DATE:
07/04/2008
By Zoltan Dujisin
LJUBLJANA, Slovenia, Apr 7 (IPS) - The EU has promised to increase efforts to include civil society in its strategy to bring change in Serbia, Belarus and Russia, but NGOs are pointing out that each country has specific needs.
A conference on giving a stronger voice to civil society in the European neighbourhood was held last week in Brdo in Slovenia under the auspices of the Slovenian presidency of the EU (European Union). The conference concluded with EU promises to support pro-EU reforms in Eastern Europe in close cooperation with civil society.
Civic actors from south-east and eastern Europe jointly approved a statement calling on the EU to help create an enabling environment, and formalise regular consultations between Brussels, national governments and civil society to bring democracy and stability in the region.
Andreas Herdina from the External Relations Directorate-General at the European Commission said "Eastern European partners seem more open to involve civil society, although there are exceptions like Belarus."
But some participants noted that the EU's intentions might prove controversial in some countries, and warned against using the same recipe in all of South-East and Eastern Europe.
"Timing is very important, and we don't need stability like the EU says, we need change," Tatyana Poshevalova, Chair of the Centre for Social Innovations in Belarus told participants. "The present EU programmes for Belarus are based on preconditions such as the existence of institutions that in Belarus were totally destroyed."
Belarus has been ruled by President Alexander Lukashenko, who promotes an authoritarian version of democracy.
Poshevalova has also questioned the EU and civic actors' hope that dialogue between national governments and civil society could improve in the near future in a country were groups such as hers survive by breaking the law every day.
"There is no place for civil society in Belarus, and not because the government doesn't know what it is. If there is no place for us, what dialogue can there be, what possibilities for cooperation? We are not an equal partner, and nobody will talk to a weak side," she said.
Drawing comparisons between Russia and Belarus, Konstantin Baranov, coordinator of development programmes at the Young Europe civic group in Russia told participants that the two countries required a separate approach.
"We are both not pre-accession or candidate countries, and the level of dialogue and negotiations is different," Baranov said. "Relations with the EU are a chance to bargain, to discuss trade, so all issues related to civil society development, political dialogue are secondary."
The activist also insisted that Russia, like Belarus, was plagued by government-controlled civic groups which marginalise increasingly under-represented independent grassroots organisations.
"In Russia nobody gives us premises for conferences and workshops; it's not a matter of money, some topics just cannot be touched," Baranov said.
Following the popular overthrow of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 and the 'Orange Revolution' in Ukraine in 2004 in which mass protests brought to power a pro-Western government, many in Russia and Belarus accused civic groups of being used in the West's eastward geo-political advancement.
As a result, the position of civil society has become increasingly uncomfortable in Russia or Belarus, and to some extent in Serbia.
"Most ordinary citizens see all NGOs as 'western spies', and that has been a problem since 2000," Olja Homa, programme assistant at the Serbian Citizens Pact for SEE (southern and eastern Europe) told IPS. "It is better than in Belarus and Russia; many people from NGOs work in the government, but they hinder our work in non-explicit ways," she said.
Although in recent years Belarusian civic groups also tried their luck overthrowing the ruling regime, Poshevalova claimed that "Ukrainian revolution-type projects failed in Belarus, and will not work."
Poshevalova says Belarus is suffering from the existence of several contradicting agendas. "U.S. programmes have their own plans about Belarus, and there is also a Russian agenda."
Homa criticised the agenda of some foreign donors in Serbia. "They aren't always fair, some are too concerned about 'truth finding' when we should rather be focusing on cultural cooperation," the activist said, in reference to intense international pressure to find those responsible for the wars and violations in the Balkans.
"Donors are leaving the Balkans, but I don't mind as long as we make progress and show results," she added.
The solution seems to rest in strengthening the civic sector rather than setting goals for it. "Funds should be invested in raising capacities of civic actors so that they are equal, independent partners with more space to communicate with both clients and members," Tetyana Danyliv, Director of the GURT Resource Centre for NGO Development in Ukraine told IPS.
"Civil society organisations are often just regarded as recipients of funds and not equal partners," she said. (END/2008)
Source:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41881