By Dr Alyaksei Mazhukhou, the ambassador of the Republic of Belarus. Response to 'To criticise capitalism don't try to defend the dregs of Soviet socialism' (THE GUARDIAN, 14/04/06):
Timothy Garton Ash says it is the right thing to give people "the chance to choose their own government" (To criticise capitalism don't try to defend the dregs of Soviet socialism, April 6). Of course this wins my support.Clearly, the presidential election in Belarus was of key importance for our nation and of huge interest for many others. However, long before the polling day, the western media seemed to be focused only on guessing how many people would take to the streets in Minsk. After all, in Garton Ash's words, weren't the elections "about using people power" to give Belarusians this once-in-a-lifetime chance? If anything were to go awry - say, the people truly gave a landslide to the incumbent president, and the authorities kept law and order under soft but meticulous control - then the only thing left for the west would be to unearth an ancient report, and condemn the whole process.
In fact, Belarus did what few European democracies had ever done. My country opened its doors to thousands of monitors, journalists and officials. Once registered, they were all allowed into any polling station anywhere anytime.
According to Garton Ash, the Guardian's reporter in Belarus said there was "a significant element of fear". Fine, but did he mention any vote rigging? There was a splendid opportunity to try and find some. Instead, your reporter apparently stuck to Oktyabrskaya Square in central Minsk, vainly awaiting shootings and mayhem. Indeed, a "significant element of fear" was more likely in his press colleagues, who had read too many British newspapers the night before.
Garton Ash shows his irony in denying the economic achievements of Belarus and questioning the credibility of such statistics. Well, the statistics, ie comparative country profiles, are issued by organisations and watchdogs largely dominated by western countries. Presumably, the Belarusian government has little effect on them. As the saying goes: "It's the economy, stupid." He talks about human rights and the free press that are said to abound in today's Europe. However, my embassy knows of a dozen recent examples where the opposite has been true. Does he have more than that when condemning Belarus? My point here is there is no perfect democracy. If you claim this for the rest of Europe, then see how it looks in the mirror. If this doesn't change your mind, then compare electoral standards and keep in mind that Belarus proposed to make the comparison long ago.
Belarus is a young democracy. We have just held only the third presidential election since we gained our independence. My government seeks to forge a better relationship with the west, but the west is now poised to penalise us - as if sanctions have ever paved the way to something constructive. We do our best to improve, we are thankful for advice, but we do not accept foreign pressure. And if the west wants transparency and respect for sovereignty, not double standards, to spearhead its policy towards Belarus, then may the will of my people be heard. As the current president once said: "What Belarus lacks is truth about our country."