Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 05MINSK1165 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 05MINSK1165 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Minsk |
| Created: | 2005-09-23 13:57:00 |
| Classification: | CONFIDENTIAL |
| Tags: | PGOV PHUM PINR BO |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
VZCZCXYZ0006 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHSK #1165/01 2661357 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 231357Z SEP 05 FM AMEMBASSY MINSK TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3044 INFO RUEHVL/AMEMBASSY VILNIUS 3371 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 3149 RUEHRA/AMEMBASSY RIGA 1418 RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 3039 RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KIEV 2925 RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0671 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK
C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 001165 SIPDIS KIEV FOR USAID SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/15 TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, PINR, BO SUBJECT: Flaws in Single Candidate Process Ref: Minsk 836 Classified by Ambassador George Krol for Reasons 1.4 (B,D) 1. (C) Summary: The independent election observation NGO Partnership recently released a report on the conduct of the opposition 10+ coalition's single candidate process. Partnership documented numerous instances of harassment by the regime, but also pointed out failings by the oppositiQ, such as a lack of new people or ideas, marginally active leadership, and low levels of popular support. Partnership wants there to be an alternative to Lukashenko, but so far does not see it in the traditional opposition. Partnership's head summarized the NGO's recent activities, demonstrating again that they are an impressive group. End summary. 2. (SBU) On September 21 Nikolay Astreyka, head of the independent, but anti-Lukashenko, election observation NGO Partnership, met with Emboffs. He presented a report critiquing the opposition 10+ coalition's single candidate process from June 15 to September 15. Although September 15 was to have been the end of the process, by that date 10+ had only managed to hold 119 of the planned 147 local conventions to choose delegates for their October 1 Q 2 congress (which Partnership will also observe). Partnership observers attended 95 of these local conventions. The NGO found that the regime routinely interfered in the process, and that the 10+ leaders did a poor job of organizing and conducting many of the conventions. Nonetheless, Partnership concluded the local conventions were generally conducted in a democratic manner. Regime Harassment ----------------- 3. (SBU) Partnership documented numerous cases of regime harassment of the local conventions. They noted police officers were present at most of the local conventions across the country, and at all in Gomel Oblast. Although they usually allowed the conventions to proceed, security officials video taped participants and wrote down their passport information. In three instances -- in Pinsk, Elsk and Sianno -- police arrested the conventions' local organizers, causing the meeting to be cancelled. Local authorities in many towns caused difficulties by blocking rental of any public meeting place. Police in Kalinkovichy raided a meeting claiming there was a drug lab in the building, and police in Svetlogorsk held local organizers? for several hours before the meeting, ostensibly to check their identification. Local fire departments forced the evacuation of three meeting halls on the pretence there was a fire (although Partnership saw nothing) and a HAZMAT team evacuated one hall claiming it was contaminated with mercury. But Opposition Falls Short -------------------------- 4. (C) Astreyka and the Partnership report were also critical of the opposition. While stressing this process is a vast improvement over how the opposition chose its single candidate in 2001 (a handful of people in a backroom, three weeks before the election), Astreyka said Qhere were still problems. The 10+ refused to allow Partnership to observe a number of meetings, although it is impossible to say how often this happened. The 10+ gave Partnership incorrect times or places for several meetings, but Astreyka does not know if this was deliberate or poor management. At a few meetings, in Mogilev and Vitebsk Oblasts, local 10+ organizers refused to allow Partnership observers into the event. Astreyka said he personally tried to observe one of the first local conventions, in Molodechno, but the four 10+ candidates argued no outside observers should be present. It came to a vote, and Astreyka was narrowly allowed to observe. 5. (C) Astreyka opined that this single candidate process has demonstrated several failings of Belarus' opposition. After holding 119 meetings, only 4,200 people have participated. Astreyka pointed out the 10+ consists of ten member parties (each of which by law should have 1,000 members) and hundreds of NGOs, so this is a poor turnout. He fears this is not enough people to campaign effectively for the single candidate. Because of this low turnout, Partnership reported that 26 conventions were cancelled because of a lack of quorum (originally a minimum of 25 people, later lowered to 23). The 10+ subsequently changed the rules to allow meetings with as few as 13 people to choose one delegate and at least 23 people to choose two. Most troubling, Astreyka said that it was the same old party members and activists who participated in these conventions; the 10+ failed completely at attracting any new participants. The coalition only publicly advertised the conventions in Minsk City. Everywhere else, they were announced exclusively to party and NGO members. 6. (C) The four potential 10+ presidential candidates attended only a small minority of the conventions. Aleksandr Milinkevich attended the most, 20; Anatoliy Lebedko and Sergey Kalyakin both were at 17, and Stanislav Shushkevich visited 15 conventions. Astreyka reported that these four mostly attended conventions as a group, and only in the larger cities. None of them bothered to go to smaller towns or villages to meet their supporters, instead sending local representatives. While all spoke when they did attend, it was usually about the candidate selection process or about Belarus in general. Astreyka was disappointed that none of them discussed their platforms or tried to sell themselves to voters. He said this reflected a lack of activism on their part; there was no agreement between the candidates to avoid such topics. As a result, Astreyka heard no new ideas at these conventions. 7. (C) Post has heard complaints from several contacts that Milinkevich and Lebedko, in particular, have been "buying" delegates. Partnership did not include this in its report, but Astreyka said Milinkevich and Lebedko have already promised all paid positions in their campaigns, if they win, to local supporters in exchange for votes. He said no money was given for votes, but rather the candidates handed out the chance for a future salary. [Note: Post wonders which international donor will be asked to pay these salaries.] This disappointed Astreyka, as he felt these vital campaign positions were going to local supporters rather than qualified campaign managers. How the Conventions Voted ------------------------- 8. (SBU) According to data from NDI, as of September 20 4,371 people had participated in 121 local conventions. They elected 225 delegates, from: 57 United Civic Party (Lebedko), 50 Belarus Popular Front (Milinkevich), 43 non- party, 28 Party of Belarusian Communists (Kalyakin), 15 Perspektiva, 9 Belarusian Social-Democrat Party Narodnaya Hramada, and 5 or less from the deregistered Party of Labor, Belarusian Social-Democrat Hramada (Shushkevich), Christian Conservative Party, pro-Kozulin Social-Democrats, the unregistered Party of Freedom and Progress, the Right Alliance youth NGO, independent trade unions, and the Malady Front youth NGO. Partnership Update: An Impressive NGO ------------------------------------- 9. (C) Partnership is an independent election observation NGO funded mainly by NDI. In 2004's parliamentary elections it placed 3,500 election observers in 25 percent of Belarus' polling stations. Astreyka reported roughly half the 2004 observers decided to be more active for 2006 and work on the campaign of the opposition's single candidate. For the 2006 presidential elections they plan to field 5,000 observers in half the 7,000 polling places. Partnership has 895 registered members and 19 paid staff. Between elections they work on social advocacy issues, namely helping citizens appeal to the government to improve street lighting, water, roads, etc. Three years ago, when Partnership began such work, it had a 30 percent success rate at getting authorities to respond. Now that the regime knows Partnership for election observation, the organization's success rate has dropped to 10 percent. 10. (C) Although independent, Partnership is willing to help the 10+ or other opposition groups. The NGO distributes 400,000 copies of its -%thly bulletin. In July Partnership dedicated its bulletin to the 10+ candidates, printing their backgrounds and platforms. Police stopped the cars of four of seven regional Partnership coordinators as they left Minsk, and seized 170,000 of the bulletins. Partnership's leadership is also searched whenever they cross a border. Astreyka was searched at length September 21 as he returned from Riga by bus, and his deputy was detained and searched for two hours at the airport before she flew to an ODIHR conference in Warsaw on September
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04