itself, its borders. But it is necessary to remember when we 

talk about Russia, that Russia will never be interested in human 

rights. They are only interested in their business profits and their 

geopolitical situation. But it is important to engage and make pressure on them. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Kramer. 

Mr. KRAMER. I would just add, Senator, that I agree with everything Natalia said. I would also say that the leaders in Moscow are 

the ones who are happiest about the current situation. In the summer, they sent clear signals to Lukashenko through an antiLukashenko campaign, including documentaries that they aired on 

Russian TV, that they can mess with him anytime they want. Then 

a week before the election, they signed an energy deal with 

Lukashenko to help him out come the election. 

They also love the fact now that the West is about to apply sanctions on him, which means that Lukashenko essentially has 

nowhere to turn but to Moscow. From the Russian leadership’s perspective, this is an ideal situation. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Wollock, did you want to add something 

to that? 

Mr. WOLLACK. I would just say I am not somebody that is 

against engagement policy as long as engagement is based on fundamental principles, and if we have a broad diplomatic strategy 

based on those principles, I think we would be willing to talk to 

anybody, including the Russians. And there have been situations in 

other countries where countries have abysmal records domestically 

but are willing to take certain actions outside their borders that 

are positive. So I would not give up hope completely, but I would 

push this very vigorously and very hard so the Russians understand where we stand and what hopefully that we would ask from 

them. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Can I also get you to enumerate, if you will? You talked a lot 

about the importance of taking certain actions to help democratic 

forces in Belarus, some of the civil society groups. What specifically 

would you like to see Congress do, for example, to help respond to 

some of those recommendations? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, first of all, I think we are all grateful for 

what Secretary Gordon said in terms of increasing funding for 

Belarus. I think Congress can play a role to ensure that the assistance package for Belarus be robust and to respond to what the 

needs are on the ground. And the needs are great, particularly 

since events that have occurred since December 19. So, therefore, 

46 

I think we have a responsibility to respond to those needs. And 

those needs in a way should be defined in large measure by the 

needs that are defined by the people on the ground and also by the 

recipients of the assistance. I think there should be a wide array 

of recipients of that assistance that includes both political and nonpolitical organizations, civil society, political parties, and they have 

to determine the risks that they have to take in terms of the assistance that they receive from the outside. But I think the assistance 

should be robust and assistance should include both material 

assistance, as well as technical assistance, and Congress I think 

can play a role in that, working with the administration. 

Mr. KRAMER. If I could just add two things. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Sure. 

Mr. KRAMER. I think one is to continue to shine a spotlight on 

the situation, and this hearing is a terrific example of how to do 

that. Bringing someone like Natalia to testify before the U.S. Senate is a wonderful thing to do to make sure that people do not lose 

focus on what is happening. 

The other I mentioned is support for the Belarus Democracy 

Reauthorization Act which I hope the Congress will move forward 

with quickly, and that, too, would send a signal of both support for 

people in civil society and the opposition but also a clear message 

to the regime in Minsk. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Yes, please. 

Ms. KOLIADA. If I can make a very short comment. It is wonder- ful to hear such numbers like $11 million and that it would be increased for 30 percent. But it is necessary to understand that there 

is a need in very deep analysis of the situation, who will receive 

this money, and there is a need for experts to stay in Belarus or 

it should be a person who is coming and going to Belarus on a constant basis because there is a problem of people coming and to be 

changed by other people and there is no expertise in Belarus. 

It is necessary to understand, for example—just a short example. 

Even if we talk about Belarus Free Theatre, the last time we received help connected to the American Government, it was 2 years 

ago and it was from German Marshal Fund and it was $10,000. 

And we have a group of 17 people. 

So it is a great need in expertise of who does what, and there 

is a need in supporting, for example, Web sites like Charter 97 or 

Nasha Niva newspaper. And some of them like Charter 97 is 

located now out of Belarus, and they need protection from other 

governments as well in order to continue their jobs there. And 

there is a need in millions of independent underground newspapers 

like it was in Poland, Somerstat. And it should be just distributed 

because there is just hunger on information. There is terrible hunger on information. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. 

I want to follow up on where Senator Shaheen started her question. It seems to me that if you put sanctions on and you are not 

willing to take them off simply because he is undoing what he did, 

there has got to be some type of a standard; that is, there needs 

to be something in place that says, OK, here are the sanctions and 

47 

there has got to be an end game, in short. I do not think the sanctions should be put on without a clear idea of where we are going. 

We have done too much of that as far as government is concerned. 

So I would like to hear your thoughts on that. Let us set aside 

that it is an absolute given that you have got to undo the bad 

things you did. What do you have to do to get the sanctions off? 

I think that is really critical, it seems to me. 

Mr. KRAMER. In December 2006, the European Union presented 

the Lukashenko government with 12 steps that it needed to take 

for an engagement policy and for real establishment of strong diplomatic relations. Lukashenko never paid any attention to those 12 

steps, but the United States endorsed them at the time. Those 12 

steps, as far as I know, are still on the table should he ever show 

any interest in following through on them. 

There have been efforts over the years, even before the 2006 election, step-by-step, selective engagement to work with Lukashenko 

and the Belarusian Government, as well as with other organizations and civil society in the country, to move forward and try to 

get relations on a better track. Unfortunately, he has never shown 

interest. And the only reason the sanctions got suspended by the 

EU in 2008 is because of the pressure sanctions implied to force 

him to release political prisoners. And that, I think, is an example 

where Lukashenko only understands pressure, and he has shown 

no interest in liberalizing society. If he were to do that, I too would 

join with those who supported an engagement kind of policy with 

him. 

Mr. WOLLACK. I think it has been frustrating for those of us who 

have worked in the region over the years that over almost two decades, there have been a series of failed, flawed, and deeply flawed 

elections that have taken place in this region of the world. And the 

OSCE spends an enormous amount of resources doing good work 

to monitor those elections, and usually the reports of those elections can be recycled. After each election, the OSCE declares an 

election not meeting international standards, not meeting the country’s commitments to the OSCE. But there are very few consequences for these countries holding elections that do not reflect 

the will of their people. 

In the case of Belarus, not only do you have a failed election, but 

you had brutality that took place after the poll. So, as one condition, I think we ought to go back and not allow failed elections to 

stand, and I think there should be a new election being held for 

President. 

I think that there are other issues, as David said, with regard 

to other conditions and freedom of assembly, free expression, independent media, but I think we should not just look to the future. 

The next election is for Parliament. The next Presidential election 

is 5 years from now, but I think before we look to the future, we 

ought to look at how the past is dealt with. And I would say 

redoing that election is something that should be on that list. 

Ms. KOLIADA. If I may. I mentioned that in 2006 before the Presidential elections, we talked with some European diplomats and we 

asked about sanctions even at that time because it was already too 

many years of Lukashenko in power and there were political 

kidnappings and murders at that time. But we got the reply that 

48 

I told, that there will be sanctions only when people are killed in 

the streets. So there are Presidential candidates who are now in 

jail. 

I was arrested in a particular moment when I was talking to a 

British journalist, and there was this crackdown and hundreds of 

policemen arresting people and beating them. And he was asking 

me, Natalia, do you think this is the end? And I just started to 

scream at him because I cannot manage myself, and I said, could 

you imagine that you have Prime Minister elections in the United 

Kingdom and on the day of the election, people gather to get to 

know the results, and suddenly all British policemen are coming to 

the streets, they are arresting all candidates for Prime Minister 

positions, putting them in jail, and hundreds of people arrested. Is 

it the end to the U.K.? 

So this is the time when it is necessary for us to ask the world 

to start sanctions. First of all, this is the immediate release of all 

political prisoners without any negotiations with the dictator and 

organize new Presidential elections. There is no other way out of 

the situation. It is not possible to continue these circles. He gets 

new political prisoners. After that, he started to blackmail the European Union. The European Union gives him 3 million euros. He 

released one political prisoner and he continues to live for some 

years. And then it would be forever. He has sons. The youngest one 

is 6 years old. So it means that there will be no end to it. So it 

is necessary to insist on immediate release of all political prisoners 

and new Presidential elections. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

I would like to just follow up a little bit on your suggestion or 

statement that we should require new elections, which I certainly 

would agree with and think that makes sense. But talk practically 

about how that would work. In your statement, Mr. Wollock, you 

talked about the situation in Cote d’Ivoire and the coordinated 

effort there to bring pressure on the current leadership, but there 

is still a standoff. So how practically do you see that working? Is 

that one of the things that we keep on our list as demands from 

Lukashenko, or do you think there is other action that could be 

taken in terms of trying to force a new election? 

Mr. WOLLACK. Well, ultimately he holds the cards. I do not know 

how you can force him back to an electoral process. But I do not 

think that that issue should be taken off the table. I think in a 

sense, in addition to the political prisoner release, that issue has 

to be first and foremost on the agenda. So this notion of impunity 

that you can hold elections, you can treat citizens in a way that 

violates the fundamental principles of international and intergovernmental organizations that you belong to should not be allowed 

to stand. I do not know how one forces him. 

In Cote d’Ivoire, it is slightly different since the international 

community, including the United Nations which had the authority 

to accredit the result of the election, has determined that Mr. 

Ouattara is the winner. This is a different situation. 

We do not know what the results of the election in Belarus was. 

The integrity of the process was so bad we do not know what the 

results of the process were. And so, therefore, the integrity of the 

49 

elections was so flawed and so bad that it requires that election to 

be held again. So I think that is an issue that should be on the 

agenda and stay on the agenda, along with all the other actions 

that are taken. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Kramer. 

Mr. KRAMER. Senator Shaheen, I think in thinking about your 

question, I cannot help but go back to November 2004 when the 

United States and the European Union and hundreds of thousands 

of people in downtown Kiev protested against a fraudulent election 

there. And Secretary Powell went out into the press briefing room 

and said the United States cannot accept as legitimate these 

results. 

Now, I was struck and pleased that the White House spokesman 

issued a similar statement in response to the December 19 election 

in Belarus. I wish President Obama had said it, not the White 

House spokesman. 

The leadership of the United States, the leaders of the European 

Union need to take a strong stand and reinforce the message that 

you and Ken and others have spoken about, which is we do not recognize these results, and therefore engaging in the business-asusual diplomatic relations with a government that is headed by a 

leader whom we do not recognize is hard to imagine. And so I think 

supporting the tens of thousands—it was not hundreds of thousands as it was in Kiev in 2004, but it was tens of thousands of 

people in Minsk who turned out to protest this fraudulent election 

and protest against this dictatorial leader. We have to stand with 

them. They face tremendously adverse circumstances there. But 

they are the ones we should be siding with and they are the ones 

who also did not recognize the results of this election. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Koliada, I think we are all grateful for the courage that 

you and so many in the opposition have shown, your willingness 

to stand up and take on the repression. One question that I have 

for you—and you alluded to this a little bit in your statement—is 

where those who have been silent in Belarus are. Do we have any 

sense—I am sure the Lukashenko regime is not polling the people 

of Belarus. But is there any reason to believe that the majority of 

people in Belarus share this frustration with the repression that 

everyone is experiencing? 

Ms. KOLIADA. I am not sure it is an appropriate story, but I tell 

you anyway. Before the elections, 2 days before the elections, knowing the fact that last time in 2006 people stood up at the square 

for 4 days, and 1,500 people got arrested. At that time our theatre 

manager was arrested because she brought two blankets to us, and 

she was arrested right in her car. The police just stopped her car 

and they found two blankets. She stayed in jail for 7 days. She was 

19 years old at that time. 

But it is not about previous elections. It is about feeling of people 

who plan to go to the square this time. We went together with my 

husband to buy thermal underwear because everyone thought that 

we need to stay for many days in order to defend our rights. And 

we were absolutely sure that there was enough time for us, and we 

thought that we will go and buy it. We came to a sports superVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:55 Sep 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\012711-A.TXT
50 

market and we did not believe our eyes. It was packed by people, 

and there were lines of people. It was just one joke that, guys, we 

need to get underwear tents and we will be skiing there. And it 

was an amazing feeling what people wanted to do. All of them 

wanted to go and defend their right. And what is vitally important, 

that they planned to stay for many days in order to defend this 

right. 

The only thing is I could tell you that my daughter, who is 12 

years old, made a big few liters thermos of hot tea. She was planning to go there. And many people with who I was in jail—they 

came with families, wife, husband, child—wife, husband, children. 

And it was absolutely amazing when all this force of people were 

split and wives and husbands were at different floors. 

And if you just go back for a second about sanctions and about 

new Presidential elections, one of the Dutch deputies of the Parliament said, if OSCE does not recognize the Presidential elections 

in Belarus and Aleksandr Lukashenko is not a legitimate President, then it means that we could recognize those people who were 

Presidential candidates as a legitimate government and start to appeal and refer to them as those who would be winners if there is 

a second tour. 

There were independent social exit polls done by independent 

Russian agency. Again, it is interesting that Lukashenko won only 

from 32 to 37 percent. 

There is one more point. We need to use favorite toys of 

Lukashenko. His favorite toy is ice hockey. I understand that it 

does not connect to the American Senate, but if we talk about this, 

there is a World Cup of ice hockey should take place in 2014 in 

Belarus. It is not possible for sport to be connected to the dictator. 

It is necessary for sport committees all over the world to start to 

make the statements as well. 

And it is not possible to have Martynov, who is Minister of Foreign Affairs, allowing him to travel or to meet with Senators of the 

U.S. Government. It is not possible even to start to talk to them. 

They should start to feel that they are isolated. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. I think the Senate recognizes the 

ability to use sports in a way that makes a statement. In New 

Hampshire, we have ice hockey and we appreciate how important 

that is. So I hear what you are saying. 

Do you have any? 

Senator RISCH. No, thank you. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you all again very much for your testimony. Obviously, we will continue on this committee and in the 

Senate to watch very closely what happens and to do everything we 

can to try and address the repression that you are experiencing. So 

thank you all again. 

The hearing is over. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

51 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEV MARGOLIN, VICE PRESIDENT OF

UNITED CIVIL PARTY (UCP) 

The Presidential election was held in Belarus on December 19, 2010, when nine 

opposition candidates challenged President Alexander Lukashenko. In the evening 

of the same day, tens of thousands of Belarusians protested on Independence Square 

in the capital, calling Presidential election a farce and accused Lukashenko of keeping the post-Soviet country locked in dictatorship. 

More than 700 participants of the peaceful demonstration against falsified election were detained and penalized with administrative arrest for up to 15 days. 

Anatoly Lebedko, the UCP’s chairman, as well as four former Presidential candidates—Uladzimir Nyaklyayew, Alyaksey Mikhalevich, Andrey Sannikaw, and 

Mikalay Statkevich—have been charged for organizing mass disorder and imprisoned in the KGB pretrial detention centre. They might face up to 15 years of prison. 

KGB officers still summon opposition activists, media, and civil society representatives and conduct searches of their offices and apartments. UCP’s offices in Minsk, 

Gomel, Grodno, Brest were searched too. All our office equipment and campaign 

materials were seized. 

Lukashenko’s cruel actions against opposition, activists and journalist destroyed 

all our democratic efforts undertaken within the last 3 years to completely transform Belarus into a democratic country. In these circumstances, all our foreign partners must act in solidarity and have a common policy regarding Belarus. 

Lukashenko understands force. That is the only way to gain his attention. All possible political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions must be applied against him and 

other officials who acted illegally during December 19 crackdown and afterward. I 

am referring here to effective sanctions such as those applied when releasing Alexander Kazulin from prison. We must isolate this regime. The position of the United 

States and of the European Union has to be a severe one. Both of them must demand the release of political prisoners and complete abolishment of all criminal 

charges, instead of a simple change of preventive measures for those imprisoned. 

Second, there is a need to start building the opposition parties through providing 

them with necessary equipment and other resources. Third, we need to support 

independent media. Belarusian state media continues to provide biased information; 

many of Belarusians still do not know what happened in the evening of December 

19. We must use all available resources to tell people the truth about the Presidential campaign, Election Day, December 19 events and post election situation. 

One million DVDs—that should be our answer to the false propaganda. We must 

end the terror in this country. We are ready to consolidate with each other and 

fight. We want a democratic Belarus. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF YURY LAVRENTIEV AND OLEG KORBAN, ‘‘YOUTH

DEMOCRATS,’’ UNITED CIVIL PARTY (UCP) 

While taking office as President of the Republic of Belarus, Lukashenko solemnly 

sweared to serve the people of the Republic of Belarus faithfully, respect and protect 

their rights and liberties, and obey the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus. 

None of these happened during Lukashenko’s regime. The actions that the Government of Belarus has taken to undermine the democratic forces and use of force 

against political activists, civil society representatives and journalists can not be 

accepted or tolerated anymore. Lukashenka has once and for all shown his true colors, a dictator for whom there must be no longer a place in Europe. The events of 

December 19, the violent treatment against demonstrators and the repressions 

against opposition activists every day since then, have put an abrupt end to the 

growth of our UCP party, and opposition in general. 

Even so, we have the will and desire to continue the fight against Lukashenko’s 

regime. We must continue this work or our country will never change. We currently 

do not have the resources to do that however. This is where we need the help of 

the U.S. Government. First, we need immediate direct party support to replace the 

equipment which has been confiscated in all our offices. Second, we need resources 

to run information and issue campaigns leading up to the parliamentary elections 

scheduled in 2012 such as the ability to travel to meet with voters, conduct Democratic Party meetings and to print campaign materials in an effort to get our word 

out and fight the regime hegemony in the media sphere. Third, we also need continued training from our partners like IRI and NDI—who provide valuable transfer of 

political skills and knowledge, expert consultations and strategy. Last, but not least, 

52 

we need strong USA diplomatic support which sends an unmistakable message to 

Lukashenka that such actions and treatment against his own citizens are not tolerable, and ideally will provide us with the space necessary to continue working with 

our citizens inside Belarus. We know, America is with us, we are not forgotten. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DZIANIS SADOUSKI, THE BELARUSIAN CHRISTIAN

DEMOCRACY PARTY (BCD) 

In the evening of December 19, tens of thousands of Belarusians protested against 

Lukashenko’s regime and falsified election. People gathered with peaceful intentions 

to demonstrate solidarity in their desire to live free. The violent manner in which 

the protest was put down displayed that the authorities had planned and intended 

to exterminate the existing opposition as much as possible. After the brutal crackdown, the BCD Party is in a very difficult situation. BCD’s candidate to Presidential 

election—Vital Rymasheuski is under house arrest. Pavel Sieviarynets—BCD’s cochair and campaign manager—is in KGB pretrial prison. Both of them, as well as 

20 other party activists are accused of organizing mass riots and face up to 15 years 

of prison. Many other party activists faced 10 to 15 days of administrative arrest, 

during which they was maltreated by police and KGB forces. They were also denied 

access to their lawyers and families. The following weeks after the crackdown, the 

BCD’s headquarter and regional offices were searched and raided by KGB officers. 

Nine computers, three laptops, six printers, a camera and a copy machine were 

confiscated. BCD’s party members and activists continue to be interrogated and 

arrested. Their apartments and repeatedly searched. 

The BCD Party is not willing to give up. We are ready to continue our fight toward a democratic Belarus. We need a strong cooperation and support of the United 

States of America and of the European Union. Together, we need to isolate the regime, start building democratic opposition in Belarus from scratch, provide material 

assistance through office equipment and informational campaigns, and support independent media. The United States and the European Union must call for unconditional release of all political prisoners. Those who are still in jail, as well as their 

families must be provided with material, legal, and psychological assistance. 

Æ