Ghost wander about Europe

Justas Paletskis’ report is dangerous for those, who keep living and working in Belarus.

In the recent notorious report to the European Parliament on the situation in Belarus the MEP Justas Paletskis mentioned discernible improvements of the situation with human rights in our country in 2012 and recommended to suspend visa sanctions against key Belarusian officials “for broadening the channel for diplomatic communications”. Heated debates over the report made Paletskis acknowledge the poor character of the wording on the improvements, however the question has not yet been answered of whether there are improvements in Belarus and whether Europe should make first steps towards the “broadening of the diplomatic channel”.

Everyone would want to see improvements, even when the situation is very bad. One may dream of improvements, one may want them, and in the end one may put some effort, but one must not indulge in wishful thinking. Not only it is unethical, but also dangerous, and first of all for those, who keeps living and working in Belarus.

For the ecological movement in Belarus not only the situation has not improved in 2012 and 2013, it has become unexpectedly bad. First of all this concerns the one, who stand against the construction of a nuclear power plant in Astravec. Andrei Ozharovskiy, a Russian expert nuclear physicist, and me, a coordinator of the Belarusian anti-nuclear campaign, were arrested on 18 July last year for an attempt to bring a petition to the Russian embassy on the day of signing the contract for the construction of the nuclear plant. We were jailed for 10 and 5 days respectively. Ozharovskiy was deported from Belarus for 10 years. It is the largest term of politically motivated deportations used here in recent years. I was tried on an alleged accusation, like Ozharovskiy – without an attorney, with no witnesses, and in the captivity they deprived me of medicines that I vitally needed. The chairwoman of a public association Ecodom Iryna Sukhij was also detained then and fined for 15 basic units for the same reason and on similar farfetched accusations.

This year we were not allowed to the officially authorized Charnobyl Way. Iryna and other activists of the ecological movement were detained; I was blocked in my apartment for the whole duration of the manifestation. And I was one of the event’s organizers. In order not to let a local activist Mikalaj Ulasevich, who stands against the construction of the Astravec nuclear plant, go to Minsk for the Charnobyl Way, the authorities arranged a chase after him. But they did not manage to catch the old man, a disabled pensioner, and they had to go for an interception operation in Maladzechna.

We cannot say that there was no pressure on ecologists before. Mikalaj Ulasevich, according to him, is being under repressions like in a mine field – searches, inspections, trials, confiscations of printed materials have been going for over three years. They annoyed Sukhij for several years with talks, unscheduled tax inspections and fines. But the situation has not improved – the facts of the recent years tell the opposite!

If we speak of other conditions for the dialogue, then there were no new ones in the part related to ecological problems, specifically – Belarus’ following ecological conventions. It was officially recognized in June 2011 that at the construction of the nuclear power plant our country had violated the Arhus convention, and in March 2013 – the UN’s Espoo Convention. Moreover, not only Belarus does not aim to follow the recommendations of these conventions’ bodies, it does not admit the violations and publically claim the farfetched character of the complaints and accusations.

Is a dialogue possible in such circumstances? What kind of dialogue can it be? What can be its interim and final results? Who will be the subjects of the dialogue and what will be their positions on key issues? How can problems in Belarus be solved by the means of this dialogue? Does the position of the abovementioned key Belarusian officials indicate the intention to have a dialogue? Answers to these questions are the first thing that should be provided in recommendations and reports.

I will not take upon discussing all the conditions of the “broadening of the diplomatic channel”, but as to ecology and ecological problems there must be evident commitment of the dialogue’s both parties to improvements and positive changes. But if Belarus simply and unconditionally uses the thaw’s benefits such as the cancellation of visa sanctions and technical assistance, aimed at the establishment, then we will not see improvements soon, even in the spheres related to solvable ecological problems.

Tatsiana Novikava, specially for charter97.org