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