Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Proteste in Bielorussia

http://www.centomovimenti.com/2006/marzo/10_minsk.htm
 E' estremamente grave la situazione in Bielorussia, paese che il
prossimo 19 marzo andrà alle urne per le elezioni Presidenziali.
L'attuale capo dello Stato, l'autoritario Alexander Lukashenko (il
presidente Usa George W. Bush lo ha definito "l'ultimo tiranno
d'Europa") non ha alcuna intenzione di perdere la sua poltrona ed ha
scagliato le forze di Polizia contro i suoi avversari.
Oggi è stato arrestato Sergei Antonchik, esponente di primo piano
dell'opposizione, alcuni giorni fa era stata la volta di Alexandre
Kozoulin, candidato-presidente, finito in manette per alcune ore e
picchiato in pubblico al momento del fermo.
Nel frattempo le manifestazioni delle opposizioni sono state dichiarate
fuorilegge, ma molti cittadini scendono in piazza lo stesso. Vittima
diretta di questa decisione è stato Vintsuk Vyachorka, leader del
Fronte Popolare, messo in cella perché colpevole di aver organizzato
un sit-in. Sarà scarcerato dopo le elezioni.
Le violenze e le manette, però, non riguardano solo i politici e i
loro sostenitori. Anche i giornalisti devono fare i conti con i
manganelli degli agenti e con le condanne della Magistratura.
L'Associazione dei Giornalisti di Minsk ha denunciato che le "autorità
fanno uso in continuazione della forza fisica per prevenire il lavoro
professionale dei giornalisti bielorussi e dei media stranieri".

Che Lukashenko non sia uno stinco di santo lo sappiamo tutti.  Nessuno,
in ex-Unione Sovietica, lo e'.  Lukashenko non ha fatto nulla che non
sia stato fatto da Putin, Kuchma, o se e' per questo anche i successori
"rivoluzionari" di Kuchma.
(D'altra parte, nessuno dei tre ha iniziato guerre che hanno ucciso
200,000 persone o costruito
campi di concentramento su vasta scala, quindi forse questo sono meglio
degli "angeli" occidentali).
Pero, c'e un'altra parte alla storia:  Il problema non e'
"l'autoritairsmo" (che e' anche peggio in altri
stati alleati dell'occidente), ma il populismo e l'indipendenza
economica di Lukashenko, che e' stato l'unico capo di stato ad est a
cacciare via il FMI.
E queste proteste sono tutto fuorche' spontanee.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1727950,00.html
Europe and the US decide the winner before the vote
Belarus's government will be targeted if the west doesn't get the
result it wants in this month's elections
Jonathan Steele
Friday March 10, 2006
The Guardian
Would you expect a European leader who has presided over a continual
increase in real wages for several years, culminating in a 24% rise
over the past 12 months, to be voted out of office? What if he has also
cut VAT, brought down inflation, halved the number of people in poverty
in the past seven years, and avoided social tensions by maintaining the
fairest distribution of incomes of any country in the region?
Of course not, you would say. In Bill Clinton's famous phrase, "it's
the economy, stupid". Unless there are overriding issues of political
or personal insecurity - incipient civil war, ethnic cleansing, mass
arrests, pervasive crime on the streets - most people will vote
according to their pocketbooks. And so it is likely to be in Belarus in
nine days' time.
Why, then, are western governments, echoed by most western media,
developing a crescendo of one-sided reporting and comment on one of
Europe's smallest countries? Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of
state, last year called it an "outpost of tyranny". Stephen Hadley, the
US national security adviser, recently complained that "there is not
enough outrage and international attention on Belarus". As if on cue,
we now have thundering editorials and loaded reports in America and
Europe claiming the imminent election is a farce and the regime deeply
unpopular.
We saw similar conformism little more than a year ago in Ukraine, when
one side was glorified to the skies, as if only a tiny minority of
benighted Sovietera automatons did not support the pro-western
candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. His opponent actually got 44% of the
vote, and may even emerge with the highest number of votes in Ukraine's
parliamentary elections in two weeks.
In Belarus, President Alexander Lukashenko is certainly no liberal. He
manipulates state television; he bans distribution of critical
newspapers from state-owned kiosks (which are the majority), and often
has those that are printed abroad confiscated at the border; he makes
it hard for opposition parties to hold rallies; and he uses the police
in a partisan and frequently brutal way. Students fear expulsion and
government employees the sack if they join protests.
This was already true in 1996 when I monitored a constitutional
referendum on behalf of the European Institute for the Media and
reported that the electoral climate was neither free nor fair. At that
stage Lukashenko had only been in power for two years. An authoritarian
populist and control freak then, he has remained true to form (not,
however, a communist; Belarus has two communist parties, one of which
is illegal).
The change is in the economy. Like other former Soviet republics,
Belarus suffered a massive collapse after 1991, with output dropping by
more than half thanks to "shock therapy" reforms. But in 12 years of
power Lukashenko has righted that, as my opening statistics show (all
taken from the IMF's country report on Belarus in June 2005).
I haven't been in Belarus for 10 years, but residents I speak to on the
phone, as well as western visitors, report that most people are
satisfied with their living standards. Many have family or other ties
to Russia, their giant neighbour, and feel grateful for the stability,
moderation and absence of an oligarch-dominated economy that Belarus
enjoys.
Contrary to claims that Lukashenko's repression has produced an
"information black hole", the choice of news is wider than in 1996. The
EU-funded EuroNews channel is available on cable, which millions of
people have, and access to uncensored websites is easy in internet
clubs and cafes or at home.
Despite this, there is a huge campaign by foreign governments to
intervene in the Belarussian poll, even more controversially than in
Ukraine in 2004. While Russia is hardly engaged in this election,
Europe and the US are pumping in money. According to the New York
Times, cash is being smuggled from the US National Endowment for
Democracy, Britain's Westminster Foundation and the German foreign
ministry directly to Khopits, a network of young anti-Lukashenko
activists.
Poland has reopened a state-owned radio station on its eastern border
to beam programmes across Belarus, while the German government's
Deutsche Welle started broadcasts to Belarus this year. Alexander
Milinkevich, the main opposition candidate, has been touring European
capitals and getting endorsements that amount to blatant interference
in a foreign electoral contest.
Some of this foreign money will be used to fund street protests
promised by opposition activists if Lukashenko is declared the winner.
They have already dubbed it the "denim revolution", giving supporters
little bits of the cloth as symbols to copy the successful
demonstrations in Ukraine and Georgia.
But why is the US, with the EU in its wake, so concerned about Belarus?
Is it because Belarus stands out as the only ex-Soviet country that
maintains majority state ownership of the economy and gets good
results? Is ideological deviance forbidden? (The IMF, while admitting
Lukashenko's economic success, calls it "ultimately unsustainable",
being based on cheap Russian energy imports and wage increases that
outstrip productivity growth.) Is the problem Lukashenko's
independence, his friendliness to Russia and resistance to Nato, his
abrasive, don't-push-me-around style? As one Minsk resident put it to
me, he's a "Slavic Castro".
The revolt against Lukashenko within Belarus is genuine, idealistic
and, in some cases, courageous. As in the rest of eastern Europe,
nationalist intellectuals and the urban elite, particularly in the
capital, include many who want change and feel the rewards are worth
the risk. They want the west's moral support and its freedom, as well
as its money. But they are not the majority. A poll in January by
Gallup/Baltic Surveys, and reported in the emigre Belarusian Review,
found only 17% in favour of Milinkevich and nearly 55% supporting
Lukashenko.
Western funders claim their motives are innocent, with help offered
merely to develop "democracy" and "European values". In that case they
should insist that the groups and the media they aid in Belarus are
fair, accurate and intelligent, rather than one-sided demonisers of
their opponents, mirroring Lukashenko's approach. But when western
media, despite their vaunted objectivity and years of democratic
experience, also report on Belarus in a way that is narrow and
partisan, this is asking a lot.

 E queste proteste sono tutto fuorche' spontanee.
Se fosse, meglio.
Non c'è modo migliore, più sano, più giusto, più solido di esportare la
democrazia che non quello di aiutare le forze democratiche già in campo.
E' quello che dite anche voi, di solito. No?
Viva la democrazia. Affanculo Lukashenko.
Tb

 Tb
Quoto. Il commentatore del Guardian si e' dimostrato meschino.
In fondo il suo discorso e' che sarebbe meglio che i bielorussi si 
tenessero una dittatura 'illuminata' e il gas russo a basso prezzo.
Am.

 
Spaccare teste...

Ma col cavolo!  Il suo discorso e' che la "democrazia" che vogliono i
manifestanti in affitto
(che, intendiamoci, non sono affatto la totalita' dell'opposizione a
Lukashenko) con la democrazia vera non ha nulla a che fare.
In Italia, piu' spesso che non, i manifestanti vengono
"democraticamente" presi a manganellate dalla polizia.   In USA anche.
 Migliaia e migliaia di arresti durante qualsiasi grande manifestazione
anti-Bush.
Di altri "baluardi di democrazia", come il nuovo Iraq, non ne parliamo.
Quando paesi del genere si mettono a finanziare proteste il cui chiaro
scopo e' il rovesciamento di un governo, permettimi qualche sospetto su
chi sia veramente l'avversario della democrazia.

 in ex-Unione Sovietica, lo e'. 
Scusa dove hai letto dei crimini di lukashenko? Dalla BBC o peggio da 
Amnesty international o letame del genere?