DATE:
31/01/2006
In Short:
This new report by the Stefan Batory Foundation analyses the situation in and around Belarus on the eve of presidential elections in March 2006 and proposes a new EU strategy towards Belarus.
Introduction
The question of Belarus has become one of the most important problems of EU policy towards its neighbours due to three fundamental circumstantial factors:
Firstly, the enlargement of the EU in 2004 has changed the position of Belarus in the EU perspective. From 2004, Belarus has bordered the EU. The border stretches more than 1000 km and three member countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Poland) are neighbours with Belarus. In this context, a lack of consistent EU strategy towards Belarus, both before and after the enlargement of 2004, becomes much more visible.
Secondly, the colour revolutions, especially the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, have changed the situation in post-Soviet space, including the space of Belarus. The democratization processes in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova impact both directly and indirectly the situation in Belarus. A section of Belarusian society is looking towards these three countries and is waiting to see what will happen. Their successful transformation would provide concrete proof that Belarus can also become a normal, European state.
Thirdly, last but not least, are the coming presidential elections in Belarus in March 2006. Belarus has been a self-isolated, authoritarian regime since 1996 and has remained outside the Council of Europe. But presidential elections in 2006 can create a crucial 'novelty' in the form of a third term of Lukashenko as president. This would be a unique example in Europe, similar to dictatorships in post-soviet Central Asian countries, and is not acceptable for Europeans. It is self-evident that the EU cannot ignore those three challenges and should respond adequately.
However, the above-mentioned circumstances cannot explain all concerns for Belarus held by the EU. In addition, there are at least four other reasons why the EU (both European institutions and Member States) should be interested in the issue of Belarus:
The human rights' abuses carried out by the autocratic regime of Lukashenko constitute the first reason. Belarusian society has a right to democracy. The majority of Belarusians, especially the young generation, is against a third term for Lukashenko and Belarusian society is also for co-operation with the EU. The EU has to answer to Belarusian aspirations. This is a test of the credibility of the EU as a provider of democracy in Europe.
The question of the EU's soft security forms the second reason for EU interest in Belarus. An undemocratic country like Belarus is not a credible partner for co-operation in the JHA (for example, the fight against organised crime, and the trafficking in human beings) and in ecology. Belarus under the Lukashenko regime cannot develop any cross-border co-operation, which helps build security between the EU and its neighbours. There is an increasingly visible gap between the positive development of cross-border co-operation between, on the one hand, EU Member States like Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine and, on the other, Member States (for example, Lithuania and Poland) and Belarus.
Thirdly, the unclear relations between the Lukashenko regime and countries such as Iran could present a threat to the security of the EU. The Belarusian authorities seek contacts with autocratic regimes across the world. The Lukashenko regime also co-operates with them on security/ military issues and the sale of weapons and military equipment to rogue states and other autocratic regimes.
Fourthly, Belarus is a challenge to EU-Russia relations. The ruling Russian political elite looks at EU policy towards Belarus as an example of policy towards non-democratic regimes. This is important to the elite due to the problems to take place in 2008 (the next presidential elections in Russia) and the increasingly visible lack of democracy in Russia. For the Russian elite, the presidential elections in Belarus in March 2006 will also be a test of EU determination in its policy towards autocratic regimes. Ambiguous EU policy towards Lukashenko could be a signal for the ruling elite in Moscow that the EU is unable to make consistent policy. A lack of determination towards Lukashenko would demonstrate a lack of objection to the deterioration of the situation in Russia in next few years.
It should be underlined that the development of the situation in Belarus is unpredictable. Whilst on the one hand, Lukashenko can continue to be president for many years, political changes may also take place in the next few years or even in the next few months. The success of the congress of opposition forces in October 2005 and the choice of a common opposition candidate can be seen as a signal of the opposition's rejuvenation. Therefore, the EU should be prepared for several scenarios and rethink its policy towards Belarus in the next few months.
This paper is divided into two parts. The first part is not a comprehensive description of different aspects of the situation in and around Belarus, but rather an indispensable diagnosis for how best to build EU strategy towards Belarus, and includes four key elements: the internal situation in Belarus, the Russia factor, US policy towards Belarus and EU policy towards Belarus. The second part of the paper, concentrating on EU strategy towards Belarus, is focused on three aspects of future EU policy towards Belarus: a new philosophy, activities and tools needed for the implementation of EU activities.
It should be added that several papers on EU-Belarus relations have appeared in recent months. The Pontis Foundation in Slovakia presented a policy brief in March 2005, the Association of International Affairs in Prague and the Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw published a policy brief in April 2005, the Chaillot paper concerning Belarus, prepared by the Institute for Security Studies in Paris, also appeared in November 2005, and the Centre for European Reform in London devoted an article to EU-Belarus relations in December 2005. These articles are evidence of the growing importance of the Belarusian issue in 2006.
To read the paper in full, visit the Stefan Batory Foundation website.
Source:
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-152112-16&type=Analysis
Archive
Partners:
Face.by