(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)

The fine art of making a drama out of a crisis

An underground theatre group is shining a light on the tyranny that rules in Belarus

The Belarus Free Theatre arrived in London last week and seemed to take us from the 2010s to the 1970s. Everything was as it had been in the cold war. Just as Havel and Kundera came to speak for oppressed Czechs, so the actors from Europe's last dictatorship are the most prominent and bravest critics of Belarus's rotting Brezhnevian state. Just as Tom Stoppard was a friend to east European dissidents during communism, so he is a friend to Belarussia's underground artists today. Following tradition once more, Stoppard welcomed them to Britain on behalf of Index on Censorship, which Stephen Spender created in 1972 to speak for persecuted Soviet writers.

Ironic asides, which so many artists deployed to survive and subvert communism, peppered my conversation with Natalia Koliada, the theatre's founder and a woman with the relaxed courage of a committed democrat who accepts the risk of persecution. She tells the grim story of how the secret police have threatened her husband and forced her company to perform in bars or private houses or in the woods before an audience she must vet to ensure it does not contain informers, and then pulls herself up short. A grin breaks out on her elfin face and she declares: "Our dictator still calls our secret police the KGB. At least he's honest about that."

They met Harold Pinter just before he died and he thundered that the Belarussians had to realise Britain under Tony Blair was a kind of dictatorship as well. Members of the company patiently explained the realities of everyday life in Belarus and even the grudging Pinter had to admit that maybe the British state was not so bad after all.

One of the first plays the company tried to perform was 4.48 Psychosis, by Sarah Kane, a wrenching dramatisation of suicide and depression, which are at extraordinary high levels in Belarus. The censor was in a quandary. He knew perfectly well why the Free Theatre wanted to stage the play. But as a functionary of Alexander Lukashenko's dictatorship, he could not admit that mental illness depresses the subject population.

"You can't show it because there is no depression in Belarus," he explained.

"We're not saying there is," replied the ingenious actors. "Sarah Kane was British, so if any government is being criticised it is the British government."

The censor was stumped but rallied with: "Ah, but people who see the play may think that there is depression in Belarus – even though there isn't – so I'm still banning it."

I went to Index on Censorship out of sense of duty, yet the company's performance isn't worthy but an inventive combination. Depictions of misery are leavened with flashes of Auden's "ironic points of light". Numbers, which you can see on the Index website, has the actors miming surreal routines while a cameraman projects on to the wall the statistics that enumerate Belarus's plight: the scale of the sex trade in young women; the botched abortions which leave women sterile; the poverty of a country where the average wage is $350 a month; and the oppression of a state which murders its political opponents and has the fourth highest prison population per capita in the world. Then, to illustrate how Belarussians are desperate to emigrate, the projector flashed up the story of how, in October 2006, 240 cows trampled down an electric fence and swam the River Bug to sanctuary in Poland, the first case of mass flight to freedom by livestock in the EU's history, as the company delightedly points out.

The danger for outsiders who enjoy the ironic style of the opponents of a dictatorship is that our pleasure can topple over into an acceptance of tyranny. Although British theatre has shown admirable solidarity with Belarussian dissidents – not only Stoppard and Pinter, but the Soho, West Yorkshire and Almeida theatres have promoted their work – most people couldn't find Belarus on the map. Many of those who can regard the continuing survival of Soviet oppression in a small state on Europe's borders as an anachronism that is so far removed from the main currents of modernity it is almost quaint.

Yet contrary to the supposedly "realist" school of foreign policy so beloved by our Foreign Office, dictatorships are not stable regimes. They are always on the move, heading towards greater repression or collapse. Nor are they any less modern than other forms of government. Both the Free Theatre actors and the organisers of the Charter 97 website, which monitors Belarussian tyranny, told me how sinister they found Lukashenko's new alliances. He is a member of the 21st-century's club of dictators, which, in a break with the patterns of the cold war, brings socialist tyrannies together with the promoters of radical reaction. The alliance of the red and brown, the communistic and fascistic, meant that while Hussein and Milosevic were alive, Lukashenko was their friend. Now he allies with Iran's messianic Islamist dictatorship. As he gets more senile, he picks fights with his former protectors in Moscow and turns towards his new allies for ideas.

He will hold elections in the winter and, as in Iran, they will be rigged. Following Ahmadinejad's example, he is preparing to demoralise opposition by controlling the internet. New laws force website owners to register with the state and service providers to identify users and map their browsing history. Dissident sites, already subject to denial of service attacks, presumably organised by state security, face being blacklisted.

If a fake poll provokes protests, few imagine that he won't imitate Iran again and set his thugs on his opponents. He has already authorised the murder of political opponents and the beating of opposition journalists and artists; there's no reason why he wouldn't go further.

Recently, Natalia Koliada asked an EU diplomat why there was so little political or media interest about oppression in Europe's backyard. He replied that Europe would not get agitated until bodies piled up in the streets.

Or, to put it another way, if you know nothing about Belarus, you may learn more than you wanted to know soon and for all the wrong reasons.


Your IP address will be logged

Comments in chronological order

Comments are now closed for this entry.
  • This symbol indicates that that person is The Guardian's staffStaff
  • This symbol indicates that that person is a contributorContributor
  • clivejw clivejw

    18 Jul 2010, 2:08AM

    A documentary about the Belarusian "disappeared" (dissidents and foes of Lukashenka who are presumed to have been murdered by the Belarusian KGB) appeared on Russian state television a couple of weeks ago. This is a sign of how great Moscow's annoyance with Minsk's Old Man has become following "milk wars," "gas wars," and other economic disputes. Moscow would almost certainly back a coup if it could be certain not to be landed with another "coloured revolution" on its doorstep. Meanwhile, Lukashenka and Medvedev have been trading insults.

  • DerekBloom DerekBloom

    18 Jul 2010, 2:19AM

    On the face of it, the Belarus Free Theatre can only be a liberating force in Belarus.

    Lukashenko's regime it is true is propped up by a kitsch aesthetic harking back to the days of the Soviet Union and according to the BFT website,

    The current situation in the cultural sphere of Belarus is influenced by several factors that negatively impact both the training of new theatrical staff and also the evolution of the theatrical process in general.Meantime, the theatrical environment has the greatest influence over the formation of the country’s population progressive way of thinking.

    "All theatres are state-owned. All main directors and art managers are appointed by Ministry of Culture and approved by the head of state. Ministry of Culture issued a Law on Censorship. Two thirds of theatres repertoire is pirated ones.

    Yet a theatre company which states that it is primarily an aesthetic opposition' but which also claims it will disband as soon as Lukashenko is removed sounds explicitly political.

    There is no reason why it should disband should Lukashenko cease to be the leader of Belarus if the idea of a dissident theatre company is to organise itself as though 'communism' did not exist.

    That was the aim of the dissident movement in Czechoslovakia and Poland. That principle seems now to have been reversed on the pretence that the BFT represents what Vaclav Havel called 'anti-politics'.

    It's also somewhat curious that it was set up in March 2005, shortly before the faked 'Denim Revolution', of 2006 a carefully choreographed and staged street theatre with no resonance within the wider population at all.

    For being a dissident is perhaps a lot more 'sexy' and that seems to tie in with the self congratulatory and pastiche development of the idea of a Velvet Revolution led by avant-garde playwrights and culturally 'progressive' forces.

    The Belarus Free Theatre successfully performed “Generation Jeans” at the opening day of the Eastern Partnership summit in Prague, which they attended on invitation of Vaclav Havel. A day later the Belarusian group returned home to Minsk together with their friends and colleagues, Czech theatre company “Na Dachu” – a famous underground theatre of Czechoslovakia in the times of communist dictatorship.

    Yet unlike the Czech Republic in the 70s and 80s the Belarusian regime isn't really 'communist'. Nor do most Belarussians have an aching desire to overthrow it his authoritarian populist regime.

    Now it's true that simply because the USA and Western NGO's want to remove Lukashenko but that does not mean that the Free Theatre is necessarily some mere cultural wing of pro-US propaganda.
    T

    he following declaration at the European Partnership Summit following the high profile release of 'political prisoners' by Nikolai Khalezin, the “Generation Jeans” performer and Free Theatre’s creative director, is a bit unclear.
    “Recently, the Foreign Affairs Minister Martynov, has stated in his interview to one of the European periodicals: “There are no political captives in Belarus, but there are friends of the opposition who spend their terms in custody according to economical articles”. But I say that there are politicals in Belarus, and I give my reputation for it. Now we’ll see, which one of us they will believe and whose reputation is worth more – Martynov’s or mine”.

    As usual it's very difficult to get a clear picture of the reality in Belarus: are the political prisoners' in Belarus in jail because they keep advocating the removal of Lukashenko in return for being paid by US NGO's and George Soros.

    The paradox is that the kind of smear put forward by the Communist dictatorships, that the dissidents were all 'in the pay of the US' is something that actually now does have some truth in it and if opposition is bought then that necessarily compromises their credentials.

    The same is as true of the Sumate opposition in Chavez's Venezuela which has continuously attempted to rally together the power of the wealthy to use money and media power to get rid of a leader who the USA sees as a threat to its geopolitical and oil interests in Latin America.

    And what is at stake in Belarus is not just the removal of Lukashenko. It is the import of the "shock therapy" model most Belarusians fear. They prefer not having been plunged into huge poverty as other ex-Soviet states have.

    Lukashenko is not democratic but he is genuinely popular as he is seen as Bat'ka, a strong leader that will prevent people being thrown on to the scrapheap of history by being reduced to penury.

    But as with Iraq, the "shock doctrine" therapy is never talked about by "oppositionists" in Charter 97, a site that censors dissenting comments or which challenge the opposition to spell out it's economic policy.

    Ironically, when I politely requested what would happen, I was subjected to Stalinist style abuse and called "mentally ill". for mentioning Belarus's pivotal position in the Great Game to control pipelines.

  • DerekBloom DerekBloom

    18 Jul 2010, 2:32AM

    When I enquired as to what Charter 97 had lined up with regards regime change, the reaction was curious. Despite Lukashenko being an authoritarian populist, a bit like Saakashvili without the same degree of vote rigging, I received this response on Charter 97,

    Dictarorship means DICTATORSHIP because the irrational FEAR is the main tool here.And the main proof-‘generator’ of this inner-terror (fear) - Mr. Lukashenka - doesn’t make the secret that his spiritual roots are in Hitler, Stalin and that he is the ‘Orthodox Church atheist’.

    Lukashenko is thus a hideous amalgam of a Nazi, a Stalinist, a Russian orthodox pseudo-believer and an atheist rolled into one. Followed up by more drivel by these NGO designer "democrats"

    WHAT needs human who is the hostage with all its family, of such moral pervert and who is living in the circumstances of regime of constant FEAR (for work, for the critic opinion against the regime; in Belarus is total alcoholism and the real life’s rate is very low...)

    Actually its GDP is approximate to Bulgaria, a fresh new EU candidate, and alcoholism a cultural fact more than something Lukashenko, a teetotaller, is trying to do something about and not encourage. Another Charter 97er blurted,

    Undoubtedly, First af all – it is the compensation at the HUMANITARIAN soil, which in our case could be only the unconditional door-opening of Europe for (comparably not a big number - 9,5 mln.) the people of Belarus.

    But the open door will not be "unconditional". It will mean the usual gruel of painful reform that poorer Belarusians will pay for just as they have in Ukraine and the Baltic Republics due to harsh monetarist and neoliberal economic othodoxies dating back to the Reagan-Thatcher ascendancy. So i was then treated to this nugget of utter wisdom,
    I

    f someone seriously intended to put Russia aside of monopoly of supporting the (bad) social style in Belarus, it always involves the copmensation/neutralization of the existing Russian “privileges” for the Belarusian people, not the regime (!!!).

    No, it doesn't. The US wants Belarus as a strategic asset.It cares very little for the actual iving standards of the majority of its people any more than it does many in its own nation or in militarised pipeline states like Georgia under Saakashvili.

    And it can be accomplished only by the social power of EU, of the United Europe. Literally it takes to make the Belarusian folk free to work and study in EU; to make available the humanitarian programs exchange between the country and EU, ...like it does Russia to Belarus.

    So this backs up my point that the Charter 97 want to give up on building their nation as a collective enterprise and reduce it to an atomised neoliberal client state of the USA or delegate national power to an EU that itself offers much more but only after painful neoliberal reforms. Hence another halwit opined,

    Don’t nourish the regime by any financing and by inviting to the round-table its present, Russia-animated political ‘Golem’ for Europe (Mr. Lukashenka), but let the Belarusian people themselves get free from this nihgtmare of kolkhoz-thinking of Lukashism.

    So trying to get free and fair elections first by pragmatic methods is not worth trying because of a New Cold Warrior ideology and a melodramatic sting of jibberish yet again about Lukashenko being a Stalinist nightmare dictator.

    Again the agrarian workers are not consulted. Not considered important. They are unpeople as far as the NGO brats in Minsk poncing about with Twitter and their Ipods are concerned.

    The emigration into EU will compatible with one of Baltic states but the status of life inside of Belarus will change dramatically in favour of the EU.

    And lead to the irresponsible IMF policies that have resulted in minus 20% growth in 2009 after the financial crash and more mass migration from the Baltics to Ireland. This style of patriotism is most curious.

    The reality of pseudo-revolutionary regime change rhetoric is revealed in the last splenetic comment which makes it clear that tactics proved even by 2009 to have failed utterly to change Belarus have to be repeated again and again. At least it's a career for life. That was not a popular view for Charter 97ers,

    I presume, one can say this is “too radical”. Well, but at the same time everybody KNOWS, (or acknowledges), that only and only by such NON-STANDART, deep measures of mature political practice, and never by the “real-politik” - it is possible to make any little differences at one of the political fields of EU, as is the Republic of Belarus with its heavily usurped power by the international criminal suspect Mr. Lukashenka.

    With respect,
    Alexander Shpakousky

  • DerekBloom DerekBloom

    18 Jul 2010, 2:40AM

    This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
  • DerekBloom DerekBloom

    18 Jul 2010, 2:55AM

    Most of what I have written here should deflate the notion Charter 97 is principled. If so, why did they censor most of my comments. When they did not, the response was absurd

    The next tactic of attacking me gor just asking what economic alternatives they wanted was the usual Stalinoid one of accusing anyone with a different opinion as a complete bastard and was replete with racist overtones that I might be an "enemy within" or a Muslim

    .

    .. you are an idiot. You are outside looking in, and don't know a damn thing. It's Obvious you are a muslim mongrol, and your hatred for freedom is evident. The next time you have a thought, don't. Your stupidity overwhelmingly dominates any intelligence you have.

    Information on Belarus is difficult to gain an objective picture of as there has been so much messianic propaganda flying back and forth from the USA (Belarus as part of "the Axis of Evil") and Lukashenko terming all opponents as Fifth Column Fascists working for NATO Imperialists.

    A claim that is able to have more semblance to reality when Charter 97 students hold up banners, conveniently in English and Belarusia, supporting the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. That's why these spoilt poncing brats are hated by Belarussians and why Lukasheno is popular.

    That's not a good thing. Nor is Cohen's repetition that it's a nightmare dictatorship. The reality is more complex.

    http://easterneuropewatch.blogspot.com/search/label/Belarus

  • gv1234 gv1234

    18 Jul 2010, 4:12AM

    Commenting on political circumstances in Belarus is perfectly acceptable. Asking for external political or military involvement to change the regime is not (and I am not implying this article is asking for that). It is an issue that must be left to people of Belarus to resolve.

  • VoNguyenGiap VoNguyenGiap

    18 Jul 2010, 9:13AM

    How dare they!

    An ex-Soviet country that we haven't been able to "color revolutionize" yet? How beastly of those Belarussians not to accept our gift of democracy that created such wonders in Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. When will they finaly knuckle under and accept a Western stooge like Yeltsin and become a mafiacracy instead of constantly irritating us with their stubborn independence? When will those they learn to be democratic like other Western colonies and earn our respect, like Thailand and Honduras earn our respect for toppling elected presidents and massacring democracy protesters?

  • VoNguyenGiap VoNguyenGiap

    18 Jul 2010, 9:21AM

    Derek Bloom:

    Excellent stuff there. Your informed comments upstaged Cohen's feeble propaganda, hence the censorship. Keep it up and you'll get banned, just like in Belarus.

  • edwardrice edwardrice

    18 Jul 2010, 9:26AM

    An interesting article about Belarus' neighbour Latvia by the economist Micheal Hudson.

    Quote:

    Property prices have plunged too, by as much as 70%. Mortgage arrears have soared to over 25 percent, and defaults are rising. Downtown Riga and the Baltic beach suburb of Jurmala are filled with vacancies and “for sale” signs. Falling prices lock mortgage-burdened owners into their properties........

    About 90% of Latvian mortgage debts are in euros, and most are owed to Swedish banks or their local branches. A few years ago, bank regulators urged banks to shift away from collateral-based lending (where the property backed the loan) to “income-based” lending. Banks were encouraged to insist that as many family members as possible co-sign the loans – children and parents, even uncles and aunts. This enables banks to attach the salaries of all co-signing parties.

    http://michael-hudson.com/2010/07/latvia%E2%80%99s-third-option/

    Worth reading the whole piece - could be the future state of affairs in Belarus.

  • MartynInEurope MartynInEurope

    18 Jul 2010, 10:16AM

    Contributor Contributor

    But as a functionary of Alexander Lukashenko's dictatorship, he could not admit that mental illness depresses the subject population.

    Lukashenko is an authoritarian, but in what way is the government of Lukashenko a dictatorship?

    Oh, I see now. Being too close to Russia, eh?

  • fibmac70 fibmac70

    18 Jul 2010, 11:34AM

    "You can't show it because there is no depression in Belarus," he explained.

    "We're not saying there is," replied the ingenious actors. "Sarah Kane was British, so if any government is being criticised it is the British government."

    Thank God political censorship does not exist here
    Because an astute censor
    Would have been only too well aware
    That the Belarus Free Theatre
    Might make use of the desperate Belarus- situation
    To aim its ironic asides at a quite different nation !

  • clivejw clivejw

    18 Jul 2010, 12:31PM

    Lukashenko is an authoritarian, but in what way is the government of Lukashenko a dictatorship?

    Oh, I don't know. Maybe the de facto one-man-rulethe rigged elections, human rights violations, actions against national minorities, control of the press, and elimination of political opponents? Just a wild guess.

    As for "being too close to Russia," I think you'll find that is no longer the case.

  • DerekBloom DerekBloom

    18 Jul 2010, 1:39PM

    Belarus is not moving towards Russia. Recently it has been moving towards the EU. But Lukashenko is not a dictator. He rigs the vote up but not as high as Saakashvili did in Georgia and who is not considered a dictator but a sterling democrat.

    Essentially Lukashenko is a pragmatist and authoritarian populist who got 80% of the vote in 2006 compared to Saakashvili who received a curiously high 97% of the vote in the the Rose Revolution in 2003. He is not a dictator or "Stalinist" , placed as he was by Polish FM Sikorski in 2005 on The Axis of Evil.

    Belarus is not even "communist". Investment is pouring in from the West and Minsk is booming. Though it suffered from the 2008 Crash, it did not fare as badly as the Baltic Republics like Estonia. Partly this was because Lukashenko balanced IMF loans with Russian ones too.

    The actions against "national minorities" are simply inspired by the Polish governments attempt to get Belarus back into its "sphere of influence" by paying Polish nationalists to stir things up. Most Poles in Belarus barely speak Polish now. A minority in Gomel ( Homel ) on the border.

    There is no need to rationalise Lukashenko's regime and it's repression any more than to demonise it as some nightmare Stalinist dictatorship. But the oppositionists are basically hirelings of the USA to get the best democracy money can buy.

    Charter 97's website is replete with bored students who have been given Ipods and laptops in return for trying to goad the authorities into repressive measures. It's basically the same tactics of the 68ers who crave release from the boredom of Belarus.

    But any reform in Belarus should come from within gradually and with the EU's encouragement. Nor should Belarus moving towards the EU be tied to NATO entrance. This is unnecessary and a nation as poor as Belarus should not be compelled as Georgia is to spend 70% of its budget on US & Israeli weapons.

    Ultimately, the USA cares about Belarus only as it's situated between Poland and Russia and control of the pipelines would be a major gain if Lukashenko was removed. Beltranzgas is a major asset with its refineries that could be grabbed by Western investors.

    Yet the geopolitics of Poland, a supine client state of the USA that nver criticises anything it does, is aligned to getting regime change in Ukraine too, so that Polish influence extends down to the Black Sea as it did during the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the Sixteenth Century.

    Belarus is as well known in the West as Albania but as Norman Davies suggests in Europe At War the history of this nation ought to be better understood in the light of the fact that it suffered more deaths than any other nation in World War Two.

    But messianic guff about Lukashenko being part of an Axis of Evil, as if it were a European version of North Korea or calling him "Another Hitler" will backfire as Lukashenko makes a lot of his anti-Fascist credentials and Belarus' sacrifice in defeating Nazism.

    People in Belarus are not duped and brainwashed. They support Lukashenko because in 1993 the Belarusian politicians were immured in corruption as asset stripping began. Lukashenko promised to be the strong man who would put an end to and did.

    Belarussians saw what was happening in Russia as "shock therapy" decimated the population, killing off 10 % of its population in the 1990s, and decided to back Lukashenko who is genuinely popular according even to Timothy Garton Ash.

    Yet the problem is that the "oppositionists" are really after the slice of the privatisation cake that would come. Really, the best solution should be that Belarus reforms gradually, retains the social security net and Lukashenko offered trade ties with the EU in return for greater liberties.

    The "oppositionists" in Belarus are not popular because most ordinary people there understand that the NGO's and Charter 97 are paid by the US NED to protest. That annoys people who resent the USA meddling in their nation state. It's counter-productive.

    The only history of Belarus available is Jan Zaprudnik's Belarus: At A Crossroads in History which ends the story in 1993, or Stewart Parker's far too laudatory The Last Soviet Republic which appears as though it could have been written by the Belarusan Foreign Office in London.

  • Neofaust Neofaust

    18 Jul 2010, 4:13PM

    I've had friends in Belarus for a long long time and I've been to visit Minsk. I've also got friends in Ukraine and the comparison is interesting.

    Young people in Belarus are extremely politically alienated compared to young Ukrainians. Or maybe not even alienated - they're utterly fatalistic. They were extraordinarily reticent about even mentioning Lukashenko by name, even completely in private, and wouldn't talk about the government at all in a public park! The expect nothing from the government beyond incompetence and corruption. They told me stories about secret policemen (pointed out a few, to my amusment, all in identical leather jackets and blue jeans) shutting down roads and commandeering peoples houses during parades. Nobody protests at all, not even graffiti or posters, so there's no huge riots to grab the eyes of the international media - the oppression is constant and total.

    And you know what their cultural icons were? Copies of Skins, pirated from the internet. Apparently all the young people love it there.

    So... the capitalist decadence is happening anyway, but with a tinge of grey nihilism I found extraordinary. These theatre folk are going to have to act their arses off to prevent their nation becoming a cultural wasteland.

  • mastershake mastershake

    18 Jul 2010, 5:20PM

    notwithstanding the situation in belarus, i reckon if a british theatre company put on a Kane play in exactly the same manner, and you went, you'd absolutely HATE it nick.

    in fact i'd put money on your never having even read 4.48 psyhosis.

  • onezero onezero

    18 Jul 2010, 5:37PM

    They met Harold Pinter just before he died and he thundered that the Belarussians had to realise Britain under Tony Blair was a kind of dictatorship as well

    .

    What a shame it is too late for Pinter to be offered the editorship of Liberty Central.

  • clivejw clivejw

    18 Jul 2010, 8:26PM

    The "oppositionists" in Belarus are not popular because most ordinary people there understand that the NGO's and Charter 97 are paid by the US NED to protest.

    "Most ordinary people understand" has no meaning in the context of total government control of the media. What happens to journalists who try to report information at odds with the regime was detailed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2004 in a report entitled Disappeared Persons in Belarus. As I mentioned above, Russian TV journalists made a documentary about this subject very recently -- they were expelled from Minsk and their film confiscated, but NTV claims that the tapes were rescued "by a kind person" from the KGB vaults and sent to Moscow. The documentary, "Godbatka", was shown on Russian TV July 4th.

    Obviously, the only explanation, unless the NTV claim is false, is that this "kind person" is a dissident member of the Belarusian KGB itself.

    As noted in the PACE report (point 8), Lukashenka responded to accusations of "disappearing" his political opponents by appointing as prosecutor general the very man who in his previous capacity was allegedly responsible for those disappearances!

    The opposition has applied to the Minsk authorities to hold a rally demanding investigation of the cases of the disappeared on 16th August.

  • HammondOrganB3 HammondOrganB3

    19 Jul 2010, 4:22AM

    clivejw

    That anecdote about Pinter is priceless, by the way. The man was a political dolt.

    And the telling is by Nick Cohen about a man who is no longer in a position to defend himself.

    I don't think Pinter suggested Blair and Bush use the state forces internally to torture and kill. I think his point was they exported it, to Iraq, among other places.

    I would be surprised to find Pinter consider torture and death in Belarus a worse proposition than torture and death in Iraq. And the worse numbers are for those of Iraq.

  • clivejw clivejw

    19 Jul 2010, 4:46AM

    Pinter was a foul-mouthed jackass whose only political 'principle' was rabid anti-Americanism. Still, by all means, stand up for the apologist for Milosevic, Saddam, bin Laden, and whoever was the latest "victim" of American imperialism.

  • cmee cmee

    19 Jul 2010, 8:08AM

    Belarus is about the same as Ukraine and Russia. Why does it not share the HIV/heroin epidemic of the other two? Why isn't half their entire male population addicted like in some of the 'stans?

Comments are now closed for this entry.

Comments

Sorry, commenting is not available at this time. Please try again later.

Latest posts

Free P&P at the Guardian bookshop

Browse all jobs

jobs by Indeed