The National Platform is the Belarusan society voice in the EU

Jaraslau Bekish, Belarusan National Coordinator of the EaP CSF, is talking about the EaP, European Dialogue on Modernization with Belarus, National Platform and immediate tasks of the Forum.

1. About Belarus in the Eastern Partnership

In contrast to the civil society, the Belarusan government and the Parliament are not actually involved in co-operation within the Eastern Partnership. What really gives Belarus the civil society participation in the Forum? And what is, in your opinion, the value of this participation for the EU?

Before answering this question, we need to define what is the interest of the partner countries in involvement in the Eastern Partnership initiative. This is the approach, which offers more effective and more consistent development of the countries’ Western-oriented policies, use of different European approaches in the fields, considered the best ones (according to various estimates), and integration of these technical, legislative, law enforcement approaches, etc., in their practice. Some countries have already reached the stage of negotiations on the Association Agreement. Plus, there is an opportunity to use financial and technical support from the EU. That is, if talking only superficially, not studying in depth. 

Belarus could benefit from this program, as well. Naturally, the Eastern Partnership is not a panacea, not the only option for the country. This is just one of the possibilities that can be analyzed, used, and put in a piggy bank by the state for the benefit of the people, and for their own benefit. We have heard saying many times that we have had a multi-vector path of development, but it is not true. What we have, is not a multi-vector, it is definitely a uni-vector path. Belarus stands in a situation when there is, for some reason, one path - either to the West, or to the East. And for the moment, it is the East direction. There are simply some deviations from this vector, small variations, as from time to time we partly turn to the West. And that’s why we have such a hard dependency on our Eastern partner.

What do we lose in this case? I will not say on what we acquire, we have also heard enough about it. Firstly, we lose a progressive perspective, because Russia is not interested in the modernization of Belarus, - any modernization, or political, or economic, or technological one. Russia is interested in Belarus as a trade area, as a geopolitical buffer zone ... We can not talk about any modernization. Russia is vitally interested in the fact that Belarus remains resource-dependent and generally - dependent country. There is not any joint Belarusan-Russian program on the development and introduction of energy-saving technologies or renewable energy sources, I have never heard about this. We need to depend on Russia in the fields of gas, oil, and now even more, of uranium. This is a relationship of a drug-pusher with a drug-addicted. While falling out of the EaP, we are losing the chance to reduce this dependence, to modernize our administrative, technical, political sphere... This is what gives us the initiative of the Eastern Partnership and the European Dialogue on Modernization, this is what we reject as an independent country.

Secondly, we are losing the relationship with the EU. In fact, the Eastern Partnership and the European Dialogue on Modernization is the only official direction of the Belarus’ relationship with the EU. There are, of course, different shirtsleeve negotiations, trade agreements, but there are no political programs. And if we lose this opportunity, we actually lose our interaction with the EU. We still have relationships with the member countries, but there will not be any with the EU, as the EU is a supranational political formation in nature.

Today Belarus refuses to participate within the Eastern Partnership at top level, at ministerial one and the heads of states’ one. We also do not participate in the parliamentary dimension, at the Euronest level. Everything is simple with the Euronest. There is no Parliament, thus, there is no one to represent Belarus in the Euronest. This is the message which is sounded within the EU and voiced out by our opposition, and it is concurred by the most part of the Belarusan civil society. It is only at the third level (there are actually more than three levels, but these are the main ones), the level of civil society, where we do maintain relationship.

Actually, the Forum is the only thread in the single line of communication with the EU. It is valuable by this, that’s why it is so tied to by everyone who understands what it represents to modern Belarus. And the main task of the Forum in this case is to encourage Belarus going back into the context of official relationship with the EU as a whole country - at levels of the civil society, the Parliament, and at the top level. Here, this is not a task for one event or one year, this is a set of interrelated problems that could be solved through the Forum.

2. About the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum

The National Platform is little known in Brussels as a stakeholder in the EU-Belarus relations. Should Europeans know more about it and take it into account?

The National Platform is not so little known. I believe it will be enough mentioning the European Commissioner Füle’s speech at the Forum in Stockholm, one-third of which was devoted to the Belarusan National Platform. Although it could possibly be known more, of course ... For example, the European Parliament considers being the point of its interest’ application in the partner countries only the interparliamentary assembly Euronest. For the EP, the whole Forum of the Eastern Partnership, and not only the Belarusan National Platform, is an unknown animal, which they perhaps would like to know better, but not quite imagine the framework of the relationship. And it is unlikely for the MEPs to be proactive to set this format somehow.

In turn, the Forum arranges contacts, establishes communication with the Euronest. It is declared that the Euronest is open to the messages from the Forum, and the Forum is ready to work out and transfer these messages. I.e. the communication can be set, the ears are already open, but we haven’t yet had that experience to trace any issue from the beginning to the end and to say that has been achieved.

The National Platform in this sense could be seen as a temporary substitute for representation of the citizens. This is both the NP of the EaP CSF, and, in a sense (in a very limited sense, but), the substitute of the Belarusan Parliament. It could be involved in the communication with the Euronest. And, you see, they [the European Union - EuroBelarus] effectively have no one in Belarus to officially talk with. In fact, the National Platform is the only official mouthpiece of the Belarusan society, which firstly - has its own opinion, secondly - this opinion is legitimate, and thirdly - the NP is ready to transfer it. Therefore, the National Platform is known in Europe, and it is turned towards by many eyes.

3. About the plans of the National Coordinator

This year, you are the first party of the Belarusan civil society in a dialogue with Europe. Tell us about your working plans in this role. What are the immediate duties of a man who is the National Facilitator?

In my case, I'm not the head of the NP: I hold the eighth position inside the Coordination Committee. Accordingly, I am not the National Platform decision-maker; I only enter the collegiate decision-making body. Most part of my work takes place at the level of the Steering Committee of the Forum. There, I represent the interests of Belarus; I’m the ambassador of the NP in the Eastern Partnership, at the Forum’s level. This work implies many issues. Recently, the first meeting of the Steering Committee has been held, one of the issues concerned the EaP Summit. There will come representatives of the EU and the EaP countries at the Summit, - all, except Belarus, there is a vague situation with it. The Steering Committee is involved in the resolution of this ambiguity, and we have been asked what to do at meetings with many EU representatives in Brussels.

It will be right for Belarus to fully participate in the Summit; there is need, at least, for the foreign minister to go there. The Europeans would love to invite him, as well, but they can not compromise their principles and benchmarks. Our minister is on the EU travel ban-list, and to "withdraw" him out of it, there is need of unconditional release and rehabilitation of political prisoners. Currently the EU considers the option to lift temporarily the travel ban for one concrete person, but it is unclear which decision will be taken finally, it depends on many factors.

A member of the Steering Committee of the Forum has lots of routine, standard, cut-and-dried work: preparations for the next Forum, for the Summit, which I have spoken about. In parallel with it, the Conference of the Civil Society will take place. We have already a preliminary agreement that the Summit participants will visit this parallel conference. The civil society representatives will be able to directly address their messages to the Summit participants. Accordingly, we, the Steering Committee, enter the organizing committee of the parallel conference. In addition, there are projects for the development of the very Forum and its Secretariat, of National Platforms, and many more.

Jaraslau Bekish was elected as the National Facilitator by the Belarusan delegation during the Civil Society Forum in Stockholm. He will occupy this position until the next elections which will take place at the Forum in Chisinau in autumn 2013. During the previous year he was coordinator of the 3^rd Working Group of the Forum (Environment, Climate Change & Energy Security). Mr. Bekish is Head of Belarusan network of environmental NGOs “Green Alliance” (http://greenbelarus.info/), partner organization of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus” (http://eurobelarus.info/en/).