Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Belarus Civil Society
Date: 2006-09-14
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Belarus, EU aid, cooperation policy, democracy, promotion of the European idea

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/123

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Belarus Civil Society

(2006/C 318/23)

On 14 July 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of
Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on Belarus Civil Society.

The Section for External Relations, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the
subject, adopted its opinion on 19 July 2006. The rapporteur was Mr Stulík.

At its 429th plenary session held on 13 and 14 September 2006 (meeting of 14 September), the Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 146 votes to two with five abstentions.

1. Gist of the Opinion

1.1 With this own-initiative opinion, the European Economic
and Social Committee (EESC) wishes to express its support, soli-
darity and empathy to all civil society organisations in Belarus
working to promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law
and freedom of association and speech — the values on which
the European Union rests — in that country.

1.2
The European Economic and Social Committee expresses
its moral support in particular to civil society organisations
such as non-governmental
legal organisations dealing with
human rights and monitoring the state of democracy and the
rule of law, independent youth organisations, independent foun-
dations, independent associations of workers and entrepreneurs
and independent trade unions working to promote democracy,
human rights, the rule of law and European values in Belarus.

Direct

1.3
interpersonal contacts — for example through
exchanges, especially between young people — play an impor-
In order to
tant role in contacts with Belarus civil society.
support and increase these, the EU and its Member States must
introduce an amenable visa policy for Belarus citizens.

The European Union as a whole should undertake to put
1.4
in place appropriate, comprehensible and targeted information
policies and strategies to explain to Belarus citizens the funda-
mental values of the European Union and how it works.

1.5
EU financial support to civil society in Belarus must be
delivered in appropriate and flexible forms so that it really does
reach those for whom it is intended.

1.6
The European Economic and Social Committee recom-
mends that EU institutions make use of the experience of trans-
formation and the know-how of civil society organisations in
the new Member States when drawing up a strategy for
supporting civil society organisations in Belarus.

darity and empathy to all civil society organisations in Belarus
working to promote democracy, human rights, the rule of law
and freedom of association and speech — the values on which
the European Union rests — in that country.

2.2
The EESC considers it extremely important to have a true
and totally free civil society in Belarus as the prerequisite for
lasting stability and the development of democracy in the
country.

2.3
The EESC expresses its fundamental disapproval of the
actions taken by the Belarus authorities and state and public
administration which culminated in the very opaque and irre-
gular presidential elections of 19 March 2006. The EESC also
deplores the politically manipulated trials of democracy activists
and NGO members who sought merely to exercise their civil
rights in monitoring the course of the presidential elections and
recently received exemplary and unjust sentences (the case of
members of the Partnership NGO).

The EESC points out that Belarus, an immediate neigh-
2.4
bour of the EU,
is currently witnessing politically motivated
violence against its own citizens, the violation of fundamental
human rights and the flouting of
internationally binding
conventions and agreements upholding these rights. The orga-
nised civil societies in the 25 EU Member States find this unac-
ceptable.

2.5
The EESC disapproves of and rejects the persecution and
subsequent criminalisation of those civil society organisations
which have come out against the arbitrary rule of the state
authorities.

2. General introduction

2.1 With this own-initiative opinion, the European Economic
and social Committee (EESC) wishes to express its support, soli-

The aim of this EESC own-initiative opinion is to suggest
2.6
a further course of action by the EU institutions concerning
Belarus and support for civil society in the country. The EU's
strategy for supporting Belarus civil society must be a specific,
feasible and sustainable mid-term strategy, especially now that
interest is beginning to shift away from Belarus
international
following the presidential elections.

C 318/124

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

The opinion also seeks to give European civil society
2.7
organisations a better understanding of the situation in Belarus
and encourage greater interest in how their Belarus partners are
faring and the problems they face, and so pave the way for
them to work together.

3. The situation of civil society in Belarus

3.1
The formal legal framework governing civil society orga-
nisations may appear at first sight adequate and in line with the
standards of modern societies. However, the problem with the
legal framework in Belarus lies in the way the details are inter-
preted and in the obstacles that are artificially created to the
running and registration of civil society organisations. In prac-
tice, this legal framework can easily be used to find pretexts for
refusing registration of civil society organisations that the ruling
regime finds problematic.

3.2
As in every country with an authoritarian or totalitarian
government, Belarus is divided into two parts: an official one
and one which operates at best legally but with restrictions,
semi-legally or illegally. The Belarus authorities politicise these
organisations and associate them with the opposition. However,
the right of citizens to freely associate in order to defend their
individual and common interests is one of the fundamental
rights and European values. ‘Conflicts’ between civil society and
the state are thus common and normal in EU Member States. In
normal democracies, such ‘conflicts’ do not diminish the legiti-
macy of these organisations, but are a means of public involve-
ment and oversight in the running of public affairs.

3.3
A whole series of official organisations operates in
Belarus which are loyal to the regime or directly monitored or
controlled by state bodies. The state passes these organisations
off as ‘Belarus civil society’ (1). On the other side are civil society
organisations which are critical of the regime and, as a result,
are criminalised and in many cases even outlawed.

3.4
Unofficial organisations or associations of citizens, which
must be considered part of civil society, are also operating in
Belarus. Given the nature of their activities, these groups of
active and aware citizens have no chance of becoming official
organisations and are forced to operate unofficially. People who
have come together in this way face victimisation, prosecution,
dismissal from work or expulsion from education. The impor-
tant question is how to help these groups, which, though unoffi-
cial, in many cases make up the core of independent Belarus
civil society.

(1) In a speech delivered on 26 May 2006, President Lukashenko called for

Belarus to build its own model of civil society.

Similarly, a series of civil society organisations continues
3.5
to operate which were refused registration on various grounds
and for a variety of petty, bureaucratic and nonsensical objec-
tions which the Belarus authorities use as a way of formally
eliminating troublesome organisations. These are mostly non-
governmental legal organisations dealing with human rights and
monitoring the state of democracy and the rule of law, indepen-
dent youth organisations, independent foundations, independent
associations of workers and entrepreneurs and independent
trade unions. These organisations are unable to continue oper-
ating as registered legal entities.

Although Belarus has more than 2 500 (2) NGOs in
3.6
total, the number of independent organisations dealing even
marginally with social issues is declining as a result of persecu-
tion, bureaucratic interference and the need to meet new regis-
tration requirements. In the field of human rights, for example,
one of the last organisations operating legally is the Helsinki
Committee, but this has also been facing increasing pressure
from the authorities in recent days.

3.7
The sector of independent associations and groups of
entrepreneurs, industrialists and employers comprises only a few
small organisations (such as ‘Perspektyva’), but their members,
too, are frequently arrested and tried on trumped-up charges.

There

are both official

3.8
trade union organisations
(affiliated to the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus, FTUB),
and an independent trade union movement under the name of
the Belarusian Congress of Democratic Trade Unions. However,
the freedom of association and rights of members of indepen-
dent
trade unions are systematically infringed. The recent
appeal (3) to the European Commission by the European Trade
Union Confederation (ETUC), the International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Confederation of
Labour (WCL) specifically highlighted the violation of
trade
union rights in Belarus.

3.8.1
The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has for
many years criticised and condemned the grave and systematic
violations of the fundamental workers' and trade unions' rights
of Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining (Conven-
tions 87 and 98). A Commission of Inquiry of the Governing
Body of the ILO, set up in 2003, produced a report in 2004,
which condemned the Government's interference in internal
trade union affairs, as well as its anti-trade union regulations
and laws. Since the adoption of the report the ILO has sharply
criticised the Government for not, or only very partially, imple-
menting the recommendations of
the Commission's inquiry.
The recent 95th session of the International Labour Conference
of the ILO (June 2006) urged the Government to take concrete
steps for the implementation of these recommendations so that

(2) European Commission: Country Strategy Paper, National Indicative
Programme, p. 22. Of this figure, around 10 % are purely political in
character.

(3) Belaplan agency, 30 May 2006.

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/125

real and tangible progress could benoted by the November
2006 Governing Body session. If no such progress could be
noted, the Conference trusted that the Governing Body of the
ILO would begin to consider whether further measures under
the ILO Constitution should be taken. Such measures would
include action taken by the International Labour Conference to
recommend member states, employers'
federations and trade
unions to review their relations with Belarus.

The EESC notes, therefore, that in order to change an
4.3
authoritarian regime which seeks to give the impression of
being in control on the ground, day-to-day activities will have to
be supported, often through a policy of incremental steps. This
is work, above all, for Belarus civil society organisations. In a
situation in which even non-political civic organisations are
constrained, their work, too, becomes political.

3.9
The EESC expresses its full support for those Belarus civil
societies which acknowledge European values, do not legitimise
or support the authoritarian regime through their actions and
are in no way associated with it. The EESC calls for similar
support (including financial) from the EU institutions and from
civil society organisations in the Member States.

4.4
EU institutions and Member States must take action on
Belarus and must coordinate and harmonise their strategies for
supporting civil society both among themselves and with other
international donors (foundations and the other governments).

The EESC is also aware, however, of

3.10
the need for
dialogue and discussions with those organisations whose activity
or conduct legitimises the present authoritarian regime and thus
undermines fundamental European values.

3.11
Belarus civil society organisations (working in part with
their partners abroad) must seek in every way to overcome their
own isolation within the society and win its trust by demon-
strating their achievements and their importance for society.

The situation and role of civil society in Belarus is made
3.12
all the more difficult by the fact that many Belarus citizens
acknowledge the legitimacy of the current political
leadership
and lend it their support. Civil society organisations, on the
other hand, do not enjoy great public support and the political
regime manages — not least through its information policy —
to give them a negative image in the eyes of the average Belarus
citizen.

4.5
The potential pros and cons of imposing economic and
other sanctions must be analysed extremely carefully. With
President Lukashenko controlling virtually all the media, the EU
can easily be portrayed to the Belarus population (particularly
those outside the capital, Minsk) as a hostile institution, which
would make the option of a ‘European’ economic and political
orientation for Belarus seem less attractive.

4.6
A distinction must be made between sanctions which
directly affect the population or only those in power. If sanc-
tions are imposed, the form they take must respect this distinc-
tion. Sanctions should not directly affect the Belarus population
itself. On no account is expelling Belarus from the Generalised
System of Preferences (GSP) a sanction, since this is about quali-
fied preferential access to the EU market which is dependent on
respecting basic rules. Furthermore, the Belarus government has
enough time and opportunity to remedy the main complaints
regarding infringement of fundamental trade union rights in the
country.

4. General recommendations on the EU's strategy on

Belarus

4.1
The EESC in essence agrees with, and expresses its
support for, the European Commission, which on 28 May 2004
adopted the Country Strategy Paper: National Indicative Programme
Belarus, 2005-2006. The EESC is particularly interested in, and
supportive of, those points of the Indicative Programme which
refer to EU support for Belarus civil society. The EESC offers its
active participation in consultations to decide the most appro-
priate form for such support.

The EESC also hopes that the European Commission will
4.2
submit a similar programme for
term, since a
number of Belarus organisations are looking for a greater
commitment from the EU in terms of human rights and democ-
racy in their country. Plans and programmes of this kind serve
to motivate and encourage Belarus civil society.

the longer

4.7
Although Belarus is officially included in the European
Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), in the current circumstances the
country cannot yet be offered the full benefits of ENP. The EESC
agrees with the Commission and the Council that the inclusion
of Belarus in the programme should be possible once its autho-
rities have clearly demonstrated their willingness to respect
democratic values and the rule of law. Nevertheless, the Euro-
pean Commission should also prepare a unilateral scenario (or
one drawn up in conjunction with civil society representatives)
in which Belarus would be swiftly included in the ENP in the
event of a fundamental shift in the country's economic and poli-
tical situation. A parallel can be made here with Slovakia when
it was a candidate country in the 1990s under the government
of Vladimír Mečiar (4). A similar approach and flexibility by the
EU towards Belarus would keep the country's civil society
constantly mobilised and offer it an attractive, alternative, ‘Euro-
pean’ scenario.

(4) The EU's pre-accession strategy enabled Slovakia to ‘catch up’ very

quickly with its neighbours, despite its being some years behind.

C 318/126

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2006

Russia has been, is, and will continue to be, one of the
4.8
key influences on, and stakeholders in, Belarus' future. Since
Russia is a declared strategic partner of the European Union,
there must be a policy of dialogue with the country and its poli-
ticians and civil society representatives on the situation in
Belarus.

sations aimed at creating a new financial instrument (European
foundation/agency for democracy) for supporting democratic
forces in countries such as Belarus. This agency should ensure
that vital financial support gets to those organisations which
have no formal status and which are denied registration by the
authorities.

5. Specific problem areas of Belarus civil society and

proposed practical measures

Free media and access to objective and impartial
5.1
information. At present, the regime has a virtual monopoly on
information. Civil society does not have access to the media in
general or to the official media and information channels. Most
of
the independent press has been shut down on various
grounds and what remains is effectively denied access to the
state distribution network. Access to the Internet is also limited
outside the capital Minsk and regional centres, and even there
the connecting charge remains high. The EU's priority should
therefore be to provide, support and strengthen independent
sources of information for the citizens of Belarus and to ensure
that there are uncensored internet servers. Grass-root initiatives
regarding the internet should be supported.

5.2
EU support for Belarus civil society. Despite the EU's
declared priority of supporting civil organisations in Belarus,
there is a whole series of practical and formal obstacles to actu-
to the recipients. The existing EU
ally getting this support
funding procedures are extremely complicated,
lengthy and
costly. The current Financial Regulation should be adjusted to
enable more flexible and user-friendly funding of not only
NGOs, but also unregistered civil
initiatives, especially in the
countries with a hostile environment. The EESC calls for the
Commission,
to
consider easing the existing funding procedure for civil society
while adopting new amendments to the Financial Regulation
and its Implementing Rules. A good way of delivering the help
needed could be to use existing European civil organisation
networks for representing Belarus organisations (including unre-
gistered ones).

the European Parliament and the Council

5.3
The EESC welcomes the recent Commission proposal to
create a separate Financial Regulation for supporting democracy
and human rights throughout the world and to target it at coun-
tries where fundamental freedoms are most at risk. The EESC
hopes it will have the opportunity to comment on this proposal
and that the key principle underlying the instrument will be its
availability to all who need it and flexibility in the way civil
society organisations use it.

The EESC also supports the recent initiatives discussed in
5.4
the European Parliament and among Europe's non-profit organi-

It

is crucial

for the democratic future of Belarus to
5.5
consolidate democratic forces and independent civil society
and to set strategic directions for their further development in
this period following the elections. The EU should concentrate
above all on supporting these elements by working with other
donors and states pursuing the same goals and interests in
Belarus.

Equal access to EU support (not only financial support)
5.6
and to contacts with European institutions must be guaranteed
for both ‘old’ established democratic civil society organisations
in Belarus and for new organisations and initiatives.

5.7
Exchanging information. In contrast to other countries,
there is no European Commission delegation operating in
Belarus, despite an unsuccessful official request to the EU to
open the delegation in Minsk. There is also no network of Euro-
pean Documentation Centres.
is practically impossible to
It
access essential and objective information about the EU, the way
it works and its values and policies. Thought should be given,
therefore, to how to better inform Belarus citizens about the EU
so that a possible ‘European’ course for the country appears
more attractive (5).

5.8
The EU should set about drafting a comprehensive infor-
mation strategy to explain fundamental European values to the
citizens of Belarus. As the European Commission delegation is
still not open in Belarus (the fault lying with the EU), it would
be good for the representations of EU Member States to act
jointly to propagate European values, for example by estab-
lishing a common European centre in Minsk.

5.9
The EESC considers it useful to create the office of EU
special representative for Belarus, as is the case for other
regions (6). This representative, appointed by the EU Member
States, would keep the EU institutions informed of the current
situation in Belarus and of developments in EU-Belarus rela-
tions. The special representative should also coordinate Member
States'
foreign policy on Belarus and propose common EU
measures and procedures regarding Belarus. The special repre-
sentative's other roles should include maintaining contacts with
representatives of Belarus civil society, the democratic opposi-
tion and Belarus official authorities and institutions.

(5) According to a recent public opinion survey, only 1.1 % of Belarus citi-
zens associate a better future with the European Union and 77.7 %
with President Lukashenko.

(6) For example, the EU special representative for Moldavia, Sudan and
the Southern Caucasus. For more information on the role and
importance of EU special representatives, see:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showpage.asp?id=263&lan-
g=en&mode=g

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/127

It also has to be said, however, that awareness in the EU
5.10
of the difficult situation of civil organisations in Belarus is also
inadequate and differs significantly between Member States.

5.11 Maintaining contacts between EU and Belarus civil
the Belarus authorities
In practice,
society organisations.
prevent members of civil society organisations meeting their
partners from the EU and travelling abroad, or at least make it
uncomfortable for them to do so. The obstacles to young
people meeting are particularly problematic. In many cases, the
regime prevents Belarus students from studying abroad and
becoming involved in NGOs. Personal
contacts between
members of civil society organisations from Belarus and the EU
should therefore be one of the priorities of the EU's policy on
Belarus. There is no substitute for personal contacts when it
comes to, for example, passing on information and experience
and providing moral support. The EU should therefore fund
youth and student exchanges, provide scholarships and intern-
ships support to foster joint actions by civil society groups, as
well as targeted assistance to opinion leaders.

5.12
The EESC is greatly concerned at the present visa policy
of individual EU Member States regarding citizens of Belarus.
While EU claims it is attempting to streamline visa procedures
for certain groups of citizens (including representatives of civil
society organisations), in practice Belarus applicants for visas to
EU countries are subjected to flagrant affronts to human dignity
and to humiliation. The length of visa procedures and the fact
that they are often humiliating and undignified (7) for applicants
discredit the values which the EU promotes and on which it
rests in the eyes of Belarus citizens. This, together with the
recent
increased charge made for issuing visas, substantially
curtails contacts between people, including those between repre-
sentatives of civil society organisations.

5.13
The EESC therefore calls on the EU institutions and the
EU Member States to minimise the red tape and the official and

Brussels, 14 September 2006

unofficial barriers for those Belarus applicants for EU entry visas
who respect and abide by the laws in force and to reduce the
charges for issuing them. Member States should consider a
simplified procedure for issuing visas on humanitarian grounds
and for purposes of research and study. The charges should be
in line with local purchasing power in the country where the
application is made. At the same time, care should be taken to
ensure dignified treatment of visa applicants. Only in this way
will the EU send a credible signal to Belarus society that it is
serious in its intention to boost interpersonal relations between
EU and Belarus citizens.

transformation legislation,

5.14
For Belarus civil society organisations, their partners
from the new Member States are a valuable source of know-
how and experience. Most valuable of all is the knowledge and
experience (negative as well as positive) of the transition from a
totalitarian to a democratic regime and what this involves: the
adoption of
the creation of basic
democratic institutions and the principles of the rule of law, the
independent
functioning of a free and civil society and of
media, the creation of a balance between public, private and
civil sectors, the implementation of socio-economic reforms and
reforms of the machinery of state (including the army, police
and judiciary). The EU as a whole should support the transfer of
this ‘transformation’ know-how to Belarus organisations.

5.15
Transfer of experience and skill should not only
involve people travelling out of Belarus: visits to Belarus need to
be arranged, and various activities, seminars, conferences and
round tables with partners from EU countries need to be orga-
nised and held in the country itself. Sufficient scope and
support should be given to the work and activity of private
foundations that carry out and fund such activities. Examples of
good practice and successful models of similar activities with
Ukrainian civil society organisations could serve as examples to
follow.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie Sigmund

(7) A detailed account of these practices and the humiliating procedures
of EU Member State delegations faced by Belarus visa applicants
(verbatim quotes from applicants and accounts of their experiences)
is to be found in the Batory Foundation report ‘Visa Policies of Euro-
pean Union Member States. Monitoring Report’, Warsaw, June 2006,
at http://www.batory.org.pl/english/intl/pub.htm.
An extract by way of illustration: ‘Almost all Consulates did nothing to
ensure suitable conditions for those waiting outside the Consulate, that
is, shelter from rain or snow […] or even a place to sit. This seemingly
minor problem gains in importance when we realise that the waiting
time outside the building can last all night long (the case of the Consu-
lates of France in Belarus).’ (Page 22).