Brief Chronology of the Civil Society Forum

Some history or Forum background

The strategy envisaged: to organize an open domestic platform for the occupation of a place of a mediator (a place where the voice of the civil society of Belarus will be heard); to prevent attempts of the state to replace the existing civil society organizations with the state-controlled GONGOs; to define the structure and function of the Forum so that it reached its goals. The Consortium EuroBelarus, after lengthy consultations, adopted this strategy for implementation. A conference was held in Minsk on the 22 of April 2009, where we invited to participate all relevant players in the field of civil society in Belarus: from “think-tanks” to political forces and the Office for Democratic Belarus based in Brussels; then there was a meeting of the Public Advisory Council under the auspices of the Administration of the President, before the preparation of the Belarusian delegation to take part in the Civil Society Forum (in October-November 2009).

The last stage was very important and tense. The “EuroBelarus”, following the proposed strategy, insisted on addressing the overall strategy, place and purpose of the Civil Society Forum, etc., that is, on procedural matters. This was not always supported by the majority of the Belarusian civil society organizations concerned with specific thematic issues of human rights, environment, education ... However the more we were able to convince the core of the Belarusian delegation of the Forum, that without solving the problems of the first type, the second type could just not be resolved. The core team of NGOs which was established before the Civil Society Forum in Brussels wrote comments to the Forum Agenda and composed a letter for the Forum organizers (the European Commission) with the rationale for the allocation of places to discuss policy and procedural issues at the Forum, and established contacts with Ukrainian and Polish representatives, who voiced concerns similar to ours. We have not received an answer from the organizers before the Forum regarding proposals for Agenda therefore we realized that we would have to solve crucial issues at the Forum in the not-quite favorable conditions.

In this spirit, we went to the Civil Society Forum of the Eastern Partnership held on 16-17 November 2009 in Brussels.

Margin notes: a subjective chronology of the Forum

There was no time to write these notes directly during the Forum. It is difficult, even almost impossible to simultaneously do the hard work and the PR. I had to choose - the first things first. Therefore, to not forget anything and do not mix up the real flow of events at the Forum, I will provide with just a chronology of a sequence number of facts as I experienced them.

I think that if I missed something important, someone will clarify or add.

November 15, Day 1

After landing at the Brussels airport, we were greeted, and perhaps during an hour seated in a taxi (a so-called French disorganization). As a result, the scheduled for the evening meeting of all the Belarusian delegation members and negotiations with the Ukrainians were pushed to a later time. However, at 20.30 we had already gathered in the lobby, where O. Stuzhynskaya (Office for Democratic Belarus) and J. Litvina (BAJ) gave exhaustive information about a preliminary meeting of participants held by a number of international organizations (there were two representatives from each country). We heard a very pessimistic vision of our Polish colleagues they gathered after communication with a representative of the Economic and Social Committee in the course of this preliminary meeting about the possibility to somehow change the Agenda of the Forum and generally to exercise initiative there. This information was taken note and we started on our own issues.

Question No 1 - tactics in order to promote organizational issues (structure and strategy of the Forum as such) during the Forum. We decided that either we demand the allocation of space for this at the Forum, or initiate the creation of a so-called 5th group - not thematic, but organizational, and ask the Forum to legitimize it, ie allocate space and time, and choose 1-2 delegates from representatives of other countries.

Question No 2 - distribution of Belarusian participants through thematic groups and to identify those who may be nominated and promoted as coordinator of a thematic section.

It takes a little time - the main agreement was reached in Minsk. The group goes to a cocktail party at another hotel, which was almost over by the time we got there.

November 16, Day 2

The Forum started. During breakfast and in the lobby of the conference we briefly discuss with Ukrainians the mutual support of proposals on organizational matters. Find common ground.

Registered and discovered funny moments. The lists of participants confused countries, and we were all already assigned to thematic groups and not all and not always in line with our preliminary statement of intention and on the requested field in which we work. Following a short communication within the Belarusian team - we decide that we will go to sections as we intended and not the way we have been distributed.

Behind the scenes work and search for familiar faces from 6 countries of the EP and the Europeans.

At 9.30 - beginning. There was only a welcome speech on the agenda followed by division to sub-sections. I.e. our preliminary comments to the Forum Agenda were not taken into account. We disagreed and as we heard many people from other countries did too.

Welcome speech faded away. The conference moderator took the floor and said that they heard that the participants expressed ideas about the organization of the fifth group on organizational issues, however those would be disregarded as unnecessary. He said that whether there was a need to discuss the future structure and work of the Forum – it could be done at that moment and provided 40 minutes for that and ask participants to speak. After that he proposed to divide into groups and start working.

There came a mess. 220 people in a hall, most of whom had never seen each other. The proposals came one after another, but no discussion - all simply expressed their opinion one after another, and no development of solutions was possible. Ulad Vialichka (the Consortium “EuroBelarus”) took the floor and offered to organize a 5^th working group - to prepare a decision and calmly discuss and adopt it tomorrow. He was supported with applause, but the moderators simply transferred the microphone on and continued with a series of speeches about anything. Moderators were obviously going to simply sink the proposal. The floor took Irina Sukhiy (NGO "Ecohome, the Consortium "EuroBelarus") and returned the hall to the proposal of Ulad Vialichka. She was heard and the hall supported her, but the following statements added nothing to the process. The word took Tatiana Poshevalova (NGO "Centre for Social Innovations", Consortium “EuroBelarus") and simply announced the creation of such group on the basis of self-organization and invited those who have something to contribute in the form of proposals to the future structure and rules of the Forum.

The moderator and the Bureau were puzzled, to say the less. They press on the audience, letting us know (quite Soviet-style, by the way), that it was extremely undesirable to create such a group, and technically difficult, and generally was not previewed by the EP. However the following statements showed that it would be difficult to ban the idea and moderators of surrendered – “well, set up a group, but during working hours”. Interpreter could not be provided however there was enough place. In his speech Vitaly Silitsky (BISS), explained that such group in no way aimed at undermining the Forum, but rather to help the organizers.

Plenary ends. The 5th group was invited to meet in the hall at 14.30. But we asked those who were interested to gather straight away.

After a brief break 4 thematic groups gathered.

The 5^th group on organizational issues consisting of 6 people so far gathered in the lobby and also held the first debate. It united 2 Belarusians, 2 Poles, a Ukrainian and an Armenian. The first version of the solution was proposed. After 1,5 hours of work, these 6 people go to their thematic groups and stay there all the time before dinner, up to 13.30, were there were a number of statements on a range of proposals on the recommendations within the platforms. There were many people and everyone was given floor one after another. Attempts to have discussions or suggestions that did not suit moderators were intercepted very hard. However, my 4^th Section “Contacts between people” Ulad Vialichka, Dzmitry Karpievich (NGO "Education Center "POST", Consortium “EuroBelarus") and myself managed to put in all the recommendations, as agreed at a conference in Minsk on November 2. Before the end of work in the groups Katerina Pshybylska (Schumann Society (Poland)) went to all of them and informed all about the opportunity to join the Group 5 at 14.30.

Dinner. A huge crowd in the narrow corridors. Two huge queues – one for a portion to the buffet and the other for reimbursements.

The beginning of sections’ work was scheduled for 14.30.

The Belarusian team holds tactical meeting – we need to find supporters in other delegations. Siarhei Matskevich (Assembly of NGOs) and Tatiana Poshevalova went to the Azerbaijani team and sought consent to support us. Tanya Hatsura (BHC) was fishing for Ukrainians one by one and reached agreement with them. Irina Sukhiy and Svetlana Koroleva (RADA) also "cultivated” friends and strangers from different delegations. Communication with the Polish and other delegates from the EU.

At 14.20 in the lobby of the third floor, where resided 3rd group out of 4, the 5^th group met. There came a number of people, including a European Commission representative. Clarify the situation. One and a half hours of negotiations. Ulad Vialichka clearly and step by step set out the essence of our position – what were the reasons behind it, whey thematic groups were not enough and there was still a need for ‘by country’ principle of representation, why there could not be regional representation, and the essence of our proposed structure. While there was a discussion between Ulad and the representative of the EU, the group around us was getting bigger and bigger. In the end, the reaction from the representative of the EU was - OK, I understand, your proposals make sense, continue your work. He advised to try negotiating with other participants (e.g. during an evening cocktail party) and to convince them. When he left, there were about 10 people left from different countries, who continued to work. Two Polish Katarzynas Przybylska and Pelczynska-Nalecz - have agreed to write down theses on the computer. Periodically, we had our colleagues from the thematic sections coming to see us.

Siarhei Matskevich brought news – at 16.30 there would be elections of coordinators in sections. And people were obviously not ready. Moreover, visitors from different sections reported that the moderation there was done quite unceremoniously, rudely cut off unwanted views and that there was generally manipulation while drafting recommendations. Siarhei requested to make proposals in the thematic group on the structure as soon as possible, so that we had something for the time of elections.

Not for long, I returned to my 4th section “Contacts between people”. There already some passions had taken place. Svetlana Koroleva and Tsveta Andreeva (European Cultural Foundation), not without success, were putting the moderators in place and made their proposals.

In the meanwhile, work in the Group 5 was over, it was left to formalize and translate the page with the proposal. It was basically a compromise between the proposals of the representatives of Belarus, Ukraine and Poland, but with the comments of other panelists - experienced people in general.

16.30. Siarhei Matskevich and Miraslau Kobasa came and said that in the first section just had a fight, a struggle that moderators behaved in a completely dictatorial manner, and that it was difficult to resist them. The nomination and election of coordinators was about to start there. We expressed our more interim proposals, which proposed to have two-stage elections - first from the country - one candidate, and then already among them - one coordinator from the Eastern Partnership country. In such a situation Siarhei decided to nominate his candidacy, despite the small odds with the powerful pressure of moderators and an abundance of candidates. At least one of the six he will be nominated by us, as Miraslau Kobasa (NGO "Lev Sapieha Foundation") has agreed to limit to the leadership in the subgroup on self-governance.

The final proposal for the structure: after all, it was decided not to make 6, but 2 coordinators of thematic groups - one from the EP country, one from the EU. Ulad Vialichka went to the first group to report on this and to support Siarhei, as well as to track the processes taking place there.

Simultaneously focal points in our 4^th group were nominated. Elections were held by secret ballot. A Moldovan lady and an Englishman. In principle, we agreed with this choice – the elected persons were quite adequate.

18.00. The work of 4^th group ended. I go out into the hall. Katarzyna finished editing the text and printed it out.

We are waiting for news from other groups. Energy and environment and economy. Members come out and bring the results and share impressions.

Nothing about the first group. Their room was on the first floor. We go there. We know that Siarhei has put forward his candidature, and another 5 were for him from different countries. The election process of the chief among them was taking place. It was taking long. We were nervous.

We moved slowly to another building - where dinner and cocktails were to take place. We were waiting there. And finally the news - with the support of Belarusians from the side of Georgians and Armenians Siarhei Matskevich was elected.

We congratulated him. But this was only a small part of what we need.

Katarzynas were handing out to participants our proposals. We talked with participants from all the countries and we found out about the reaction to our proposals - what was acceptable and what was not so. We were negotiating. We took into account comments. A large part of our team and our Polish colleagues were working hard, also partners from the EU joined.

The talks were about the working style of the moderators from the EU and International Organizations during the Forum. Participants from the EP and the EU were unusually angry.

We returned to the hotel and gathered a delegation to reflect on the day. First we were 12, then 15. Sometimes representatives of other countries were joining us. I was trusted to make a presentation about the future structure of the report (report of the 5th group). On tactics and the situation the following was known. In the lobby we heard that the EU officials quietly among themselves called the Belarusian delegation the most adequate and organized. On the question - what should we do if our proposals regarding the structure will not find support? – I Answer: it is not so important. We have to act. Most importantly, tomorrow - get everyone to vote. If we get the majority - well, this is a victory. If not, it's just a step forward - we will define and will work with those who will still support us. Therefore, I say, heed those who will vote “yes”, and take your time to get to know them. People calm down, everything becomes more or less clear.

Then we drink wine and beer in a bar for two hours. I return in my hotel room and try to sleep.

Siarhei Matskevich with the first part of the thematic group is finalizing the recommendations. Up to 2 am, I think.

November 17. Day 3

In the early morning we are being taken by bus to the Museum Square - there will be the second day of the conference. It takes about an hour (walking there would take only about 15 minutes).

We drink coffee in the lobby. We must agree on the time for the report from the 5^th group. The Agenda previews reports from 4 thematic groups and elections (approval) of coordinators, elected yesterday, and the final major speech of people from the EU. That's all.

I was approached by a yesterday’s representative of the EU, with whom we negotiated. He says - if you're willing (and there is a question in his eyes), then come up to the moderators of the plenary session, they are ready to provide you with time and give them your presentation, or the document in electronic form - for showing it on the screen. We go together with Ulad, and did so.

Katarzyna in the same hall was talking to the moderator. After that she came up to me and said - maybe we shall remove our proposal? There are no chances. They offer us a complete removal of the proposals, in order to avoid the so to say public failure. I gave to her the same answer as yesterday to Matskevich: we were going to do it? We picked up the fur fly and seriously prepare? Were talks held with the EU? Then we have nowhere to step back, we go and do. Katarzyna was going with the spirit and said - ok, we do it (thanks to Katarzyna, her participation was important).

9.30. The plenary session starts.

It was declared that thematic groups would be announced and then coordinators approved. But before - says the moderator - we will call a small group of people, who announced the fifth group yesterday and let them report back on the results, and then will continue further with the Agenda. He gave me no more than 10 minutes. I needed 7.

I come out and make a presentation. I finish and see that the hall is ours. Applauds. I shall not try to describe the faces’ expressions of the presidium.

Session for questions and answers is open. I am asked questions and answer them.

Then debates were open. Speeches started with Armenians and Azerbaijanis – expressing huge thanks and support. There are comments – on the number of people on minor issues, but on the whole, proposals were acceptable.

Following 8-10 speeches came to votes "against". Following them the united Belarusian team entered into battle and returned the discussion to the mainstream "for" (thanks to the Baltic delegations at the 1^st Congress of Soviets of the USSR - we remembered them with kind words for the lesson taught). Presentations by representatives of organizations from the EU. Great desire to continue the discussion - everyone wants to speak. Pro-Russian Armenian lady opposed to us from the first day on these issues. And then gets up and says: this is a reaction to yesterday's moderation in groups! (to certain extent, of course, yes).

Things get hot but it is clear that the support of our proposal prevails. Moderator ends the debate and puts the question to a vote. The vast majority (200 people) voted “for”. “Against” not more than ten. Everything is over.

Now the program is changing. According to the accepted proposal - elections of country coordinators, from 6 countries of the EP and the EU need to be held.

Presented the recommendations of the thematic groups, presented the selected facilitators from them. A small hitch during the presentation of Siarhei of recommendations from group No 1 - the information was lost, and the parties contended, why. It turned out that it was not lost, just moved the editing of the night and changed the text order. The issue seemed settled. We were informed that the recommendations could be supplemented and corrected, even after the Forum, being posted on the site.

Another intrigue - the election of the Speaker, to make recommendations to representatives of the EU, which will come to the Forum (headed by Benita Ferrero-Waldner).

They chose Siarhei Matskevich - a sense of solidarity also helped.

Discussions about the nomination of candidates from country delegations started (following the urge of moderator that no one objected: ONLY AMONG THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT AT THE FORUM!) followed by the elections of 3 representatives of EU countries to the Steering Committee. Together with the coordinators of the thematic platforms now it is comprised of 17 people. Ulad Valichka is representing Belarus.

Coffee-break. We receive congratulations. Katarzyna comes up and says that she simply did not believe that this was possible – to change to flow of events to this extent and to make own agenda.

The EU representatives come up and congratulate as well. It is obvious that though not according to the plan though they were satisfied too.

A long coffee break - Benita Ferrero-Waldner and others were still not there. They came while the representative of the Social and Economic Committee was delivering his speech. Siarhei Matskevich reads out and passes to Benita recommendations of 4 groups.

That is it. Farewell interviews and so on.

November 18, Day 4

Departure is early in the morning. It was organized much better than our meeting during arrival, which was understandable. It seems that we no one is forgotten. Oh, n! Green Net representative Yaroslav Bekish lost the plane J.

Forum blog of
Tatiana Poshevalova, the 1^st CSF participant