Europe has no illusions about liberalization in Belarus

A political analyst Uladzimir Matskevich replies to the questions of the www.eurobelarus.info

Q: European politicians have been contemplating for a while whether to invite Belarus to become a partner within the Eastern Partnership programme or not. In February our country was visited by a number of high level officials from various influential institutions. Whether they sincerely believed in democratization and liberalization in Belarus?

A: No. No one believed anything. The European institutions were not well aware about Belarus, however now that the issue of the inclusion of Belarus into the Eastern Partnership programme as a full partner is under consideration they were consulting with serious experts. All the ‘cosmetic’ changes made by the Belarusian authorities fooled no one. Europe has no illusions about liberalization in Belarus. Therefore the inclusion of Belarus into the programme should not be regarded as an award or a prize for liberalization and democratization. The ongoing discussion is exactly about the mechanism of democratization and rapprochement of our country and of our society to the European standards. One should be treating it in this particular manner.

Q: What does the European Union expect from Belarus?

A: Today the European Union is disappointed about the efforts of the civil society and the Belarusian opposition to shift the country towards the democratic changes in one way or another. Therefore the European Union started to strengthen its own efforts. However in order for the EU countries to influence the process of democratization in Belarus there should be certain legal mechanisms for that. The latter is only possible when Belarus is integrated into the bilateral neighbourhood relations and is integrated into the common European processes. The Eastern Partnership Programme is such integration mechanism into the ‘new’ Europe for these six post-Soviet countries. Exclusion of Belarus from the programme would mean that it was totally excluded from the civilization processes of the most developed region in the world.

Moreover, the geo-strategic factor is also very important, i.e. the proximity to Europe. For instance, Belarus fully separates Lithuania from the East. Therefore its bordering location does not allow the European Union to ignore what happens inside the country.

It may sound as a paradox however the decision to include Belarus into the programme was affected by three crisis: economic, world and crisis, related to the external political imperialistic ambitions of Russia (with regard to the Northern Caucuses, Russian-Georgian conflict). These three types of crisis pushed forward those slow developing processes existing between Belarus and Europe that were ongoing for many years without any outcomes.

Q: Belarusian official authorities welcomed the invitation of Belarus into the programme. What benefits and gains do they count on?

A: Primarily what they count on are the economic benefits. Due to the fact that opportunities for the development of the Belarusian economy via East, via trade with Russia are almost exhausted. It is clear that certain dependence of Belarus and the EU Member States on the energy supplies exists and will continue existing for yet many years. However opportunities at the internal Russian market for the intensification of the Belarusian export have almost reached to their limit and are also exhausted. Therefore further development of the Belarusian economy demands finding exit to the European markets. With regard to the trade with the European countries we can not boast with significant achievements, Europe is underdeveloped market for Belarus. We have to reach out for the European markets. However this necessity in its turn will require bringing the Belarusian industry, production and agriculture to the European standards. This impulse is vital for us.

Q: What is the role of Moscow in this case? It has to realize that in case of rapprochement of Belarus with Europe it will start getting out of the influence of Russia…

A: Moscow is very careful about the European integration processes and it can not afford to lose its influence. Belarus, Ukraine as well as the Caucuses countries are regarded by Russia as a sphere of its influence and a sphere of its vital interests. Therefore the pressure put on the Eastern Partnership Programme by Moscow is obvious and perhaps is has not yet reached its maximum. The continued unrolling of the programme may provoke even more radical steps.

As of toady Moscow is forced to compromise with the new European initiative. However if we look at the shaping content of the programme we’ll notice that its depth has decreased compared with the initial version (i.e. the Polish-Swedish initiative put forward in July last year). Later on the content of this doctrine was softened following influence of Moscow and with efforts of the German government. I believe that Moscow will continue applying its diplomatic efforts in order to neutralize this initiative.

Moreover each of the six countries that are included into the programme have different attitude towards it. For instance, Ukraine has moved a lot further in reaching agreements with Europe on various issues of its concern and the Eastern Partnership for Ukraine is not a radical or critical step forward. For other countries it is a huge impulse for internal modernization. On the other hand, neither Moldova nor Azerbaijan or Armenia do not express special enthusiasm with regard to the new initiative of Europe. Moldova is taking relatively active part in the integration process within the Black Sea Region and the government of Mr Voronin considers those programmes rather well elaborated. Azerbaijan and Armenia are not willing to abandon their good relations with Moscow. Belarus as well wants to play for both sides. In this sense Ukraine and Georgia become leaders while the other countries are in the rearguard. All these inconsistencies become barriers for the Eastern Partnership Programme in obtaining particular distinct features.

Q: It is obvious that the leader of Belarus plays so to say a double game. He would like to become closer to Europe while not spoiling relations with Moscow. What could be the outcomes of such balancing in between?

Mr. Lukashenko realizes the necessity to have closer relations with Europe. He will be working in this direction and he might even be able to convince Kremlin that it is vital for Belarus. Neither of the Russian counter approaches or counter proposals would be able to deflect Belarus from the Western direction. It is a different issue that Moscow is extremely worried about its geostrategic and military interest in Belarus… Therefore it would only be natural for Moscow to have nervous reaction. Every step forward by Belarus towards closer relations with Europe will provoke the corresponding reaction from Moscow.

Q: So far the issue of whether Aleksandr Lukashenko will be invited to Prague to take part in the Summit of the Eastern Partnership programme remains open…

A: It is a very delicate and a very conflicting issue due to the fact that on one side Belarus should join the programme however on the other side everyone knows that Belarus is the ‘last dictatorship in Europe’. Therefore in case they decide to join Belarus, then what happens to the sanctions against the Belarusian officials and the President? It would be illogical to include the country into the wide integration process and to continue with application of sanctions. On the other hand the invitation of the President would signify the acknowledgment of the fact that the country has stepped on the track of democracy. This is the main point behind considerations and debates of the European officials.

With regard to Mr. Lukashenko, he may take advantage of the invitation while implementing his internal propaganda, in case he is invited to the Summit. In case he is not invited there, it could also be used for his own benefit. Both scenarios are arguable. The decision has to be adopted in the nearest future. Also the considerations and debates among the Europeans could be used and regarded from the research point of view, i.e. they could be used to judge to what extent the Belarusian authorities and the leader of the country take various proposals with regard to the Eastern Partnership Programme seriously. Would he like to go to the Summit himself? Will he use any effort in order to receive this invitation to Prague? Will he send the Foreign Minister to replace him? The issue that looks so simple on the surface becomes more significant and symbolic this way. Due to this symbolism the environment around the situation becomes so delicate and conflicting.

Q: The Eastern Partnership Programme envisages a wide participation of the civil society in it. Why such importance is attached to the third sector as contrary to the opposition and political parties?

A: It is obvious that the opposition politicians do not represent the entire opposition as such, all those that do not agree with the current authorities and the regime. Therefore a large number of the civil society representatives today voice their opinions with regard to the Belarusian-European relations. Opinions of the third sector and various confessional institutions today may become decisive. The fact that the Eastern Partnership envisages the creation of the Civil Forum is not a coincidence. The civil society along with the representatives of the authorities of a country will represent their countries in the programme. Indeed, the civil society does not have the ‘voting’ right in all of the six countries. However with regard to the Belarusian third sector, one might say that it became stronger, has its own ambitions, has formed an opinion with regard to the participation in the “Road Map” and about the integration of Belarus into the European community.

Ludmila Korsak