The Office of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya supports the establishment of direct contact with the authorities in Belarus to develop the mechanisms for resolving the ongoing political crisis. Below are potential steps and formats of consultations and negotiations.
1. Preliminary consultations
We are ready to participate in such consultations without preconditions. We believe that the understanding of the actual positions and capabilities of the parties – and not indirect information – needs to be the basis of the decisions the parties make.
Preliminary consultations should establish the subject of negotiations as a first step in the resolution of the current political crisis in Belarus. These are crucial components of the resolution of the crisis:
- The reform of the political system of Belarus in accordance with the principles of inclusivity, democracy, and human rights;
- The elaboration of a framework for inclusive national dialogue and reconciliation, including the release of political prisoners;
- New fair and free elections.
We do not set any conditions about the nature of representation on the part of the authorities: it can be either Aliaksandr Lukashenka or his representatives.
2. The role of the OSCE in facilitating dialogue
Given the lack of trust between the parties, the OSCE can act as a platform for preliminary contacts and consultations. Having the contact platform within the OSCE would also allow Russia to be included in the process. Currently, Russia’s position is the main obstacle to the resolution of the Belarusian political crisis. If consultations at the political level are not possible, they can be held at the expert level.
The situation almost completely excludes the possibility of international organizations – such as the OSCE – acting as intermediaries and guarantors. It seems that the OSCE can only play a role in facilitating national dialogue, but not in securing the fulfillment of its responsibilities in resolving the crisis.
The absence of guarantees of the implementation of the agreements of negotiations is a key problem for two reasons: the depth of the political crisis and the possibility of the authorities to break the agreements unilaterally at any time. For the same reason – that is, the absence of guarantees – the set of potential intermediaries is quite limited.
3. The role of individual states acting as intermediaries during negotiations
Only individual states that have the ability to influence the situation can become effective intermediaries. Such countries are:
- Russia as it has a significant influence on the authorities in Belarus;
- France, Germany, and Switzerland are among the most preferable intermediaries. France and Germany already had experience working together with Russia on the Ukrainian crisis;
- The United States as an important guarantor of security and political stability in the region.
The Nordic countries, such as Finland and Sweden could also act as intermediaries as they are perceived as more neutral countries by both Belarus and Russia. Other countries have much less interest in Belarus (such as Italy) or are in sharp conflict with the authorities in Minsk (such as Poland, Lithuania, and other Baltic states).
The successful resolution of the Belarusian crisis, the stability of the agreements reached, and the preservation of stability in the region require the formation of a broad international coalition.
4. Internal solution to the crisis
Normally in a situation like this, external participation in the resolution of the internal conflict is not preferable. Yet, for a number of reasons, an internal solution to the Belarusian crisis is impossible. The lack of trust between the parties as well as the absence of a mechanism that would guarantee compliance with the agreements are hindering the resolutions of the conflict through internal dialogue.
Democratic political forces have no reason to trust Lukashenka, given the numerous examples of the failure of agreements on his part throughout his political career. In addition, Lukashenka does not consider alternative political forces an equitable subject for negotiations.
Moreover, there are no institutions in Belarus that can guarantee the implementation of agreements. That is, there are no institutions that have recognized authority, internal autonomy, and independence from the government and the opposition. The courts, the church, professional organizations, and other public institutions would not be able to perform such functions.
Thus, the main scenario for a non-violent resolution of the Belarusian crisis is external mediation and external guarantees for the implementation of agreements.
