This headline made me chuckle as the AP wasn't even trying to
hide the motive – one that anyone could have guessed. The US would most
certainly like to insert itself between Minsk and Moscow.
But please note if and when Moscow attempts similar tactics
they are demonised for it by the US press. But when the US does it, it's surely
a noble thing.
The sixty-five year old Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko
has been engaged in a diplomatic dance since he came to power in 1994. He's
always leaned toward Moscow but has ever been careful to maintain a degree of
autonomy. In terms of his motivations, it's probably personal. As the country's
dictator he stands to lose if the country comes under Moscow's control – or if
it moves in the direction of the West, both Washington and Brussels will
certainly push for and utilise liberal reforms to drive him from office.
The landlocked country has few friends and limited options.
Like Poland, its history has been one of insecurity. It must be remembered that
Belarus did not exist as an independent country until the 1991 break-up of the
USSR.
They had attempted to create an independent republic at the
end of WWI but it lasted only about a year (1918-1919) before it was gobbled up
by the USSR. The lands that are today Belarus have long been dominated by
various incarnations of Russia and Poland and in addition it was one of the 'Bloodlands'
of WWII's Eastern Front – suffering a staggering loss of about ¼ of its
population.
Insecurity defines the position of Belarus and its history.
It is in this context that the people – at one time a majority – support a
strongman leader like Lukashenko. He's the glue that's holding the country
together. He has brought the stability many of the people seek and has
positioned them in a way that they can have a stable society – not rich or too
poor – one in which they can retain their cultural identity and yet not be
dominated. The Russian Oligarchs weren't let in – but neither were the Western
democrats. That said, Belarus is hardly free from corruption but what does
exist is tied to the regime. Western media will make much of arms sales and
clandestine deals – as if the United States, France, the UK and other NATO
members aren't involved in the same sort of side projects.
Obviously there are portions of the country that oppose the
status quo – the stuck in the immediate post-Cold
War 1990's Lukashenko paradigm – and want to see Belarus turn to the West.
And these discontents continue to agitate and yet all things considered the social
oppression of the opposition has been (relatively speaking) mild. The country
has few political or economic freedoms and an abysmal record when it comes to freedom
of the press. It's a corrupt authoritarian system but it's stable and
reasonably secure – which again if you understand its context and history
you'll understand why Lukashenko retains some popularity. It's more of a
question that he's the devil they know and the uncertainty of a new regime
carries with it a threat. Again, this point cannot be laboured enough and it's
hard for people in other countries to understand it – but the history is
everything here.
There's little chance the West will woo Lukashenko. But
they'll try and open what doors they can. The more tools that can be forged are
tools that can be used – even at some future date. The lessons of Georgia and Ukraine
were learned by Lukashenko and he's not going to let the West get a foothold. He
knows they will use it and use it to bring him down.
The acceptance of American oil is not a case of Lukashenko
starting to yield but an occasion for him to stick his finger in Moscow's eye –
and scare them a bit.
He's playing a game, dancing a dance and when Moscow yields a
bit, he'll move back in their direction. No matter what, Belarus cannot afford
to alienate Moscow. The West could try and wrest Belarus away and bring it
under the aegis of NATO but Russia wouldn't stand for it. You'd have another Donbass
or Crimea.
And so the situation in Belarus remains unchanged and it will
for the foreseeable future. The one
thing that would most certainly 'shake things up' would be the removal of
Lukashenko.
From a Christian standpoint his removal would be no cause for
mourning. And yet there's always a danger in liberalising. One is reminded of
the corrosive effects of 1990's style capitalism in Eastern Europe – a train
that Belarus never boarded. Freedoms are fine things but at the same time there
are serious dangers as Belarusian Protestants would certainly come under the
influence of Western Evangelicalism – and its worldliness and Dominionism. At
present they are an oppressed remnant body – downtrodden in the world's eyes
but spiritually strong.
Also, if Belarus were 'flipped' into the Western column (by
the removal of Lukashenko) the state would immediately become a frontline state
in Cold War II – and as we've seen in Eastern Ukraine that would prove
disastrous for the Church. While the population of Belarus is overwhelmingly
tied to the Belarusian cultural identity there are significant populations of
Russians as well as Poles and Ukrainians – the latter of which would (possibly)
function as something of a bloc. These minority groups would certainly be utilised
by outside powers that would seek to get their piece of the Belarusian pie.
Freedoms are nice but if the cost means war and the
destruction of society – I would hope some would pause and reconsider. And for
the Church as bad as things might be, they could be worse. Right now faithful
churches have to operate below the radar or endure intolerable levels of
registration and regulation. Faithful churches are going to be viewed as
'sects' – a loaded term in the Orthodox world used to label such groups as subversive
to the vision of sacral society.
That said, the other alternative might mean a congregation
divided by war, youth pulled into the ethos of the West and its intellectual
orbit, rampant feminism and Evangelical compromise. Additionally the cultural
perception will be that these turned-to-the
West congregations are one with these changes and many will view them as
not only representing a rival religion but a rival socio-political order and as
such these people have betrayed their nation – not for the cause of the
Heavenly Zion but for the soulless, ever-scheming and mendacious West – and I'm
sorry to say it but they might have a point.
Those aren't good options and of course there are other paths
that can be chosen – but given the precedent, these are real dangers. For my
part I would rather see churches meet in homes and other 'underground' locales
and yet the illegality of such meetings is definitely unfortunate. And in the
case of Belarus it affords little protection against the authoritarian state –
which in order to maintain its position deems it necessary to block all foreign
influence whether actual or potential.
And once again it must be said that these governments as
wicked as they might be have some justification in their fears. It doesn't excuse
their actions but at the same time the American Evangelical movement and the
Christian Right are known collaborators with the American Security State and as
such their actions in countries that Washington has targeted inevitably leads
to Christian persecution. It is a tragic irony but the many lobbyists who push
the White House and State Department to put pressure on other nations for the
sake of Christians – are in fact amplifying persecution and destroying the
pilgrim-Kingdom testimony of the Church.
Add in the fact that their lobbying is wedded to American
nationalism and (though they deny the label) American imperialism, the
situation is grotesque. Deceived Christians advocating for empire and its evils,
even while arguing for the 'rights' of persecuted Christians – leads to evil on
all fronts.
In the meantime we will continue to pray for our brethren in
Belarus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.