Representatives of the public have commented on the initiative of the Office for a Democratic Belaru
06.02.2012
Representatives of public organizations and expert community of the country continue to discuss the initiative, which was released last week by the head of the Brussels-based Office for a Democratic Belarus, Olga Stuzhinskaya; it concerns a reduction of the list of the persons who are not allowed to enter the EU. The Information Service of EuroBelarus has asked some of them to comment on this proposal of the ODB.
Valiantsin Stefanovichh, the vice-president of the Human Rights Defending Center "Viasna" (Spring):
- I do not support at all the statement of the head of the office Olga Stuzhinskaya. Our position is cardinally different. I consider it premature to speak about the removal of any sanctions in general. We, as human rights defenders, insisted and will insist that the minimal condition for contacts of Belarus with the European Union is the release of the political prisoners. I do not understand why rectors have to be removed from the list of the entrance-banned persons – there are a lot of students who have been expelled from universities for political reasons. And it has been taking place not for the first year. I do not even speak about the absence of academic freedoms and students’ self-government.
For me, it is strange that Olga Stuzhinskaya has acted ostensibly on behalf of some non-governmental organizations; as far as I know, there have been no consultations in Belarus, at least, with human rights defending organizations.
Siarhei Lisichonak, the head of the Executive Bureau of the Assembly of Non-Governmental Democratic Organizations of Belarus, the national coordinator of the EaP CSF in Belarus:
- I see in Olga Stuzhinskaya’s statement an appeal to regularize the list of visa sanctions. I agree that representatives of civil society should be more involved in the process of discussion of visa sanctions; they should participate in the working-out of the criteria and standards of what people can be present in this list. The Belarusan civil public should be allowed to adjust the list.
The list should be adequate; after all, right now there are already died people in it. Yes, nobody supports the idea to cross out the people who are guilty of political repressions from this list. In my opinion, more attention must be paid to the question of consistency of EU in its implementation of the sanctions it applies: we can recall such an example of inconsistency as a recent visit to the EU of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Belarus Kuleshov who is in the entrance-banned list.
Aleh Hulak, the chairperson of the Belarusan Helsinki Committee:
- In my opinion, the question with the sanctions is ambiguous in general. Yes, we do not receive the effect, which we would like to receive. Also, an expansion of visa sanctions and a substantial enlargement of the list were suggested. In this connection, there is a question: to what extent is it effective? What effect will the expansion of sanctions bring? What problems will it solve? All these questions should be discussed.
Zhana Litvina, the chairperson of the Board of the Belarusan Journalists’ Association:
- Yesterday, a huge film was broadcast by the Belarusan TV, where the leading role belongs to Z. Litvina, and right now it is in the center of our attention. I would not like to come back to the piece of news, which has already been repeatedly discussed in the informational field.
Yury Chavusau, political scientist:
- I will not make comments on Stuzhinskaya’s statements. I’d rather answer questions. The situation with the sanctions is difficult; it can be considered from different points of view. Thus, the introduction of restrictions can affect a concrete situation in Belarusan society. On the other hand, it is not possible to say that sanctions can improve essentially the situation in the country as a whole. Sanctions are a measure, so to say, of quasi-punishment, a replacement of lawful punishment. They can help to release the political prisoners and lead to concrete steps in society. But they are not able to spur democratization in Belarus or to improve the political conditions.
It is very imprudent of people to present sanctions as a universal mechanism of influence on the situation in Belarus. No! The restrictions introduced by the European Union, to a certain degree, can be effective and efficient; in a concrete situation they can help to free concrete political prisoners. However, if to speak about the situation in general, the more officials will suffer from the sanctions against the regime, the farther the country will be from democratization, the more difficult it will be to achieve a regular improvement of the situation in the field of human rights.
Of course, Belarus as a European country should join the Bologna Process and the Council of Europe and other European institutions. But it should happen only when Belarus is properly prepared. First of all, when our educational system is changed, when it corresponds to the level of foreign universities. As for the inclusion of rectors of Belarusan universities in the "black lists" of the European Union - certainly, those of them who are responsible for wrongful dismissals of students from educational institutions must be in the list. However, such cases should be limited by concrete situations. It is necessary to know who and for what is included in the list. Instead of including a lot of people in the entrance-banned lists only due to the fact that they occupy certain posts.
Vyachaslau Pazdnyak, the head of the portal Wider Europe:
- Olga Stuzhinskaya, just like any other citizen, can express her opinion concerning this or that issue. It is her private opinion, and I am surprised at the degree of this discussion because this private position has really caused such a storm of emotions. In any case, such decisions are accepted by the authorized bodies of the European Union. There are certain practices and procedures there, and there are real possibilities for acceptance of consensus-legal decisions. The common opinion is developed with great difficulty, especially on such delicate and sensitive moments as introduction of sanctions – let alone even those of such a symbolical visa character. To lobby some decisions would be hypothetically possible. But, probably, not by such means and forces.
If you are interested to know my opinion of what would be useful and expedient to do with these visa lists, I’d say to correct, to remove or to reduce - they, naturally, should be actual. This is the most important thing. Political expediency - I think that it is, of course, absolutely insufficient. It would be naive to think that any changes can help to achieve tangible results and to influence Belarusan politics. I think the years of this practice have shown that sanctions – at least, visa ones, - are ineffective.
Dzianis Melyantsou, senior analyst of the Belarusan Institute of Strategic Studies:
- I agree with the thesis that the economic and visa sanctions do not work; it is obvious. Moreover, the sanctions, which are applied against Belarus, and even more rigid ones, - they do not work anywhere in the world. That is, if we track the history of application of sanctions by international structures and separate states against other countries, we will not see a single positive result. If there is a question about democratization, more openness of the country, and modification of its behavior, then sanctions bring no positive results. Except, of course, for military interventions, etc. But it is not the case of Belarus. The European Union, naturally, cannot get rid of the strategy it applies concerning Belarus right now. It has introduced its sanctions and it just cannot cancel them as it would lose its image, it would be an infringement of the EU principles, according to which these sanctions were introduced. Therefore, Olga's logic was that the European Union can send at least a message to the Belarusans that it cares of what is going on in Belarus through a reform of the existing sanctions.
Why is it important? First of all, the visa sanctions were introduced non-transparently. The principle of introduction of the sanctions against these or those persons was not absolutely clear: why some journalists are there and others are not, why some businessmen are in the list and others are not present there. It is not clear who took part in the compilation of these lists.
If we look at this list, it is possible to draw a general conclusion that it is chaotic. And the fact that it is compiled negligently just lets us know: for the EU, Belarus is basically not important. And it is being reconsidered not so correctly. Therefore, there are dead people in this list and those who at the moment of the introduction of the sanctions did not hold any state posts, who cannot pose a threat any more, and who do not have to be punished. There are people who have happened to be here quite casually as they did not participate in politics.
Nobody says the list should be cancelled. It is probably a question of even an expansion. But it has to include reasonable sanctions against the people who are guilty of infringements of human rights, reprisals, etc.
Elena Tonkacheva, the head of the Legal Transformation Center:
- I think, in this case, it is necessary to discuss not the very fact of Stuzhinskaya’s initiative. It is important to understand in what mode such initiatives should be carried out, if some subjects try to provide themselves with the right to "speak" in their Brussels-based offices on behalf of Belarusan civil society. It seems to me that this very question is the basic lesson from the story with Olga Stuzhinskaya’s statement.
To provide such statements with legitimacy, at least it is necessary to have a public coordination of positions in the national civil sector with the use of the mechanisms, which exist right now, i.e. the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership, the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership itself, the NGOs Assembly (congress, sessions of the working group), and among political subjects - the “Coalition of Six”.
If important political statements are accepted without these mechanisms, then it is necessary to specify accurately on behalf of whom such statements are made. Moreover, as for the activity of the “remote foreign offices”, it is important to determine eventually whose groups of interests they actually represent. It will facilitate interaction with them, both for Belarusan civil organizations and for foreign colleagues, both for the public sector and officials. If this or that "office" is created to actually promote the interests of a certain political group, it should be openly clear. If separate centers actually (instead of rhetorically) apply for certain bona fide neutrality, such centers should observe the public mechanisms of consultations.
In this case, the statement of the Brussels-based Office for a Democratic Belarus has not been coordinated either with the National Platform of the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership, nor through the open procedures of the Assembly of Non-Governmental Democratic Organizations. In the environment of human rights defending organizations, the coordination has not been made. Besides, this statement has not been coordinated at all with the families of the political prisoners, while the statement was accompanied by the remarks that the reduction of the list would help to free the political prisoners. And in this case, it is the families of the political prisoners with whom this statement had to be coordinated, but it is already a moral aspect of this statement.
The method of activity Stuzhinskaya has demonstrated is absolutely incompatible with the self-organization in the Belarusan civil sector. It is an example of a harsh lobbying work, chairborne and separate. Does such an approach have the right to exist? Yes, it does, but then it should not simulate its nature and origin. Stuzhinskaya has the right to express any of her own opinions on her own responsibility.
In my opinion, a revision of the list of the persons who are not allowed to enter the EU is politically justified only if it is carried out as a respondent friendly action after the political prisoners are freed.
.png)
