[Joint House and Senate Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress Printed for the use of the
1st Session Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
ENGAGING BELARUS ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 21, 2017
Briefing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
______________________________________________________________________
Washington: 2017
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
234 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-1901
[email protected]
http://www.csce.gov
@HelsinkiComm
Legislative Branch Commissioners
HOUSE SENATE
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ROGER WICKER, Mississippi,
Co-Chairman Chairman
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida BENJAMIN L. CARDIN. Maryland
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas CORY GARDNER, Colorado
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARCO RUBIO, Florida
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TOM UDALL, New Mexico
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
Executive Branch Commissioners
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Helsinki process, formally titled the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe, traces its origin to the signing of the
Helsinki Final Act in Finland on August 1, 1975, by the leaders of 33
European countries, the United States and Canada. As of January 1,
1995, the Helsinki process was renamed the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE]. The membership of the OSCE has
expanded to 56 participating States, reflecting the breakup of the
Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia.
The OSCE Secretariat is in Vienna, Austria, where weekly meetings
of the participating States' permanent representatives are held. In
addition, specialized seminars and meetings are convened in various
locations. Periodic consultations are held among Senior Officials,
Ministers and Heads of State or Government.
Although the OSCE continues to engage in standard setting in the
fields of military security, economic and environmental cooperation,
and human rights and humanitarian concerns, the Organization is
primarily focused on initiatives designed to prevent, manage and
resolve conflict within and among the participating States. The
Organization deploys numerous missions and field activities located in
Southeastern and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The
website of the OSCE is: .
ABOUT THE COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE
The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as
the Helsinki Commission, is a U.S. Government agency created in 1976 to
monitor and encourage compliance by the participating States with their
OSCE commitments, with a particular emphasis on human rights.
The Commission consists of nine members from the United States
Senate, nine members from the House of Representatives, and one member
each from the Departments of State, Defense and Commerce. The positions
of Chair and Co-Chair rotate between the Senate and House every two
years, when a new Congress convenes. A professional staff assists the
Commissioners in their work.
In fulfilling its mandate, the Commission gathers and disseminates
relevant information to the U.S. Congress and the public by convening
hearings, issuing reports that reflect the views of Members of the
Commission and/or its staff, and providing details about the activities
of the Helsinki process and developments in OSCE participating States.
The Commission also contributes to the formulation and execution of
U.S. policy regarding the OSCE, including through Member and staff
participation on U.S. Delegations to OSCE meetings. Members of the
Commission have regular contact with parliamentarians, government
officials, representatives of non-governmental organizations, and
private individuals from participating States. The website of the
Commission is: .
ENGAGING BELARUS ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
July 21, 2017
Page
PARTICIPANTS
Scott Rauland, Senior State Department Advisor, Commission for
Security and Cooperation in Europe ..................................................... 1
Stephen Nix, Eurasia Division Director, International Republican
Institute, Washington .................................................................. 3
Katie Fox, Deputy Regional Director for Eurasia Programs, National
Democratic Institute, Washington ....................................................... 5
Sanaka Samarasinha, United Nations Chief in Belarus .................................... 7
Pavel Shidlovsky, Charge d'Affaires, Embassy of the Republic of
Belarus in the United States ........................................................... 9
APPENDIX
Prepared statement of Stephen Nix ...................................................... 19
Prepared statement of Katie Fox ........................................................ 25
ENGAGING BELARUS ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY
----------
JULY 21, 2017
The briefing was held at 10:31 p.m. in room G11, Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC, Scott Rauland, Senior State Department
Advisor, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, moderating.
Panelists present: Scott Rauland, Senior State Department Advisor,
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Stephen Nix, Eurasia
Division Director, International Republican Institute, Washington;
Katie Fox, Deputy Regional Director for Eurasia Programs, National
Democratic Institute, Washington; Sanaka Samarasinha, United Nations
Chief in Belarus; and Pavel Shidlovsky, Charge d'Affaires, Embassy of
the Republic of Belarus in the United States.
Mr. Rauland. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of the
Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Roger Wicker, and Co-Chairman
Representative Chris Smith, I'd like to welcome you all to our briefing
on ``Engaging Belarus on Human Rights and Democracy.'' My name is Scott
Rauland and I'm the Senior State Department Advisor for the Helsinki
Commission. I served for two years as the chief of mission at the U.S.
embassy in Minsk, where I had an opportunity to see firsthand the work
being done to promote greater respect for human right and democracy by
the U.N., the National Democratic Institute [NDI], the International
Republican Institute [IRI], USAID, and many other organizations,
working both in Belarus and abroad.
I just returned from a week in Belarus, attending the 2017 annual
session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. That provided hundreds of
parliamentarians from throughout the OSCE region an opportunity to
engage the government of Belarus and leading democracy and human rights
activists. The Helsinki Commission's mandate is to monitor and
encourage compliance with the Helsinki Final Act and subsequent OSCE
commitments, especially in the human dimension. The Helsinki
Commission's Belarus activities have included hearings, public
briefings, congressional resolutions, press releases, direct contacts
with Belarusian officials, as well as, of course, with the democratic
opposition and civil society.
But the most visible expression of Congress' interest and concern
has been the now three iterations of the Belarus Democracy Act, public
laws signed by President Bush in 2004 and 2006, and most recently the
Belarus Democracy and Human Rights Act of 2011, signed by President
Obama. It's rare for countries, at least those in which there's not a
war or some other major crisis, to get that kind of attention in
Congress. Each of the three Belarus democracy acts was authorized by
Representative Chris Smith, the co-chairman of the Helsinki Commission.
And I'd like to list just a few of the highlights for you before we
begin.
The Belarus Democracy Acts stated a U.S. policy of strong
support for the Belarusian people to live in a free and independent
country with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, sending the
signal of solidarity with the Belarusian people.
They call for the cessation of human rights abuses, and
the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners--a goal
which was realized in 2015--and the restoration of their rights.
They call for targeted sanctions, including visa denials
and blocking of the assets of senior officials and those engaged in
human rights and electoral abuses, and the undermining of democratic
institutions, and economic sanctions against major state-owned
enterprises.
At the same time, the legislation explicitly opens the door to the
reevaluation of U.S. policy towards the Belarusian government should it
take steps toward democracy and respect for human rights. A
congressional delegation led by Senator Wicker which just returned from
Minsk on July 8th made that clear, both in press engagements and in
meetings with President Lukashenko and with civil society leaders that
the U.S. is willing to move forward under the new U.S. administration
if we see progress being made by the government of Belarus on key
democracy and human rights issues.
So what are the prospects for us being able to move forward? To
answer that question, we have assembled a great panel for you today of
people who have been working on Belarus for years. Let me quickly turn
to introducing our speakers, who are going to give us a good overview
and a basis on which to have a discussion. We're very much looking
forward to the participation of our audience in a question-and-answer
session that will follow their presentations.
On my far left, and on your far right, Sanaka Samarasinha has
served in his current capacity as head of the U.N. in Minsk since
January 2013. Before coming to Minsk, Mr. Samarasinha has served in
various offices of the U.N. and the United Nations Development
Programme [UNDP], including as senior advisor to the U.N. resident
coordinator in Iran, and deputy resident representative of the UNDP in
Myanmar. Sanaka and I were both working in Minsk when Belarus released
all of its political prisoners in 2015. And Sanaka also convinced me to
join in a unique train ride around Belarus promoting U.N. projects.
Very few Western diplomats can match his years on the ground in Belarus
and contacts with human rights and democracy activists and government
of Belarus officials.
Katie Fox is deputy director of the Eurasia Department at NDI. Ms.
Fox oversees NDI election monitoring, civic organizing, and political
party development programs in the former Soviet Union with a focus on
Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and Moldova. I had the pleasure of meeting
Katie in 2014 before I began my assignment in Belarus, and found the
overview I got on activities there very helpful to me as I began my
work there.
Stephen Nix joined IRI in October 2000 as regional program director
for Eurasia. In that position, he oversees programs in Belarus,
Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine. Mr. Nix
joined IRI after serving for two years as senior democracy specialist
at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Mr. Nix is a
specialist in political party development and judicial and legal reform
in the former Soviet Union.
As you can see, we have three highly qualified experts to provide
us an overview. After we've heard from them, I'll moderate a question-
and-answer session. So let us start in reverse order with you, Steve,
if you don't mind.
Mr. Nix. Good morning. Thank you, Scott, for the introduction. I'd
like to begin by thanking Senator Wicker and Representative Smith for
their leadership on this Commission and the fact that this Commission
is again focusing attention on a very important country. Belarus is
important to the strategic interests of the United States for a number
of reasons: Belarus' cooperation militarily and economically with
Russia, and also due to the increased West presence in the Baltics and
the area. So, again, thank you for this opportunity and I ask that my
remarks be entered into the record.
I'm the Eurasian Director for the International Republican
Institute, a not-for-profit democracy-building organization based in
Washington and working in over 80 countries throughout the world. Our
roots harken back to Ronald Reagan, whose unshakable belief in
democracy was one of his principal aims and doctrines while president.
I'll start by saying that we certainly applaud Belarus' expressed
intent at engagement, but we've seen very little concrete action taken
on the issues that the United States has offered in terms of
engagement. These issues include amending the election code,
registering political parties, and halting the practice of arresting
citizens for political activity. In reality, democratic reforms in
Belarus, including economic freedoms, remain stagnant and rarely move
beyond the level of roundtables or diplomatic discussions.
As evidenced most recently in February and March of this year,
raids of human rights defenders' offices and mass detentions of
opposition activists still occur in Belarus. If we look at the level of
freedoms enjoyed by citizens of Belarus, very little has changed. The
OSCE notes that elections are undemocratic and do not meet
international standards. The most recent Freedom House ``Freedom of the
World Report'' classifies Belarus as ``not free,'' largely due to human
rights violations and incursions on media freedoms. The government owns
Belarus' sole internet service provider, and often blocks independent
media sites, as it did during the protests that I noted.
At the beginning of this year, Belarusian citizens, unable to
secure jobs, began receiving notices that they owed money for what's
known as the ``parasite tax.'' This unemployment tax triggered
discontent and pockets of protests and resulted in major protests in
five large cities, with thousands taking to the streets across the
nation throughout the months of February and March. Police and security
forces in Belarus aggressively attacked these peaceful protests. They
caused injuries to hundreds.
More than 1,000 opposition demonstrators, political and civil
society activists, and community leaders were arrested during this
crackdown. Many of the protestors, middle-aged working-class residents
of regional cities, actually form the base that voted for President
Lukashenko in the past. Their participation in these protests is
indicative of a growing feeling of betrayal and of economic
desperation, and shows a fracturing in society.
Regarding pro-democratic opposition, on the other hand, we are
seeing steps. I want to discuss two key examples. The first is the
United Civic Party, which has succeeded in having one of its members,
Anna Kanopatskaya, be elected to the Belarus Parliament in 2016. Those
elections were not deemed free and fair, and the parliament is under
heavy executive control. Nonetheless, Ms. Kanopatskaya has made a name
for herself providing insight as to how the state is run, and using her
position to highlight certain issues, to travel to the regions, in an
effort to connect citizens with their government.
The other example is Tell the Truth, or Havary Pravdu, a citizen
action group led by Tatyana Karatkevich, who challenged Lukashenko as
the only opposition candidate in the 2015 presidential election. While
the official election result from the CEC listed Karatkevich as
receiving 4.4 percent of the vote, independent polling showed that
nearly 20 percent of voters supported her candidacy. The same polling
showed that Lukashenko's result was only 51 percent--far different than
that reported by the CEC.
Since that campaign, Karatkevich has continued to be active
politically, and using her strong name ID by traveling and advocating
on local issues, talking to small business owners, urging municipal and
local ministry officials to meet with citizen groups, and raising
awareness of social service problems. These two women represent change
in Belarus. The work of Kanopatskaya and Karatkevich, and the
community-level work of hundreds of activists, show that the citizens
of Belarus are looking for ways to improve their lives.
This spring we saw segments of the entire population becoming
active in protesting. Belarusians have discovered the power of
unifying, standing together, to drive change. More and more people are
finding the courage to stand up for a better life. Further fostering
this civic activity requires a localized approach. And next year's
municipal elections, preliminarily planned for February of 2018,
provide an important opportunity for change in Belarus. Should the
government allow free and fair elections in 2018, we would expect to
see a number of victories by the political opposition. That type of a
result would be convincing evidence that the Government of Belarus is
committed to conducting open and competitive elections.
IRI has assisted pro-democratic forces in their struggle for
democratic change since 1997. We have programs to help political
parties refine their message, connect up with constituents, and discuss
issues that are of importance to the citizens of Belarus. These
programs are the foundation of IRI's mission to support democratic
organizations, and help their leaders and activists prepare for public
policy roles in a future democratic Belarus.
And responding to developing trends in the country, IRI has shifted
its programmatic focus in the last few years to community-level
activism. IRI firmly believes that the future development of Belarus
depends on unleashing the potential of its citizens, allowing people to
speak, assemble, and earn a living in the way they see fit. IRI also
works to support political participation by the youth in Belarus which,
as we all know, represents the future. Many in this generation see
their country falling behind regional neighbors, who have made great
strides in development and exposure to the ideas and practices of
democracy. We think this is a key step in providing context for these
future leaders.
So, in sum, IRI will continue to monitor the limited democratic
space that exists in Belarus, and will continue to work with the
opposition to find ways to continue their struggle for democratic and
true change in Belarus. Thank you for this opportunity and I'll be
happy to respond to any questions.
Mr. Rauland. Thank you for presenting IRI's views on the current
situation in Belarus so well, Steve. We really appreciate that.
Let's move on to Katie Fox from NDI.
Ms. Fox. Thank you, Scott. And thanks to the Commission for holding
this briefing today.
As Steve said, Belarus is an important country; it borders the EU
and NATO and is in the heart of Europe, and can sometimes be
overshadowed by its larger neighbors. NDI has been working in Belarus,
exchanging ideas with, and responding to advice from democratic parties
and civil society since 2000. I agree entirely with what Steve said;
that Belarus is not today a free or democratic society, for all the
reasons that you mentioned, Steve. I'm going to focus my time, rather
than repeating that, to expand a little bit on some of the modest
openings that may be available, that may be leveraged, to make
ultimately broader democratic gains, using a mixture of aid and
engagement.
So what are those openings? First, there is growing evidence that
the Belarusian Government is not monolithic. As Steve mentioned, there
were two opposition members essentially appointed to parliament in what
were very flawed elections in 2016. However, once there, they have
found support among their colleagues for opening up the parliamentary
body in some ways, such as to public hearings and meetings with voters.
There are also meetings taking place, I believe, between opposition
parties and members of parliament on such issues as health care and
drug abuse.
Also, in regard to the parasite tax--the so-called parasite tax and
the protests against it--as Steve pointed out, the government did react
with arrests, as they usually do. But it's important to also note that
they made some concessions to a movement that was clearly grassroots
and had support throughout the region. The government offered meetings
or receptions with citizens, and they narrowed the scope of those
affected by the tax.
The second point I want to make is to pick up on what Steve said in
regard to potential democratic openings. As Steve mentioned, the
official polling data on the last presidential election in 2015 was
different from polling which NDI and IRI analyzed, which showed that
the vote for the opposition candidate was somewhat higher, and,
importantly, that she was reaching people outside of the traditional
opposition electorate, people who had not voted for the opposition
before--young people, women, urbanites--who responded to her message of
peaceful change, showing that that electorate can be expanded.
So then the last potential opening and positive sign I want to
focus on is the growth and development of the democratic parties, which
Steve also mentioned, and their reaction to the parasite tax. The
parties in Belarus have often been criticized for being insufficiently
attentive to the concerns of ordinary Belarusians. But in this case,
they knew that this tax was important to their constituents long before
the protests broke out. They held meetings with citizens. They
incorporated their positions on the tax into their parliamentary
election campaigns. And that's growth.
In addition, we saw in the last elections the parties organizing in
a more professional manner. We saw the democratic parties increasingly
refraining from attacks on each other. And finally, we saw that party
coalitions that previously existed only on paper were being replaced by
smaller, but more pragmatic and genuine, coalitions of parties with
shared ideologies.
With that in mind, I would like to take a few minutes to offer some
thoughts on future engagement in Belarus. Diplomacy, including that of
multilateral groups like the OSCE, will be most effective if it, first,
focuses on systemic changes as conditions for greater engagement with
the Belarusian Government. There's great humanitarian value in prisoner
releases, but of course new prisoners can always be taken and held as
bargaining chips. Whereas systemic changes, such as allowing the
registration of parties, removing the penalties for assembly and other
legitimate political activities and reforming the electoral code to
ensure real competition, would help to lay the building blocks for long
term, sustainable progress.
And in regard to these systemic changes, particular emphasis should
be placed on the electoral system reforms recommended by the OSCE, as
well as independent Belarusian monitoring groups such as Human Rights
Defenders for Free Elections and the Right to Choose Coalition. These
recommendations include opposition representation at all precinct
election commissions, full access for party and nonpartisan observers
to report on the vote counting and tabulation processes.
And finally, in the realm of diplomacy, it is important that
dialogue and engagement continues, but prioritizes outreach to civil
society and parties, as well as the government. And I commend the OSCE
PA for doing that in a very effective way, and bringing those groups
into the room on that recent trip.
Finally, a couple of quick words on the role of outside assistance
to Belarus. We recommend that it should--in this period of relative,
even if limited, opening of political space--it should be focused on
helping democratic parties and civic groups take advantage of that
opening to grow. It should enable them to attract new supporters,
present alternative ideas, and identify and reach out to youth and
other potential new democratic voters.
Second, assistance should treat information warfare like the urgent
international security threat that it is. As Russian speakers,
Belarusians are consumers of the propaganda and disinformation that
permeates the Russian language information space. This makes it vitally
important that there is support for the few sources of independent
information that Belarusians get. There is, for example, Tut.by, a
large independent news portal. NDI has also helped to start e-Pramova,
which is an online platform for discussion and debate, including on
politically themed issues, which reaches more than 700,000 Belarusians
each month.
In conclusion, I am going to quote from a Belarusian democratic
leader, who said: ``We ask the U.S. to support our goals--democracy,
social stability, and a better life for Belarusians. To support these
goals by maintaining a dialogue with both opposition and government,
and with aid programs that give civil society, independent media, and
democratic movements inspiration and vision. With this, we can bring
peaceful changes for our country.''
Thank you very much.
Mr. Rauland. Thank you very much for your testimony, Katie. I'm
glad to see that you and Steve both emphasized the opportunities that
we have in 2018 with the local elections. I hope that's something that
policymakers both here and in Europe can focus on in the months ahead.
Thank you also for mentioning future engagement, what you see there as
possibilities, and for bringing up that question of information
warfare. These may be topics we can come back to in the question-and-
answer session.
And now I'd like to turn the floor over to Sanaka Samarasinha to
tell us a little bit about what the U.N. is doing in Belarus, and what
your perspectives are on where things are at, and the opportunities for
us moving forward.
Mr. Samarasinha. Thank you very much, Scott. And thank you as well
to the Helsinki Commission for bringing me back to what I consider to
be my second home. As Scott knows, I went to university here and I was
a Maryland law student, amongst other things, and attended George
Washington University. So it's nice to be back. It's not often that the
U.N. gives me the opportunity to come to D.C. They keep bringing me to
New York, but I'd prefer to come to D.C. more often.
That said, I also want to say thank you to my colleagues here at
the table, because I think they've given you a pretty accurate picture
of the issues and the challenges that face Belarus and Belarusians on a
daily basis. In my short presentation, let me try to focus, if you
will, on the engagement dimension. Since we've acknowledged that
Belarus has human rights challenges, then the question is, what do we
do about it and how do we do it in such a way that actually gets us, if
even incremental progress, progress.
The U.N. has been working in Belarus for 25 years this year and its
focus has been on development activities. So going back to the early
years, it was post-Chernobyl. There was quite a lot of focus on health
and economic development of Chernobyl-affected communities. Belarus
happens to be in the only region in the world where HIV is on the
increase--Russia, Ukraine, Belarus. This is mostly because of injecting
drug use. And so the U.N.'s been working for many years on dealing with
these issues, dealing also with the stigma of people who are most at
risk--men having sex with men, female sex workers. As you can imagine,
this is not an easy subject, but it has been something that Belarus and
the U.N. have been working closely on for many years.
Another area that has been the focus on our work is on fighting
human trafficking for some years, with a degree of success. Now, the
degree of success may differ depending on who you ask, but it has been
a significant area of work where the U.N.'s been working with a whole
range of stakeholders. Refugees, there are a number of refugees, as you
know, recently who have been coming over from Ukraine, from Syria, from
Afghanistan. And so the U.N. refugee agency works there. Children's
rights, juvenile justice, and environmental rights--these are
traditionally the areas where we've been engaged for many years.
Now, when I first came to Belarus in January of 2013, I still
recollect a very well-meaning person--who turned out then subsequently
to become a friend--this senior official told me something as I was
going to have my first meeting with the foreign minister. He said,
well, you know, Sanaka, we know that you have a human rights
background, and have been a journalist, but I think it would be very
good if you don't mention human rights in your meeting. And I actually
was a little taken aback. I think it was very well meant. I think the
idea was, listen, don't start off your very first meeting by talking
about human rights. And I thought it was very important that I did. The
reason was that I wanted it to be clear that the U.N.'s work must
involve working on human rights, as it did in every country, not just
in Belarus.
And so it needed to be clear. It needed to be up front. And I also
wanted it to be clear that I was not there, in my particular role, with
a big stick. There are parts of the U.N. which have a particular role--
as you know, Belarus is part of several U.N. treaty bodies. It's part
of the Human Rights Council. Currently, for the last five years, there
is a special rapporteur who has been appointed by the Human Rights
Council specifically for Belarus, who has not been able to come into
the country for many years--although he was in with Scott and me in
Minsk at the same time recently, not in his capacities specifically as
special rapporteur, but as a Hungarian delegate to the OSCE PA annual
meeting. But nevertheless, Belarus did let him into the country.
But my job, I felt, was to remind Belarus of the obligations that
it has voluntarily signed onto, and to help find ways in which they
could live up to those obligations. And this is the job of any U.N.
representative in any country. And so it was not going to be any
different in Belarus. So from that first meeting, where I was advised
not to mention human rights, it really is quite interesting for me now
that two weeks ago--Scott, you were there--when during President
Lukashenko`s opening speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE
he focused on human rights--on the death penalty issue and on the
national human rights action plan.
So one of the ways--one of the things that struck me from the very
beginning that needed to be done, was to find a space for people to
talk to each other, because I got a very early feeling that this
understanding of human rights was very different depending on who you
talk to--within the country to start with, but of course also in terms
of the different countries. And so one of the tasks that I went ahead
and set for myself, is to try to build dialogue between countries--to
try to build dialogue that went beyond the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
because if the business of human rights was simply in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, it is clear this is simply for external consumption.
And I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs--and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs--is also very keen that others in the government
understood that human rights should not be the domain simply of the
opposition or the NGOs, but human rights must be, first and foremost,
the business of the government of every country, because it is for the
people of the country, who the government represents and services in
response to the needs of the people. So this is one.
Second, I felt that it was really important not to focus
selectively on this human right or that human right. Governments
typically would like to focus on the socioeconomic and maybe cultural
rights, depending on the country. And external partners, opposition
politicians, and NGOs like to focus on civil and political rights. This
happens in Sri Lanka. It happened in the United States, everywhere. So
it was really important to understand that human rights cannot be
divided. Human rights cannot be selected. Human rights are universal.
And it doesn't depend on which country you're in or what cultural
background you have.
And the third thing--and then I've got one more thing to say after
that--and the third thing is that I've also discovered--this is not
unusual. It happens in my country too, in Sri Lanka. But I also
discovered that one of the key things I need to try to do is find a
safe space for Belarusians to talk and listen to each other. It seemed
to me, that Belarusians when they disagree, no matter who they are--
whether they're government or opposition or NGOs or private sector--
when they disagree, they prefer to talk to us, the international
community, foreigners, even if we disagree with them.
And so we needed to find a safe space to do that. And we worked
very hard--in the Q&A we can get into it--we worked very hard to do
that, and organized several events. I think these are first--the
stepping stones to something greater.
And I just want to finish off then with what I considered to be
some key principals. Scott said to me, give some examples, because I
know you have them, for each of them. But I'm running out of time, so
I'm just going to give you the principles and certainly in the Q&A we
can get to the examples.
I think the most important thing, for me, in my almost five years
in Belarus, is you've got to be principled, but you've got to be
patient. I thought it is critically important also to be respectful and
to be constructive. Then I think you can't do this business of human
rights, of course, unless you believe in it in the first place. But you
have to be consistent about what you believe and what you say, and you
have to be transparent.
And I think the context of countries like Belarus is important. I
don't speak Russian, I knew very little about the Soviet Union space, I
come from an island, Belarus is landlocked, I like spices in my food
and I can say that's one thing I miss in Minsk. [Laughter.] So what did
I know of? What did I have in common in Belarus? A hell of a lot, it
turns out. And over the years, I've discovered that Belarusians, like
us Sri Lankans and Americans, are creative. So if you want to do human
rights in Belarus, you've got to be creative too.
I'll stop there. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Rauland. Well, thank you very much for your presentation,
Sanaka. And I hope that people will feel inclined to ask Sanaka to talk
about some of the examples of the principles he named. I think those
are not only good principles for doing human rights work in Belarus and
elsewhere, but are pretty good principles for being successful in life.
I'd like to thank all three of our panelists for your
presentations. This is really a great way for us to get into our
question-and-answer session. But I have a bonus round for you before we
get there. We have the Belarusian Charge d'Affaires with us today. We'd
like to give him the opportunity to share the viewpoint of the
government of Belarus on this topic.
So, Pavel, if you'd like to join us--Pavel Shidlovsky, the
Belarusian Charge d'Affaires, please deliver your statement.
Mr. Shidlovsky. Dear friends, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I
would like to thank the Helsinki Commission and Scott Rauland in
particular for the invitation to speak at this briefing, which I
believe is both important and timely.
I take this event as an indication that the Helsinki Commission and
U.S. Congress and Government have Belarus on their mind and are seeking
ways to expand engagement with it. We can only welcome that, and my job
is to make sure that the proposals expressed here today will be
received and considered in Minsk.
As other countries of the former Soviet Union, Belarus appeared on
the political map of Europe just recently. And the U.S. was the second
country in the world to establish, 25 years ago, diplomatic relations
with Belarus, and we value that. During this historically short period
of time, we have built a truly independent country which forges a
mutually beneficially model of cooperation with all states, in
particular with its neighbors, which pursues a consistent, multi-vector
foreign policy, one of engagement, not of estrangement--which tries to
balance its interests between various poles of power in the currently
unstable geopolitical environment, which spurns the false choice
between West and East.
Twenty years ago, Belarus unilaterally and unconditionally
relinquished possession of nuclear weapons. And I believe that this
strategic decision has positively influenced stability and security in
the world, and relations with Europe and the United States. On many
occasions, Belarus has proven its reputation of a security donor.
Together with the U.S., and with European partners, we seek to deliver
our input to managing global and regional problems, countering modern
challenges and threats. Recently Belarus has intensified its efforts to
establish tight defense cooperation with all neighbors, and with the
United States. And it is in that spirit of cooperation and transparency
that we invited representatives of NATO, among other countries and
regions, to observe the Belarus-Russia strategic joint exercise, Zapad
2017 in September this year.
Belarus has demonstrated a desire for more active participation in
regional and international activity. We provided a venue for the Minsk
agreements [on Ukraine], and for the trilateral working group. The
Minsk agreements are universally considered as the only tool for
resolving the situation in eastern Ukraine. We have just held the 26th
annual session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE. All 57 OSCE
participating states sent their national delegations. Hosting this
marquee event, Belarus aimed to promote the assembly's efforts to
bridge differences and re-establish trust in the OSCE region. The Minsk
session was called one of the smoothest sessions ever. The head of the
U.S. delegation, the Honorable Senator Roger Wicker, praised the high
level of organization of the session.
The president of Belarus suggested launching a discussion in the
OSCE on a new Helsinki process during the annual meeting. A number of
resolutions were adopted at the session on such topical issues as
combatting terrorism and human trafficking, managing flows of refugees,
and countering religious discrimination. They became part of the Minsk
declaration. Belarus sponsored a resolution on measures against new
psychoactive substances, which was adopted all but unanimously. I'm
pleased to say that one of 44 co-sponsors was Congressman Chris Smith.
Belarus organized two side events on new psychoactive substances and on
combatting trafficking in persons. Chris Smith was the keynote speaker
at the trafficking in persons side event. The Swedish delegation
initiated a side event on the situation in Belarus.
I say all that to demonstrate to you that at these events civil
society representatives were present and did show the openness of
Belarus to engagement with civil society, including on human rights.
OSCE Assembly Secretary-General Roberto Montella thanked Belarus for
its hospitality, openness for dialogue, and sometimes for criticism.
Minsk reaffirmed its status as a venue for effective convocation of the
largest international fora.
Belarus has always regarded normalization of relations with the
United States as a priority of its foreign policy. Yes, we have had our
ups and downs, but never had the leadership of Belarus underestimated
the importance of full-fledged engagement with the U.S. We enjoy
positive momentum in relations with your country. We have developed a
constructive dialogue on political, security, nonproliferation, law
enforcement, trade, interregional, and, of course, human rights issues.
We are committed to continuing, with the Trump Administration, the path
that we have started with predecessors. We are grateful to the U.S. for
making this rapprochement possible, for supporting our sovereignty and
independence. Belarus and the European Union have already achieved
tangible results in our bilateral cooperation.
That now includes the launching of a Belarus-EU coordination group
and mobility partnerships, intensification of political contacts,
sectoral dialogues, cooperation with European financial institutions,
and engagement in the field of international technical assistance. We
held three human rights dialogues with the United States. Yesterday in
Brussels, the Belarusian delegation conducted the next round of our
human rights dialogue between Belarus and the European Union. We have
identified goals with our Western partners--we have identical goals
with our Western partners regarding protection and promotion of human
rights. The only difference is the pace of reforms. We cannot change
the situation momentarily.
The national human rights action plan adopted at the level of the
president in Belarus is a crucial element of our framework for the
protection of citizens' rights and freedoms. We have established a high
level advisory group on the rule of law and access to justice. Belarus
has set up an interagency group of experts to analyze recommendations
of the OSCE ODIHR, and to further improve electoral law. Belarus has no
backlog concerning reports on human rights treaty bodies of the United
Nation. Belarus successfully passed two cycles of the universal
periodic review on human rights. And we took 160 recommendations out of
260. And 100 we could not take because of either lack of resources or
lack of competence.
I will stop here, because I hate to stand between you and the
distinguished panelists--but I'm happy to answer your questions on a
one-on-one basis, if you are interested to learn more on these
subjects.
Thank you.
Mr. Rauland. Thank you very much, Pavel, for your views on this,
the views of the Government of Belarus, and for mentioning the OSCE
Parliamentary Assembly. Belarus`s management of the event really was an
impressive performance. The American delegation was very impressed with
the organization, with the opportunities for engagement, with not only
the Government of Belarus but at the Swedish side event you mentioned,
where a full range of people belonging to the opposition parties, to
the media, to human rights activists participated. So congratulations
on a job very well done.
OK, now I want to, again, thank everybody for their contributions
to the first part of the briefing this morning. And I want to open it
up to the audience now for your questions. This is being streamed live
on Facebook Live. So we will come around with a microphone for you so
that everybody following on Facebook Live can hear what it is you have
to ask our distinguished panel here.
So if you would raise your hand if you want to ask a question. And
also, if you can tell us who you are and what organization you
represent, that would be very helpful to all of us.
Do we have a first question out there? Up front here--most of us
here know you, but go ahead and let the worldwide audience know who you
are.
Questioner. Orest Deychakiwsky, until relatively recently a policy
advisor with the Helsinki Commission who covered Belarus, among other
things.
Thank you very much for your very comprehensive presentations. I
want to start drilling down just on one subject that Katie raised, and
that is the influence of Russian propaganda and the Russian media space
being extremely prevalent in Belarus. You mentioned the important role
of independent media to counter that. I was wondering if any of you
could comment on the role of international broadcasting as well, let's
say the Belsats or Radio Liberties or even any kind of EU media
outlets, because arguably from a geopolitical perspective they've
become even more important now, given certain realities, to counter the
Russian propaganda effort.
Thank you.
Ms. Fox. Thank you, Orest.
That's a very good question. And I should have mentioned when I
spoke that you're right, broadcast is very, very important. And NDI has
formed a partnership with Belsat, with Radio Liberty, with a number of
other radio outlets to expand the reach of the content on this online
site I mentioned. It's kind of an online town hall. We also have
candidate debates and issue debates. And those debates in particular
have also been broadcast by Belsat. And through that method, they've
reached millions of people, as opposed to hundreds of thousands--very,
very, very important resources, without a doubt.
Mr. Nix. I would just add, Orest, to your question, media's so
important. Whenever I brief a member of Congress to Belarus, trying to
frame the situation--so these are for people who've never been to the
country and don't know much about it--I say to them: Imagine running
for Congress your first time. And imagine not being able to have access
to TV, no access to radio, no access to direct mail. And people are
pretty shocked to realize that the opposition in Belarus doesn't have
access. There's some limited access around election time, as you well
know, Orest. But again, it's one of the needs of the civil society
organizations and political organizations that advocate for democracy
and human rights in Belarus to get that message out. It's incredibly
difficult to do so without that type of access.
So we welcome Belsat. We are hoping that Belsat will continue and
enlarge and expand and the types of activities that Katie has referred
to, because it is an urgent need. It's one thing to take polling data
and have the right message as a political party trying to compete in an
election. It's another thing to transmit that message across a nation
of 9 million people without access to electronic media. So media is
very, very important. And again, as I mentioned in my testimony,
Belarus controls the one Internet service provider in Belarus.
Mr. Rauland. Sanaka, did you have a contribution there?
Mr. Samarasinha. Yes, just a quick comment. Let me first say, being
a journalist myself, and having had to, in part because of my
journalistic work, leave my country for almost a decade, I do not
undervalue the role of the media at all. But I think in Belarus, it's
more a generational issue. The smartphone penetration is 114 percent in
the country. Pretty much everyone carries at least one phone, right?
Social media, everyone under the age of 35 is on it. And so I think
there are different ways in which people can be reached. And, you know,
it's not just the traditional media. In fact, amongst the young people,
when I talk to them and ask, did you see my interview on Channel One or
Channel Two? And they're like, oh, we never watch TV. What are you
talking about, right? This is true--I mean, my kids don't watch TV
either. I'm sure your kids don't either. So they get their news from
other places. This is one thing.
The second thing, let's also not undervalue human contact. In
Belarus, Scott, as you remember, there are more Schengen visas that are
issued per capita than any other country in the world--more than a
million, you know, for a population of nine and a half million. So,
yes, I think that there is still quite a degree of influence that the
traditional media has, especially with the older generation, the older
population. But you know, Tut.by is a good example, where they do stuff
online. And I think it's really good, the kind of influence that they
have. But there are many ways to skin this cat, is the way I see it.
Thanks.
Mr. Rauland. Any other questions from the audience at this time?
Over there.
Questioner. Thank you to the panelists for coming to speak with us
today. My name is Charlie King [sp]. I'm interning in Senator Bill
Nelson's office.
The panelists acknowledge that Belarus is a relatively young
country, and I think it's not uncommon for states in their conception
to struggle with issues of human rights. So, when you're addressing
this issue, how do you ensure that, while it is very important that
this process occur sooner rather than later, not to rush it, and that
the changes that are made are indeed long lasting and systematic
changes, as opposed to more temporary?
Mr. Rauland. Would you like to start and then move this way?
Mr. Nix. Sure, I'll be happy to respond to that.
Well, again, we talked about engagement. And in my view, engagement
merely for the purposes of having engagement is not productive.
Engagement needs to result in tangible change. And we're still waiting
to see that. In terms of the sequence and the timing, there's no
science on this. Countries have developed at various rates. Former
Soviet republics--you look at the Baltic countries in comparison--EU
members, NATO members, fully developed private economies, hardly any
state ownership of business. And then you look at other countries in
the region. So every country develops along its own path based on its
history, its traditions, its culture.
But I would just note that change is needed. And today, the IMF
announced that it had broken off negotiations on the possibility of
further financial assistance to Belarus. And the basis for that
decision--and it's all in the public realm, you can go read about it--
is the fact that the IMF had found that Belarus had not achieved
sufficient reform of their economy. So again, change is essential in
order to receive benefits and for recognition and for normalization of
relations. And so while no one's saying that all of this has to happen
tomorrow, we need to see tangible results, in my view, in the short
term.
Thank you.
Ms. Fox. Thank you for that question. I would say two things in
terms of making sustainable changes. First, as I said in my testimony,
when the U.S. is putting forth its agenda, for engagement with the
Belarusian Government, it should focus on things that have systemic
effect, rather than affect only a sole individual. So removing
restrictions on the peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, rather
than releasing a single prisoner who may have been locked up for
violating those things.
The other more global thing is that in the long term human rights
and other protections will be best ensured through a more pluralistic
society, in which there are a number of different visions and political
parties competing with each other for Belarusians' attention, so that
if one is not delivering on human rights or whatever else Belarusians
want, there's an opportunity for them to vote for someone else. And
that is the kind of society that NDI works for.
Mr. Samarasinha. I recently gave a TED Talk about change is coming
and you better not hide because it's going to catch up with you
eventually, right? I was talking about Belarus, but it wasn't only
about Belarus. I think it's true about the entire world. But, you know,
it depends on what you mean by change and what kind of change you're
talking about.
So if we look at Belarus and poverty, for instance, in 2000
absolute poverty was over 45 percent. By 2015, it was less than 5
percent. Now, that's change, right? If you consider that practically
100 percent of kids are enrolled in school, that's change. The quality
of education, you can argue, is it as good as it should be, is it where
it should be? These are things that we need to work on. Forty percent
of Belarus is covered by forest, and they preserve it. This is quite
unique for Europe.
So this is positive change, and we must acknowledge it, because if
you don't then I think what happens is that we politicize some very
specific human rights issues, very important ones, which then become
something that is perceived as being used, in which case the response
is going to be transactional. OK, so you want me to do this? Fine, what
are you going to give me in return, right? And so one of the things
I've really tried to do is to depoliticize these issues, these very
important issues, on the whole range of human rights. So, give credit
where it's due because there are some very good things that have
happened in that country, and then let's work on those things that
still need to be worked on.
Acknowledging that it is a young country, but young countries have
gone further in some cases. So that's not an excuse. And old countries
haven't even caught up in some cases. This is not an excuse, because
Belarusians have the capacity. I mean, they're amazingly intelligent,
sophisticated people. So that's not what's holding them back, right?
It's the issue of systemic change. And let me, on the issue of systemic
change, just also mention, since Pavel mentioned the high level
advisory rule of law group, that was my creation. I co-chaired this
high level rule of law group with the deputy head of the presidential
administration, the minister of justice, the EU head of delegation.
Now, why did we do this? We did this because I wanted to find a way
to bring those institutions that don't have contact typically with the
international community to the table to talk about the issues that
we're talking about now. But if you say human rights, they always say,
oh, go to the Foreign Ministry, right? So I went and said to the
minister of justice, listen, let's talk about access to justice and
obtaining legal remedies for people, especially who are vulnerable and
disadvantaged. One of the people meeting said, oh, that's the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Why don't you go talk to them? And I said, really?
But it is access to justice. And the minister of justice said, no, no,
no, no. That is my ministry. That is justice.
So taking this thing, that human rights is the domain of a few
politicians, which must be dealt with by only the foreign ministry, is
a very important shift. And if you want it to be systematic and
sustainable, we've got to make sure that we bring the whole of
government and the whole of society together. Now, here is another
challenge. I mean, while we're working through this it's really
important that the range of civil society stakeholders are at the
table. This is a very big challenge because, as you know, at the moment
there is this real issue--are they registered organizations? Are they
not? And if they're not registered organizations, do they even exist?
And if they don't exist, why should we talk to them?
Well, they do exist and they have ideas and opinions. It's just the
question of how to make it constructive. And so one of the things that
we're working very hard on is to try to create a safe space where
people can talk constructively to each other and creatively. And so
it's a big project that we're about to launch with the EU just to do
that, to build capacities of people on both sides of the divide to be
able to listen and talk to each other.
And the last thing is on the national human rights action plan,
which is also one of those things I worked really hard on behind the
scenes. Look, action plans are action plans. You can do action plans
for whatever you want and have no action, right? But it was a start,
because, as I said, from being told not to mention human rights, it has
become something of a degree of national pride. Now, the challenge is
to make it operational.
I mean, we've been discussing this in Minsk. It is very important,
because one can look at that action plan and say, well, it doesn't
actually include all of the things that we want. It's very important to
note that the human rights defenders in Minsk are very supportive of
operationalizing this plan. So it's very important that we, as
foreigners, understand that if Belarusians on both sides want this,
let's help them to not just have it as a piece of paper, but to make it
something real.
Mr. Rauland. I have a question I want to get in before we reach the
end of our briefing, on U.S. assistance. All three of you represent
organizations that conduct programs in Belarus. You understand the
importance of having the right resources to be able to get your job
done. The Trump Administration's budget calls for cuts of over 30
percent to the Department of State and USAID. And that includes zeroing
out foreign assistance to Belarus. So what I'd like to ask you is,
recognizing the previous levels of assistance has been relatively
modest--7 [million dollars] to $8 million a year for Belarus--what
would that kind of a change have in terms of impact on the things we
want to do in Belarus? How would it affect the ability of the U.S.
Government to achieve its goals?
Mr. Nix. Sure, I'll be happy to take that. Well, first and
foremost, yes, for IRI we are funded primarily through USAID in
Belarus. And those funds are very consequential and important to the
work that we do there. Obviously, we want to see it continue. We think
that for Belarus an expansion or an increase in funding would be in
order, given the opportunities that we see there, if we are funded to
do this important work.
With regard to the issue of potential cuts, again, I think we have
to remind ourselves that we have a process. And the submission of a
presidential budget doesn't necessarily mean that that will be the end
result. And I think you've seen the public comments--the very public
comments made by our Chairman, Senator John McCain, by Senator Graham
and many, many others about their viewpoint with regard to cutting this
particular type of funding, and very, very strong support for democracy
work in this part of the world, particularly the Eastern Partnership
countries of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and Belarus. So our hope is
that the thinking in Congress prevails, and that the important work
that we're doing in those countries continues at the same level--we
hope, actually, an increase in funding.
Mr. Rauland. Any thoughts on that, Katie?
Ms. Fox. Thank you. An interesting and timely question, of course.
Yes, I agree with everything Steve has said. We're in a budget process.
But hypothetically the elimination of all budgetary USG support for our
programs in Belarus would decimate them. I think it would be incredibly
short-sighted. Our leader, Madeleine Albright--Secretary Albright, and
also Ken Wollack, have also testified to this effect, that it would be
contrary to U.S. interests, including its hard national security
interests, to cut democratic assistance like that, for democracy and
human rights building.
I wanted, just in the case of Belarus, to add one more thing; that
there's no doubt that if the U.S. would disengage completely from
Belarus that the void could be filled by a different kind of aid. There
is a Russian Government department called--I'm going to mispronounce
it--Rossotrudnichestvo. There's a superficial similarity to USAID. It
has already set up shop in Belarus, in Minsk, and in the regions, and
is doing a number of aid and cultural and scientific-type projects
there. I think that's how that void would be filled.
Mr. Samarasinha. Scott, maybe I could also add, because I worked
closely with USAID in my early years in Belarus. I also co-chaired
the--gosh, I co-chaired so many things I've forgotten now--but I also
co-chaired the Council on International Technical Assistance, with the
first deputy prime minister of Belarus. And USAID is part of it. So are
the Russians, the EU, and then of course a number of government
ministers. The largest donors at the moment are--that we know of, let's
put it this way--[laughs]--are the EU and Sweden, as a bilateral donor.
Russia is funding a number of U.N. agencies in Belarus as well, but is
still not quite at the levels of the EU or Sweden.
Now, the important thing is this: I remember once President
Lukashenko said, I believe it was to Bloomberg but I may be wrong, said
something about you've all focused on Lukashenko but you've forgot that
there are nine and a half other million people in this country. And
whatever you may think of that particular statement, I think it's
really important that there are women who are victims of violence.
There are women who are being trafficked. There are rural, elderly,
poor without services. There are 540,000 people with disabilities.
These are the people who desperately need help.
And if we can work--not just to hand out grants, because that's not
sustainable, right--but while we are helping and passing out those
grants, we are giving them new skills, we are eliminating barriers--
social, physical, financial, policy barriers, legal barriers. This is
human rights. This is making a difference in people's lives, without
waiting for Belarus to turn 100 years, right? So I think it's really
quite facetious to say we want to promote human rights in Belarus but
we're going to pull out the funding. I mean, I would not recommend that
at all.
Finally, let me also add, before I was coming here I was talking to
another good friend of mine, who Scott also knows, happens to formerly
be the president's economic advisor. And I said, Kiryl, I am going to
Washington--what is your view on engagement? You know, before he left--
he's now the ambassador in China for Belarus--so he's doing engagement
of a different kind, in a different direction, I suppose.
But he gave me a present. And he held it up like this. And it was a
rock. And I said, well, that's great. You're giving me--I mean, sticks
and stones, what is this? You're giving me a stone. And then he turned
it around, and on the other side of the rock--I keep this on my desk, I
think it's the best present I've received in my five years there--on
the other side of the rock, there was a man sitting inside the rock.
The rock had been broken open and there was a man sitting inside the
rock. And he said, this is you. And I said, what does that mean? He
said, you came to Belarus and you find a way. And there you are, you
broke open the rock.
Now, I said, that's very flattering, thank you very much. Why was I
able to do that? Because of people like him who helped me to understand
how to navigate what is a very complex place. And why did he help me?
Because he was here on a Fulbright scholarship, and it had opened his
mind in terms of how to engage. So if you disengage, if you cut the
funding, then don't expect positive change in the directions that we
want positive change.
Mr. Rauland. I'm tempted to wrap things up right there. That's such
a nice thought to have us close on. However, I do see we have a
question back there. So please go ahead.
Questioner. Thank you so much for this informative panel. My name
is Jasmine Cameron. I work for Justice International. We work on human
rights and supporting human rights defenders and lawyers, including in
Belarus as well.
Do you have any advice on engaging with Belarus for small-scale
international NGOs? As we've seen in the past, especially after the
March events, there are still restrictions in civil society in terms of
engagement from inside, and we've noticed that in our work we have
challenges. So, moving forward, do you have any practical advice on how
to continue engaging civil society, while we see that there are some
changes taking place? I would love to hear that.
Mr. Rauland. Anybody in particular?
Mr. Nix. Sure, I'll go.
First of all, thank you for the question and thank you for the
service that you provide. The promotion and protection of human rights
in Belarus is very critical to its potential development.
I would just say this: My advice and counsel is keep doing what
you're doing. As I stated in my testimony, and then Katie as well,
there have been a number of very important events that took place this
year in Belarus that showed that if people united on a common cause, on
a difference that they had with government policy, they can be
successful. The government will have to listen to them, if they unify
and gather in substantial numbers. And again, the March demonstration--
the spring demonstrations really, really portrayed this, that if people
speak out the government will listen. And that's an important lesson
for people in communities. It's an important lesson for human rights
organizations to really learn from this.
We think there's the potential for other things. And maybe we can
even get a change in the election code before the local elections, for
an example. Maybe we can get Havary Pravdu registered as a political
party. There are a number of issues that are out there that if people
really, really concentrate and force the government to listen that they
can affect change. So my advice and council, keep your voices. Make
sure that the government hears them. Unite. And make it very clear what
the demands are. Make it clear to the government what you are expecting
the government to do, and you'll be successful.
Mr. Rauland. Anything you care to add, Katie?
Ms. Fox. Steve said it all.
Mr. Samarasinha. Let me add another perspective on it. I mean, I
think it's very important for you to keep doing what you're doing, and
to keep saying what you're saying because, like I said, there's nothing
more important than being consistent and principled in your message. At
the same time, I think it is also important to consider multiple ways
of engaging as civil society. And it's really important for all of us
also to keep emphasizing to the authorities the need for them to find
multiple ways of engagement, too. So you will see, for instance, the
first NGO government engagement on human rights happened my first year.
It was related to the universal periodic review reports, and it was in
November of 2013.
It was very difficult, trust me. And I can remember, even during
the coffee breaks, I was talking to both sides saying guys, please,
don't shout at each other, because if you do there will not be another
one. And we managed to have a dialogue. And so it was a little bit
easier five months later, because now people knew each other a little
bit more. And now it actually happens on a fairly regular basis. That's
not enough, of course, because that conversation must lead to positive
action, concrete action, measurable action. For the first time, we have
a human rights NGO in that international technical assistance
coordination council that I mentioned. By decree, the Helsinki
Committee is a member of that high-level council.
Mr. Rauland. The Belarus Helsinki Committee, right?
Mr. Samarasinha. The Belarus Helsinki Committee, I'm sorry.
[Laughter.] Yes, the Belarus Helsinki Committee, which is an NGO, and
it's a recognized and credible human rights NGO. An NGO that represents
the rights of disabilities is part of that council. In the national
human rights action plan, as per the universal periodic
recommendations, Belarus accepted that they would bring in civil
society to engage in all these human rights issues. And one of the
things I have been advocating very strongly for is to have a council,
like to have these public advisory councils, but have a council that
supports and helps to implement and monitors the implementation of this
human rights action plan. Right now, I co-chair a group of
ambassadors--12 ambassadors with the EU and the deputy foreign
minister. But we need civil society. We need the NGOs. So this is one
thing.
The second--and the Belarus Helsinki Committee was also appointed
to this prisons inspection public advisory council just last week. You
know, this is a huge shift. It's not going to change the world, but it
is a huge shift. So you can find other ways to engage.
But there is one important challenge here which I'm working very
hard to address, hopefully before my time is up, is the issue of
unregistered organizations, because if you're an unregistered
organization you could still be an expert in the field. And so my
argument is why not--let's have this conversation. If you don't want to
recognize the unregistered organizations as organization, let's bring
them in as experts on whatever issue it is that we're discussing. So
I'm cautiously optimistic that before the end of the year we can
achieve that too.
Mr. Rauland. On that cautiously optimistic note, I think we'll now
wrap things up. I'd like to thank the panel, all of you, for your
interesting, thought-provoking presentations, the audience for your
interest and your questions on the various topics that were raised
today. For any of you, either here in the audience or on Facebook Live,
who would like to come back to today's briefing, and share it with
friends and colleagues interested in the topic, we always post our
transcripts on our website. Let me spell that out for you, www.csce--
which stands for Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe--dot-
gov.
So one more time, www.csce.gov. You'll be able to find the
transcript there hopefully by Monday.
Thank you once again and I hope you find a way to stay cool the
rest of the day today. [Applause.]
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the briefing ended.]
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
I wish to commend Co-Chairs Senator Wicker and Representative Smith
and the Ranking members Senator Cardin and Representative Hastings for
their leadership of this Commission and thank them for conducting this
event and inviting me to provide a brief on an extremely important part
of the world. Due to its economic dependence and military cooperation
with Russia and its proximity to three EU and NATO countries, Belarus
is of great strategic and security interest to the United States--
especially now as the U.S. has increased its military presence in
Central Europe and the Baltics. It is the last dictatorship in Europe
and cannot continue in its current form. Because of that, this
Commission's continued focus on Belarus is more important than ever.
I am the Eurasia Director for the International Republican
Institute (IRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan democracy assistance
organization that is active in more than 80 countries around the world.
We trace our roots back to President Reagan and his unshakeable belief
that, ``Liberty is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the
inalienable right of all mankind.'' There are not many places around
the world that this message applies more than Belarus.
While we applaud Belarus' expressed interest in engagement, we have
seen little concrete action taken on the issues the United States has
offered in terms of engagement. These issues include amending the
election code, registering political parties and halting the practice
of arresting citizens for political activities. In reality, democratic
reforms in Belarus--including economic freedoms--remain stagnant and
rarely move beyond the level of roundtables or diplomatic
conversations. As evidenced most recently, raids of human rights
defenders' offices and mass detention of opposition activists like we
saw in March and February of this year, still occur.
The democratic record in Belarus is dark and closed. If we look at
the level of freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of Belarus, very little
has changed in the last few years. The OSCE has consistently noted
elections are undemocratic and neither free nor fair. Both
parliamentarians and local officials are controlled by Lukashenka's
government. The judiciary is not independent and heavily relies on
government dictates for decisions. The most recent Freedom House
Freedom in the World Report classifies Belarus as ``Not Free,'' largely
due to human rights violations and incursions upon media freedoms. The
government owns Belarus' single internet service provider and often
blocks independent media sites, as it did during tax protests on March
25 of this year. Seventy percent of the economy is state-owned and
centrally planned. Transparency International's Corruption Perception
Index of 2016 puts Belarus at a distant rating of 79.
However, citizens finding themselves left behind by Lukashenka's
rule have begun to organize and act. This citizen participation, which
has included high profile protests as well as more locally-focused
activism, gives hope for progress as citizens find small successes by
working together.
Current Context
At the beginning of this year, those Belarusian citizens unable to
secure jobs began receiving notices that they owed the equivalent of
$250 in taxes for being unemployed. This ``unemployment tax,'' also
referred to as the ``Tax on Social Parasites,'' was designed to
penalize those who consume social services but do not contribute to
government coffers through taxes. Onerous taxation on those worst off
in society spread discontent throughout the nation and small pockets of
protesting communities began to form. They eventually developed into
large citizen-led protests in five major cities throughout February and
March.
Actions were taken to deter these demonstrations. In advance of the
largest protest--organized on March 25--authorities preemptively
detained many leaders of the pro-democracy opposition. Also, in an
effort to further deter participation on March 25, schools and
universities held classes and state employees were required to report
to work despite it being a Saturday.
Police and security forces also aggressively attacked these
protests, causing injuries to hundreds. More than 1,000 opposition
demonstrators, political and civil society activists and community
leaders were arrested.
Following the protests and the subsequent security crackdown, the
official rhetoric of Lukashenka shifted. In previous years, he had
ridiculed the opposition, claiming they were bankrupt of ideas--framing
their work not as dangerous, but as laughable. However, with the recent
crackdown and arrests, he has returned to portraying them as a ``fifth
column,'' manipulated by Western funding with the aim of destabilizing
Belarus. He further claimed that funding and even weapons were being
provided by Lithuania and Poland to the enemies of stability inside
Belarus. Over a dozen political opposition and civil society activists
were arrested and held for belonging to the ``White Legion''--an
organization police alleged to exist to overthrow the state. No
evidence of this existed, and those detained were held until just
before the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Minsk this July, then
released due to lack of evidence.
The nationwide protests showed a fracturing in society. Average
citizens, not associated with the opposition or politics, marched
against what they saw as a step too far by the state in shifting
responsibility for bad decisions onto the public. Many of the
protestors--middle-aged working class residents of regional cities--are
the very people that independent polling shows have in the past
supported Lukashenka. Their participation in these protests is
indicative of a growing feeling of betrayal and economic desperation.
Members of pro-democracy parties had been warning of the
unemployment tax for over a year. In addition, they have been
advocating local authorities to be more transparent in decision-making
and budget allocation, and mobilizing communities over better services.
By the time community residents were faced with an unemployment tax
early this year, the opposition activists were proven correct and
gained credibility as activists loyal to the community--not a ``fifth
column,'' or Western puppets or any other moniker thrown by Lukashenka.
Since the protests, community activists have built on the level of
citizen engagement and have driven successful initiatives on everything
from road repair to rights awareness for small business owners to
municipal budget transparency.
Successes and Opportunities within the Pro-Democracy Opposition
Regarding the pro-democratic opposition, recent strides have been
made. I want to discuss two groups as examples. The first is the United
Civic Party, which succeeded in having one of its members, Anna
Konopatskaya, be elected to parliament in 2016. The 2016 elections were
neither free nor fair, and the Parliament of Belarus is under heavy
executive control. While being the lone opposition voice in a largely
symbolic parliament does not carry political influence, Konopatskaya
has provided insight into how the state monolith operates. She has also
used her position to travel to the regions in an effort to connect
citizens to the processes that govern them. A successful businesswoman
herself, she has been a critical voice not only on economic development
issues, but also electoral reform.
The other example is Govori Pravdu, a citizen action group which
translates to Tell the Truth. In 2015, the organization's leader
Tatsiana Karatkevich challenged Lukashenka as the only opposition
candidate in the presidential election. While the official election
result listed Mrs. Karatkevich as receiving only 4.44 percent,
independent polling shows nearly 20 percent of voters supported her
candidacy. The same polling shows Lukashenka's result as only 51
percent--still a mandate, but significantly lower than the Belarus
Election Commission asserted. Since the campaign, Karatkevich has
utilized her strong name recognition by traveling and advocating for
regional small business owners, urging municipal officials and local
Ministry officials to meet with citizen groups, and raising awareness
of social service problems.
These two women represent change in the opaque, authoritarian
Belarus. Through years of activism they have won small community-level
victories, and expanded their influence to nationwide recognition. They
continue to utilize opportunities to civically activate citizens and
push government authorities to meet citizens and hear their demands.
But there are dozens more like them throughout the regions of Belarus.
Belarusians have discovered the power of standing together, the power
of uniting to drive change. More and more people are finding the
courage to stand up for a better life and opposition activists have
successfully brought citizens together. Further fostering this growing
civic activity in Belarus requires a localized approach--and next
year's municipal elections, preliminarily planned for February 2018,
provide an important opportunity for change in Belarus.
Economic Situation
Polls conducted in Belarus show the top five concerns and
priorities of the public to be economic in nature: rising prices,
decreasing salaries, low standard of living, lack of local economic
development and unemployment. This trend has held over the last decade.
Despite some changes or positive improvement in indicators like GDP,
citizens feel negative, rather than positive trends. Independent
polling shows that over 60 percent of Belarusians have little or no
savings, and are living paycheck to paycheck.
Belarus still relies on central planning with heavy state
interference in at least 70 percent of the economy. Price controls,
minimum production quotas for state-owned industry and collectivized
agriculture, and coercive labor regulations which have been classified
as forced labor by the U.S. State Department have placed burdens on
average citizens and resulted in distorted markets designed to please
the head of state rather than customers or workers.
Due to a reform-minded Economy Ministry, Belarus continues to rise
in the World Bank's Doing Business report--ranking 37th in 2017.
However, as the majority of decisions, reforms and legislative actions
depend on the whims of Lukashenka as head of state, the pace of reforms
is likely to be glacial. Average citizens will not feel the benefits of
these reforms, but do feel the cut in social services, the burden of
additional fees and taxes and the decline in state owned enterprises. A
telling example is the factory in Mozyr which can only afford to run
its machinery and pay its staff from 8:00 am to 8:45 am every weekday.
IT has become the fastest growing sector of the economy with 20
percent growth annually and recently Lukashenka has announced radical
measures for further development of the IT sector. However, recent
arrests of IT CEOs and managers, as well as high taxes and regulations,
deter investment in this sphere. Conducting business in Belarus almost
always involves arrangements with the regime. Many IT entrepreneurs
prefer to leave Belarus and register their companies abroad to minimize
risk of arrest and intimidation.
Lukashenka has often used economic populism to curry public favor
during election periods. As Lukashenka's government becomes cash-poor,
such spikes in social welfare spending will no longer be possible.
Thus, he will rely on further disempowering citizens and falsifying
elections to maintain power, or using force to keep citizens away from
civic or political participation.
The country stands in need of a bailout worth billions of dollars.
Belarus must make fundamental, systemic economic reforms if it is to
recover from its current situation. The regime now faces a dilemma: to
recover economically, the government has to dramatically change its
current economic model, which is the foundation of its political
control over the country. Economic reform would mean giving up
political control.
Dependence on Russia
Because of failures intrinsic in Lukashenka's central planning and
authoritarian control over Belarus' economy, he has always been
dependent on Russian subsidies in order to maintain stability. Russia
aids Belarus through low-interest loans and preferential pricing of raw
materials and energy.
Due to Russian subsidies, Belarus has the cheapest energy prices in
the region besides Russia itself. But this has come at the cost of
control over infrastructure. In 2011, Russian state-owned energy
company Gazprom assumed full ownership of Beltransgaz, the Belarusian
energy provider. Russia also controls Belarus's many oil refineries as
well as exercises major influence in Belarus' electricity sector.
Russia further has influence over Belarus through the Eurasian
Economic Union and the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO). A new and disturbing area of influence is the
construction of the Astravets nuclear power facility--with no allowance
for international safety observers despite two accidents already during
construction.
This September, Belarus will host the joint Russian-Belarusian
ZAPAD military exercises. Thousands of troops--as well as twenty-five
Russian aircraft--will work to, ``maintain security of the Union State,
its preparedness for repulsing acts of aggression and to advance
command and control organizations' actions compatibility and units'
training standards.'' These troops will be just miles from the borders
of the EU and NATO. Belarus already hosts Russian communications and
radar stations.
There are signs that Belarus wishes to maintain its sovereignty in
the face of Russian influence. Lukashenka has repeatedly dismissed
Russia's proposal for a base on Belarusian soil. When Russia began to
increase pressure for military exercises during the Ukraine crisis,
Belarus engaged in military exercises with China instead. When Russia
began using energy prices to pressure Lukashenka, Belarus struck energy
deals with Venezuela and Azerbaijan.
One view is that Russia is taking advantage of Belarus' poor
economic model, and swallowing Belarus' strategic assets while
encouraging more dependency. For Belarus, this results in a creeping
loss of sovereignty. Another view is that Belarus is simply maneuvering
between two great powers (Russia and the West) and trying to find the
best deal. However, the level of economic dependence, the current level
of military cooperation and integration and the high level of social
sympathy with the Kremlin position due to years of propaganda and pro-
Russian media make change unlikely. Russia will continue to curtail
Belarusian sovereignty as the price for economic bailouts. Only swift
economic and democratic reforms will spur growth, attract investment
and decentralize power to the point where Russia's influence is curbed.
Next Steps
The parliamentary and reform work of Anna Konopatskaya, the
national and regional outreach by Tatsiana Karatkevich and the
community-level work of hundreds of activists shows that the citizens
of Belarus, whether previously active or not, are looking for ways to
improve their lives and neighborhoods. Segments of the entire
population have become active and have protested, not merely the
political opposition.
In a 2016 poll, 90 percent of respondents stated they had not
participated in any social activity aimed at solving local problems.
Their reasons? They don't believe it would make a difference, they had
never been invited to do so and they did not know how. Future change
depends on addressing these concerns.
The recent protest wave, which was widely covered in the media and
discussed among the population, drew different sectors of society to
the street, and which led to Lukashenka's suspending the unpopular
unemployment tax, demonstrates that citizens have begun to change their
minds and have discovered the power of standing together, the power in
uniting to drive change. Belarusians' participation in change-oriented
social activity is currently trending up as more and more people are
finding the courage to stand up for a better life.
The upcoming municipal elections in early 2018 provide an important
opportunity for further change in Belarus. Local governments deal with
everyday issues which directly impact citizens and are charged with
delivering basic services citizens rely on. A free and fair local
election would result in local concerns receiving attention from
citizens demanding solutions. However, the current patronage-driven
system rewards candidates for political loyalty, not innovation.
Elected leaders become defenders of the system, rather than demanding
results and serving their constituents.
Should the government in Belarus allow free and fair elections in
2018, we would see a number of victories by the political opposition.
We would also see a number of concerned citizens able to access
resources to improve their communities. Perhaps most importantly,
residents would see the reality of the system and what reforms need to
be made to allow them liberty and prosperity.
The question remains: What is the United States' position with
regard to the Lukashenka regime and toward the Belarusian pro-democracy
opposition? The answer lies with the people of Belarus--who deserve to
be the true decision-makers and power holders. U.S. assistance should
be directed toward increasing the effectiveness and capacity of
democratic political parties and activists inside the country first and
foremost. Particularly, at community-level initiatives and
developments. These grassroots activists are the ones who provide a
decentralized and democratic alternative to Lukashenka and his
authoritarian rule. Freedom and democracy should be the common cause
uniting the European Union and U.S. with those inside Belarus who are
fighting for a more prosperous future and a more democratic country.
IRI has assisted pro-democratic forces in Belarus in their struggle
for democratic change since 1997 through political party strengthening,
coalition building and youth leadership development programming. These
programs are the foundation of IRI's mission to support democratic
organizations and help their leaders and activists prepare for public
policy roles in a future democratic Belarus.
Responding to developing trends in the country and nationwide
discontent over the dismal economy, IRI shifted its programmatic focus
in the last few years to fostering community-level activism. IRI firmly
believes that the future development of Belarus depends on unleashing
the potential of its citizens--allowing people to speak, assemble and
earn a living in the way they see fit.
For this reason, IRI continues to provide communication training,
campaign training, project management consultation and community
mobilization training in order to assist grassroots activists in their
work with colleagues and neighbors to improve their lives at every
level.
IRI also works to support increased political participation of
youth in Belarus, which represent the future of the country. Many in
this generation, born after the fall of the Soviet Union and during
Lukashenka's over two-decade long hold on power, see their country
falling behind regional neighbors who have made great strides in
development. Exposure to ideas and practices in democracy is a key step
in providing context for these future leaders.
IRI will continue to monitor the limited democratic space in
Belarus and work with the opposition to find ways to continue their
struggle for democratic change in Belarus.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission, for holding
this briefing on the ways the international community can best engage
Belarus to encourage progress on human rights and democracy.
Geographically in the heart of Europe and bordering the European Union
(EU) and NATO, Belarus is an important country in the Eurasia region
that can be overshadowed by its larger neighbors.
In accordance with the Copenhagen Document of the OSCE, which
affirms the right of citizens to ``receive and impart information and
ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of
frontiers,'' NDI has been exchanging ideas with--and responding to
requests for advice from--democratic parties and civil society in
Belarus since 2000. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this
discussion in the wake of the OSCE's parliamentary assembly in Minsk.
Supporting democracy and human rights in Belarus is the right thing
to do. It is also consistent with the OSCE's values and commitments.
But these are not the only reasons it's important. As Tom Carothers of
the Carnegie Endowment points out, ``In most of the dozens of countries
where the United States is employing diplomatic, economic, and
assistance measures to support potential or struggling democratic
transitions--from Cambodia, Indonesia, and Mongolia to El Salvador,
Kenya, Nigeria, and Venezuela--such efforts align closely with and
serve a critical array of unquestionably hard interests. These include
limiting the strategic reach of the United States' autocratic rivals,
fighting terrorism, reducing international drug trafficking, and
undercutting drivers of massive refugee flows.'' In other words, it is
in our own national interest to ensure that Belarusians feel their
interests, rights and dignity are being respected.
Belarus is not a free or democratic society. Democratic parties and
civil society groups face many barriers to organizing, and individuals
risk arrest for exercising basic rights of speech and assembly. As the
OSCE pointed out after the 2016 parliamentary elections, Belarus's
``legal framework does not adequately guarantee the conduct of
elections in line with OSCE commitments and other international
obligations and standards.'' Signs do not point to a dramatic
democratic breakthrough in Belarus in the near future. However, there
are new opportunities to contribute to the foundations of a more
democratic system--as envisioned in the Copenhagen Document--with
foreign assistance as well as diplomacy. While the government and
president still control most aspects of Belarusian political and
economic life, stifling independent activism, there are modest openings
that can be leveraged to make broader democratic gains more attainable
in the long run.
First, there is growing evidence that the Belarusian government is
not monolithic. The government allowed two opposition members to claim
seats in 2016 parliamentary elections that were otherwise seriously
flawed. Despite the limitations of these positions, the two members of
parliament have found support from colleagues for opening up the
parliament through public hearings and meetings with voters. In
addition, there are discussions underway between opposition parties
outside the parliament and government representatives on reforms in
health care, Belarusian language education, and policies to curb drug
trafficking and alcohol abuse. When massive protests broke out last
March over the imposition of a new tax on the unemployed, the
government reacted with arrests. But it also made some concessions to a
movement of unprecedented size that had broad grassroots support and
was present throughout the regions. The government offered meetings
with citizens to explain the tax and it narrowed the scope of those
affected. These developments, however humble, suggest that there may be
room for citizens to influence some types of policies.
Second, the movement against the so-called ``parasite tax'' on the
unemployed illustrates how democratic parties have grown and become
more effective. The opposition parties, which have previously been
faulted for inadequate attention to the problems of ordinary
Belarusians, recognized the importance of the tax issue long before
protests broke out. The parties held meetings with voters, and
campaigned on the tax issue in parliamentary elections. These parties
have made significant strides in several areas. As the parasite tax
case indicates, they are communicating with the public more regularly,
both during and between election periods. In the most recent elections,
they adopted more professional organizing practices and refrained from
public attacks against other democratic parties. And finally, party
coalitions that existed only ``on paper'' have been replaced by
smaller, more pragmatic and genuine coalitions of parties with shared
ideologies. One such example is the Center Right Coalition, composed of
three parties and movements. These parties are now in a position to
better represent citizens' interests in the political sphere.
A third modest opening is the shifting aspirations of Belarusians
themselves. Analysis of independent polling results from the 2015
presidential campaign suggests that the sole democratic candidate,
Tatiana Korotkevich, gained backing from voters who were not previously
supporters of the opposition. Her message of ``peaceful change''
resonated particularly with young, urban Belarusians, and with women
more broadly. This trend suggests that the electorate for democratic
reforms may be expanding.
As NDI Chairman Madeleine Albright noted at a recent Senate
Appropriations Committee hearing, ``democracy can produce the kind of
stability that lasts, a stability built on the firm ground of mutual
commitments and consent. This differs from the illusion of order that
can be maintained only as long as dissent is silenced; the kind of
order that may last for decades and yet still disappear overnight.''
In the case of Belarus, the international community cannot afford
the `illusion of order' in a country in the middle of Europe, between
Russia and the EU. If the international democratic community
disengages, there is little doubt that the void will be filled by
illiberal and authoritarian forces. In fact, a Russian government
department which bears a superficial similarity to USAID, and is known
as RosSotrudnichestvo (Russian Cooperation), has set up shop in the
Belarusian regions.
Belarusians are consumers of the propaganda and disinformation that
permeates the Russian language information space. Disinformation in
politics represents a critical threat to democracy. It spreads
cynicism, distorts political processes and interferes with citizens'
ability to make sound political decisions. Disinformation from foreign
sources designed to influence political outcomes constitutes a
violation of sovereignty. In a study by an independent Belarusian
pollster, Russian mass media enjoyed more trust than either Belarusian
state or independent media. \1\ Alternative sources of information for
Belarusians, such as Warsaw-based Belsat and the independent internet
news portal Tut.by, become more and more essential as the effects of
Russian disinformation expand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://news.tut.by/economics/544272.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this backdrop in mind, following are thoughts on future
engagement in Belarus.
Diplomacy, including that of multilateral groups like the OSCE, will be
most effective if it:
Continues dialogue and engagement, but prioritizes
outreach to genuine civil society groups and independent parties. These
non-governmental activists should be included in the agenda of every
visit.
Focuses on systematic changes as conditions for greater
engagement with the Belarusian government. There is great humanitarian
value in prisoner releases, but of course, new prisoners can always be
taken and held as bargaining chips. Systematic changes--such as
allowing the registration of parties, removing the penalties for
assemblies and other legitimate political activities, and reforming the
electoral code to ensure real competition--would help to lay building
blocks for longer-term, sustainable progress toward democratic reforms.
Emphasizes changes to the electoral system recommended by
the OSCE as well as independent monitoring groups such as the Human
Rights Defenders for Free Elections and the Right to Choose coalition,
composed of parties and civic groups. These include opposition
representation on precinct election commissions, full access for
political party and nonpartisan election monitors to observe and report
on the vote counting and tabulation processes.
Let me be clear, these efforts are not designed to influence
electoral outcomes. They are simply a way to help advance peaceful
participation in an otherwise restrictive political environment.
Outside assistance should:
Help democratic parties and civic groups take advantage
of current, albeit limited, political space--and corresponding
opportunities for civic participation--to grow. It should provide
support to enable them to attract new supporters, present alternative
ideas, identify and reach out to youth and other potentially democratic
groups.
Treat information warfare like the urgent international
security threat that it is. This means, among other things supporting
the few but vital sources of independent information such as Tut.by, or
ePramova. ePramova, an online platform for open discussion and debate
started by NDI, has reached an average of 700,000 Belarusians each
month. Millions more can watch ePramova's politically themed content on
television, via a partnership with Belsat. ``Each of Us,'' a talk show
filmed in Belarus with a studio audience, is showcasing instances of
successful citizen activism on everyday issues. Projects like these are
minor streams in a larger information flow, yet are invaluable as a
source of accurate information on political life and citizen
engagement.
A Belarusian democratic leader recently said the following: ``We
believe the presence of opposition in government and dialogue will
bring democracy, social stability and a better life for Belarusians. We
ask the U.S. to support these goals by maintaining a dialogue with both
opposition and government and with aid programs that give civil
society, independent media and democratic movements inspiration and
vision. With this we can bring peaceful changes for our country.''
This is an official publication of the
Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe.
< < <
This publication is intended to document
developments and trends in participating
States of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
< < <
All Commission publications may be freely
reproduced, in any form, with appropriate
credit. The Commission encourages
the widest possible dissemination
of its publications.
< < <
http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm
The Commission's Web site provides
access to the latest press releases
and reports, as well as hearings and
briefings. Using the Commission's electronic
subscription service, readers are able
to receive press releases, articles,
and other materials by topic or countries
of particular interest.
Please subscribe today.