bet · GS01UU10 · 2005-04-26 00:00:00 — Because of these differentinterest constellations neither an authoritarian, nor a democratic regimecan be established. Of course these countries are exposed to internationalinfluence. For this is probably first of all the United Statesand second approach is something that goes back to one of the greatsociologists, , and it is an approach that says that we aredealing with a neo-patrimonial regime. This is a big word - what doesit mean? First of all, it refers to a lack of a functional separationbetween the economic and political spheres within the country. Thepolitical reforms after 1991 were supposed to bring about a separationof the political and economic spheres. But this has obviously nothappened in many of the countries of the former Soviet Union.This leads to a fusion of two different logics of action. It also leadsto the fact that private relationships permeate administrative relations.There is no really administrative logic behind many of the things thathappen, but private relationships or private interests use administrativemeans in order to further their own interests. Several people have alsospoken about the privatization of the state in that case.Finally this approach has also been used to describe many regimes,especially in African countries, and what the authors there refer to isa strong élite competition that is fuelled by the neo-patrimonial leader.This is how he stays in power. He will always try to enhance thecompetition both within the ruling group, in the opposition and betweenthe two groups in order to make himself kind of invulnerable to anyopposition coming from different groups and also coming from opponentswithin his own camp who might become more popular and more influentialthan himself.Now coming to and the Kuchma Regime, what does that mean forUkraine? Tarasyuk has already mentioned that Kuchma was first electedin 1994, and he was re-elected in 1999. Here you can see one of thecampaign posters 1999 that says that everything will be fine and good.As we all know, things have not really improved since then.Mr. Tarasyuk has already referred to the authoritarian tendencies, thereferendum in 2000, the strengthening of the presidential administrationand so forth.Then we also have this élite competition. It is some kind of a balancingpolicy, in my view, which Mr. Kuchma is doing, trying to play off severaldifferent groups within the so called party of power against each other.It is the different oligarchs, who all have their political organizationsbehind them.It is also something that - I think he is American - hascalled the "blackmail state". It is not ruled by law, which many peoplewould like to see in . It is rather ruled through law. This meansthat law is used in order to subdue opponents. is used selectively.It is not as the words "rule off-law" say, but it is applied in certaincases when it seems appropriate to the people in power.Of course in 2000 - Mr. Tarasyuk has already mentioned it - the Gongadzeaffair seems to be a turning point in the Kuchma Regime. First of allthere was a declining public support, and it has declined ever sincefor Kuchma personally. It led to international isolation. What did thisinternational isolation mean? First of all it meant that Kuchma wasleaning more towards . This is one thing I am not going to talkabout. But he also relied on strong domestic actors, who were able tosupport him and his allied parties, especially in the 2002 election.One of them is the so called Donetsk Clan.I have already mentioned the . has becomemore and more influential at a national level. In formerGovernor Yanukovitch was elected prime minister. In he wasproclaimed presidential candidate by the so called majority in theUkrainian Parliament.Now I come to the so-called political reforms. These are attempts tochange the constitution in at the moment. The first proposal isto switch from a rather presidential system to a parliamentary systemand then also in the future have the President elected by the Parliamentand the population, to strengthen the role of the Prime Minister andalso have a proportional election of parliament. At a first look thisseems very nice; we are going to have a parliamentary system, a moredemocratic system in . But if we have a look at it and look behindit and at the logic of the whole thing, it is a strategy first of allto weaken. Yushchenko will probably win the presidential election.It will also then give him two years as president and then have thenext president elected by the Parliament in 2006.We can have a short look at the presidential election and some of thepeople involved in the whole game at the moment. We first of all havea divided ruling group. There are three groups that are most important.It is the Donetsk Clan, which is Mr. Yanukovitch in general and thenew governor of the region, and it is also Mr. Akhmetov, the richestman in , one of the so-called oligarchs. Then we have the groupfrom Dnipropetrovsk which is Mr. Pinchuk and Mr. We also haveanother group, the so called the Kyiv Clan, or the , which isMr. Medvedchuk, who is head of the presidential administration, and Mr.Surkis, who is first of all President of Dynamo Kyiv and also is arather rich businessman. Then we have an ascending person coming nowfrom Kharkiv, who is not that visible at the moment, but he will be, Iam quite sure.Then we have a divided opposition. We have Ms. Tymoshenko, Mr. Moroz,Mr. Symonenko and Mr. They are all considered to be part ofthe opposition, but if one has a look at their strategies in the waythey co-operate one cannot really say that they are heading into thesame direction. Some parts of the so-called opposition on certainoccasions vote with the majority in the Parliament for strategic reasons.Public support at the moment for the two major candidates in thepresidential race: Which candidate will they vote for? We can have a lookat two persons. Most people would probably vote for Mr. Yushchenko andfewer for Mr. But one can see that a lot of people havenot decided or would vote for several other candidates. So it is notthat clear what will happen.Something that is still more interesting is who people think will winthe election. It is interesting to see that more people think that Mr.Yanukovitch will win the election than Mr. Also they aremore inclined themselves to vote for him. They expect several things tohappen that will make his impossible.It is still the role of the media, which Mr. Tarasyuk has alreadyreferred to. During the last election they were used by public authoritiesin order to subdue the opposition.This presidential election, or the campaign especially, I think will bedecisive for the development of democracy in Ukraine.Cecilia Wigström (fp): Thank you very much, Ms. Zimmer.Now I will ask Mr. to take the floor. Romanchukis President of the Mises Center in . He is aneconomic analyst at the Analytical Center "Strategy" in . He isalso Vice Chairman of the United Civil Party, which is an oppositionparty in Belarus.Jaroslav Romanchuk: Thank you so much. It is an honour for me to behere and to share my views and ideas about the situation in my country,which is distinctly different from the situation in and ,the other two countries which are neighbours of , of theenlarged EU. It is easy on the one hand, because you don't have to lookat so many pictures to understand what is going on in our country. Youjust have to have one big picture of the guy who has been running thecountry for ten years. There is no need to explain in detail all thesad records of the authorities that we have been experiencing for thisperiod.Essentially I just would like to mention the kind of repression that wefaced against key individuals and structures. Marinich,ex-ambassador to and leader of one of the NGO's, now is in prison.He was arrested allegedly for gun possession that was found in hisplace when he was not there. That is very sad. Another thing is thatAnatoly Lebedko, Chairman of the United Civil Party, has two criminalcases pending for slander and defamation of the President. Recently hewas fined for taking part in something that even policemendid not recognize, but the judge had a different opinion. It is alsospeaking fact. The third thing is that we have the Committeein chaired by Ms. , and she also has a criminalcase against her for implementing a Tacis programme that was confirmedand approved by the authorities.Authorities are taking care of political parties, civil society andhuman rights organizations.Another thing is the civil society per se. We have a growing list oforganizations, especially grass root organizations, that were closeddown by the authorities. Most of them are located in regions, so theauthorities don't want the opposition to deal with regions and toessentially develop ties with common people.Political parties: At present the authorities are considering amendmentto the legislation of political parties under which political unitscannot be registered on private apartments and flats. If this is done,95 per cent of all opposition political parties structures will beliquidated, and they will not have the right to nominate their candidatesfor the coming parliamentary elections in October 2004.Independent media: Independent media now work closer to the conditionsof their counterparts in central and eastern Europe than in the late80's. There are newspapers like BDG, Vremya and Dzen. They use a networkof NGO's and political parties to reach the audience. They are deniedcontracts to distribute by the state monopoly Belsoyuzpechat, and raidsin their offices and harassment of the people who are responsible forthe papers are habitual.Finally educational institutions: Educational institutions like theEuropean , the only European like university inthe country, was under harassment, and its president was threatened toresign. It was given the license two weeks ago, but at the same timethere are many procedures that can be initiated and can lead to closingdown this particular institution. The only Belarusian language collegein the country was closed down, and in spite of numerous strikes andactivities of both parents and kids the institution still goes down,and they are considering moving to . That is also a very goodexample of how the authorities treat their own culture and traditions.What does the international community do to help us out? Essentially wehave a lot of resolutions passed by Union, the EuropeanParliament, , the Parliamentary Assembly of the United Nations, statements that are very good, statements thatare directed to change the situation in the country. But in order forthese statements to reach people we need not just European media - weneed Belarusian media, we need people, hands and brains to talk to commonpeople and express the position of the international society that isfeebly heard in my country. We have the office in , and wehave very heated discussions about it. Its weakened mandate is obviousnow, and many people in consider it confusing that an organizationlike is taking such weak a stand towards Belarus.Probably one of the biggest problems I have with the internationalcommunity is that it has been applying the policy towards as ifit was a democracy. If the international community had applied thiskind of approach to central and eastern European countries in the 80's,I don't think that there would have been any meaningful changes, andthe socialist bloc would never have collapsed.We have very good statements, and we know what is going on. But at thesame time mechanisms and tools of policy are not there. It is clearthat there is no clear vision of development of the situation in mycountry. Different international organizations, including the EU, holddifferent opinions, and it is difficult to find even a person to addresswho can co-ordinate activities of the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe, , Parliament and the EuropeanCommission. That is probably one of the biggest problems, because eveninside the EU there are conflicting ideas of how to deal with Belarus.One group of countries believes that it is important just to leaveBelarus as it is, because it does not want to join Union.The other group of countries believes that it is their moral obligationand duty to help the Belarusian people, who overwhelmingly express theirsupport of joining Union. Recent opinion polls show thatup to 65 per cent of the population favour this development of foreignpolicy of our country.What are the meaningful factors that will bring changes to ?First of all it is the consolidation of the opposition. Countries,political parties and NGO's have worked hard to form a coalition. Now wehave the People's Coalition Five Plus, which unites six political partiesand 200 NGO's, that cover probably about 90 per cent of the territoryof the country. That is very important, because one could say: How couldthe Belarusian People's , Nationalists, Liberals, Social Democratsand Communists be in the same boat? The coalition of what? The responseis very clear, when the fate of the country is at stake. When we talkabout just one visible danger, then we should get together, forget aboutour troubles and quarrels about programme issues, and we should dealwith pure and very clear things; independence or sovereignty, democracyand human rights. That is what the Coalition stands up for.The only party that did not join the Coalition was the Social DemocraticParty. We have a co-operation and agreement with the Respublika group,which consists of a few members of the current Belarusian Parliament.Other groups are marginal. They rather exist on the Internet than inreality.It is obvious that the authorities are very nervous about the activitiesof the Coalition, because we campaign in the regions and we produceinformation materials. We came up with 220 candidates for the comingparliamentary elections. We have a clear strategy and a programme, whichis called "Five steps to a better life". It is everywhere. As you know,the authorities use different tricks to dismember the Coalition or tobreak it apart.Another fact that would definitively bring changes to isdeterioration of the relations with . It is common knowledge thatthe leadership of does have a different vision of the relationswith . At the same time, the Russian authorities failed to meetits obligations on a monetary union and on a customs union. It is afact that the Minister of Economic Development in stated thatBelarus is number two in terms of protectionist measures used againstRussian goods. A customs union does not exist. There are a lot ofconversation and talks about it, but de facto it never existed. Now theunion of four that is being discussed - , , Kazakhstanand - is another alternative that the Kremlin is trying to pursue,but its are rather vague too.The last factor that I would like to mention here is the growingdiscrepancy between the paper economy and the real economy. When you lookat papers, numbers and statistics, you see that Belarusian economy growsabout 10 per cent of GDP a year, so it puts Union to shame.But at the same time, when you talk to directors and talk to people,there are growing concerns about growing unemployment. Recently therewas a very good report, presented by the ex-minister of economy, that30 per cent of the jobs in the Belarusian economy are threatened if thecountry does not start economic reforms.What can or Union do to help and topursue its own policy and stand up for its values? First we need a clearmessage from Union, if possible from European parliamentarians,European national delegations and national parliaments that Belarusbelongs to Europe: We want to be a part of Union- provided it means standard criteria.I fully agree with my Ukrainian colleague that it is sad that someEuropean politicians took this position. It hurts more for us inauthoritarian countries than it probably does in , that is much closerto democratic standards.We also need a body to co-ordinate activities. Either it is an adhoc-committee or it is a working group or a - the name of it doesnot matter. We need a person, and we need a policy. Only if this is thecase it can lead to changes. It is surprising that the EU has an embassyin but does not have any institution in , which obviouslyis closer to Europe.Then we need a more involvement of Belarusian civil society toEuropean processes. Here I talk about a wide range of activities:inviting Belarusian experts, working out programmes, seminars, training.We need more Europeans to come to and raise awareness amongcommon people in Europe and your countries that is a countrythat belongs to Europe. It is not outside of trade and cultural rootsof our continent.Information is a critical issue. If we take the position that we willonly support officially registered papers within the framework ofexisting legislation and distributed through the national monopoly, thatwill lead nowhere. There are many ways to distribute materials and reachthe audience. Timing is now crucial. We are on the eve of parliamentaryelections. We know how to reach people, but we need some assistance.We shouldn't abandon co-operation with authorities altogether, thoughwe should be very firm on some fundamental value issues, like missingpeople. A resolution has been passed in the Parliamentary Assembly ofthe . It states that some representatives of theBelarusian authorities are maybe involved in criminal activities ofkidnapping politicians. In this case we expect Union andnational parliaments and governments to take some action. If there isno action after this very good resolution, that can be interpreted asa sign of weakness of Union and lack of interest of policyper se.It is in the common interest of both the Belarusian civil society, thecountry as such and Union to deal with authorities on suchissues as cross-border co-operation, drugs, money laundering, womentrafficking, some fundamental key ecological issues. While dealing notdirectly with administration we can deal with people who live in regionsand districts who face these problems in their daily lives.By having this kind of co-operation nobody would tell Unionthat it alienates altogether. It just has its own policy. WithinWider Europe and the New Neighbourhood Strategy, or without it as aseparate document, we really need a strategy for . If we havemotivated, highly knowledgeable and energetic politicians and civilsociety activists, we need all 25 countries of Union tobring meaningful changes to . I am sure that within a very shortrange of time we will change our country, and it will be full speedtowards a European Union membership.Cecilia Wigström (fp): Thank you, Mr. Romanchuk, for your intervention.I am sure you probably know, but let me otherwise tell you: All Swedishparties have a very strong programme to co-operate with democratic forceswithin . Sida, our development agency, has put a lot of moneyinto supporting Swedish NGO co-operation with your country as well aswith and , of course.Since we don't have time for questions, please save your questions forMr. Romanchuk for later, and we will go on to the next and last country,. I would like to give the floor to Mr. Urituis a Ph.D. and is associate professor of , now evacuated to Chisinau. He isalso Chairman of : Thank you for the opportunity to be here to present myopinion.I would like to present our report, handed out to you, on human rightsand the Communist regime in , the Communist rule.Speaking about the evolution in I would like to draw yourattention to that after the 25th February 2001, when the Communists cameinto power, we have been concerned about the brutal violations of theprinciple of separation of power. We don't have an independent judiciarysystem in comparison with the situation before the 25th February 2001.As a result of this the government party violates the principle ofindependence of the mass media and freedom of expression. We can presenta lot of information here, but now we have free files. A free deputy inparliament produced an investigation. He participated in a meeting inwhich a flag of was set on fire in connectionwith military presence of in . We protestedagainst the presence of troops from in Moldova.We consider the setting on fire of a flag in public as a kind of freedomof expression. Since 1990, or 1992, until now different kinds of protestsagainst the presence of Russian troops have not had any good results.In Transnistria there are 42 000 tons of military mines which can explode,and they are dangerous for us and are used to influence democraticchanges in Moldova.We are concerned about violations against freedom of election. Lastyear there were local elections i . The Communist Party startedan investigation against all serious opposition, such as a personparticipating in the election in opposition of the Communist Party. Urecheanu, Mayor of the capital city , participated in theopposition against the Communist Party. He was arrested one day beforethe election. Only the influence of our committee and the missionin made it possible for Mr. Urecheanu to be released and toparticipate in the election. After the election until now Mr. Urecheanuhas been free.The problem of democratic development in is the Transnistrianconflict. I am not a diplomat, and therefore I will speak frankly. TheTransnistrian conflict has been created by andis used by to manipulate the situation in Moldova.One famous leader from Transnistria, the Minister for Security, Mr.Antiufeev-Shevtsov, said in an interview in a newspaper thatbefore he was in the Baltic countries, in . Whilstbeing in he created a network which was able to manipulatethe political, social and economical situation in all Baltic countries.After the putsch in in 1991 he came to . In a short timehe created the same kind of network using the same way to manipulatethe political, economical and social situation not only in butin the whole region around . This is true.6 000 persons in Transnistria are hostages of the separatist SmirnovRegime. You can read in a different section of the report aboutTransnistria that grade schools using the Latin alphabet have been evacuatedfrom the cities and villages. 10 000 children have to walk about 30kilometres to school every day.Since February 2002 has blocked the penitentiary in Bender.About 450 detainees are in this penitentiary without heating, electricityand water.I consider the key problems in can be solved if the Transnistrianconflict is solved. In my opinion Union made a good statementwhen it declared an interdiction for travelling in the EU and the USAfor 70 leaders of the separatist regime in Transnistria. I know thatGermany wanted to arrest all separatist leaders in . I inviteSweden and the whole European Union to make the same statement, to arrestseparatist leaders in their countries.I would like to invite Union and to put pressure onUkraine to improve the border between and Transnistria. Overthis border military mines, persons and other criminal aspects.I also think Union later should work with civil societyin to diversify political parties and to improve the oppositionparties. We can now not speak about an opposition in . All theparties are small, the Communist Party excluded.I would also like to say thank you to Sida, the , and the Swedish Committee.They have done a good job in . They have diversified civil societyacitivites and made it possible to develop democracy in Moldova.Cecilia Wigström (fp): Thank you, Mr. I wish to thank you foryour contribution to this seminar.It is now time for a coffee break.COFFEE BREAKCecilia Wigström (fp): Welcome back. Let us continue our seminar. Afterthe coffee break we will listen to our last speaker. I would like togive the floor to Mr. , working within the EuropeanCommission, Directorate General . Mecklenburg hasworked within different European institutions since 1997, all the timeworking with the countries , , and .