SCAF Belarus

The progress made and challenges faced in Belarus engagement in the European mainstreams are reflected in the recent CoE Parliamentary assembly report http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc09/EDOC11939.htm

This paper was developed at the beginning of 2007 and shared with the key political stakeholders in Belarus and in the EU. It is followed by the monitoring of the recent developments of Belarus-EU cooperation. It is believed that the ideas proposed in the paper have been and continue to be used by the political decision makers in Belarus and EU.
Developed by Dr. Iouri Zagoumennov
Director of Support Center for Associations and Foundations (SCAF), Belarus Association of Think Tanks, 4-13 Korolia Street, Minsk, Belarus, 220004,Tel/fax: 375-172-849216, cell: 375-296-343746, izaglm@yahoo.com www.scaf.int.by

EU-Belarus Closer Relations: A Civil Society Strategy for Change in Belarus

Once upon a time the Wind and the Sun argued about which of them was stronger – who would be faster in taking the clothes off a man walking in a field. First it was the Wind who tried to force the man to take his clothes off. He started to blow, but the stronger he blew, the more tightly the man held into his clothes. Then it was the turn of the Sun. The Sun made the man warm and the man took his closes off.

ANALYSIS OF THE SITUATION

The policy of isolation and pressure
The initial strategy adopted by the EU and CoE in 1997 to promote democratic changes in Belarus was the strategy of international isolation, external pressure and support to the political opponents of the existing regime. EU states have invested a lot of resources in implementing this strategy. But 11 years after it is evident that this policy has not been effective: the stronger the pressure from the West, the weaker democracy becomes in Belarus.

Support to civil society and human rights organizations
Most government agencies in the country view civil society and human rights organizations supported by Western donors as “Trojan horses” aiming at overthrowing the political regime in Belarus. As a fight back the government introduced legislation that made it difficult for civil society and human rights organizations to register grants and legally receive financial support from the EU. Similar steps have been recently taken by the Russian authorities regarding Western donors as well.

Support to local authorities and youth
The Western European and US strategy focused on changing the values and attitudes of the local and regional authorities, middle-level managers in central government agencies and on youth mostly through seminars and conferences organized outside Belarus has not worked either exactly for the same reason. Being aware of the “hidden” agenda the Belarus political authorities made it very difficult for bureaucrats and students to travel abroad and participate in the meetings sponsored by Western donors.

Little space and support for the development of independent grass-root civil society
The existing situation leaves little space for the development of independent grass-root civil society and democracy. Both the Belarus authorities and Western donors have ended by compiling informal lists of “good” and “bad” civil society organizations in Belarus. “Good” for the Belarus authorities are the ones established and fully controlled by the government. “Good” or “pro-democratic” for many of the Western donors are those which are established and fully controlled by the political opposition groups in Belarus. For example, the major NGOs coalition favored by Western donors in Belarus “Pro-Democratic NGO Assembly” since its establishment in 1997 has been led only by the leaders of the political opposition party (Belarus Popular Front).
Most of civil society organizations in Belarus protest against being labeled as pro-government or pro-opposition. They may be supportive to the politicians on some issues but may disagree with them on the others. These independent civil society organizations stand for democratic, social and economic changes in Belarus and are very much willing to develop cooperation with their EU counterparts. But “black and white” strategy leaves no space for this cooperation and development.

Unhealthy and unfair competition between NGOs for scare western funds
There is no government and corporate financial and resource support for independent NGOs in Belarus and very little support is available from Western donors. Belarus NGOs have to compete with each other for scare resources and it would be wrong for Western donors to ask Belarus NGOs their opinions about each other. In most cases these opinions are biased. Still most of the Western donors that do not have their offices in Belarus instead of judging about NGOs based on the effectiveness of accomplished projects fully rely on biased opinions by NGO representatives.

Little support provided to those human rights that people really care about
There is a dramatic difference in interpretation of “human rights” concept by the Western donors which are active in Belarus and people in Belarus. While the Western focus is primarily on promotion of political rights and protection of the rights of political opposition groups and independent media, people in Belarus communities are mostly concerned about being unable to solve their everyday problems as they often do not have any power or do not know how to use existing possibilities to make their everyday life better. People may feel powerless and are often unable to protect their legitimate rights in education, healthcare, social protection, ecology, etc. People are often powerless as employees in their organizations or they are unable to fight corruption, etc. The central government has invited people to report about violations of their human rights in the journals that every organization in Belarus is required to have. But many people do not trust this way of reporting and are afraid that then bureaucrats can make their lives even harder. They do not trust “political” human rights organizations either. There are numerous cases when “political” human rights organizations have refused to consider cases and protect human rights of ordinary people who are not members of political opposition groups. Very few independent human rights organization exist or have been promoted through EU funding in Belarus that are focused on “non-political” human rights issues that people in Belarus currently really care about and need support to most of all.

Lack of trust to biased mass media
It is true that the political opposition has limited access to most effective media such as TV and radio: occasional talk shows and during the elections campaigns. On everyday basis they are able to reach out people only through independent printed and internet editions. However even these limited possibilities are not used effectively. Instead of focusing on concrete proposals how to meet the political, economic and social challenges Belarus people are facing the independent media with just few exceptions is mostly focused on blackmailing the political authorities and competitors in the opposition camp. Belarus authorities introduced a law that protects the dignity of people from blackmailing by media and sue media representatives every time this law is violated. As in the case with the human rights groups there are many examples when ordinary people fail to get support from the “independent” media as it is often biased and corrupted.

Allegations about corruption in the political opposition camp and in the “pro-democratic” NGOs
While there is very scare funding and few officially registered programs by the EC in Belarus most of the other Western funding is focused on political issues and comes to recipients in Belarus in a non-transparent way in cash. Lack of transparency has led to allegations about corruption and conflicts of interests in the camp of opponents of political regime in Belarus. There have been continuous accusations of corruption within the opposition camp widely publicized by the independent media. This information is also extensively used by the government media to discredit political opponents in Belarus.

Allegations about falsification of the data about the scope of people reached out through the Western funded projects
Since it is impossible for the political opponents of the regime to officially register grants and it is not allowed in Belarus to organize unregistered meetings, conferences and seminars they have to implement Western funded projects underground and therefore involve only very limited groups of already politically active people who have undergone similar trainings and been involved in similar activities multiple times since 1997. The reports of the grants’ recipients about the effectiveness of their projects should not be fully trusted by Western donors as in many cases there is falsification of the data about the scope of people reached out through these projects. Examples of falsification have been publicized in the independent media. There is a very tiny impact of such “underground” projects on the situation in Belarus.

Step-by-step strategy as the strategy of concessions and steps backward
Along with the “isolation” strategy a “step-by-step” strategy was proposed by the EU and OSCE. In 2000 the OSCE advanced 4 pre-conditions and in 2006 the EU advanced 12 pre-conditions for improving the relations between the European community and Belarus.
This strategy didn’t work in 2000 because of the following reasons.
First of all, the proposed “steps” were too vague and general. Whatever concessions and steps Belarus authorities made, the Western politicians were not happy and would say that these steps were not adequate and further steps needed until the existing political regime was made so weak that its political opponents could use the situation to come to power.
Secondly, Belarus authorities didn’t want their steps to be interpreted as their weakness, as “concessions”, “steps backward”. In fact there was no essential bottom-up support to the political opposition within the country and no critical mass in Belarus society and externally (as it is now even after the recent energy and political conflict with Russia) to make Belarus authorities to step backward and empower their political opponents who are unable to empower themselves.
Hostile political environment cannot be an excuse for opposition failure to gain support in the society as political opposition groups who really care about people interests and needs have successfully done this in much more authoritarian countries even in the ones with dictatorship regimes.

Political negotiations versus civil society dialogue
In 2000 the opposition insisted on holding political negotiations with the authorities behind the closed doors. This approach was strongly opposed by the civil society organizations in Belarus not controlled either by the government or oppositions but representing diverse social and economic interests and needs of people in Belarus. They insisted that the political opposition parties didn’t represent their interests and have no rights to negotiate with the authorities on behalf of the entire civil society in Belarus. They wanted their voices to be heard and believed that this could be done through a civil society dialogue engaging NGOs and other civil society organizations in Belarus. However first of all there should be a dialogue between the EU and Belarus authorities regarding a road map for improving their relations and opening space for democracy and civil society development.

Role of Russia
It is evident that the Belarus authorities’ recent move towards closer cooperation with EU is caused by recent attempts of Russia to exercise more economic and political control over Belarus.
There was also a point of view in the EU diplomatic community in Minsk that abolishing Belarus sovereignty and complete integration into Russia is beneficial for the EU as Russia is more advanced in democratic, social and economic development. This is a very wrong assumption as Belarus people do care about being a sovereign state. Indeed Belarus people stand for close relations with Russia because Belarus and Russia have common history, culture and traditions. It is also true that the financial benefits proposed by the EU are not able to replace economic benefits of cooperation with Russia. But it is also true that Belarus people will never agree to loose independence and become a province of another even most favored state. It is a challenge for the EU, Russia and Belarus to strike a reasonable balance of influence so that all these stakeholders benefit from cooperation with each other.

PROPOSED STRATEGY FOR IMPOVING EU-BELARUS RELATIONS
The strategy of engagement
The “isolation”, “step-by-step backward” and “black and white” strategies need to be replaced by the strategy of engagement Belarus authorities, opposition and civil society in doing things that are right and safe both for the EU and Belarus. It should be a pragmatic “step-by-step forward” strategy through identifying and exploring steps that are safe and beneficial both for the EU and Belarus and do not threaten political, social and economic stability.
Using a metaphor this strategy could be called a strategy of gradually developed and widened “corridor” of opportunities for Belarus and EU where the “walls” are the existing constraints of the EU and Belarus political and civil society stakeholders. Most often these constraints are based on misunderstandings and lack of trust in each other. It is impossible to break the walls and build this trust overnight. This could be done step-by-step through a dialogue, identification and exploration of more and more space for safe and beneficial EU-Belarus cooperation.

Creating some space for the first steps forward
It is evident that for most of the political stakeholders Belarus engagement in doing things that are safe and beneficial both for Belarus and EU is the only way to promote needed democratic, social and economic changes and Belarus integration in Europe.
But it is also evident that the opponents of this approach may again as they did it in 2000 raise issues of legitimacy of the current political leader of Belarus and disappearance of his political opponents in the 90th. or will insist on Belarus authorities making other steps that are very risky and therefore not acceptable. This will immediately block any further developments in the EU-Belarus relations.
There are signs that the political opposition leaders in Belarus understand these constraints and are ready to support the EU and CoE moves to create space for the first steps forward in the development of closer relations with Belarus. Call by the leader of the political opposition in Belarus for a dialogue with Belarus political authorities is also a good excuse for the EU and CoE politicians to advance in this direction in spite of possible criticism by adherents of confrontation approach. .
The most pragmatic and effective way would be for the EU, CoE and Belarus political authorities to elaborate and agree on the draft of concrete steps ( a road map) forward and only then invite other political and civil society stakeholders to discuss and contribute their inputs to this document. However some politicians in the opposition camp who in fact do not enjoy any influence in Belarus insist on their participation in the dialogue between the EU and Belarus authorities from the very beginning. This is an unrealistic demand that will never be accepted by the authorities.

Demonstration by the Belarus authorities their political good will and commitment
Taking into account lack of trust between the political stakeholders it is important that the Belarus authorities make some symbolic steps forward demonstrating their good will and commitment of cooperation. The authorities’ recent positive decision regarding providing office space for Belarus Helsinki Committee is a good step forward. Decision about establishment of the EC office in Minsk is another good step. Release of the prisoners arrested for violations of law by leading demonstrations and marches to the central part of the cities where such gatherings are prohibited and thus provoking clashes with the police could be the next ones. But in their turn the Belarus politicians should follow the law as in most of the EU countries and the US the same regulations exist that do not allow political marches in certain places where such gatherings can block the important traffic flows and provoke violence (1). Improving the regulations on public gatherings and demonstrations, on NGOs registration, on receiving grants from Western donors and Belarus corporate sector and many other issues that are important for Belarus democratic development could be the further steps forward.
It is important that the steps by the Belarus authorities are not packed by the EU and CoE as demonstration of weakness of the authorities and strength of the opposition. These steps are to be interpreted as the authorities strength, goodwill and commitment to move forward in a safe and beneficial way both for Belarus and EU.

Engaging Belarus authorities, opposition, NGOs and their EU counterparts
It is believed that the current political authorities who according to local and international independent surveys are still trusted by the majority of population in Belarus will realize the benefits of engaging civil society in meeting the challenges Belarus is facing and will be able to provide leadership for transformation engaging through dialogue other civil society and political stakeholders.
It is also believed that the political opposition will finally realize that to gain trust and support in the society they need to stop looking at NGOs and other civil society organizations from the “top-down” dividing them in “good” and “bad” based on the loyalty to certain personalities in the opposition camp.
It is believed that NGOs representing diverse social and economic interests in Belarus and their EU counterparts will be engaged as partners. It is believed that the bottom-up approach can contribute to building trust among the stakeholders and to civil society empowerment. People in Belarus will get needed experiences of civil society involvement, stop being indifferent and feel safe to be involved in other social, economic and political issues of their concern.
The European counterparts of Belarus government and NGOs will contribute their experiences and expertise to promoting democracy, social and economic changes in Belarus.

Dissemination systematic knowledge on benefits of cooperation with the EU
According to the independent polls most of Belarus people stand for closer relations both with Russia and the EU. However these attitudes are not based on systematic knowledge about the benefits of this cooperation and therefore could be easily changed.
It is critically important to develop and implement a systematic strategy and programs for promoting knowledge about the EU in Belarus so that Belarus society becomes well informed and willing to support and promote closer EU-Belarus cooperation.
A particular focus needs to be placed on working with young people. Taking into account Belarus centralized setting the most effective way would be engaging high schools and universities in developing and disseminating systematic knowledge throughout the country. It is also important that in most places in Belarus schools are often the only venues of communities meetings and therefore schools are able to reach out the majority of the community population. The Polish experience of dissemination of knowledge through community centers based in schools (Local Activity Centers) could be beneficial for promoting knowledge about the EU in Belarus communities.

Prioritizing and step-by-step implementation of the EU preconditions of closer relations with Belarus
It is evident that the Belarus authorities will not agree to implement overnight all the preconditions advanced by the EU as this will certainly threaten political and social stability in Belarus.
However it is believed that the EU preconditions could be accepted by the Belarus political authorities in general, and then prioritized based on their usefulness for Belarus and on possible threats to stability. A strategic long-term plan for step-by-step implementation of the EU proposals in a safe and beneficial way for the EU and Belarus needs to be agreed and integrated in the national long and short term development programs. It is important that the Belarus authorities are able to pack this as their own long-term agenda rather then a concession made because of the Western pressure on Belarus.

Prioritizing the areas for the EU and CoE financial and technical support to Belarus implementation of its short-term development plans
To start with it is important to agree on the priority areas for the EU and CoE financial and technical support to Belarus implementation of its short-term development plans (2-3 years).
Priority needs to be given to the issues that are most important for Belarus development and its integration in the European community but also the least controversial for the political and civil society stakeholders and easiest to agree upon for the beginning. It could be not only the issues indicated in the EU preconditions but also other economic, social, health-care, arms control, regional security, education, etc. ones that people in Belarus really care about.

Civil society involvement in the EU and CoE sponsored projects in Belarus
No EU and CoE sponsored project should be run in Belarus without participation of civil society. The degree of civil society involvement may be different depending on the project. NGOs and other civil society stakeholders whose interests are impacted by the EU and CoE sponsored program or who could contribute to the program their expertise could be involved as monitors, experts, trainers, consultants, specialists, etc.
It is believed that civil society monitoring of projects implementation and their impacts on peoples’ lives in Belarus should be an integral part of every EU and CoE sponsored project(2)

It is critically important to engage in the EC and CoE sponsored projects not only those NGOs that are closely linked either to the government or to the political opposition but the grass-root ones representing social and economic interests of people and that comprise the majority of NGOs in Belarus.
This should be a transparent process for the civil society sector so that organizations have an opportunity to know why they have been expelled from the list and have a chance to prove why their involvement is important for success of the EC and CoE sponsored projects.

Promotion of civil society dialogue
It is important to start and sustain a civil society forum in Belarus. The focus of the forum should not be about sharing political power (as some politicians in the opposition camp insist) but on possible ideas, strategies and concrete proposal regarding Belarus social, economic and political development, including development of legislation that allows sharing political power through free and fair elections. This is important not just for meeting the EU preconditions but first of all for meeting the challenges Belarus is facing.
The political authorities in Belarus have recently realized that they cannot fully rely only on the top down bureaucratic structure in implementation of their programs and that a bottom-up support and active involvement of people is critically needed (3).
For the beginning the civil society forum may function informally and involve Belarus and EU think tanks. Representatives of political parties could be engaged in this dialogue as experts able to provide ideas and strategies for Belarus social, economic and political development (4).
This kind of regular forum is very important not only for identifying safe and beneficial ways forward but also for the development of an appropriate dialogue culture of civil society and political stakeholders in Belarus. The informal forum in the future may be transformed into an official National Civil Society Chamber similar to the one recently established in Russia.

Stakeholders’ willingness to move forward
The informal discussion of the proposed strategy with the political and civil society stakeholders in Belarus clearly indicate their willingness to move forward through step-by-step forward approach. There is a hope that this time EU and Belarus will not miss opportunities to develop closer relations and promote needed democratic, social and economic changes in the country located in the centre of Europe.

Footnotes:

That was exactly the case of the recent opposition rally on March 25 (witnessed by the author of this paper) when the demonstrators blocked the traffic during the rush hour on the main avenue of Minsk and provoked violence by the police.

There are already success stories in this respect. For example, since 1999 think tank SCAF has been contributing chapters on Belarus to annual Global Landmine Monitor Reports published by the Nobel Peace Laureate International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Human Rights Watch and other international organizations. The same NGO has successfully monitored small arms transfers by the Belarus government. This has been done in cooperation with Belarus Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Social Protection and other government agencies and has promoted Belarus transparency on these issues and its recent accession to the corresponding conventions followed by the EC, OSCE and other Western donors decisions to provide Belarus with funding to meet the challenges Belarus is facing in fulfilling the conventions’ obligations. Other examples of civil society monitoring and successful cooperation between Belarus NGOs, Western donors and Belarus authorities include the ones on civil society monitoring of prisons’, women trafficking , illegal migration and other issues important both for Belarus and European community.

The recent Decrees by the President and legislation introduced by the Parliament on debureaucratization, fighting corruption, etc. are indications of political authorities concerns regarding possibilities of the nomenclature to provoke social and political unrest in Belarus by torpedoing decisions of the central government or/and using power only for their own benefits.

This kind of a regular civil society forum existed in Belarus in 1999-2000. It was initiated by the Belarus think tank SCAF in cooperation with the Belarus Association of Think Tanks and offered an opportunity for informal discussions among representatives from the official and the opposition side of Belarus as well as from NGOs, think tanks, international organizations and the diplomatic circles. According to the opinion of the OSCE Ambassador in Belarus "there was hardly any other regular fora with this high level composition from all the sectors. All participating sectors were offered the chance to explore new ideas and initiatives. Such initiatives could have a follow-up in direct talks. The informality of the talks, the regularity of the meetings, and the participation from government/parliament and opposition as well as the international community made the forum to one of the opinion building "institutions" in Belarus”. SCAF is currently negotiating with major EU and Belarus political and civil society stakeholders a proposal to re-start this forum in Minsk.