Научно-исследовательский центр Мизеса

It is not problematic to build up relations between European Union and a country the government of which wants cooperation and integration on the platform of democracy, human rights and market economy. It is quite a challenge to work out mechanisms and programs, to find means and resources, to come up with institutions to deal with a country, the government of which mocks at democracy, ignores human rights and monopolizes most of economic activity. Standard European way that proved to be effective in dealing with like-minded governments is not adequate in coping with Belarus. The idea behind EU’s Neighborhood Policy is primarily to assist people, not governments. In case of a democratic country it is almost the same but as afr as Belarus is concerned it is definitely not so.  

Double-edged sword

The question arises whether EU by carrying out only standard TACIS programs with the authoritarian regime does not compromise on its moral and ideological foundations. The fact is that the Belarusian civil society represented by NGOs, political parties, independent mass media are taken hostage of the regime. They are deprived of opportunities to be a part of European Neighborhood Policy either because the authorities do not approve their participation or they can not meet demanding criteria for participation in such programs. So the civil society is hit with a double-edged sword instead of getting a helping hand at least from one party.

            One edge of the sword (the authorities) cuts the Belarusian civil society in many ways: prosecuting and harassing leaders and active participants even of ordinary educational programs, ousting from offices, denying the right to rent facilities and access to government-controlled publishing facilities, threatening state institutions who deal with civil society structures; controlling each aspect of financial activities, raising costs of day-to-day operations etc.

            The other edge of the sword is procedures, requirements and attitudes of the European Union. They do not take into account the real environment that the Belarusian civil society functions in. Insist on receiving money on an NGO’s bank account in Belarus – you lose 40% of the grant in taxes; you must approve the use of the funds with the authorities. In this case either you become a proponent of the state ideology or you are out of EU programs. It refers not only to activities of political parties but to such “innocent” NGO topics as civic and economic education, history, international affairs and foreign policy and even humanitarian assistance and charity.

            Stick to general rules of checking grant proposals and approving them by EU structures you will have your proposal approved in 12 – 24 months. You will always lag behind the real situation. Bad timing, different priorities, lack of flexibility. The authorities are quick to react at any change of the situation. The civil society’s freedom of maneuver is limited by rigid framework of EU structures’ guidelines.

            Require co-financing of projects by NGOs and deliver funds upon completion of the project – you block participation of the structures and people who are too poor to perform like this. It refers to 95% of civil society structures in Belarus. You can judge the quality of NGOs’ activities and their continuity in a democracy but in Belarus this criterion can hardly be applied. Judge concrete people not just names of structures, their “credit” history, what they delivered in the past and what capacity they have to deliver in the future. If they can work within one common strategy the synergy of their activities with make a difference in Belarus. Working out such strategy for change is one of the top priorities and challenges for EU and Belarusian democratic society. It should be prepared by a joint European – Belarusian team of experts.

Mechanisms of assistance 

European Commission works under strict rules and regulations. They are designed to be effective in contacts with a standard democracy or a country that would like to become EU member. Belarus is obviously a different case. Hence, we need a new legal and institutional arrangement. Setting up European Endowment for Democracy (EED) is a top institutional priority in building up effective relations between EU and Belarusian democratic forces. Establishing EED does not mean abolishment of existing programs and structures (TACIS for examples). We are talking about adding new quality to the relations and reaching out to more than 2 mln. people, who are strong supporters of democracy the European way for Belarus.

In order to show political support for Belarusian civil society and to ensure availability of financial means it would be important for EU to pass Belarus Democracy Act. As Belarusian government can not or does not want to sign a program of cooperation within EU’s Neighborhood Policy such piece of legislation would add necessary flexibility to European activities in Belarus. It will equip both EU structures and Belarusian organizations with adequate means to operate in the real environment. In addition it will be a valuable source of political, moral, technical and financial support for the people who strive for freedom and European values in Belarus. Such cooperation will also enable the parties involved to bring true information about EU to Belarusian people. Hence European Union will invest in creating the circle of security and friendship around its borders.

            The Belarus Democracy Act should be based on resolutions of the European parliament, PACE, OSCE and the UN that have been passed recently. The problem is not that European Union does not know what is going on in Belarus. The open question is whether it will make Belarus its real foreign policy priority and undertake measures to solve the “Belarusian issue”. Another resolution or a conference or even a meeting with EU leaders or officials will not be enough. They can only enhance actions on the ground but never substitute them.

            At present TACIS is ill-equipped to provide assistance to Belarusian civil society. Belarusian authorities have become a powerful filter between European assistance efforts and the population of the country. Redistribution of such aid through the channels controlled by the government adds to stability of the regime, which boasts about its own strength and criticizes the EU.

            Other EU programs (European Institute for Democracy and Human Rights, Decentralized Cooperation) have not been launched in Belarus yet so it is difficult to estimate whether they will add value to the process of democratization of the country). If European Endowment for Democracy was set up it would be feasible to open its field office in a EU country that borders Belarus. It would employ not just foreigners but a few experts from Belarus to be closely in touch with the situation on the ground and adjust the EED activities to real life demands.

Priority areas 

It is important to note that Belarusian civil society needs to concentrate on fulfilling concrete functions. NGOs, media, charities, youth groups should eliminate unnecessary competition for grants and demonstrate their ability to cooperate within the approved strategy. These main functions are the following: 1) to ensure carrying out free and democratic elections, 2) to create information environment for the people to support freedom and democracy, 3) to protect the people who are prosecuted, fined, harassed and prevented from exercising basic human rights and freedoms; 4) to create intellectual, educational, scientific and creative alternative for the authorities in terms of systemic social economic reforms, social security issues, foreign policy priorities and setting up European educational standards; 5) to study attitudes, moods and preferences of the population based on objective international polling techniques; 6) to provide humanitarian aid for the people who suffered from Chernobyl disaster, the disabled and asylums.

            Each priority area is subdivided into concrete sectors where different Belarusian organizations assisted by their foreign partners carry out concrete projects and programs. At present it is also important to distinguish between short-term and long-term goals and priorities. It is obvious that the short-term goal of the European-Belarusian cooperation (by “Belarusian” I mean civil society structures) is to ensure the creation of the environment in which Belarusian citizens will be able to exercise their free will and to make their democratic, well-informed choice of the president in the next presidential elections. Projects that should be carried out to meet this short-term goal are the following:

mobilization campaign on behalf of the democratic forces (youth, regional organizations, trade unions, parties, NGOs); organization of election observation (early voting, the election day, the day after elections); information support of the presidential campaign (dailies, weeklies, information agency, radio, TV, information distribution network, web sites);; analytical support of the campaign (writing alternative draft laws, programs, monitoring the activities of the government, supply of intellectual “ammunition” to media, politicians, NGOs); human rights protection (paying fines of social activities, helping families of political prisoners, providing legal assistance in courts, arranging physical protection (if necessary) of the presidential candidate and his key persons etc.); regular polling of the population (national wide scale polls, focus groups, polls to find out answers to specific questions etc.).

Long-term priorities of the European – Belarusian cooperation are to create strong, professional institutions to ensure smooth transition from the authoritarian state to full-fledged democracy with minimal social, economic and human costs. Some of the projects within the short-term goals and functions overlap with those of the long-term objectives (for example, activities of human rights, educational and social organizations). However they are different. Projects and programs that lead to meeting the long-term goals are:

  1)     educational institutions (secondary and higher education);

2)     charity projects (Chernobyl, asylums, families with many children),

3)     think tank activities as institutions that create alternative scientific, research and policy drafting platforms;

4)     media brands that are valuable and trustworthy;

5)     social assistance centers that provide for various services to the population especially on the local level (temporary employment and training structures); These projects need continuous support for at least 3 – 5 years in order to meet the long-term objective. They are an important part of the post-election strategy. If the authorities manage to keep the regime in place after the presidential elections these institutions will be essential to survival and further development of Belarusian civil society.

Absorption capacity: Belarusian “Oil for Food” program vs. Democratization Projects 

Some people mistakenly assume that Belarusian civil society (NGOs, youth groups, media, think tanks, women’s organizations, independent trade unions, ecological organizations, charities, educational institutions) can not absorb more than ?2 – 2.5 mln. This estimate could be correct only if EU worked through existing programs and kept all requirements to recipients of European assistance. If EU becomes more flexible and makes Belarus its priority by channeling resources to Belarusian civil society organizations and structures the absorption capacity will rise up to ?18 – 21 mln.

            EU assistance to Belarus can be divided into two parts. The first part is the equivalent of the Iraqi “Oil for Food” program. TACIS, across border projects and other projects that should be approved by the government are a part of it. The funds that are allotted to Belarus under these projects have very limited impact on democratization and development of the civil society. Belarusian equivalent of “Oil for Food” has the vices of the UN program too. It is not transparent. It is beyond control of the civil society and the parliament and it has the propensity to beget corruption and benefit the richest in the Belarusian society.

            If it is planned to spend ?23 mln. for TACIS programs in 2005 – 2006 it would be fair and moral to match these funds with adequate support of the civil society or consider redistribution of the limited funds between various ends. We need programs that would benefit primarily not nomenclature but common people. Unlike government loyal people and organizations the civil society activists and participants received support neither from the government nor from EU. The authorities ignore recommendations of EU institutions in terms of its values and fundamentals. They often describe Europe as a threat to the national interests and as a source of import of bad business, human and civil practices. In contrast Belarusian civil society is obviously pro-European. It promotes the values that EU is based on but it is not considered an equal partner for various European institutions (foundations, EU structures etc.). That is not a consistent way to pursue Good Neighborhood Policy.

            The approximate estimate of the absorption capability of the Belarusian civil society (annual expenditures) is the following:

1)      mobilization campaign on behalf of the democratic forces: trips, direct mail, technical assistance, door-to-door campaign, signature collection, making information materials (2 – 3 mln. copies); - about ?2.5 mln.

2)      Organization of election observation (training, information materials, delivering information about the results of the elections, technical assistance – about 14000 people) - ?2 mln.

3)      Information support for democratization and carrying out free and fair elections: a daily (?500’000), 2 – 3 weeklies (?300’000), information agency (?300’000), radio (?3 mln.), information distribution network (?150’000), web sites (?100’000);– ?4.25 mln. (except TV (?3 mln.)

4)      Analytical support of the campaign: think tank activities (political, economic, social, foreign policy, ecological analysis), research work, creating library and data base for researchers and civil society, writing programs, leaflets, planning and managing PR campaigns, holding conferences and seminars, technical assistance, working with youth): ?1.5 mln. 5)      Human rights protection: paying fines of social activities, helping families of political prisoners, providing legal assistance in courts, arranging physical protection (if necessary) of the presidential candidate and his key persons etc.) – ?2 mln.

6)      Polling of the population (national wide scale polls, focus groups, polls to find out answers to specific questions etc.) - ?0.8 mln.

7)      Educational institutions: (Belarusian lyceum and the EHU) - ?2.5 mln.

8)      Charity and humanitarian assistance - (Chernobyl, asylums, families with many children) - ?1 mln.

9)      Social assistance centers (to provide various services to the population especially on the local level (emergency temporary employment and training structures) - ?1.5 mln. TOTAL: about ?18.05 mln. or ?21 (TV included).

These expenditures can be broken down to show how the money is spent. If the decision is made to start this kind of a wide-scale assistance programs Belarusian organizations and structures will make concrete grant proposals (projects) to be considered. They will be supported by foreign NGOs. They will facilitate Belarusian NGOs in receiving and managing financial resource on the one hand and providing intellectual and technical assistance on the other.

            Belarus has entered the stage of a very important political campaign – forthcoming presidential elections. Ordinary Belarusian people and the civil society need a helping hand from Europe. They do not need the government as an intermediary in their contacts with Europe. Belarusian civil society is organized well enough to learn from European Union and to become its long-term partner and a devoted friend. It is time European Union starts thinking “Belarus” every time it recalls its values and designs the policy for free, secure and prosperous Europe without borders, without iron or visa curtains.