Jew World Order

nsnbc : The European Union Council decided not to extend sanctions it had imposed on 170 Belarusian citizens and three companies. The lifting of the sanctions is welcomed by some, and criticized by others. Geopolitics as well as human rights have played roles in the EU’s enforcement of sanctions. The arms embargo against Belarus remains in place.

Alexander Lukashenko. Courtesy of BelTa

On Thursday the EU Council officially declared that it had decided not to extend sanctions imposed against 170 Belarusian citizens and three companies. The arms embargo against the country will, however, remain in place, stated the Council. The decision in Brussels came after a visit of an Italian delegation to the Belarus capital Minsk, earlier this week. The Council issued a statement, saying:

On 25 February 2016, the Council decided not to prolong restrictive measures for 170 people and three companies whose listings were already suspended. However, it extended the existing measures by one year, including an arms embargo on Belarus and an asset freeze and a travel ban against four people listed in connection with the unresolved disappearances of two opposition politicians, one businessman and one journalist.

On 29 October 2015, the Council suspended until 29 February 2016 an asset freeze and a travel ban for 170 individuals and a freeze on the assets of three companies in Belarus. The decision was taken in response to the release of all Belarusian political prisoners on 22 August 2015, and in a context of improved EU-Belarus relations. It followed presidential elections held on 11 October 2015 in an environment free from violence.

The relevant legal acts were adopted on 25 February 2016, following a political decision taken by the Council on 15 February 2016. They will be published in the Official Journal of the EU on 27 February 2016.

The 170 Belarus citizens targeted by the EU’s sanctions included the Belarus’ President Alexander Lukashenko. The most outspoken criticism of Belarus came from the government of the United Kingdom. Other more outspoken critics and proponents of sanctions included, generally speaking, politicians who are proponents of a strong Atlantic – Axis; that is strong EU – NATO relations and a more aggressive policy towards Belarus, Russia and the newly founded Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). It is noteworthy that a rise in criticism of Belarus in the EU concurred with Minsk playing a pivotal role in brokering the ceasefire in Ukraine within the Normandy Four format which excluded the UK and the USA. The three companies that were targeted with sanctions were Beltech Holding, Beltechexport and Spetspriborservice. All three have close ties to the country’s defense sector.

Sanctions not entirely based on geopolitics

While the still remaining arms embargo and sanctions against the three companies and President Lukashenko may have been primarily prompted by geopolitics, the country has been harshly criticized for repression and human right abuses. Sanctions were retained against four members of the Belarus security service who have been under suspicion of involvement in the disappearance of four political opponents to President Lukashenko in 1999 – 2000. The EU first imposed sanctions against Belarus in 2004, increasing them over time.

Belarusian opposition leader Andrei Sannikov commented that the EU had made a very unfortunate decision that would have negative consequences for the Belarusian people, civil society and independent media. Sannikov said:

“It is a very clear signal to the dictatorship that it can continue with its practices,” he said, speaking from exile in Warsaw. “We know when sanctions are lifted or the policy is softened we face more repression. … Sanctions are lifted from people who were defined as criminals by the European Union because they were guilty of falsifying elections, or persecuting and harassing opposition, of torturing opposition. All of a sudden these people are being pardoned by Brussels, although nothing has changed. … The gross and systematic violation of human rights are still there in Belarus, so [the EU] is just blessing these practices.”

Sannikov was severely beaten by riot police in 2010, while he was campaigning for his election to the presidency. Belarus also has a track-record of cracking down on scientists and others who oppose nuclear energy. In 2001 Dr. Yury Bandazhevsky, a pediatrician, was sentenced to eight years in prison on the grounds that he “had received bribes from student’s parents”.

Anyone with at least “some” insight into Belarus and Russian culture knows that bringing “presents” is a highly institutionalized and sophisticated art that is part of the political and social fabric. Amnesty International, his lawyer, and not least Dr. Christopher Busby and Dr. Helen Caldicott stressed that his arrest and imprisonment was related to reports and scientific research that was critical of official research into the effects of the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl. Bandashevsky was released on parole on August 5, 2005, after considerable international pressure from rights organizations.

A OSCE report published in October  2015 noted that Belarus had a  “considerable way go to” on democratic standards. Most international observers, however, recognized the 2015 presidential elections as relatively transparent and fair. The OSCE’s report stressed the absence of safeguards against multiple voting, limited choice available to voters and the uneven playing field between Lukashenko and his rivals. EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini denied that geopolitical concerns had played a role, saying that decisions were always based on content and merit.  “This is clearly not a rosy or perfect picture … but when we see significant, even if limited steps, in what we feel is the right direction, we feel it is right to encourage them,” she said.

CH/L – nsnbc 26.02.2016