Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06MINSK1061
2006-09-28 15:03:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Minsk
Cable title:  

OPPOSITION COALITION SPLITTING AT THE SEAMS

Tags:  PGOV PREL PHUM BO 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO3524
OO RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHSK #1061/01 2711503
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 281503Z SEP 06
FM AMEMBASSY MINSK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5150
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK IMMEDIATE
RUEHBS/USMISSION USEU IMMEDIATE 0132
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE IMMEDIATE 1288
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE IMMEDIATE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 MINSK 001061 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/28/2016
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM BO
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION COALITION SPLITTING AT THE SEAMS

REF: A. MINSK 848

B. MINSK 862

C. MINSK 978

D. MINSK 795

E. MINSK 1036

F. MINSK 737

G. MINSK 1018

Classified By: Ambassador Stewart for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

Summary
-------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 MINSK 001061

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/28/2016
TAGS: PGOV PREL PHUM BO
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION COALITION SPLITTING AT THE SEAMS

REF: A. MINSK 848

B. MINSK 862

C. MINSK 978

D. MINSK 795

E. MINSK 1036

F. MINSK 737

G. MINSK 1018

Classified By: Ambassador Stewart for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

Summary
--------------


1. (C) On September 25, several key parties within the
United Democratic Forces (UDF) announced the formation of an
independent &executive body8 to coordinate plans for the
January 2007 municipal elections. In response to this latest
development, UDF leader Aleksandr Milinkevich has stated in
unambiguous terms that the coalition is splitting into two
camps -- Milinkevich, Vintsyuk Vyachorka,s Belarusian
Popular Front (BPF),and pro-democracy NGOs in one camp and
Anatoly Lebedko,s United Civic Party (UCP),Sergey
Kalyakin,s Belarusian Party of Communists (BPC),Aleksandr
Kozulin,s Belarusian Social Democratic Party (&Gramada8)
(BSDP),and Aleskandr Bukhvostov,s Belarusian Party of Labor
(BPL) in the other camp. UDF members have reached an impasse
on such issues as selection of candidates for the local
elections, the need for a second democratic congress, and the
restructuring of the UDF Political Council. To be sure,
party leaders at the regional level are effectively preparing
for the local elections and the Belarusian opposition remains
committed to promoting democratic change, but no longer in a
highly coordinated manner. End Summary.

Disgruntled Parties Form A Separate Committee
--------------


2. (C) On September 25, the leaders of opposition parties
United Civic Party (UCP),pro-democracy Party of Belarusian
Communists (BPC),Belarusian Social Democratic Party
(&Gramada8) (BSDP),and the unregistered Belarusian Party
of Labor (BPL) announced the creation of an executive body to
coordinate the campaigns of their respective parties ahead of
the January 2007 municipal elections. Pol/Econ Chief met
with UCP deputy Igor Shinkarik, BPC deputy Valery Ukhnalov,
and BSDP acting head Vladimir Lavkovich on September 27 to
discuss the reasons behind the formation of this coordinating
body.


3. (C) The disgruntled parties pointed to the September 21

meeting of the United Democratic Forces Political Council
(PC),the supreme organ in the coalition, as the most recent
example. According to participants in and observers of the
PC meeting, Milinkevich and Belarusian Popular Front (BPF)
leader Vyachorka traded &serious accusations8 with UCP
leader Lebedko and BPC leader Kalyakin on issues ranging from
preparation for municipal election campaigns to the need for
a second democratic congress. As a result, the leaders
failed to make decisions on key issues on the agenda. The
UCP, BPC, and BSDP leaders claimed that the contentious and
unproductive September 21 PC meeting alone served as
sufficient proof that an independent coordinating body needed
to be established.

Two Blocks Forming Within Coalition?
--------------


4. (C) Belarusian Popular Front (BPF) deputy and UDF
Executive Body (or Secretariat) Head Viktor Ivashkevich told
Pol/Econ Chief on September 27 that he fears the split in the
UDF will deepen if the member parties maintain their present
courses. He has observed that Milinkevich, BPF, a few tiny
unregistered political parties, and NGOs are pursuing one
course of action and UCP, BPC, BSDP, and BPL are pursuing a
separate course of action. The announcement of this
coordinating body came as a shock to UDF leader Aleksandr
Milinkevich and the BPF leadership, and they view the move as
a threat to the sustainability of the opposition coalition.
Milinkevich confirmed Ivashkevich,s assessment when he said
in a September 24 press interview that the &state of affairs
in the opposition is worse than it was before the
presidential elections.8 In a September 28 press interview,
Milinkevich conceded that there was a &schism8 in the UDF
and lamented that &two opposition camps8 will be for
preparing the municipal elections.


5. (C) Although UCP, BPC, and BSDP leaders insist that the
newly established executive body falls within the framework
of the UDF, these same leaders expressed their deep

MINSK 00001061 002 OF 004


frustration with the perceived stagnation in the UDF and with
Milinkevich,s lackluster leadership. To be sure, the
internal squabbling in the UDF at the national level is not
new (refs A and B). In response to the perceived paralysis,
opposition parties in several regions in Belarus have
developed their own regional agreements, and a few of these
regional coalitions include Milinkevich supporters, BPF, UCP,
BPC, BSDP, and others (ref C). However, both UCP and BPF
leaders have shared with us recently that the growing
tensions among party leaders may undermine the relative high
degree of cooperation among parties at the local level.

--------------
Issues of Contention
--------------


6. (C) Based on many discussions with opposition party
leaders and civil society representatives, we have identified
at least five sources of conflict in the UDF.

-- Selection of Local Election Candidates. Milinkevich and
the BPF are in favor of the UDF regional coalitions selecting
one UDF candidate per district in an effort to minimize
partisan conflicts. UCP, BPC, and BPL support allowing all
party candidates to run in a district, as the elections will
inevitably be falsified and a greater number of candidates
could broaden the opposition,s base of popular support. UCP
and BPC leaders noted that the newly formed coordinating body
will allow the regional coalitions to develop their own local
campaigns, and the coordinating body will focus its efforts
on developing a national message for the candidates. UCP,
BPC, and BSDP leaders expressed hoped the UDF PC (read
Milinkevich and BPF) would stop &doing nothing8 and support
the coordinating body,s work. Milinkevich has not
strengthened his case by a taking a protracted vacation and
by meeting EU leaders on his own.

-- Second Democratic Congress. Milinkevich and the BPF do
not believe a second congress is necessary, arguing that such
an undertaking would be a waste of time and money.
Ivashkevich and other BPF leaders add that the UCP and BPC
are only interested in removing Milinkevich from his position
as UDF leader and view a second congress as the ideal
mechanism for realizing their primary objective. UCP and BPC
leaders argue that a second congress is needed to define the
priorities of the UDF in the post-presidential election
period. (Note: The first such congress, held in October
2005, selected Milinkevich as the presidential candidate of
the unified opposition. At the time, Milinkevich rejected
the idea that the congress would choose a long-term leader of
the opposition, although he has subsequently sought to take
on that role. End Note.) The UCP and BPC are willing to
wait until after the municipal elections to hold a second
congress but refuse to recognize Milinkevich as the
legitimate leader of the opposition coalition. When
Ivashkevich and leaders of the UCP, BPC, and BSDP recently
worked out an arrangement to allow candidates for the
municipal elections to serve as delegates to the second
congress, Milinkevich, BPF, and NGO representatives on the
UDF rejected the proposal, claiming that a congress was
unnecessary and the NGO community had not been adequately
consulted.

-- Role of UDF PC. Milinkevich and BPF are in favor of
keeping the current formation of the PC, which includes the
heads of large and small political parties (excluding
Kozulin,s BSDP) and NGO representatives. The UCP, BPC,
BSDP, and BPL are in favor of eliminating the small parties
from the PC, as they represent only a few people, and
formally inviting BSDP to the PC. The UCP and BPC repeatedly
complain that the small parties lack the financial and human
resources to merit seats at the table. Although UCP,s
Shinkarik was reluctant to admit it, the UCP is particularly
interested in restructuring the PC in an effort to strip
Milinkevich and the BPF of their support on the PC.

-- Role of UDF Secretariat. When asked why some opposition
parties created a coordinating body for the elections when
the UDF had already established the UDF Secretariat for this
same purpose (ref D),Shinkarik and BPC,s Ukhnalyev
maintained that their parties never &officially8 agreed
that the Secretariat would handle such tasks. Furthermore,
UCP, BPC, and the BPL do not recognize the current head of
the Secretariat, BPF,s Ivashkevich, given his
&unsuitability8 as a representative of all parties within
the UDF. UCP, BPC, and BPL insist that someone like BPL
leader Bukhvostov, who organized the UDF,s October 2005
congress, should be designated the leader of the Secretariat.
Until Milinkevich and the BPF concede to this demand, the

MINSK 00001061 003 OF 004


other main parties within the UDF and the BSDP will develop
plans for the local elections independently of the UDF.
BSDP,s Lavkovich added that his party is not a member of the
UDF and thus it was only &logical8 that his party formed a
separate partnership with interested parties ahead of the
municipal elections.

-- Russia vs. West Orientation. Ivashkevich and the BPF
claim that a pro-Moscow block is developing within the UDF
and BPC and BSDP are leading the initiative. Although BPC,s
Kalyakin has never denied the view that a ¢er-leftist
wing8 of the UDF is necessary to spark Russian interest in
the coalition, BPF now claims that Moscow officials and
businessmen are providing political and financial support for
the creation of a pro-Moscow opposition coalition. According
to Ivashkevich, the recent establishment of the independent
coordinating body for the local elections by UCP, BPC, BSDP,
and BPL confirms the development of such a block. When asked
if this was true, UCP, BPC, and BSDP leaders flatly denied
the rumor, but noted that &it would be a good thing if it
were true.8 Lavkovich added that Milinkevich is too
pro-West for the Belarusian electorate and that while Western
support for the opposition is essential, Russian support is
equally important. (Note: UCP is ideologically opposed to
Moscow,s influence in opposition activities, but Ivashkevich
suggested that Lebedko was forced to make such a deal in his
bid to eventually become the coalition leader. End Note.)

But All Is Not Lost
--------------


7. (C) Despite these clear and growing sources of tension in
the coalition, the UDF leadership still agrees on at least
three issues.

-- Lukashenko Is Enemy Number One. All UDF members and the
BSDP assert they remain united by their common desire to
remove Lukashenko from power and set up a democratic
government. To their credit, the parties have gone to great
lengths to keep their public accusations against each other
to a minimum and have focused most of their public statements
on GOB repression and the need for change.

-- UDF Is A Necessary Entity. Although UCP, BPC, and BPL are
increasingly working outside the framework of the UDF, these
parties stress that the UDF has at least retained its
symbolic value. Belarusians and the international community
must believe that the democratic forces are working together,
and the UDF serves this purpose. UCP Shinkarik added that
the state of the coalition is bad, but he doubts it will get
any worse.

-- Coordination At Regional Level Still Strong. Most
national party leaders admit and our frequent trips to the
regions confirm that while the national party leaders have
reached an impasse, the regional party leaders largely remain
focused on the task at hand ) i.e., coordinating campaign
activities ahead of the municipal elections. Party and NGO
leaders in the nearby city of Borisov, for example,
demonstrated a high degree of cooperation and claimed they
pay little attention to the drama unfolding in Minsk, even
though Borisov is only 60 miles outside of Minsk (ref E).

Our Observations And Preliminary Recommendations
-------------- ---


8. (C) Unfortunately, as an agent of change, the UDF in the
post-presidential election period has struggled to maintain
the attention and interest of the broader pro-democratic
forces. Despite his reassuring words to international
observers (ref F),Milinkevich has proven incapable of
maintaining unity in the coalition. UDF leaders Kalyakin and
Lebedko have been unable to convince Milinkevich and the BPF
to make concessions on restructuring the PC, and thus have
begun to develop more formal partnerships with a &coalition
of the willing,8 including Kozulin,s BSDP. That said,
disgruntled political parties will not likely abandon the
UDF, if only for tactical reasons. Moreover, the parties
remain interested in fielding candidates for the municipal
elections. BPF, for example, took advantage of the September
16 &Jeans Fest8 (ref G) to recruit 400 non-party youth
activists for the municipal elections.


9. (C) Accordingly, the USG and EU should continue to
encourage the UDF members to work together. However, if they
refuse, our bottom line should be that the parties and NGOs
-- separately or collectively -- remain focused on broadening
the base of support for democratic change. Moreover,
regional party leaders have demonstrated more readiness to

MINSK 00001061 004 OF 004


lay aside partisan and personal differences and build
effective partnerships with other parties and NGOs than their
national counterparts. The USG should consider providing
greater support to the parties at the regional level.
Finally, although it is not for the USG to take a position on
a personnel matter, the UCP,s and BPC,s insistence on
replacing Ivashkevich with Bukhvostov is not a bad idea.
Bukhvostov proved to be a very capable leader in maintaining
unity among opposition parties and NGOs in the lead up to the
congress. We will provide further input on ways to provide
maximum support to a struggling coalition in a separate
message.
Stewart