STANDING COMMITTEE 207 SC 05 E   Original: English NAT O   Pa rl ia me n ta ry  As s e mb l y BELARUS International Secretariat     October 2005

207 SC 05 E 1 1. At  the  invitation  of  its  Lithuanian  delegation,  the  NATO  PA  co-organized  a  seminar  in Vilnius  on  Friday  and  Saturday  23  and  24  September  on  the  current  situation  in  Belarus.    The seminar brought together representatives of the democratic opposition and civil society in Belarus with NATO PA members and representatives of other international organizations.  The aim was to assess,  with  the  help  of  the  Belarussian  representatives,  what  further  action  the  international community,  and  particularly  the  NATO  PA,  could  take  that  will  assist  the  country  to  return  to democracy. 2. Members  of  the  Belarus  parliament  have  not  participated  in  the  NATO  PA  since  1997, when  the  status  of  Associate  Member  (granted  in  1991)  was  suspended  as  a  result  of  the increasingly undemocratic activities of the Lukashenko regime. 3. According to the various presentations made at the Vilnius seminar, conditions in Belarus continue to deteriorate. Every aspect of society is strictly controlled by the regime and the private sector is vanishing fast. There is regular harassment at all levels of civic opposition to the regime whether it is media, academia, NGO's, or even local authorities. This harassment is pervasive and relentless and appears in many guises  – impossible regulations, extortionate fees, provocations, beatings, imprisonment and even the ultimate, disappearance.  It succeeds not only in stifling all forms of opposition but also in keeping the Belarus population in ignorance of the outside world. This  total  unawareness  coupled  with  nostalgia  for  the  Soviet  past,  deliberately  encouraged  and exploited by Lukashenko, explains why the regime continues to command support among much of the Belarus population. 4. In  view  of  the  monopoly  on  information,  the  provision  of  alternative  information  for  the Belarus  population  through  external  broadcasting  has  become  a  top  priority.  Such  broadcasting might be done from the neighbouring countries, with involvement of the independent Belarussian journalists. The information should be broadcast in Belarussian as well as Russian languages. 5. The influence of Russia remains key and can also be said to explain the frequently muted reactions   of   certain   member   governments.      President   Putin,   it   was   said,   does   not   like President Lukashenko but he fears revolution even more.  The "encouraging" examples of Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine were discussed but Belarus representatives were quick to point to the many differences that in their view invalidate such comparisons. 6. One positive note from the presentations was the fact that the opposition is attempting to create a degree of unity and planned at the forthcoming Congress to select a single candidate for the elections in 2006.  (This turned out to be the case and in early October, over 800 delegates from    the    country’s    main    opposition    groups    and    nongovernmental    organizations    chose Alyaksandr Milinkevich to run against President Lukashenko.) 7. There  was  agreement  among  the  leaders  of  the  Belarussian  opposition  that  contact  with the  higher  echelons  of  the  Belarus  regime  -  the  President  and  his  ministers,  including  the parliament - should be strongly resisted: it was felt that they were “nothing more than puppets”, and any  official  contacts  would  be  used  to  strengthen  the  image  of  Lukashenko  in  the  eyes  of Belarussians as an important international figure. Since the policies of Western governments and international  organizations  have  failed  to  bring  any  benefits  to  the  cause  of  democratisation  in Belarus, the seminar tabled, among other things, proposals to discuss the possibility of looking for constructive cooperation with some Belarus officials. 8. It was agreed that all international organizations should keep the issue on their agendas in order  to  maximise  pressure  on  President  Lukashenko.  Parliamentary  organizations,  it  was  also agreed,  have  less  leverage  than  their  governmental  counterparts,  however,  they  have  greater freedom  to  express  views  more frankly. Their principal  contribution  lies  in  raising  and  sustaining public    and    parliamentary    awareness.    These    interparliamentary    efforts    should    be    better

204 SC 04 E 2 coordinated.  However,  as  real  influence  lies  with  governments,  a  better  synergy  should  be achieved between the executive and legislative approaches. 9. Among  the  NATO  PA  participants  at  the  seminar,  there  was  general  agreement  that  the democratic forces in Belarus should receive active support and encouragement. However, it is not evident   how   this   could   be   achieved.      The   following   options   were   suggested   as   meriting consideration by the Standing Committee. Examine  the  possibility  of  NATO  PA  activities  in  Belarus  itself,  but  without going through formal channels and avoiding contact with the regime.  At first sight this would appear to be impractical.  Nevertheless, two possibilities could be looked at. a) Visits by NATO PA members to Belarus, it was agreed, would be helpful.  However, as these should avoid formal contacts, they could be difficult to organize. b) Likewise,  a  Vilnius-type  seminar  with  representatives  of  civil  society  would  be welcomed, but would be subject to the same constraints above. The feasibility of the above options could be investigated with the advice and help of the Lithuanian mission in Minsk (the NATO-lead Embassy) and also in consultation with NATO to see if any of the low level activities of PfP cooperation could be used for such purposes. In the event that activities in Belarus are not feasible, a further Vilnius-type meeting could be foreseen in Vilnius or another equally accessible venue. The Standing Committee could consider whether, how, and in what form to make Belarus a regular  part  of  the  Assembly's  agenda,  in  which  case  the  Political  Committee  or  the Committee on the Civil Dimension of Security could be asked to take it on. In  view  of  the  urgency  of  the  existing situation,  the  Assembly’s  President,  in  consultation with  the  Lithuanian  delegation,  considered  it  appropriate  to  invite  representatives  of  the democratic  opposition  and  civil  society  to  the  annual  session  in  Copenhagen.    The Standing  Committee  should  consider  whether  this  should  be  done  on  a  regular  basis  in order   to   allow   them   to   further   internationalize   their   situation.   Belarus   "opposition" representatives were invited in the past but the practice was stopped in 2001 because of disagreements over who to invite. Belarus  could  also  be  made  the  subject  of  a  NATO-Russia  Parliamentary  Committee meeting. In Copenhagen, the Committee is discussing the situation in the Caucasus with the NATO Special Representative as speaker. However, the intention of putting Belarus on the agenda at future meetings could be raised. ________________________