Belarus should not be criticized for the "seat on two chairs", the President of the Republic of Alexander Lukashenko on the first day of the VI of the Allbalustal People's Assembly. Recognizing the intervention of Western countries to Belarusian internal political processes and their "unfriendly steps" towards Minsk, the president announced the continuation of the multi-vector foreign policy. According to him, this thus the republic retains its sovereignty and independence. What is behind this approach, in an interview with Eurasia.Expert analyzed the doctor of economics, director of the Center for Belarusian Research of the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor Nikolay Mezevich.
- Nikolai Maratovich, February 11, the Allbalorous People's Assembly opened. In the opening of the word, the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko urged not to wait from the event of sensations, stressing that the decisions of the meeting would not be spontaneous and unexpected. What is the Mission of the All-Belarusian Assembly?
- In fact, the first answer is the most obvious. This is a kind of report of power to society about what is done, and what is not done. It is clear that the president's speech is more and more in detail and actively stated about what was done, more was mentioned about the success and so far, in my opinion, several less was mentioned about problems. But, on the other hand, the meeting just begins, and it will be very important to compare what President said when opening, and the final word.
There is a lot of important on foreign policy issues, internal politics, but, in my opinion, not yet very much (let's say right - quite a bit) it is said on the issue of political reform. Will she, in what options, what ideas?
I, however, comes from the fact that, probably, representatives of the public, present at the meeting, during the next hours of work will speak, will offer, and some ideas (perhaps already hoodly coordinated, and perhaps some new) Will be withdrawn as the final and summarizing part of the work of the All-Belarusian People's Assembly. Because while the picture in economics is clear, the picture on relative reform in foreign policy is more or less clear.
Why more or less? Because, on the one hand, the president said many good and correct words about the Union State, about Eurasian integration, on cooperation in the military-defense sphere. On the other hand, the term about multiplexing sounded again. I am not president, but I am a professor-an international and 30 years old, and I can say that multi-vector is the idea is good, but only if your foreign policy vectors are based on similar vectors in the economy. That is, conventionally speaking, you in the economy reached multi-vector and on this basis build multi-vector political. But is it here today in the Republic of Belarus? Not!
We see that Lithuania, Latvia, Poland perceive Belarus not as a partner, but as an enemy, and Minsk says that there are centuries.
That is, I do not see the real political opportunities for multipleness, and I also do not see economic.
In my opinion, you need to see how the discussion will continue to go. But the main question is still a political reform.
- What reaction of society and opposition should be expected to be expected to the All-Belarusian Assembly? Can this become a catalyst for a new wave of protest?
- Opposition, as you know, is different. Some part of the opposition (I would not be excluded) may be interested in the results of the meeting, will see for itself the possibility of finding a certain dialog box, and some part of the opposition (we also understand this), in fact, irreconcilable, and it is not Interested in the nuances of the speech of Alexander Grigorievich. This part of the opposition, which sits in Warsaw and Vilnius, is interested in the absolute personal victory. It is clear that neither the president of the republic nor his supporters to this option agrees.
- How much did the All-Belarusian meeting can become unifying for the Belarusian people, taking into account the practical absence among the participants of the event representatives of the opposition?
- Opposition, really, let's say, no. Then the question was the first opposition, which refused to attend or still the power that did not invite it? Let's be realistic: invites you, all the same, power. If the opposition refused to participate, then gentlemen, what are the insults that you are absent? And I see that part of the opposition (especially its Warsaw part), on the one hand, suggests that they were not invited, but on the other, it refuses the invitation. But it is illogical, one must hold some one line.
- Speaking about the development of integration with Russia and Eurasian space, the President of Belarus made an emphasis on economic integration. The head of state stressed that this process suggests the complete preservation of the sovereignty of both countries without the formation of any new supranational authorities. How similar such approach to integration is promising?
- I do not really understand what is complete sovereignty. Once your country has entered any international organization as soon as you have signed any international treaty, your sovereignty has ceased to be complete. Moreover, UN membership already means that there are no complete sovereignty.
Another question is whether it is necessary to really create new organs, and here you can think and discuss. Need to create new organs or should it be repaired old? Alexander Grigorievich says today, rather, that it is necessary to repair the old ones. Well, let's go, let's think.
Announced Maria Mamzelkina