In Minsk-Brussels negotiations a peculiar document is elaborated, which consists of 29 negotiations points between Belarus and the EU; however, its content is closed for the public.

On November 20-21 in Kyiv the 7^th annual meeting of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum took place.

Ulad Vialichka, director general of the International Consortium “EuroBelarus”, was elected to be the country facilitator for Belarus of the EaP CSF, changing Andrei Yahorau, the head of the Center for European Transformation on this position.

Ulad Vialichka and one more representative from Belarus — Nastassia Bekish from the Environmental NGOs of Belarus “Green Alliance”, elected to be the coordinator of Working Group 3 of the EaP CSF (“Environment, climate change and energy security”), became the members of the new Steering Committee of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.

The election of new co-chairmens of the Steering Committee of the EaP CSF will take place within the frames of the first meeting of the renewed Steering Committee — most likely, in early February 2016; temporarily these authorities are executed by Irina Sushko (Ukraine) and Krzysztof Bobiński (Poland).

What are the prospects of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum? Will the policy of the Belarusan National Platform of the EaP SCF change with the election of the new country facilitator for Belarus of the EaP CSF?

Ulad Vialichka answers the questions of the EuroBelarus Information Service:

— On November 19-22 the 7^th meeting of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum was taking place in Kyiv. This year the traditional assembly lasted a little bit longer than usually, thanks to which we managed to organize a number of discussions on the topical agenda along with the procedural issues (participation of officials, election of coordinators).

For example, a topical issue at this year’s Forum, just like at the few previous ones, has become the counteraction to Kremlin’s propaganda and informational security not only for the sake of the Eastern Partnership countries, but also for a number of the EU states. We also considered the prospects of Belarus’ and Armenia’s rapprochement to the EU standards, taking into account that both the countries haven’t signed the EU Association Agreements. We managed to discuss similar problems with other delegations. At the same time, Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia are, obviously, working on the reformist agenda.

We also discussed the future of the EaP CSF, increased role and influence of this union to other institutional partners such as countries-partners, European Commission, different international structures, such as, for example, the Council of Europe.

I wouldn’t say that we made breakthrough decisions at the EaP CSF; but, obviously, a layer of pro-European organizations and their leaders that speak one language has been formed in our countries: there is common agenda, common understanding of how the EaP lives and what its goals are, and how to use the mechanisms that we have. Well, sometimes there is not enough skills to use these mechanisms.

Seven years haven’t passed in vain. In the beginning of its way Eastern Partnership consisted of six diversified societies of six countries plus the European partners. Now it is a more adequate community with their internal mutual relations, common stances, including public statements. As Ukrainian singer Ruslana said when opening the EaP CSF, we all are a family.

We didn’t manage to solve all the questions, however, I think we managed to bring together and evaluate our common possibilities.

— How do you see the prospects of Belarus’ and Armenia’s Europeanization?

— Both Belarus’ and Armenia’s authorities need to strengthen the vector aimed at cooperation with the EU in order to balance in relations with Russia. Inner political situation in these two countries is a little bit different; but geopolitically, both the countries are living under the strong influence of the “Russian World”, the authorities of our countries are strongly tied with the political interests of Russia and, accordingly, they need Western vector for the freedom of maneuvering. Armenia has chosen its path when Association Agreement has been divided into two separate provisions, each of which Armenia and the EU discuss separately. Armenia isn’t fully signing the Agreement, but is trying to realize separate provisions largely because it doesn’t want to irritate its neighbor.

It’s hard to say whether such scenario will be realized in Belarus. At least the EU is trying to do the same with Azerbaijan by initiating the European dialog on modernization. I think that with the situational thaw in Belarus-Europe relations related to the long-awaited release of political prisoners and absence of mass repressions during the “presidential elections” there is certain ground for closer cooperation with the EU. In this case, the question is, what is the agenda of such negotiations today.

We know about the certain document consisting of 29 provisions that has to do with Belarus-EU relations; however, the content of this document is closed for the public. The two parties explain the reasons of its non-publicity differently, but nevertheless, now some behind-the-scenes discussion of the agenda is going on. All that looks like the situation of 2007-2008, when the non paper “What can the EU give to Belarus?” was published. Back then the EU suggested 7 provisions; now we are talking about 29. Let’s hope that in the near future at least some part of these provisions will become not only the subject-matter of non-official interstate negotiations, but also available for our civil society.

— Has the question about reforming the EaP raised in Kyiv?

— By the highest standards it hasn’t been raised. We have more serious problems that need to be solved now, first of all — stability and security. The EU and other countries are looking for a way to optimize the existing format of the EaP. At the introductory discussion of the EaP CSF the EU Commissioner Johannes Hahn didn’t say anything new, thus confirming the infrastructural approach to the development of the initiative that has been formed earlier.

— Will the policy of the Belarusan National Platform of the EaP SCF change with the election of you as the new country facilitator for Belarus of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum?

— I think there is no sense to change the course now. National Platform has planned a number of important actions for making its participants understand their role in new circumstances. I think this work should be continued and enhanced.

National Platform is now working on its own strategic plan for the next three years —everything goes according to the previously planned path. The Steering Committee of the National Platform has been elected as early as this summer and has been actively working all these months, largely thanks to the energy of the effective chairman — Svetlana Koroleva.

I’m joining this work. My task will, rather, consist of securing the relation between the national and general agendas of the EaP CSF. We should hardly expect anything radically new; now the process of improvement and disillusion as to the understanding of what can really be achieved is going on. And I can introduce more intense communication between different actors in this process. I think that it’s very important that this discussion is of intensive character.

I also want to voice gratitude to my colleague Andrei Yahorau, who has put a lot of effort and ideas to the development of the EaP CSF in general and our National Platform in particular.

As always, hard times are awaiting us, but we are used to that — we just want to see the ultimate goal and believe in it. For me it’s independent and free Belarus, equal and respected in the family of the European nations.