EU and Belarus

EU and Belarus

5 Theses

President Lukashenka is in power in Belarus since 1994. Since his reign became more and more authoritarian and the political and human rights situation deteriorated, the European Union, as well as other international actors are attempting to find an appropriate policy to deal with this now EU-neighboring state.

After the heavily manipulated 2006 presidential election in Belarus, the EU and others imposed travel restrictions on a number of responsible figures on the side of the Belarusian authorities. At the moment these sanctions are suspended; in the second half of November 2009 the EU plans to decide whether to keep them suspended or to re-impose them; either until March 2010 or for a longer period.

Since May 2009 Belarus along with 5 other states of the region neighboring the European Union to the East is a full-fledged member of the EUs Eastern Partnership Program[1].

Also for economical reasons Belarus has an importance for EU policy and industry.

Within the last year the Belarusian authorities seem to be actively trying to find their future position between EU and Russia. The talk of economical and social liberalization is to be seen as a part of this process. It should be stressed that up to now there has been no meaningful or substantial liberalization in the social or political sphere.[2]

1)

Observe a clear division between economical and political matters

One of the present issues is, whether Belarusian political, social and economical liberalization has gone far enough, so that Western business might get engaged in the country. This kind of question in itself is a trap.

All the sudden  it becomes fashionable in some Western circles to make great effort in finding alleged improvements within the democracy related and human-rights conduct of the Belarusian power structures. At times a neutral observer could even have the impression that there is a contest underway: who will be able to find within Belarusian reality the most developments and facts which could potentially be interpreted as improvements.

These tendencies are not restricted to the economical sphere, but have spread to the scientific and political sphere as well.

It should be reminded, other than cosmetical improvements there have been none[3].

Would it harm to increase Western business with Belarus while at the same time naming the things as they are? Companies and industries, guided by their supporting- and lobby-organizations may in each case weigh and decide to get engaged or not, while politicians, scientists and any interested individual on the side of the EU (and the so called “West”) should assess the situation around human-rights, democracy and liberalization issues in Belarus separated from potential economical interests.

If the Belarusian authorities see the necessity to diversify their economical relations and dependencies, than they will do so regardless whether beforehand somebody has “seen” improvements in Belarus and has stated this publically. If, on the other hand, the Belarusian authorities are not interested in further and enlarged economical contact with the West, they will know to hinder this, also if there have been prior “nice words”. Either way, a premeditated and prearranged artificial flattering will, in the medium and long turn not enhance or improve business relations; yet it will have to be paid for in terms of credibility.

A tit-for-tat strategy, in the sense that the one side helps the Belarusian authorities to raise their reputation in exchange for potential business is counter-productive.

May the business do what they do best – to assess and react on economical potentialities, but without a premeditated link towards the assessment of the developments in the spheres of human rights and democracy.

In the middle and long term a strict division of these spheres will be of benefit for all sides.

2)

False considerateness is false

Would one expect a good friend to tell, to remind, to insist on if one fundamentally goes wrong? Of course.

The EU and Belarus should aim at being good friends – seen as a two-way street.

3)

Elections

The institute of elections (in the sense as laid down in the relevant OSCE documents) is at the base of a society’s long-term potential for development and the foundation for the legitimacy and credibility of state authorities.

Belarus has all the necessary technical prerequisites for “free and fair” elections in the sense of ODIHR; a generally well educated electorate, a superbly functioning state administration, an easily manageable territory, access to all regions, good technical means of communications. Belarus, as a member of OSCE, has signed all relevant election related documents. What is missing is free access to free media and the will not only for an electoral law, enabling free and fair elections, but also to free and fair elections themselves.

Recently, the Belarusian authorities, including President Lukashenka, have not ceased to state that they want to conduct free and fair elections.

Let this be the test. In some points, though surely not in all points, the effort for “good” elections is rather easily monitored: composition of electoral commissions, free access to free media, possibilities to put forward one’s candidature, possibilities to campaign, and very importantly the unimpeded access for media and local observers to all stages of the electoral process, including the vote counting and tabulation at the end (here it should be stressed: being able to observe the vote counting means that one observer is able to see all the marks on all ballots in the respective polling station).

And it should be clear in advance: this test holds valid for both sides. Should the outcome of such truly free and fair elections be that the present authorities receive a majority, than this has to be fully accepted.[4]

4)

Don’t underestimate Belarus

It is very unfortunate, but not less true: many people in the European Union, especially in the “old”, pre-enlargement EU, even up to now have strong miss-conceptions about Belarus. In a way, which sometimes can only be called naïve, they underestimate the administrative, intellectual and industrious capabilities and potentialities of the Belarusian people and the Belarusian authorities. Paradoxically as this may sound, for the Belarusian authorities this fact also entails advantages.

It is in the interest of the European Union and its member states to involve Belarus in a large quantity of EU and national programs. Within these the EU and the member states would be well advised to pay greater attention to the degree and manner in which the Belarusian authorities are involved in the realization of these projects; in certain cases their aims might run along parallel lines, but certainly not in all.

Improving transit infra-structure might be relatively easy in this regard. Strengthening the civil society sector, moving towards “free and fair” elections or enhancing the educational sector in order to move further towards “European” standards, as examples, might not be as easy.

A good intention on the side of the project financer does not always guarantee an effect congruent to his intention. The grant givers might in the future want to rely to a greater extent than up to now on additional (also external) assessments of their project implementation scheme in Belarus, in order to move into the direction of a higher percentage of projects where outcome really matches the original intentions.

And in no way should they underestimate Belarus.

5)

Clearly know, state and act on own interests

To this account there surely has been a lot of movement in the European Union over the last years. Still, it shall be included here that further movement would seem to simplify relations also with Belarus.

As towards other subjects of global politics, also towards Belarus the EU sometimes seems half-hearted and somewhat too “diplomatic” in defining and expressing its own interest.

The European Union and its member states do have their own genuine interests regarding Belarus. These interests might not yet have been formulated entirely, also there might not be full agreement about them in the EU. Yet, out of its own right, the EU interests are fully legitimate and are directed neither against Russia nor against the USA, nor against anybody else for that matter.

Also in relations to Belarus it would simplify things, if these interests would be formulated, stated clearly and would be acted upon in a cohesive, coherent manner.

[1] See for referance: http://www.eu2009.cz/scripts/modules/diary/action.php?id=3553 ; http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=PRES/09/78&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en ; http://www.pism.pl/zalaczniki/Report_EP_2009_eng.pdf

[2] See BIIM reports: http://www.dbg-online.org/sites/default/files/BIIM%20Monitoring%20October%2009%20Update.pdf ; http://www.democraticbelarus.eu/files/docs/3/BIIM%20Monitoring%20September%20Update.pdf ; http://www.democraticbelarus.eu/files/docs/2/BIIM%20Monitoring%20Belarus%20Feb%20Update.pdf

[3] See BIIM reports: footnote 2

[4] For material on assessment of the elections in Belarus see on http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/

13. November 2009

Permalink