BELARUS NOTES #10: PROPAGANDA AND FREEDOM

Many Belarusians today marked Freedom Day. This celebrates the anniversary of the date, 25 March 1918, when the Belarusian People's Republic's (BNR) declared independence. The BNR may not have survived as a territorial entity for long, soon absorbed into what would become the USSR, but the Rada (Council) formed to govern it has existed as a government-in-exile ever since.

Since the mid-1990s, Alyaksandr Lukashenka's opponents have traditionally marched on Freedom Day in protest against an unfree Belarus. Recently the state has responded by opening criminal proceedings against people for participating in Freedom Day rallies abroad (quite how Belarusian investigators can claim such extraterritorial jurisdiction is an interesting question, yet they are increasingly pursuing opponents abroad).

Many Belarusians who have criticised Lukashenka are serving prison sentences. Journalists and social media personalities are among the 1,200 people in Belarus currently recognised as political prisoners by human rights groups. They include Belsat TV journalist Katsiaryna Andreeva and the former editor-in-chief of the independent media website TUT.by Maryna Zolatava. Prisoners also include Ihar Losik, the administrator of a popular Telegram channel, who has been in detention since the summer of 2020.

Perhaps a better known social media personality still (to non-Belarusians) will be Siarhei Tsikhanousky, a citizen journalist whose 'Country for Living' YouTube channel encouraged citizens to share their grievances on camera. Tsikhanousky has been in prison since 2020. The state moved against him after he expressed his intention of standing for president; his wife Sviatlana took the baton and was allowed to stand against Lukashenka – she has lived in exile since the vote.

All of this should be kept in mind for context when one considers the social media influencer Mario Nawfal's recent interview with Lukashenka. I promised superior subscribers that I would comment on the interview in my last newsletter and I have not had a chance to type out my thoughts. In truth, there is not very much to say about it.

'New media'?

I first heard about the interview through Belarusian state media (I did not know who Nawfal was). The fact that state media in Belarus drew attention to the interview in advance of its release immediately suggested this was going to be good puff for the regime. And so it was.

Nawfal is slick and it is an achievement for the young man to be granted an interview with a head of state. But he should reflect on why he was granted this interview. In the recording, Nawfal referred to his 'research' in preparing for it... yet there was little that Lukashenka has not said over and over elsewhere. The main exception, perhaps, was his comments about very recent negotiations between Russian and US delegations, which I had not heard Lukashenka's take on. The other was Lukashenka comparing Trump's youngest son, Barron, to his own youngest Kolya.

More generally, Lukashenka discussed hosting peace talks after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, blamed the West for the failure of early negotiations in Minsk and Istanbul, approved of the cuts to USAID which he says was 'funding coups', and criticised Volodomyr Zelenskyy for his 'inexperience' and 'mistakes'. But Lukashenka also 'feels sorry' for Zelenskyy. There was praise for Vladimir Putin, and rebuke of Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron's 'aggressive stance' on Ukraine. To an audience unfamiliar with Lukashenka this is no doubt of interest. It is also all old hat.

One of the most important things journalism does is monitor those in power and expose abuses of state power. Crucially, Nawfal pulls a trick in trying to distance himself from that approach. He told Lukashenka that he is unlike 'legacy media', saying: 'I'm not trying to ask you any "gotcha" questions.' Yet one cannot but feel Nawfal does actually see himself as exposing abuses of power, or else why did he ask Lukashenka about Putin's comment that 'men in dark suits' make decisions in US politics? He did so because he has taken a political side. He wants to expose abuses (even if they are conspiracy theories) in respect of western leaders. In doing so here he allowed himself to serve the interests of Lukashenka.

Luka stakes a claim for legitimacy

My initial thought on the interview was that Lukashenka's office saw it as a way of reaching a sympathetic western audience. Nawfal has a couple of million followers on X and he seems to have the ear of Elon Musk; undoubtedly many of Nawfal's followers will not have known who Lukashenka was prior to the interview. But I defer to the opinion of others that Lukashenka's press team saw the interview primarily as a way of catching the ear of the new US government itself. Lukashenka does not want to be forgotten if sanctions on Russia are eased, and he wants to be recognised by the US as a legitimate leader. Given viewing figures for the interview appear relatively modest, it has not been an immediate success for either Lukashenka or Nawfal.

Nawfal's website says: 'Do Good. Do it Consistently. Be Patient.' It does not say much else. I have described Nawfal as 'an influencer' although, as far as I can make out, he seems to style himself as a 'crypto-entrepreneur' and 'citizen journalist'. His own trailers for the interview on X promised revelations and exclusive information. What we got was a rehash of Lukashenka's claims of his own importance in global affairs; recalling a conversation with a 'screaming and shouting' Zelenskyy, the Belarusian described his own manner as 'friendly'. His talked up his role in the conclusion of the Prigozhin mutiny and his political experience. He praised US President Donald Trump more than once ('he's doing a good job' and 'perhaps the Lord saved him [from an assassin's bullet] for a reason'). It was standard fare for Lukashenka. More of that old hat.

Another useful idiot?

And so we return to that horrid cold war label of 'useful idiot'. I do not doubt that Nawfal thought he was doing something worthwhile. Nawfal's evident belief, judging from how he trailed the interview in the fortnight ahead of its publication, was that he was giving a voice to someone not often heard from. The obvious problem is that Lukashenka hardly lacks a platform.

In Belarus Lukashenka has a whole state media apparatus at his disposal and can reach nine million Belarusians unrestricted. By contrast anyone who criticises him does not have a platform inside the country. Under numerous articles in the criminal and administrative codes of Belarus, critics of Lukashenka risk being imprisoned. As already noted, journalists, bloggers and many more besides sit behind bars because they criticised Lukashenka. So we can say two things. One is that Lukashenka does not lack a platform for articulating his views. The second is that he would only agree to an interview with a 'new media journalist' whom his press team felt assured would serve his own ends.

Nawfal's defenders will say that the above is misleading and western media only criticise or snub Lukashenka. But Lukashenka is quoted in western media far more than his Belarusian opponents. A quick search of the Times archive, for example, finds 38 mentions of 'Lukashenko' in the past year, many directly quoting his words. A search for 'Tsikhanouskaya' (or 'Tikhanovskaya'), his most conspicuous rival in western eyes, throws up only 15 mentions. She has to fight harder than Lukashenka to gain attention on the global stage and in the global media.

And there are interviews with Lukashenka in the western media. The BBC's Steve Rosenberg interviewed him in 2021 and (when invited) covers the Belarusian's press conferences. If Nawfal wanted to get inside information about Russia's war in Ukraine, then the interview did not achieve much. Nawfal will have brought some of his followers' attention to Belarus; it is just a shame he squandered the opportunity of doing some good. In a way he was putty in Lukashenka's hands. Take his set piece penultimate question, asked as a 'favour' for his 'Belarusian business client', which was a gift to Lukashenka. Nawfal asked whether Lukashenka could give his exiled opponents from 2020 'a second chance'. Lukashenka could make himself sound saintly with flimsy claims that they were welcome. But there is a reason they have not gone back.

Lukashenka, who claimed re-election at the end of January, chose to hold his inauguration ceremony today. It was presumably deliberate to hold the inauguration on a key date in his opponents' diaries, since it ensures foreign media attention is on him instead of them. Nawfal was on hand to tell his two million followers that Lukashenka is beginning a new term in office. One wonders if he is even aware of the significance of 25 March.

This blog post is freely available. Please subscribe for just £3 for year-long access to all content.

You can buy a copy of Paul's book on Belarus from your local bookseller.

"An accessible and insightful portrayal of this much–neglected country" – Edward Lucas

"Deeply–researched and valuable" – Times Literary Supplement

Buyers in the United States: https://a.co/d/ezs4ykh

Buyers in the United Kingdom: https://amzn.eu/d/8i4ec4f