We shouldn’t hope for the managerial bodies to change the situation; without the efforts of all organizations-participants no change will happen, stresses the head of the Belarusan National Platform.

On December 22 the conference of the Belarusan National Platform “Inventory and revaluation of the potential of the Eastern Partnership program for development of the Belarusan civil society” was held in Minsk.

One can read about the key issues and problems that were discussed at the conference here. In the final interview with the EuroBelarus Information Service Andrei Yahorau, the Chairman of the Coordinating Committee of the Belarusan National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (BNP EaP CSF), talks about the challenges that the National Platform is to face and the ways to respond to them so that the issue of voluntary dissolution won’t be brought up again.

— We can claim that the National Platform hasn’t fully overcome the crisis that it found itself in in 2011, actual lack of common agenda and cooperation with the European Union. Now, to come to our senses, or, in other words, to bring ourselves at the level of program work and to start influencing the Europe-Belarus cooperation, a lot depends on some substantial input in specific directions and start serious work. A lot in this process depends on the local initiative of the countries-participants of the National Platform, as no managing bodies are able to draw the National Platform out of the half-dead state it is in now. Basically, the work of the National Platform in the next six months will demonstrate whether it is worth to exist or we should rather dissolve it. At the conference we have already heard such suggestions, which were rejected by the majority of participants; however, I think that if there are no concrete results of our work next year, no restoration of cooperation with the European structures, no opportunity to influence the situation in Belarus, no development of initiative and consolidation of participants’ stances, then, of course, inner criticism in the National Platform will increase. And that can lead to radical decisions up to discontinuation of Platform’s work.

— What are the main steps for reanimation?

— Restoration of common agenda with the European Union in building EU politics towards Belarus. What things in common do we have – civil society and the EU in the situation of restoration of dialog with the official Minsk, including agreement about the institutional role of National Platform’s participation in the processes related to the Eastern Partnership? We need access to information, possibilities to present alternative reports and suggestions for actions in different thematic direction.

The second point is the attitude to the important processes related to Belarus that are taking place at the national level or are related to foreign agenda. For example, Bologna process is an important question related to external conditions, and the role of the National Platform as a stakeholder of this process is very important in influencing internal reforms in the sphere of education, in the dialog of the Education Ministry and independent experts, as well as in restoring academic freedoms included into “road map” suggested by the Bologna committee. Or if we consider internal issues of the National Sustainable Development Strategy at the local level — we need to submit reports re realization the former Sustainable Development Strategy. If we respect ourselves we need to comment upon such serious programs and documents adopted by the Belarusan state.

However, the last question is the definition of our stance re judicial reform in Belarus. These consultations will be lead by the European officials with the Belarusan authorities. And we need to have clear and specific suggestions n order to see where this process is going to, so that we don’t get any externally imposed suggestions. This is our country, and we should decide on the reforms ourselves.

Of course, it is the issues of human rights and democracy that should occupy the first place, as this is civil society’s concern, no matter what country it is situated in and what working conditions it has.

— On the threshold of the conference we were talking about high need for directing civil society back to the dialog of the RU and the Belarusan state restored after the events of 2010. Are there any positive signals or suggestions at least from the European side?

— Now the situation is developing so that the dialog is happening without the participation of the civil society, which, of course, is dissatisfying for us. And if this state of affairs becomes normal, National Platform will lose any sense of existence. That is why we hope to get certain understanding from the EU, EU delegation to Belarus and European diplomacy in fixing this situation in the near future. And that is the subject of our discussion with the European politicians and structures, too. I don’t think that going back to the former format of dialog with the participation of the civil society will happen promptly, but we should at least see it as a process. Of course, we can start with some indirect and bilateral meetings devoted to the issues that EU representatives are to discuss with the official authorities. It will give a possibility to exchange suggestions and reactions re most important issues of country’s development through European structures. In the future it should end in a full-fledged trilateral dialog.