In the tradition of my fellow reporter Greg Curtin’s commentary about Indonesia, I thought I’d write about the misconceptions people have about a country in which I have lived. I decided to set the record straight about Belarus. And then I remembered that the general reader probably hasn’t even heard about the state informally known as “the last dictatorship in Europe,” leaving me with no record to set straight. And indeed, Belarus seems bereft of anything that would make it record-worthy. It is not a happening vacation spot, nor is it particularly strategically important to anybody. It has no oil deposits, good food, or cultural exports besides the occasional semi-famous painter (Marc Chagall, anyone?).

Belarus’s despotic leader, the mustachioed Alexander Lukashenko, is not as bizarrely entertaining as North Korea’s Kim Jong Il or as outrageously fanatic as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though he does sport a pretty awesome comb-over. But the reasons for Belarus’s relative obscurity extend further. The repression and poverty experienced by many Belarussians is not quite dire enough to make it a well-publicized world crisis. And perhaps most importantly, inexplicably to us (for argument’s sake) give-me-liberty-or-give-me-death Americans, its oppressed people seem to have ambiguous feelings about democratic change.

The citizenry’s political apathy is both cultural and economic in origin. Belarus, unlike some other former Soviet satellites, never developed a strong national identity independent of Russia. Many decades of Soviet rule quashed any tendency for enthusiastic public debate. Instead, a considerable number of people, (thanks to Lukashenko’s rigged election, there’s no way of telling precisely how many) are willing to sacrifice a voice in their country’s governance for Lukashenko’s perceived stabilizing control of the economy. Though I remember scarcity, low living standards, and even rumors of starvation outside Minsk from my time in Belarus in the late 90’s, many people there apparently fear that the introduction of capitalism under a more liberal leader would threaten their well being even further. The fact that the few opposition leaders that do exist tend to die, disappear, or end up in jail no doubt does its part to curtail political activity.

But still, young Belarussians are remarkably acquiescent to the prevailing power structure. (There are a few notable exceptions: The Washington Post recently ran a sizeable article about Iryna Vidanava, who publishes an underground, government-defying teen magazine.) A quote from a 2003 article in Insight on the News sums up the priorities of college-age kids: “‘Most students just don't seem interested by politics,’ complains a graduate student at Belarus State University.  "There is a general apathy here," he adds. "They just want to concentrate on their studies and hope to get a job.”

If there was ever a better warning against taking one’s schoolwork too seriously to the detriment of more pressing concerns (whether it be well-roundedness, sanity or political freedom) I have yet to find it. I already feel better about writing this commentary instead of studying for midterms.

Back to the topic at hand: there is no doubt that Belarus is not the only Eastern European country that has resorted to oppression, and nor is it the only one in which people suffer difficult, and at times atrocious, living conditions. Still, I have to resent the views of normally human rights-friendly, left-leaning media like Britain’s The New Statesman that insinuate that the situation in Belarus really isn’t all that bad, and that U.S. funding of pluralistic opposition activities in Belarus ought to be stopped. A 2001 article by Alice Lagnado (“Why Rural Millions Love a Dictator”) states, “However, the U.S. government seems to believe that most Belarussians want reforms--and if they don't, they must be ignorant. That attitude is shared by many among the elites in Minsk.” She goes on to note that a considerable portion of Belarussians, especially the elderly, still support Lukashenko, and are in fact right in fearing that a swift capitalist shift would impoverish them even further.  What Lagnado seems to be insinuating is that people’s vulnerability to state propaganda should be seen as a legitimate, democratic will, perhaps even superior to the ideas of those crazy “elites.” That statement is kind of idiotic--after all, there are still a few Russians who revere Stalin and refuse to believe that he had anything to do with executing thousands and imprisoning millions of Soviets. And Lukashenko, who has an iron grip on the country’s media, uses propaganda as Stalin did, creating a father-figure image. American foreign intervention has been ill-advised, and occasionally downright illegal in the past, but this is one situation in which it is warranted and commendable.

And to be honest, the aid that is forthcoming from the U.S. is pretty negligible. In 2004, Congress passed a Belarus Democracy Act. But previous legislation hasn’t done much; there’s no indication that this will be any different. Ten years from now, Lukashenko’s comb-over might be thinner and even less believable, but it seems like little else in Belarus will have changed.