quote:

---

Belarussians may have missed out on the economic benefits enjoyed by their neighbours in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania — all now EU members. But they have also avoided the turmoil that engulfed their other neighbours, Russia and Ukraine, during the 1990s.

The desire for stability is powerful, and Mr Lukashenko exploits it by portraying the outside world as a dangerous place plagued by unemployment, poverty and terrorism. “Our country has neither interethnic nor interdenominational conflicts,” he said recently. “There are no wars and there’s a place for everyone. So, what is bad in Belarus?” Wages and pensions may be low, he argues, but they are rising and always paid on time.

---

The basic line of reasoning being applied here is, you can't eat freedom, but you can eat bread.

When these people can be convinced that having freedom does not mean going without bread, they'll embrace change. They're not stupid; they've seen what happened to Russia. The standard of living crashed through the floor as crime went rampant and Russia went from being a part of a large nuclear power to being a second-rate charity case with a lot of oil and natural gas.

[ 17 March 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Supposedly, churches other than the Orthodox Church and use of the Latin alphabet (as opposed to the Cyrillic) are also repressed.

quote:

---

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.
....
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.
....
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.

---

quote:

---

Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko won re-election in Sunday's presidential vote, the Central Election Commission said early Monday.

"Alexander Lukashenko has won the election," with 82.6 percent of the vote, Lidia Yermoshina, chairwoman of the commission, told a press conference.

His main rival Alexander Milinkevich, who is supported by the opposition, got 6 percent. The other two candidates, Liberal Democratic Party leader Sergei Gaidukevich and Social Democratic Party leader Alexander Kozulin, received 3.5 percent and 2.3 percent respectively.

The election commission put the turnout at 92.6 percent in the country, where about 7 million people were eligible to vote.

More than 1,200 international observers monitored the vote. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) sent the largest groups of election observers.

Both the OSCE and CIS observer missions are expected to announce their assessment of the Belarus vote later in the day.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheStudent:
I think it is highly unlikely that any leader in any country not involved in an existential war would garner 82.6% of the vote. It is entirely improbable. Most dictators are at least smart enough to give themselves a reasonable percentage of the vote, like 60-65%. I don't care if the Belarussian president is a leader who has presided over economic good times, there will still be more than 17% of the population who oppose the actions he has taken.

---

So, I assume you're saying the election was rigged?

Lukashenko didn't NEED to win ugly.

And, of course, this once again points up the need for a genuine radical democratic socialist movement for the former Soviet areas, as well as "Western" Europe, Africa, Asia and Latin America.

300
150

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

So, I assume you're saying the election was rigged?

Based on your knowledge of the situation in Belarus, what would you estimate would be the outcome of a truly fair vote?

---

Oh, come on, 82.6% of the vote? You seriously think that Stalinist authoritarian has 83% of his countries support? The guy rigged it, hell, he even rigged the pre-election polling. The EU says the election was a farce, the UN says the election was a farce. The OCSE says that the elections were nowhere close to thier standards (read: farce). "Belarussian authorities have vowed to crush unrest." Nope, no vote-rigging here.

For the record, Gallup polls has shown that the guy does tend to run at around 55% support, and would have likely been elected anyway.

Why DOES the ex-soviet populus support people like him and Putin, I don't get it.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by myata:
I've no doubt whatsoever that the election was rigged - no, not really rigged, only "controlled" to achieve the required result, because back there there isn't even a concept of an election as free will of citizens deciding who'd govern the country, it's more like a game which the dictator, having absolute control over the country's media, election commissions, army, police, etc, plays with his people by his own rules.

---

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: TheStudent ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheStudent:
The President of Belarus, a man who calls his style of rule "authoritarian" (as CBC reports here) won by illegitimate means. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?

---

Because we've learned from experience not to trust anything the big powers and their media say without a lot of corroboration. Because there are all too many people around (no offence) who swallow it all whole, and democracy demands debate and dissent. Because when George W. Bush calls someone "authoritarian" and their election "un-democratic", we have to race for the toilet. Because we believe that if people don't like their leaders, they have to get rid of them - by themselves, without outside interference.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Because we've learned from experience not to trust anything the big powers and their media say without a lot of corroboration. Because there are all too many people around (no offence) who swallow it all whole, and democracy demands debate and dissent. Because when George W. Bush calls someone "authoritarian" and their election "un-democratic", we have to race for the toilet. Because we believe that if people don't like their leaders, they have to get rid of them - by themselves, without outside interference.

Why is this so hard for you to accept?

---

Keep in mind that Lukashenko:

- Runs a pro-government biased state TV network (think Putin)
- Is semi-sympathetic to Hitler's authoritarian governing methods in the 1930's
- Has held "referendums" to extend his 2nd term back in the 90's and to 2-term limits for holding office. (He was supposed to be in office for no more than 8 years, has now been in office for 12 years and has been elected to serve 4 more)
- Arrested one of the presidential candidates Alaksander Kazulin, for protesting. He suffered serious injuries for his detention.
- Vowed that no Orange revolution repeat will occur, and vowed to crush unrest.

And that the election:

- Has been declared flawed by (gasp) the US, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

Election observers differ on Belarus vote

quote:

---

Election observers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) declared the Belarus presidential vote open and transparent on Monday while the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) did not assess the election positively.
....
More than 1,200 international observers monitored the vote, with the OSCE and the CIS sending the largest groups of election observers.

"The election complied with Belarus' election law and voter turnout was high. CIS observers view the Belarussian presidential vote as open and transparent," CIS observation mission chief Vladimir Rushailo told a press conference in Minsk.

"Belarus created the legal and organizational environment needed for monitoring the vote, which indicates that the election was open," Rushailo said.

---

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

You'd trust Putin's observers on this?

But then from the AI article you just quoted, they are trying members of the secret policy:

quote:

---

On 14 March Minsk Regional Court convicted four men of crimes including the July 2000 “disappearance” of the Russian Public Television cameraman Dmitry Zavadsky, even though the journalist’s body was never recovered and the circumstances surrounding his presumed death were not explained. The defendants, two of whom were former members of the Almaz special police unit, were sentenced to long prison terms. Human rights monitors regarded the trial and convictions as flawed. The trial took place behind closed doors and failed to address a series of allegations implicating senior state officials in Belarus’ spate of “disappearances”.

---

Patsies? Fall guys? Bad eggs?

Still, you wont find me writing any letters to the president of Belarus regarding freeing secret police officers because they are political prisoners.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The desire for stability is powerful, and Mr Lukashenko exploits it by portraying the outside world as a dangerous place plagued by unemployment, poverty and terrorism.

---

quote:

---

There were numerous reports of ill-treatment by police officers. In some cases the ill-treatment amounted to torture. Anti-government demonstrators were particularly at risk, usually at the time of arrest. In the absence of prompt, impartial and thorough investigations of complaints, offending police officers were rarely brought to justice.

---

Rarely? Sounds like a description of Canada to me. Does anyone think anyone is going to jail for shooting Dudley George? "Ill treatment" during arrest? That is not unheard of here, and practically SOP in the States.

Cops are cops, they rough people up on arrest here, as well as there.

The elections look like they were fixed in the states as well, so does that qualify the USA as a "thugocracy." None of this is "right" of course, but we should take a measure of standards that we are applying, as they relate to ourselves.

Sounds like a moderately corrupt authoritarian state, with a marginally functional judiciary that is fairly suceptible to state interference, but not entirely sold, as it is willing to pay lip service to some of the basic elements of the rule of law, occassionally charging state officials, and sometimes even putting the police in the docket.

Belarus is clearly not Uzbekistan. It is about as democratic as the USA, I'd say, based on what I am reading from AI.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Belarus is clearly not Uzbekistan. It is about as democratic as the USA, I'd say, based on what I am reading from AI.

---

Deliver the Vote A History of Election Fraud, An American Political Tradition 1742-2004. by Tracy Campbell.

Interview with the author, who is a professor at the University of Kentucky, confusingly abbreviated UK in the home-town newspaper.

quote:

---

The second week of November 2000, millions of people sat glued to their TVs, watching events in Florida and waiting to see who would become the next president.

But few people studied the unfolding confusion in Florida with as much attention as Tracy Campbell.

After all, he was watching the end of his book write itself.

"For 36 days, it seemed like we were getting a new civics lesson," said the University of Kentucky history professor.

---

I haven't read the book, just a review in Foreign Affairs. It sounds interesting, though.

[ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: rici ]

Meanwhile a few minutes later on the newscast, "large" protests (actually one was around half a milion) continued to "break out" in France and police had to "subdue" many "violent" protesters. Of course some poor cops were injured.

This is nothing but spin against any government that turns its back on their pathetic system. I don't support repression but I instinctively will support any anti-capitalist government right now over our corporate colonial branch plants.

The only fun part about watching the news these days is how they're trying to explain why Ukrainians are about to turn their backs on the government they bought for them through their staged orange revolution. That capitalist chump Yuschenko is now in third place and sinking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

Just another failed imperialist experiment ...

---

Check out this article on the Ukraine:

Ukraine Opposition Leader Leading in Polls

quote:

---

In a remarkable reversal of fortune, Yanukovych's Party of the Regions is leading in opinion polls heading into Sunday's election, ahead of the divided team of Yushchenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko — the two leaders of the mass protests that became known as the Orange Revolution.

The election could determine how aggressively this former Soviet republic maintains the pro-Western course set by Yushchenko. Yanukovych has promised to restore ties with the Kremlin that were frayed under Yushchenko

Tetyana Ivanenko, 67, a Yanukovych supporter, said she wanted to see the pro-Russian Party of Regions take control.

"I want to be together with Russia and Belarus," Ivanenko said. "We are so tired of America."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Belarus is clearly not Uzbekistan. [ 25 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

Now that's the tourism slogan of the year:

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
"As democratic as the USA" just doesn't hold up as well as it used to either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:

Now that's the tourism slogan of the year:

"Belarus: Clearly, We're Not Uzbekistan".

---

I was thinking a series of ads in the US like this:

"Belarus: Just like home!"

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Yes, but as Spector said -if yer not with us, yer with Freak Dominion. I'm beginning to think it really IS that simple for some.

---

But maybe you could explain to me how your own position on Belarus differs from that of the neoliberal imperialists and their cheering section.

quote:

---

After the death of Slobodan Milosevic, the west did not need to look far to find another bogeyman. Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus was on hand and facing re-election.
....
No communist-era throwback, Belarus has an evolving market economy. But the market is orientated towards serving the needs of the bulk of the population, not a tiny class of nouveaux riches and their western advisers and money launderers. Unlike in Georgia or Ukraine, officials are not getting richer as ordinary folk get poorer. The absence of endemic corruption among civil servants and police is one reason why the wave of so-called "coloured revolutions" stopped before Minsk.
....
Belarus is far from perfect, but it is a country where masses of ordinary people are getting on with life and getting a bit better off. That is why Lukashenko inspires fear and loathing in the thinktanks and foreign ministries of the west. By saving Belarus from mass unemployment he set a terrible example. What if the neighbours tried to copy it?

---

quote:

---

When is an election not considered free and fair by the west? Answer: when it delivers victory to a government that rejects neoliberal orthodoxy and refuses to orientate its foreign policy towards Washington or Brussels. There is no other conclusion one can come to after both the US and the EU announced swingeing sanctions on Belarus after the re-election of President Lukashenko.
....
There is no talk of sanctions on Egypt, despite sweeping restrictions placed on opposition candidates, its thousands of political prisoners and widespread use of torture; on the contrary, Hosni Mubarak's country is the second-largest recipient of US foreign aid. And while Condoleezza Rice quotes with approval OSCE reports on Belarus, she seems less keen to respond to its verdict on central Asian states such as Turkmenistan - a country that an OSCE official, Hrair Baliyan, has described as lacking even a "semblance of pluralism".

The US and its European allies have long used the smokescreen of democracy and human rights to undermine regimes of which they do not approve, while turning a blind eye to undemocratic practices and rights abuses in countries that do their bidding. A succession of governments have been labelled undemocratic by the US despite holding free elections: Guatemala in the 50s, Chile in the 70s, Nicaragua in the 80s, the rump Yugoslavia in the 90s. Pro-western dictatorships such as the Shah's Iran, Pinochet's Chile and Suharto's Indonesia have been generously bankrolled.
....
The west has the same problem with Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. Although Chávez was backed by 58% of Venezuelans in a referendum endorsed by the former US president Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair called on him to "abide by the rules of the international community". The "rules" seem to be shorthand for accepting the social and economic template the west insists on imposing throughout the world.

The 83% vote for Lukashenko is said to be far too high to be taken seriously; yet there was no such western incredulity when the pro-Nato and pro-EU Mikhail Saakashvili polled 97% in Georgia's 2004 presidential elections.

---

quote:

---

The authorities failed to determine the fate of leading opposition figures Yury Zakharenko and Viktor Gonchar, as well as businessman Anatoly Krasovsky and journalist Dmitry Zavadsky, who “disappeared” in 1999 and 2000. International criticism of this failure persisted in 2002. In September the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that it was “seriously concerned about the lack of progress” and established an investigative sub-committee to probe into the “disappearances”

On 24 June Leninsky District Court in Grodno convicted Nikolai Markevich, editor of the independent newspaper Pagonia, and staff writer Pavel Mozheiko of libelling President Alyaksandr Lukashenka. The two were sentenced to two and a half and two years respectively of “restricted freedom”, reduced by one year in August. The journalists had raised widely held concerns about the alleged involvement of the presidential administration in several “disappearances” in an unpublished article in Pagonia in the run-up to presidential elections in September 2001.
On 16 September the editor of the independent newspaper Rabochy, Viktor Ivashkevich, was sentenced by a court in Minsk to a two-year term of “restricted freedom” after being convicted of slandering the President in a newspaper article in the pre-election period. The offending article accused the administration of corruption.

There were renewed reports of independent journalists and writers being physically attacked by unidentified assailants. The circumstances surrounding the attacks remained unclear and those responsible were not brought to justice.

In September alone, three journalists and writers were knocked unconscious in separate incidents. The correspondent for the Warsaw-based independent radio station Radio Racija, Gennady Kesner, suffered a serious head wound during an attack on 28 September in Minsk. No valuables were reportedly stolen during the assault.

Belarus remained the last country in Europe to execute prisoners sentenced to death. On 30 May the House of Representatives (the lower house of parliament) rejected abolition of the death penalty after a parliamentary debate. In September the Minister of the Interior confirmed that five people had by then been executed in 2002. He was also reported to have suggested that people sentenced to life imprisonment should be given the right to choose between life imprisonment and the death penalty.

---

I don't think anyone is claiming Belarus is perfect, its just that the double standard of any regime who has rejected neo-liberalism being held to a standard unthinkable to the lap dogs.

Speaking only for myself, I see the reason for this backlash and name calling not due to his human right abuses but for his ECONOMIC policies.

Imagine a leader who increases wages and pensions of the average worker in a relatively corrupt free government. Off with his head! Bring in Yushchenko to fuck everything up!

Every person who builds an alternative to neo-liberalism is called every name in the book. Yet when one looks at the other former Soviet republics there are far worse examples of repression. Yet never a word until they decide to halt a US base from being built or refuse to privatise their resources for a song. Then pick a colour from the rainbow and let's have a "revolution".

Just once it would be nice to see some people work themselves up over one of these neo-liberal states instead of one that rejects the failure of corporatism and "free" trade.

This "revolution" has been paid for straight from Washington.

Am I a fan of Belarussian repression? No, nor of the countless right wing puppet's brand of even worse repression in the former Soviet empire.

Am I a fan of their economic system? Overall, yes especially concerning their prioirty being their poor and working classes.

But I do.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Jimmy Brogan ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Brogan:
Interesting that the most vitriolic critics of Layton's NDP are the first to defend this thug. Finally someone they can admire.

---

quote:

---

As an admirer of Jack Layton, maybe you can tell us how your "progressive" view of Belarus differs from that of the U.S. State Department

---

Maybe the difference is that the US State Department is a cynical instrument of the corporate elite and cares only for it's perceived geopolitical interest and nothing for the human rights of the people of Belarus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Brogan:
Maybe the difference is that the US State Department is a cynical instrument of the corporate elite and cares only for it's perceived geopolitical interest and nothing for the human rights of the people of Belarus.

And I do.

---

You will no doubt be happy to see the appearance earlier this month of the annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, issued by the U.S. State Department.

This document will provide you with plenty of ideas for trash-talking the governments of North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, and the other "outposts of tyranny" (Condoleezza's code for countries that refuse to bend over and present to the Western neoliberal globalizers) whenever anyone dares to suggest that those countries have legitimate rights to exist free from domination and exploitation by multinational corporate interests.

Here's a quick review:

quote:

---

In a 16-page introduction, the report also singled out the human-rights performances of Syria, Sudan, Nepal, Russia and Venezuela as particularly problematic through the year, even as it praised what it called "major progress" in Iraq, as well as advances in Afghanistan, Colombia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Burundi and Liberia.

"In Iraq 2005 was a year of major progress for democracy, democratic rights and freedom," according to the introduction, citing the "steady growth of NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and other civil-society associations that promote human rights", as well as the holding of two elections and one constitutional plebiscite.
....
The publication, which is based on reporting by other governments, international and local NGOs, journalists, academics and US diplomats, is widely considered the world's single most comprehensive accounting of rights conditions in specific countries.

At the same time, the report is focused almost exclusively on political and civil rights and rights to personal integrity. It generally ignores those rights contained in the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has never been ratified by the United States.

As in the past, this year's edition does not address rights conditions in the United States or in US-controlled facilities overseas, such as detention centers at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba and in Afghanistan where Washington has been holding suspects in its "war on terror" in conditions that some human-rights monitors, including several UN special rapporteurs, have said amount to "torture".

---

Let's see how long it takes them to become a bastien of evil (I predict that will occur the moment they end talks to join NATO or, god forbid, refuse to join the WTO).

Edited to add: I notice they forgot to "investigate" themselves. Like how many political prisoners THEY have on Guantanamo BAY versus throughout Cuba.

For fun I checked Canada and found we harass religious minorities. Guess that same sex marriage really pissed them off.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Brogan:
Lukashenko's crimes stand on their own merit. Bush's crimes in no way mitigate them.

---

Obviously.

However, take a look at the AI report above, now try and frame a similar report in your head about the killing of Dudley George at Ipperwash.

Would it be fair to say that anyone is going to brought to account on this issue, such as in the manner AI complains about police officers in Belarus "rarely" being brought to justice, or the upper echelons of the political elite not being made responsible for the excesses of their underlings?

Now throw in the fact that a few police officers (the trigger man for one) in fact have had mysterious car accidents, and you can get a pretty sinister image of what happened at Ipperwash and what amounts to a cover up here.

But we know that it is not necessarily so. We also know that it is not necessarily so, that Harris intended for events to unfold as they did. We know these things because we see them close up happening right here. Throw in the repression of protests during the APEC conference, and massive tear gassings and occassional beatings at the FTAA conference in Quebec, and do we say that Human rights violations in Canada are rampant and that Canada amounts an authoritarian state?

No. We say it aint necessarily so.

Or in the case of the old US of A, even though it is quite clear that elections were rigged, does this mean that people in the US are generally opposed to the regieme? No it doesn't. We say, it aint necessarily so. We know that Americans feel a great many things. They may on the one hand really hate the Bush regieme, but on the other faced with war they will defend the US with their lives. Thye love their country despite what they feel about Bush.

This point should also be made in the context of Belarus.

Just because many of the countries citizens may oppose the corruption or the rigging of elections, the occassionaly beatings of protestors, and the disappearance of opposition figures, it does not mean that they do not, overall accept, if not wholey endorse their government, or see that it has some good points as well, just as one can find many good things about the USA, and accept the bad with the good.

In fact looking at the USA one begins to understand a disturbing reality: people in their great masses are often very accepting of corruption, and do not, as you do, care if the "US State Department is a cynical instrument of the corporate elite and cares only for it's perceived geopolitical interest and nothing for the human rights of the people of Belarus."

But where does this tollerance for abuse and corruption come from? I think one has to examine the possibility that in all societies numerous people are at least partially complicit, and even supportive of the corruption and abuse that rules their lives.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The world is on the verge of a new cold war between Russia and the West. China has specially covert business interest with the Western nations. As a result it will first stay away from the cold war. India is also in the same boat as China. However, it will be interesting to watch how Brazil, India, China and South Africa react to the new start of the cold war.

---

Americans accuse Russians of providing Saddam intelligence

Actually, I think I'll make a new topic on this.

[ 27 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
Belarussians may have missed out on the economic benefits enjoyed by their neighbours in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania ...

The basic line of reasoning being applied here is, you can't eat freedom, but you can eat bread.

---

And I wouldn't say that Poles are all that happy about market reforms.

quote:

---

In the first year, 1990, GDP fell by over 10%, twice what Balcerowicz expected. Industrial output fell by over 25%. In 1991 GDP fell a further 7.5%. Only at the end of the 1990s did GDP reached the level of 1989, ie before the introduction of the market. ...

Last year, Edward Gierek, leader of the Polish United Workers Party (the communist party) in the 1970s, topped a poll to find the greatest Polish statesman, beating Solidarity's legendary leader, Lech Walesa. In another poll, most Poles felt life was better in the seventies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Your post has no factual basis at all and is entirely speculative. It is based on nothing more than ignorance and cynicism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
But maybe you could explain to me how your own position on Belarus differs from that of the neoliberal imperialists and their cheering section.

So far I'm not seeing a lot of nuance there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As an admirer of Jack Layton, maybe you can tell us how your "progressive" view of Belarus differs from that of the U.S. State Department?

---

IF George W. Bush/The U.S./The Neo-Liberals/The West dislikes it;
THEN it must be good (eg. Lukashenko - even if he has repressed and imprisoned protestors, no big deal, right?).

Of course, there is also the Corollary to M. Spector's Law:

IF George W. Bush/The U.S./The Neo-Liberals/The West likes it;
THEN it must be bad (eg. a democratic Belarus).

Is your head really so far up your ass that you cannot comprehend that even the U.S. government is capable of accurately calling a spade a spade?

This election was not remotely free or fair (And no, the CIS is not a credible source for anything). Lukashenko is a brutal, anachronistic, communist despot.

The people of Belarus will be much better off when they get rid of him - but under such a totalitarian regime it isn't going to be easy. They have tried this past week - and I must regretfully admit that it's sounding more and more as if they're going to fail this time - and some people can't even lend them an iota of support, simply because the U.S. and others got there first.

Sad, really, but I guess that's the so-called "progressive way" according to some.

[ 28 March 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
The people of Belarus will be much better off when they get rid of him - but under such a totalitarian regime it isn't going to be easy. They have tried this past week - and I must regretfully admit that it's sounding more and more as if they're going to fail this time - and some people can't even lend them an iota of support, simply because the U.S. and others got there first.

---

I guess you missed the discussion earlier about the differences between the economy of Belarus and those of her neighbours, and how Dr. Conway used the phrase "you can't eat freedom but you can eat bread," so maybe they are better off economically with him in power. Having said that, that wouldn't justify the vote rigging and other human rights issues that have been debated on this thread, so I don't know why you would single-handedly confront Spector and use his reasoning as a strawman for what "progressives" are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Is your head really so far up your ass that you cannot comprehend that even the U.S. government is capable of accurately calling a spade a spade?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

Oh, come on, 82.6% of the vote? You seriously think that Stalinist authoritarian has 83% of his countries support? The guy rigged it, hell, he even rigged the pre-election polling. The EU says the election was a farce, the UN says the election was a farce. The OCSE says that the elections were nowhere close to thier standards (read: farce). "Belarussian authorities have vowed to crush unrest." Nope, no vote-rigging here.

For the record, Gallup polls has shown that the guy does tend to run at around 55% support, and would have likely been elected anyway.

Why DOES the ex-soviet populus support people like him and Putin, I don't get it.

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

---

quote:

---

Just because our media says someone is unpopular doesn't make it so in reality.

---

Well said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheStudent:
Yes, he probably would have won anyway. But the fact that he had the electoral commission give him 83% of the vote, and 6% for the second place candidate shows that the elction was rigged.

---

Not necessarily at all. It could just be that the people who decided to cast their vote considered the alternatives to Lukashenko significantly less desirable.

quote:

---

International observers have declared that the vote was completely rigged.

---

Brings me to the observation that when the OECD sent election observers to the US in the last election, the observers were not allowed to witness the tallying of the votes.

quote:

---

The President of Belarus, a man who calls his style of rule "authoritarian" won by illegitimate means. Why is this so hard for some people to accept?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
[QB]The CIS?

You'd trust Putin's observers on this?
QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
"As democratic as the USA" just doesn't hold up as well as it used to either.

He is running the country in a more authoritarian style than Bush is anyways. Imagine if Bush held a special referendum allowing him to serve a third term. :eep:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Brogan:
From the three year old AI report:

Charming.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning why people in a "progressive" discussion forum would start channelling Condoleeza Rice on the subject of Belarus.

---

The sane position: "Uh, okay, but we're talking about Belrus, no one is saying that the US is to be trusted without question, but the top..."
[interuption]

The reactionary: "NO, NO, NO, that's all propoganda, the US violates the human rights of its own citizens".

TSP: "Well, yes, but the topic is Luak..."
[interuption]

TR: "You know, I'm suprised that so-called progressive people would think that a Condoleeza Rice backed cabal could be capable of intellgently analysing the reusults, I mean seriously the US has more people in prison..."
[interuption]

TSP: "Zzzzzzzz....."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
TSP: "Zzzzzzzz....."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
...but that's just me and 95% of other lefties.

---

quote:

---

What amuses me is how communists still presume to speak for the whole left...

---

We'll stick to the facts.

Lukashenko is supported by the majority of the population of Belarus. He also received a majority of the votes in the last election. By that standard at least, Belarus is actually more democratic than Canada.

Yet you presume to know better than the Belarussian people what kind of government they should have. You also automatically believe and repeat every bad thing said about the Lukashenko government by the hostile western capitalist politicians and media.

At the same time you automatically disbelieve and reject any facts that might tend to show that the government of Belarus is popular, that it is being subjected to a massive disinformation campaign in an effort to isolate it economically and diplomatically, and that global capitalism is bent on overthrowing that government and sucking the wealth out of the country, as it has done so many times before in so many other countries.

As such you are nothing more than a cheerleader for Bush and the IMF. You claim to be in "left field", but you are actually nowhere near it. If the day comes when some CIA-funded opposition leader takes over Belarus, deregulates and privatizes the economy, repeals tariffs and labour laws, and proclaims its economy to be open for business to imperialist profiteers, you will be standing up and cheering right along with the Bushes and Harpers of this world.

You remind me of the people in "left field" who swallowed the whole pre-war vilification campaign against Saddam Hussein, and cheered as the US cruise missiles struck civilian areas of Baghdad. Eventually the opinion polls changed and the war became unpopular. But when the next Iraq comes along - whether it be Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, or wherever - those same pseudo-leftists will be out there cheering on the "liberation" of these "failed states" from their despotic governments.

Will you be among them? Because that's the choice everybody has to make in the present world. So far you have made some pretty poor choices.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Do you realize what you just did, EriktheHalfaRed, by posting THAT? I am browsing babble, find a very important, interesting discussion, trend toward one side, and then you come out and redbait, calling the other side 'communists' for arguing their point.

With the sort of education many readers here received, your stance appeals to the worst knee-jerk attitudes imaginable.

The double-edged (what I call reactionary) side to your interjection is that a communist might hesitate to say you're wrong using the label for their side but a noncommunist sounds like a redbaiter by distancing themselves from that part of the left.

Anyhow VM, I think you need to read up on the Ukranian election. The results don't reflect a "sense of solidarity with the russian people". I think it's pretty obvious that the "Orange" parties combined vote was more than the pro-Russian ones, if the Orange parties can form a coalition. I think the results, whereas Yankuovich's party got a plurality, reflect a personal split in the Orange coalition more than anything else. In fact it looks like Yanukovich's vote has gone down from what he recieved during the last Presidential election.

[ 31 March 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

MS and others have made some excellent points. I believe it's time the left begin to look to alternative models to neo-liberalism instead of getting all worked up over which tax cut is better than the neo-cons or the blind adherence to globalism and the WTO / IMF.

Corporatism is increasingly a failed system and although Belarus' response is far from ideal at least they are trying alternatives.

Unfortunately Gomperism still exists. Just look at them line up to crap on any posting about Cuba, Venezuela, Belarus, Bolivia or even how these "lefties" defend that bagman Yushchenko.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Should this system be replaced through democratic means? Absolutely, but I fear that any attempts have always been met with violence; Arbenz and Allende to name just two.

Unfortuntely the only long term survivors have had to be on an almost war footing throughout their time in power.

How many millions do you think Washington paid for those protests?

To red bait and ignore the fundamental economic issue is missing the most important part of this discussion; the need for us to start looking at alternatives to the Washington consensus before all world economies and the environment collapses.

Now that would be a beneficial discussion instead of throwing the usual "these guys are the worst" platitudes over whoever Washington says are evil.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

Unfortuntely the only long term survivors have had to be on an almost war footing throughout their time in power.

---

I don't have to presume anything here, I've seen false dichotomies and straw man arguments before.

We'll stick to the facts.

Lukashenko is supported by the majority of the population of Belarus

That's not at all clear, an 80+ percent ratification is hard to believe even under the best circumstances. Nor are the reasons for the support he may actually enjoy, except perhaps that they feared an even greater evil (hardly a ringing endorsement) and/or their own mass media may even be more subservient to power than ours. He may also inspire some fear himself, we can't say for sure from this vantage point.

Goyanemasu: Personally, I'd like to see this sort of appeal to anticommunism strongly condemned in this forum. And I don't have any grudge against you.

No prob, nothing personal on my part at all. If you read back abit further you'll see I was just commenting on Spector's own insulting generalities, something he insisted on repeating. But you are right, still bad form on my part. Shouldn't insult others so broadly myself, social democrats are expected to be calm and reasonable at all times...at least in public spaces.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

How many millions do you think Washington paid for those protests?

---

Who knows, and who really cares that much? I mean really, were the protests effective? Let's take a look at Venezuela, I'm a big Chavez fan. You know why? Because he isn't a dictator, he's quite the democrat, whose won fair and square and has fought stridently to implement the agenda that he promised to implent to the people of his country. In any case regardless whether or not there was foreign interference, Lukashenko is a despot plain and simple, everyone yourself included has acknowledged - to somehow defend him by launching attacks at Washington is bizzare.

quote:

---

To red bait and ignore the fundamental economic issue is missing the most important part of this discussion; the need for us to start looking at alternatives to the Washington consensus before all world economies and the environment collapses.

---

Look, no one who is serious here, particularly disagrees that we need to "look at alternatives to the Washington consensus", the point is that I think it's pretty stupid to defend some dictator of a relativley unimportant country just because he didn't embrace neo-liberalism, and somehow claim that since he's offered a crusty old alternative that it's an alternative that we should be looking at. The word progressive has been used alot, Lukashenko may be left-leaning economically, but he sure isn't progressive. I prefer the two to be linked. I mean seriously is he offering a solution that should be embraced? One may look to Russia and say that they're transition to a free market economy has been rough, no doubt. But If one compares Belarus to other Soviet Bloc countries, such as Poland, the Czech Republic or what have you the standards of living in those countries that have joined the EU seem to be far better.

quote:

---

BTW, have you ever posted on the human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia or any of the other "free" former republics?

---

Maybe, I have no idea, I have over 4000 posts, I don't keep track of every single one. I know in general I'm trying to post on more international issues now, as domestic politics have slowed down somewhat. And even if I don't post on them, I read them far more then I have before.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

Belarus 0.786 (See pg. 220, or 12 of 120 on PDF link)

Poland 0.858 (See pg. 219, or 11 of 120 on PDF link)

Czech Republic 0.874 (See same pg as for Poland)

So maybe since Belarus is significantly further down on the list, it isn't such a great model after all?

PDF File link

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Remember how some people on the "real" left used to take their insperation from Moscow, yeah that turned out well. Soviet style communism really helped give the left in general a lot of credibility.

All of this talk about neo-liberalism and what not is all well and good, but the point was that Lukashenko is an authoritarian despot, everything else is gravy. And usually when you have to take long-winded approaches to explaining yourself, you have something to hide or minimize something...I have to ask why? What's the point? Use your efforts on more important things. Defending Lukashenko as "not so bad" is bizzare.

---

What has Lukashenko done that you know for a fact, and what was his reasoning for doing it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Not true. Western Europe has survived neo-liberalism better than any in the Eastern Bloc did;

---

Western Europe IS neo-liberal. 25 million Germans, out of a popultion of 85 million, depends on some form of Social Assistance, while manufacturers have moved production to the east to take advantage of sweatshop-style wages. The German Economy may still be in the top 4 on paper, but that is only because of where the companies are based. Quite an accomplishment.

quote:

---

Latin American states are rejecting it with a variety of leftist-populist movements, none of them openly militarist;

---

Have you been sleeping? There have already been failed coup attempts, and Venezuela is target #1. The only reason there hasn't been an invasion yet is because Uncle Sam has hardly any rom to maneuvre with conventional troops, and is luckily bogged down in Iraq.

quote:

---

Most of the present robber barons in Russia and Eastern Europe OTOH were onetime Soviet apparatchiks, so the picture is even more murkier than that.

---

quote:

---

I did a little research and here it is. It's based on the Human Development Index.
Belarus 0.786 (See pg. 220, or 12 of 120 on PDF link)

Poland 0.858 (See pg. 219, or 11 of 120 on PDF link)

Czech Republic 0.874 (See same pg as for Poland)

So maybe since Belarus is significantly further down on the list, it isn't such a great model after all?

---

I bow to your amazing straw man debating skills!

We're talking about life in the former Soviet republics and you conveniently forget to mention their stats.

Oh wait that's because with the exception of the Baltic states, those thugs in Belarus BEATS all the others including your heroes in the Ukraine.

But its so much easier to compare Belarus to nations that are in the EU receiving billions in subsidies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What's the public anti-war sentiment and strength of the Peace Movement in that country, I wonder? Belarus lost 1/4 of its population in WW2 and I can't help but wonder whether anti-war sentiment might be stronger there than in neighbouring countries. This could have an effect on other aspects of Belarusian (sp?) politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
M.Spector: We're content to let you do the presuming.

I don't have to presume anything here, I've seen false dichotomies and straw man arguments before.

---

You don't have to presume, but you were presuming to speak for 95% of "lefties" while hypocritically accusing imaginary "communists" for presuming to speak for the whole left.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
M. Spector: Lukashenko is supported by the majority of the population of Belarus

That's not at all clear, an 80+ percent ratification is hard to believe even under the best circumstances.

---

A September 25, 2005 Los Angeles Times report said that even Lukashenko's "fiercest opponents don't question the accuracy of independent polls that rate him the most popular politician in this country."

I guess those fierce opponents are pussycats compared to you, tiger.

quote:

---

Polls carried out as recently as last month, paid for by the International Republican Institute, the US taxpayer funded foreign policy arm of the Republican Party, show that support for the US-backed candidate, Aleksandr Milinkevich is “in the single digits,” while over half of voters back Lukashenko.

A January Gallup/Baltic Surveys poll found that 55 percent of voters planned to vote for Lukashenko, while only 17 percent planned to mark their ballot for the West’s favored candidate. Source

---

quote:

---

A January survey by Bratislava-based NGO Pontis/IVO found that 65 percent of Belarusian respondents see their country as "calm" and 81 percent "appreciate" president Lukashenko's promises of good living standards. Source

---

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Shock therapy has produced the greatest peacetime man-made social and economic disaster since Stalin’s collectivisation of agriculture in those ex-Communist countries which adopted the siren schemes proposed by Jeffrey Sachs et al. of the Harvard school. Yet, instead of rewarding Alexander Lukashenko’s instinctive revulsion for inflicting penury on his people to benefit a small class of nouveaux riches emerging from the Communist nomenklatura and their Western partners, the West has poured forth venom on the regime in Belarus which refused to rob its own pensioners and sell its daughters into prostitution or send its graduates to be plumbers in the West.

Visitors to Belarus find a rather different place from the official image of a Stalinist throwback. In fact, there is a massive gulf between the Western media portrait of a country of huddled, impoverished masses and the reality of a society which has seen steadily improving living standards since the last presidential elections in 2001.

The problem with Belarus from the shock therapists’ point of view is not that it isn’t a market economy but that it is the wrong kind of market economy. Goods and services are marketed to ordinary people; shops sell things people can buy. Unlike the empty, expensive boutiques which line the streets in nearby Vilnius, Minsk has shops filed with goods within a reasonable price range. Instead of Japanese sushi bars for the expense account types, Minsk hosts a wide variety of restaurants and pizzerias. Yet absurd claims are still disseminated such as the idea that the anti-Americanism of President Lukashenko’s regime is so all-embracing there are no McDonalds fast-food outlets in the country – a canard that can be exploded by a simple stroll down Minsk’s Lenin Street where the “big tasty” is advertised. But most readers of such claims will not visit Minsk and therefore probably take the media’s portrayal of the country at face value.

---

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

I bow to your amazing straw man debating skills!

We're talking about life in the former Soviet republics and you conveniently forget to mention their stats.

---

No, I was talking about life in the former Eastern Bloc that includes countries like the former East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary etc. You can determine the geographic area however you wish. As for your comment about the former Soviet Republics, sans the baltic ones (which intrestingly enough are far more democratic then Belarus), the Russian Federation recieved a score of 0.795 which is still a few places better than Belarus. As for the Ukranian comment, that's just strange (besides the fact that I've never said that they're my hero's just that they're somewhat better than the semi-autocratic corporatistic folks who were in before, but anyways). The Orange bloc has been in control of that country for all of 1 year and a bit, it's hardly time to measure whether or not they've been successful or abject failures.

quote:

---

What has Lukashenko done that you know for a fact, and what was his reasoning for doing it?

You have an easy time attacking Lukashenko, though you probably know nothing about him besides what the Bush-Media tells you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Belarus Today: Evolution versus Market-Fundamentalism
Read also:

BHHRG report on polling day in Belarus
BHHRG comments on reports of other election observers

---

Well, I'm glad M. Spector is here to find us a Fair and Balanced(tm) account of affairs in Belarus, delivered to us by that bastion of non-bias, the BHHRG. Why how else, were it not for this article, could I have known that

the West has poured forth venom on the regime in Belarus which refused to rob its own pensioners and sell its daughters into prostitution

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
No, I was talking about life in the former Eastern Bloc that includes countries like the former East Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary etc.

---

Kind of ironic that the average person in those countries now has far less under Capitalism than they did before.

quote:

---

(which intrestingly enough are far more democratic then Belarus)

---

There is absolutely no value in a 'democracy' hijacked by the wealthy elites. In our nations, money and the backing by the wealthy determines who can run and eventually attain a leadership position. There are too few who can break out of the pre-determined overall result to effect a change that benefits the entire population.

quote:

---

the Russian Federation recieved a score of 0.795 which is still a few places better than Belarus.

---

It is not the number of billionaires that will tell you which is the best country to live in. A lot of these statistical measurements do not take into account the real-life living standard of the average citizen. The US will rank high, despite the fact 15% of the population cannot afford health insurance.

quote:

---

The Orange bloc has been in control of that country for all of 1 year and a bit, it's hardly time to measure whether or not they've been successful or abject failures.

---

Capitalism is a failure all around, because a huge part of the population is left with little or nothing in order to benefit the ruling Capital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
So why has Lukashenko not even renamed the secret police from KGB?

---

Oh, wait! I get it! The fact that they haven't changed the name proves that they have no head at all for public relations. Shame on them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yst:
I'll have to be more critical of the "selling Belarus's daughters into prostitution" lobby, in the future.

---

quote:

---

Organized crime in many former republics has also expanded into international prostitution. Estimates are that up to 250,000 women a year, including 100,000 from Ukraine alone, are lured abroad with the promise of good jobs and sold into sex slavery for up to $10,000 per woman. Despite efforts to end the trafficking in women, in 2004 it remained the third-largest criminal moneymaking activity for organized crime groups, after drugs and weapons. Source (.pdf) (see p. 4)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Are you just trying to show off your Russian? Or do you actually have a relevant point?

Oh, wait! I get it! The fact that they haven't changed the name proves that they have no head at all for public relations. Shame on them.

And I suppose if they had changed the name to People's Friendly Police Service you wouldn't be accusing them of making cynical cosmetic changes to hide the real nature of their secret police?

---

I was making a point, so if you would quit being bloody-all doctrinaire for two seconds you would realize that (A) I have no love for the Washington Consensus, and (B) neither do I particularly like leaders of governments that don't bother to get rid of symbols and agencies related to authoritarian/totalitarian pasts. The point being that Lukashenko keeping the KGB around is Probably Indicative Of Not Necessarily Nice Things Happening.

The Russians even renamed the KGB to FSB, for Pete's sake - and Putin hasn't shown much desire to go back to the way things were when the KGB was running around scaring the bejeezus out of anybody who dared put a toe out of line.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:

Because I trust what Amnesty International says. Why do you ask, don't you? Is the BBC part of the "Bush-Media"?

---

This is a crucial point: AI is hardly a bastion of American (or Chinese or Russian or Islamist)hegemony, especially given that it was founded to give victims of fascist persecution a recourse against the abuses of Portugal's far-right falangist Estado Novo, a regime backed by Washington because it was so stridently anti-leftist and anti-Soviet. Similarly, I have written reports on torture and various other human rights abuses in which Amnesty International was a major source in documenting Washinton's sins. Furthermore, Washington and Amnesty took completely divergent positions on South Africa's Apartheid regime.

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: Heavy Sharper ]

quote:

---

Is the BBC part of the "Bush-Media"?

---

Well now that you asked:

BBC faces protests over 'Iraq bias'

But keep going. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. I'm sure there's other points off topic you can raise.

On a positive note, thanks for posting those articles MS. Too bad there are not more people who can see the pitfalls of the neo-lib/ neo-con myth. I guess we have to wait for peak oil ...

[ 01 April 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Granted, I admit you can argue the converse, that changing a name doesn't mean much sometimes - as people have argued against the School of the Americas simply because it became WHINSEC.

However, the fact that Belarus's government explicitly retains the name of an organization noted for abusing ordinary citizens on a routine basis is, IMO, not a good thing.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: DrConway ]

You don't have to presume, but you were presuming to speak for 95% of "lefties" while hypocritically accusing imaginary "communists" for presuming to speak for the whole left.

Christ, this is why I hate getting into these asinine go-nowhere debates. I wasn't presuming anything here at all, most people who consider themselves lefties can't be bothered defending tired old Soviet regimes, haven't for many a year now. Didn't exactly take a poll though, so maybe it's only about 85 percent. Or maybe ninety nine point nine.

I did neglect to add that I don't have any grudge against you either. Like most people on Babble you seem to have something intelligent to say on most subjects, but for the life of me I just can't figure out why so many Marxists waste so much time twisting themselves into knots trying to defend dinosaur regimes rather than trying to save their own moribund movement.

Some of the best critiques I've seen on why communism ultimately failed have come from other Marxists here, so why not just go back to blaming it all on Stalin or calling it State Capitalism? Not exactly accurate either, but it does give you some space to manoeuver again. Never been a real life socialist society anyhow, but that's not crucial either. At onetime democracy was said to be impossible outside small slave holding city-states and peasants were said to be too congenitally stupid to even learn. We now know that to be untrue.

I guess it's easier to accept the 97% vote obtained by Georgia's President Saakashvili, or the 89% vote for Kyrgyzstan’s “tulip revolutionary” Kurmanbek Bakievsince, or the 92% for Georgia’s Eduard Shevardnadze back in 1992 when he was still Washington’s favourite reformer, or the 93% for Heydar Aliev in Azerbaijan in 1993, since none of them are troublemakers like Lukashenko who stubbornly refuse to just lie back and think of Washington, as the forces of neo-liberal market capitalism take over their countries.

Yes, I too was waving an orange flag when these great and glorious victories were won for free market fundamentalism.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

And no, the EU is hardly a "neoliberal" enterprise ...

---

You are kidding right? Please tell me you are kidding. Do you even know what neo-liberal means?

Here's some help:

neo-liberalism Wikipedia

It might be interesting to see how many times the EU is mentioned as well as the WTO, IMF and World Bank.

If you want to have this put into a Canadian context:

neo-con v neo-lib in Canada

Happy reading. Look forward to reading more posts when you have more information.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:

BBC faces protests over 'Iraq bias'

But keep going. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. I'm sure there's other points off topic you can raise.

---

From your article:

quote:

---

The Stop the War Coalition is organising protests outside BBC studios and offices around the country in response to what it believes is the corporation's pro-government stance on the war in Iraq.

---

That's an opinion not a fact, I would believe that it was a fact if there was a report or study that proved bias by documenting various examples. They've done this consistently with media, and it was proven in the run up to the war with American media. If the BBC was biased in such a way then said reports would prove that. But now I'm supposed to believe that the entire history of the BBC is to be put into question because a group of people's opinion, that the Guardian is reporting on (not endorsing!)? That my friend is specious reasoning.

But other organizations such as Reuters have reported on the autocratic nature of the regime, but I suppose if someone else has an OPINION of their reporting that should overwhelm their reputation according to your position? Nonetheless this is going to go in circles I suppose so call me a neo-liberal apologist if you must, I appreciate it really.

I must ask though, how the facts I presented from the UN human development index are suspect. I asked a question earlier saying:

quote:

---

So are you saying that the Human Development Index is pretty much the same type of measure as traditional ones such as Gross Domestic Product?

---

Yet none of the people on "your side" of the argument have bothered to answer this, after RA dismissed the report, not to mention MS' weak dismissal of the AI report (and the awkwardness in which it was done just proves how correct it is). So please tell me what is inherently wrong with the UNHDI? And if you could provide a few links, I'd really be intrested in seeing them as I appreciate statistics. I know full well that a few billionares will skew the results of the average GDP, as such I didn't use that measure. But no one has really proven yet why the UNHDI is so inadquate.

Edited to add: Look, perhaps many of the other former Soviet Republics don't have high standards of living for various other reasons. If you look at the central asian, and transcaucasian ones, they never did. Not to mention the conflicts that plague them (this includes Moldova as well). Belarus however, when compared to the Baltic states, and Russia scores lower. It only scores higher than Ukraine. Which yet again begs the question, that I just asked about what's wrong with the index, if you dislike it so much?

Look we have our opinions, whatever. I'm just really interested in hearing some facts to back them up.

Erik, come on, wikipedia is a good source.

[ 02 April 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

I appreciate a chance to sit in on this thread like a pixel in the margin.

What would they say to those who may have questioned what Lukashenko was doing or may have been moved by the bravery of the pro-democracy result in the Ukraine(btw, does anyone think that if the falsely elected Ukrainian government had not been brought down that Ukraine would ever have had another election or even had the chance{which it still has}of developing a non-corrupt, non-dictatorial form of socialism?)because they think that the left needs to clearly be on the side of democratic-decision making, because they believe that the 1949-1989 period proves that non-democratic socialism simply can't work, or simply because they didn't want to see Ukraine or Belarus stay under police state government?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ken Burch:
So, am I correct here that Erik and Spector are taking the position that anyone who questions the Belarus election or supported the revolt in Ukraine is a reactionary tool of global capitalism?

---

quote:

---

What would they say to those who may have questioned what Lukashenko was doing or may have been moved by the bravery of the pro-democracy result in the Ukraine, etc. etc.

---

quote:

---

...it is intriguing that Milinkevich’s campaign manager, Sergei Kalyakin is also First Secretary of the Party of Belarussian Communists! Although Western journalists routinely regale their readers with allegations that Lukashenko is a “Stalinist” nostalgic running a “totalitarian” society, in reality the Belarussian president is disliked by the Communist-era elite.

En masse the beneficiaries of Brezhnev’s corrupt regime which did so much to discredit socialism in the USSR have rallied to Western-sponsored candidates at each Belarussian election – only to see them rejected by the voters as Prime Minister Vyacheslav Kebich was in 1994. Sergei Kalyakin isn’t the only ex-Communist standing behind the “pro-Western” candidate. Red Army general Valery Frolov was prominent in the opposition ranks. Vitali Silitski currently a Reagan-Fascell democracy fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States denounced Lukashenko for removing the Brezhnev-era Politburo member Piotr Masherov from one of Minsk’s main avenues and attributed this iconoclasm as the cause of Masherov’s daughter’s public opposition to Lukashenko. These children of the nomenklatura see Alexander Lukashenko as the usurper of their rightful position as the bosses of Belarussian society. As the President pointed out at his press conference after the election, he created the “new system” and they “ONI”, the “Them” of the Soviet days, cannot forgive him. Given that Washington’s new darling in Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel, was Agitation Secretary of the East German equivalent of the Komsomol before 1989 in her East Berlin workplace, Communist activism in the totalitarian past seems not only not to be a bar to promotion but it may in fact be a requirement for the New World Order. Source

---

Or is it just a matter of anybody-but-Lukashenko, even if it means opening the doors to global market capitalism?

quote:

---

Yes we need to be in solidarity with those who are truly resisting Western imperialism and the dominance of market economics, but there is no way that an old-time Stalinist hack like Lukashenko can be worthy of the left's support.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
I just find it hee-larious that people who can't tell the difference between the average wishy washy Social Democrat and hardass neo-liberal ideologues can lecture others on these things.

---

Why are we being thrown into the old dichotomous East-West debate. And I don't think people supporting the West have any moral or ethical advantage just because they lay claim to 'democracy'. We can't presume that we bring democracy to the world, or that our democracy is the 'best'. But that on the other hand does not mean that these remenant elite governments are 'good'. Therefore maybe the debate should not be structured around which one is 'good' but what alternatives are there infront of Belarus and Ukraine etc. and yes it does include a debate about which could provide the space for real change and good alternatives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
One thing that IS interesting is that a lot of the Soviet elite pre-1991, according to a CCPA Monitor article I read, was salivating at the thought of capturing massive profits from sectors they were nominally only in charge of prior to the collapse of communism.

---

In the past 15 years since the capitalist counter-revolution, former bureaucrats have become part of the new capitalist class, stealing assets that formerly belonged to the state.

In Russia:

quote:

---

But once they got the power to manage the public’s property, they found themselves facing a tremendous temptation to grab this property for themselves. This was made easy by the possibility of combining jobs in government institutions with posts in private firms dealing with the government. Briefly, those in charge of supervising privatization simply transferred the district’s property to companies they themselves head. Source

---

quote:

---

The records of Bulgaria and Romania through the end of 1996 provide significant evidence that public resources were diverted into private hands through abuses of political connections, the banking system, management seats in state-owned firms, monopoly positions and privileged licenses, and others. Source

---