BELARUS NEWS AND ANALYSIS

DATE:

14/11/2006

Belarus, another 'axis of evil' candidate

By Dmitry Shlapentokh

Russia's souring relationship with Belarus has not been mentioned much by the world press, but it could have serious implications for the US-Iranian standoff.

Russia has few friends among the post-Soviet states, but there has been one exception - Belarus, whose flamboyant president, populist authoritarian Alexander Lukashenko, has stated that deep love for Russia made Belarus a true Russian friend. But the major reason for such political amity was pragmatic: Belarus expected that cheap Russian oil would continue to be available. This feeling, shared by other post-Soviet states, was a major reason they tried not to irritate Russia too much.

This arrangement has started to change. First, Ukraine suffered because the "Orange Revolution" installed a regime that looked not to the East but to the West, the direction of the Ukrainians' Slavic Orthodox brothers. And even after recent elections brought a pro-Russian majority to the Ukrainian parliament, the Western drift has continued. The second target is Georgia, whose relationship with Russia has become close to open war, and in retaliation Russia has increased oil prices several times over.

Belarusians had thought they were safe because they were faithful to Russia and even entertained the idea of some sort of loose union. But they were wrong. The Russian elite has increasingly assumed that there should be no free lunch for geopolitical reasons. In an era when cash is supreme, geopolitical loyalty doesn't make much difference, so Belarus must pay the full price for oil or become just one of Russia's regions. Lukashenko became indignant, and Russian-Belarusian relations sank to the lowest point in post-Soviet history. Since then, Lukashenko has paid no attention to what his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin thinks or does.

At first glance the West might be pleased, with President Putin free from the evil influence of what the West universally dubbed the last dictator in Europe. But Western feelings about these developments should be quite different. Indeed, the break with Putin liberated Lukashenko from any visible restraint in engaging in the foreign policy of his choice, including contact with Iran.

Russia's interaction with Iran has been much discussed in the press, and most pundits have regarded this policy as harmful to Western interests. Russia, in tandem with China, has prevented the US from engaging in vigorous action against Iran at the United Nations over its nuclear program, including military action. Russia has also provided Iran with advanced technology. Still, Russia's desire to engage with Iran is limited and cautious.

Nikolai Berdyaev, one of the seminal Russian philosophers of the last century, stated that the "Russian soul is feminine, and she always looks for a groom from the West". The notion is still valid today. Russians, with all their grievances toward the West, especially the United States, still regard their historical fate as connected if not with the US, at least with Europe.

The November 4 demonstrations in Russia (November 4 became a national holiday to replace the November 7 commemoration of the Bolshevik Revolution) were driven by dislike toward people from the Caucasus, Central Asia and China - all of whom Russia regards as Asian - not toward Europeans or even Americans.

This desire not to drive the West to break all ties with Russia puts a certain brake on cooperation with Iran. The Russians have even hinted that they might not even finish the Bushehr nuclear station they are building in Iran if Moscow were compensated by the West in some way.

Besides the fear of being relegated to a part of an "axis of evil", Russia also has a fear of a rising Iran on its borders. Thus Russia is far from ready to embrace Iran wholeheartedly, and Lukashenko followed the party line, even if grudgingly, for he did not want to irritate Putin. After the break with Putin, Lukashenko no longer has such a restraint. The question, of course, could be raised as to what Belarus could offer Iran.

Belarus as an advanced nation

Western pundits usually see Belarus as a banana (or potato) republic. Indeed, Lukashenko is an authoritarian, actually Soviet leader who discards wholesale privatization and Western capitalist democracies.

Western pundits think nothing good can come from such arrangements, and Belarus is usually seen as a backward, rusting wasteland similar to Iran and North Korea. But without the lens of Western liberal paradigms, one can easily see that this model hardly works.

Belarus, in sharp contrast to most post-Soviet states, has not destroyed its industrial or the intimately related hard-science base. The country is hardly a scrap-metal dump. The same can be said about its would-be partner Iran, which in recent maneuvers exhibited sophisticated Iranian-made weapons. Belarus could definitely help Iran improve its military technology and develop nuclear weapons.

In fact, Lukashenko has stated openly that if other countries, including the US, have nuclear weapons, he does not understand why Iran should be different. Thus, besides North Korea, Iran and Venezuela - with whose leader, Hugo Chavez, Lukashenko has also had a very amicable relationship - the US could well include Belarus in the swelling "axis of evil" that the US has increasing trouble managing with threats or rewards.

In fact, the emerging Democratic leadership in the US Congress and the general public can see that "Pax Americana", the mighty new Roman-style empire, looks more and more like Nasdaq before the 2000 market crash.

Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of East Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles, 2005.

Source:

http://atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/HK15Ag01.html