Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 February 2006 - Strasbourg

10. Belarus in the run-up to the presidential elections on 19 March (debate)

  President. – The next item is the Council and Commission statements on the situation in Belarus in the run-up to the presidential elections on 19 March.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it will come as no surprise to you that I should say that the Council is gravely concerned about the adverse developments in Belarus, particularly as regards the elections that are scheduled for 19 March. The Council has recently again had cause to consider the issue of Belarus, and we noted with concern that President Lukashenko’s regime is acting in an ever more repressive manner, becoming more and more isolated, not least of its own volition. We did of course note with satisfaction its invitation to the OSCE and ODIHR to observe the elections, which is without doubt a positive step, and one that we certainly welcome, but we are still concerned about the worsening situation in Belarus, and have justifiable cause for concern as to whether these elections will be conducted in a democratic manner.

The General Affairs and Foreign Relations Council last discussed Belarus on 30 January, and the ministers agreed on new conclusions, which carry the clear message that the OSCE’s ability to perform its electoral observation mission everywhere and without hindrance must be ensured. The Council also warned of the possibility of further restrictive measures being taken against persons in positions of responsibility if the presidential election did not meet accepted international standards.

The European Union’s policy towards Belarus was last reviewed in the conclusions of the Council on 7 November last year, which struck a balance between commitment to the people and to civil society on the one hand and, on the other, a tougher line in respect of the regime itself. They also referred to the intention of the High Representative, Mr Javier Solana, to appoint a close collaborator as his point of contact for Belarus.

We are all aware of the need to take a longer view of our work with Belarus. There is nothing bold about predicting that the elections on 19 March will bring no real change in their wake, or working on that assumption. Considerable efforts have been made to get our message across in the run-up to the elections and to ensure that it is heard clearly. It was in fact planned that there should be, at the beginning of February a high-level joint démarche involving representatives of the European Union and of the United States, namely the Council’s Director-General for external relations and political-military affairs, Robert Cooper, and the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Dan Fried, but the authorities in Belarus refused to issue these two dignitaries with the visas that would enable them to visit the country both at the same time, and that has made such a démarche impossible.

In making it clear that the authorities in Belarus have failed to seize an opportunity for frank and free dialogue with the international community, we have not concealed our disappointment at this turn of events. Still on this subject, I would also like to mention that, on 30 January, the day of the last Council meeting, Alexander Milinkevich, the united opposition candidate in Belarus, who was visiting Brussels, had an informal meeting with representatives of the Member States, among them very many ministers, with over half the Member States represented at ministerial level. He also met with Mr Solana, with Mr Barroso, the President of the Commission, and with Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner. There is no doubt about the fact that this was a clear and unambiguous expression of the European Union’s support for the democratic process in Belarus, even though the EU cannot, of course, endorse individual candidates.

Whatever criticism Belarus deserves – and must indeed get some from us – I would like to stress that the policy of the European Union is not aimed at isolating that country. What we would like to see is a democratic, stable and economically successful Belarus – and it is our intention that it should be all those things, not least a country that is capable of becoming a member of the Council of Europe and that maintains proper, good and strong relations with the international community in general and with the European Union in particular. It is for this reason that we have made it clear that, given sustained development in the right direction, Belarus could of course benefit from the European Neighbourhood Policy.

We want to make clear our willingness to reach out to the people of Belarus and to help that country to become integrated into European structures. Although we wish to maintain normal and friendly relations with it, that is not possible under present circumstances. The Council will not turn a blind eye to the continuing violations of human rights and civil liberties, and it will continue to give voice to its concerns about the deteriorating conditions in Belarus. With the promotion of democracy in Belarus in mind, the Council is still willing to make a serious commitment to it and to cooperation with international partners; at the meeting with Mr Milinkevich that I mentioned earlier, we discussed the ways in which we might help the civil society there in its campaign for democracy, and what options are open to us as regards exerting direct influence on those elements in Belarus that are campaigning for democracy.

Even though the election result is probably a foregone conclusion, we must make a joint effort to maintain the European Union’s presence and influence in Belarus. As I have already said, the project to which the European Union is committed is a long-term one, and the present difficulties must not be allowed to discourage us or cause us to lose sight of our objective.

IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTA
Vice-President

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner had very much hoped to be with you to discuss Belarus. She has been intensely engaged in developing the Commission’s activities on Belarus since we took office and I am convinced she will not miss the opportunity to discuss Belarus with the Russian Foreign Minister at their meeting that is being held in Vienna today.

On behalf of Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner and the Commission I am pleased to have this opportunity to exchange views with you on the situation in Belarus in the run-up to the 19 March presidential election and on the Commission’s work to support democratisation and to support civil society.

Let me start by saying a few words on the overall situation in Belarus. The Commission is still deeply concerned about the absence of democracy and the lack of respect for human rights in Belarus. This situation has further deteriorated as the election date is nearing and has resulted in a severe quashing of the voice of the opposition and the stifling of the independent press over the last few months.

The fact that an OSCE mission has been invited to observe the presidential election and that a number of contenders to President Lukashenko are likely to be allowed to contest the presidential race is a welcome move, but not sufficient evidence of a functioning democracy. At this juncture, when the OSCE observers have started their work on the ground, it is important that the European Union and the Commission contribute to the smooth functioning of the mission. The European Union’s opinion and reaction will be based on this mission’s report.

In terms of the European Union’s response, you are well aware of the unequivocal message that the European Union conveyed to Belarus and reiterated in the General Affairs and External Relations Council of 30 January: the European Union has stressed the importance it attaches to a democratic election process and has also clearly voiced its resolve to issue targeted sanctions in the event that these elections prove to be fraudulent. To balance this message with a positive note, the European Union has repeated its offer to have closer relations with Belarus, provided that we see convincing progress towards democracy.

Let me now turn to the Commission’s specific action and underline that the Commission has made good on its pledge to raise its role in Belarus. Faced with growing repression and restrictions by the Government of Belarus on foreign assistance to non-governmental bodies, the Commission has stepped up and speeded up such assistance to Belarus. In 2005 alone, up to EUR 8.9 million have been dedicated to democracy and civil society projects. Creative tools have been developed to overcome the hurdles to assistance delivery. We have thus shifted part of our support to NGOs located outside Belarus. The EUR 2.2 million we granted last December to the European Humanitarian University in exile, as well as our support to independent media, are vibrant examples of this novel approach.

In the field of independent media, I am delighted to say that the Commission has been at the forefront of donors’ action. We have started with support to the radio broadcasting of daily news reports to Belarus in both Russian and Belarusian. However, our main achievement is a EUR 2 million media project which is now being launched. It includes radio and television broadcasting, internet activities, support to the Belarusian independent press, and the training of Belarusian journalists. The project will allow the broadcasting of specific TV and radio programmes as from February, well ahead of the elections. We believe this high-quality project, which is supported by a Europe-wide team and sharply factors in Belarusian sensitivities – that is, no propaganda, straight news and sheer entertainment – will rightly reach out to large segments of the population.

In addition, the Commission has decided to open a delegation in Minsk but unfortunately the Belarusian authorities have not yet given their agreement. Pending progress on this front, we will post a chargé d’affaires to Kiev who will travel frequently to Minsk.

Finally, last Monday the Commission brought together all international donors to Belarus in order to plan ahead. This meeting has set in motion a common reflection on assistance beyond the election date. This meeting was a signal that assistance and coordination will not dwindle after the election date.

In conclusion, let me emphasise that the democratic process in Belarus is likely to be a long process that will eventually succeed only with the support of the population. This is why we must continue our efforts to raise awareness among the Belarusian population at large through support to civil society and facilitation of contacts between the people. As Belarus stands at the crossroads, it is more crucial than ever that we all pool our efforts to implement a common strategy and be ready to react to developments in Belarus as they take place. The Commission remains committed to doing its part.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, 19 March marks the Belarus presidential election, in which there is still a chance that the country will assume its rightful place in the European family of democracies and conduct a free and fair election. However, in reality, the chances are very small, as President Lukashenko, since his election in 1994, has turned his country into a self-isolated police state and a sham democracy.

The already poor human rights situation has deteriorated further since the passing of the anti-revolutionary law, aimed at suppressing protests, and many opposition leaders are jailed on spurious offences of corruption or, in some cases, simply made to disappear, presumably murdered. Mr Lukashenko preaches a curious pan-Slavic, anti-Western nationalism, with an added cult of personality.

Independent polls give him around 55% support. It is believed that he will do whatever is necessary to achieve the magic figure of 77%. Registration for candidates is due by 21 February, and I salute the courage of the United Opposition candidate, Alexander Milinkevich, who will be restricted in his campaign to two 30-minute TV and radio interviews, whereas Mr Lukashenko will spend what he likes and appear as Head of State on the media daily, accusing his opponents of being thugs or Western mercenaries.

I call on Belarus to allow for the right for independent exit polls to be conducted to help verify the results, but this request is unlikely to be heeded. Not surprisingly, this Parliament has not been invited to observe the elections, but the Conference of Presidents should authorise a budget for MEPs to attend via the OSCE. Russia also needs to be reminded that, as it bankrolls the regime with very cheap gas at USD 50 per 1 000 m3, it should support democracy there, being a full member of the Council of Europe.

Lastly, I welcome, as Commissioner Borg mentioned, the TACIS EUR 2 million dedicated to free broadcasting in Belarus and supporting civil society.

  Jan Marinus Wiersma, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (NL) Mr President, on 16 December last year, the parliament in Minsk – which is not a democratically elected body – agreed to Lukashenko’s proposal that the presidential elections be brought forward to 19 March. This is an illustration of the wholly high-handed way in which Mr Lukashenko operates, and also a demonstration of the absence of any intention on his part to hand over power by way of the election process. That is why we once again have to fear an extremely fraudulent course of the democratic process in Belarus.

The opposition bears the brunt of the decision. How can it launch a campaign if its candidates end up in gaol, like the Social Democrat Mr Statkevich, and if all mass media are controlled by the regime? The authorities are trying their level best to make life for the opposition as difficult as possible and they also have more than halved the election campaign period.

We must continue to draw attention to these blatant violations of our democratic values in one of the EU’s neighbouring countries. Whilst we must underline once again that Lukashenko’s policy is unacceptable, we must also emphasise once more that in the event of a change in direction, the road to a closer relationship with the EU is open. What more can we do? It is regrettable that the relationship between Lukashenko and the European Parliament has deteriorated to the extent that we have not – unlike the OSCE – been invited to take part in the observation mission.

Whilst that is, on the one hand, a good sign, in that it is the consequence of our consistently critical stance towards the regime in Belarus, we must also, on the other, ask ourselves why the European Parliament could not simply take part in the OSCE mission as the EU’s official representation. We are pleased with the invitation to the OSCE, but we also want to stress that more than lip service is needed in respect of the international standards to which Belarus, as a member of the OSCE, has committed itself. We therefore hope that the OSCE mission can go about their normal business and urge the Belarusian Government to lend them a hand.

Finally, despite the deteriorated circumstances – four years ago, I took part in the observation and I think the situation now is even worse than it was then – we must make every effort, and above all, not refrain from doing anything, to support the opposition which managed to put forward a joint candidate this time round. I hope that Parliament, with today’s statement, will in any event give the opposition and candidate Alexander Milinkevich a moral boost.

  Elisabeth Schroedter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, I agree with what previous speakers have said. Hope that the presidential elections will lead to a new beginning and eventually to democracy is ebbing by the day, and, every day, President Lukashenko devises new ways of oppressing the opposition and those among his country’s people who claim the right to think differently. That is why there needs to be more aid from outside the country. Nor must we allow ourselves to be discouraged by the way in which democratic involvement there is being nipped in the bud, for the people want freedom, and we know how difficult it is to be committed to that when elections – such as this one – are being interfered with, so we must not lose sight of the fact that this election day does not mark some sort of deadline – on the contrary, we are dealing here with an ongoing process.

We should keep a careful eye on what the people of Belarus do in a small way to express their desire for freedom and democracy. It is because there is real potential for serious democracy there that I would also point out that what the Commission and the Council are doing to build up that potential is quite utterly inadequate – it is too slow, too inflexible, it is ineffective! I would ask the Council to really get down to doing the task it has been given and adapt the rules on external aid to this special situation, and do so as soon as possible, to stop simply talking and put effective means in place, or else we will bear the blame for this problematic situation.

  Věra Flasarová, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Ladies and gentlemen, as a member of the delegation to Belarus on behalf of the Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, I do not agree with the draft resolution, and I shall explain why. One might be forgiven for thinking, from the debate in Parliament, that the opposition candidate could win the election in Belarus, but we know that Lukashenko will continue in office. What will happen next? What sort of relations will we have with Belarus? We must remember that Belarus is not just Lukashenko and the people in positions of privilege, but a nation that has not had an entirely negative experience with the regime, as it undeniably enjoys certain social benefits, for example free education and health care. We are well aware of how close relations are between Belarus and Moscow, and the importance of the development of this small country for its large neighbour. It is no secret that both countries are preparing to draw closer than they have been before. The European Union’s strategy towards Belarus is therefore, in the final analysis, also a strategy towards Russia.

  Paul Marie Coûteaux, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (FR) Mr President, as usual, I only have a few words in which to express my disagreement with what the Council and the Commission have just said.

I find it rather facile, as in other cases, to reproach a sovereign country for not conforming in every way to the models we have prescribed in order to recognise one government or another, in reality according to whether or not it suits us for any other reason.

After the fall of the Soviet Empire, Belarus was left to the mercy of certain gangs of predators which were no more legitimate because they served the interest of some multinational or other, to the point that we saw ministers selling off public assets piecemeal for their own benefit, and often to European companies. That was known as liberalisation. We all saw Belarus being exploited by certain Western powers, which are only too pleased to turn it, and with it the resources that it offers, against its great sister nation, Russia.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us not be fooled by rather facile propaganda. If we are being asked today to condemn the Minsk authorities, it is not for the good of the Belarusian people, but simply so that we can blindly act as an accomplice in a United States strategy aimed at restricting Russian power as much as possible, by depriving it of its most natural historical and geographical alliances. That is playing God, as we saw a year ago in Ukraine, and it does not benefit Europe, the real Europe, which must include Russia and all of its allies within its sphere, and it will do so sooner or later.

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, Belarus represents a major challenge for the European Union, since the pressure we have brought to bear on it so far has been ineffective.

We must now take action in support of democracy in Belarus. This will call for a number of organisational measures. Our monitoring of human rights in Belarus should be based on Parliament’s annual Report on Human Rights in the World and on information provided by the special Commission and Council representative for Belarusian affairs. Parliamentary resolutions should be reserved for new and critical situations.

Our actions should be based on the Neighbourhood Policy instrument, or on a separate human rights instrument where the political and legal environment is hostile. In particular, EU commitments to finance independent media must be developed, in conjunction with reliable partners. The latest Commission competition has raised the doubts that are set out in the most recent question to the Commission tabled today.

  Jan Tadeusz Masiel (NI). – (PL) Mr President, Belarus is a special country, the last dictatorship in Europe. It is an impoverished country. It is also impoverished in the sense that never in its history has it experienced freedom, unlike many, if not all, of its neighbours. How can it now aspire to a freedom it has never known? It does not know to what it should aspire. Belarusians do not ask for much and they are very patient. If the elections on 19 March turn out to be rigged, the people will wait until they can have free elections at some future date.

Nonetheless, we should spare no effort right now to ensure that the elections on 19 March are free. It is not good for one person to be in power for a long time. Let Belarus choose freely between its incumbent president and Alexander Milinkevich.

  Anna Záborská (PPE-DE). – (SK) In Slovakia, for forty years after what became known as the Victorious February of 1948, we experienced a regime similar to the current one in Belarus. The state machinery controlled by the communist party not only suppressed every manifestation of resistance, but also all expressions and signs of a free democratic society and the rule of law. People who have not experienced dictatorship can only with difficulty imagine its consequences.

We note with concern that the Belarus authorities are stepping up repressive measures against civil society. Violent dismantling of the independent press and non-governmental organisations continues.

On 6 February 2006, the Supreme Court of Belarus moved to disband yet another non-governmental organisation, the Belarus Union of Youth and Children’s Associations.

It is appropriate that the European Union is bringing increased pressure to bear on Belarus. I am thankful for the fact that we did not confine ourselves to expressions of concern over the crackdown on the independent media, non-governmental and religious organisations, and some educational institutions in that country. I welcome, in particular, the Commission’s decision to sponsor independent radio broadcasting to Belarus. The radio station Deutsche Welle also deserves our praise. I hope that the original decision to broadcast in the Russian language has been changed and that the people of Belarus are tuning in to listen to their mother tongue, which is particularly important in these days leading up to the elections. According to my contacts with representatives of Belarus democratic forces, broadcasts in the Russian language might have a negative effect. Now, before the elections, the objective of European institutions should be to take joint action towards the achievement of concrete democratic changes in that country.

   Joseph Muscat (PSE). – (MT) Thank you, Mr President. I think that, in spite of being a day too late, the European Parliament wants to send a message today, stating its affection for the people of Belarus. It is a message addressed to a people who, as the facts make clear, is being denied the freedom to choose its leaders. So far, it is of elections that we have spoken in this House. I think that, for the sake of correctness, we have, rather, to refer to the forthcoming event as a vicious process of confirmation. It should be noted that, during the last few months, the European Union has made huge progress in taking practical steps to benefit the people of Belarus. On behalf of the Bureau of the Delegation for Relations with Belarus, I would thank the Council and the Commission, but there is more still to be done. We now have to show strong support for the people of Belarus, especially its young people. The authorities who want to curtail freedom know that young people are the main protagonists of change. The authorities have even closed down RADA, which represents youngsters from Belarus in the European Youth Forum. This is a most deplorable act. We again extend our support to the people, and in particular the young people, of Belarus, and we promise to be with them at their moment of trial.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, there are surely not very many people who believe that the presidential elections in Belarus on 19 March will live up to even the most elementary democratic ground rules. We have every reason to expect the opposite to be the case. President Lukashenko will do everything to defend his position and consolidate his dictatorship. The opposition has been deprived of equal opportunities to send out its political messages, and the election campaign by the candidate for the united opposition, Mr Milinkevich, is shaping up to be a very difficult one. We must do everything to support the democratic forces in Belarus in the run-up to the election. I want, however, to make a special plea for Belarus not to be forgotten after the election. I agree with Mr Winkler that long-term efforts will be required in order to bring about democracy in Belarus, and we must persist with those efforts after the election. I would thank Commissioner Borg for his undertaking to pursue just such a strategy.

  Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL). – (SV) Mr President, I belong to that section of my group that believes that the group should have signed the joint motion for a resolution. I regret that it did not do so.

The situation in Belarus is becoming worse and worse. The conditions for a democratic election are unfortunately very poor. The opposition – both the political opposition and the free trade union movement – is systematically persecuted. Critical, independent media have very little room for manoeuvre.

In this situation, we must do everything we can to support the forces of democracy and make efforts to bring about both a fair election and extensive election monitoring. There is only one way of showing solidarity with Belarus, and that is to demand that the Belorussians themselves be allowed to decide their own future. For that to happen, democracy is required.

  Inese Vaidere (UEN). – (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, a free flow of information from Europe is vital in supporting democracy in Belarus.

I would like to emphasise that, firstly, the resources we have allocated to radio broadcasts to Belarus have to date not had the desired effect. The decision by the European Commission to award a EUR 2 million contract to the German/Russian consortium for broadcasting to Belarus, knowing that the Russian television station already has generous contracts with the Belarus Government, and also that broadcasts take place in Russian, is in my opinion an unacceptable waste of money. At the end of the day it may provide support to the Lukashenko regime.

Secondly, the European Union must support the democratic press of Belarus.

Thirdly, we should consider making it easier for ordinary Belarus citizens, scientists and cultural workers to obtain European Union visas, while at the same time boosting the restrictions on visas for representatives of the ruling regime and their families.

Finally, I would also like to urge the European Commission and the Council to call more insistently for the immediate release of Mikhail Marinich, the opposition leader being detained on political grounds.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) The situation in Belarus, with just over a month remaining until the elections, leaves little hope that the Presidential Elections in this country will be democratic, free or fair.

As yet, not one single candidate is registered officially, and only one future candidate (the current President Alexander Lukashenko) is the subject of an intense propaganda campaign, which is being carried out by the entire state media. Press analysis shows that an opinion is being formed nationwide that there is no alternative to the current President, and that an absolute majority of citizens will vote for him because only Alexander Lukashenko can guarantee stability in a country whose achievements are unquestionable. Apparently, the President's opponents are useless scoundrels, while the West does not understand the situation in Belarus and seeks to destabilise the country, but will be unable to do so because Belarus has President Lukashenko. Repression of the non-state media continues to intensify.

Within this context European Union support is a vital necessity, but it is insufficient, late and therefore has little effect. Is this really all the European Union can do to defend freedom of thought and the press in a neighbouring country?!

  Andrzej Jan Szejna (PSE). – Mr President, on 19 March the presidential election will take place in Belarus. We all agree that it is about time to support the activities of the democratic force in Belarus. It should be our top priority to facilitate a free and democratic ballot. Full transparency of every process involved in this election, including the counting of votes and equal conditions for all candidates, must be secured.

The policies of Lukashenko have raised far too many serious concerns. The presence of the European Parliament and the Council of Europe during the presidential election is of the highest importance. We should insist on the Belarus authorities extending an invitation to both institutions as soon as possible.

The situation of citizens of Belarus concerning the independence of the media and freedom of expression is gradually getting worse, which is why we strongly support the establishment of radio network broadcasting from Poland, Lithuania and possibly Ukraine. Furthermore, the actions taken by the Government of Belarus against the Union of Poles in Belarus and the Roma minority, as well as the decision to ban the reformed evangelical church, are examples of the lack of respect for minority rights, as well as freedom of association and belief.

  Rolandas Pavilionis (UEN). – (LT) Besides bad news from Minsk, there is also good news from Vilnius. Today, the Lithuanian Government registered the European Humanities University, which was recently exiled from Minsk and has renewed its activities in Vilnius. This is the result of huge efforts by some Members of the European Parliament, together with representatives of the European Commission and Lithuanian diplomats. The students of this university doubtless give real hope for the revival of Belarus. At the same time we have received some bad news from Minsk. The dictatorship is intensifying its repression of democratic civil youth organisations opposed to the regime. The work of the Belarusian Union of Youth and Children's Public associations ‘RADA’ has been banned by a decision of the regime. This youth organisation had already won international recognition and was developing relations between young people in Belarus and many European youth organisations. I would, therefore, like to appeal to all of my colleagues and trust that they will endorse the demand for an end to the repression directed against the youth of Belarus and their organisations.

  Hans Winkler, President-in-Office of the Council. (FR) I shall now speak on the Council’s behalf to conclude this debate.

(DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start by making it quite plain – since this point was raised during the debate – that any state is entitled to raise concerns about human rights anywhere in the world, and that criticism of human rights abuses is not the same thing as interference in a country’s internal affairs. That truth was established at the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, which was held as recently as 1993. It follows that the European Union is perfectly entitled – as is any other state – to make human rights in another state its business. That is what the European Union is doing, and I am grateful to your House for its commitment to this and for the clear affirmations that have emerged from this debate. In making them, you are making the work of the Council and the Commission easier, for it is vital, where such matters are concerned, that the European institutions should speak with one voice.

Perhaps I might be permitted to say, in response to Mrs Schroedter’s intervention, that it certainly is arguable that the instruments available have not, to date, been used in an effective way. This is something we are endeavouring to improve, and with that in mind, I would like to say that the creation of the European Neighbourhood Policy as a new foreign aid instrument will improve matters; that is what we want to work towards, so that the more efficient use of resources may be guaranteed.

Something else I would like to highlight, since several speakers in this debate referred to it, is the fact that it is today that the troika meeting of foreign ministers with the Russian foreign minister is being held in Vienna – this was announced by Commissioner Borg, since Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner is also a participant in it. It goes without saying that the order of business for this important meeting includes Belarus, for it is indeed important that Russia should spell out where it stands on this matter, and we all know that Russia does, of course, have a certain influence on what goes on there.

Something else that has been mentioned in this debate and that we want to take very seriously is the very real need, when promoting links between academics, between young people, and between members of civil society, for such persons to be given the opportunity to travel abroad, and this is indeed something at which we will have to take a closer look. These people are staking their freedom on the campaign for democracy, and it would not be right if we were not to enable them to work together with our institutions for the democratisation of Belarus.

Reference has been made to the presidential elections, which would in themselves present Belarus with an opportunity to take the right road forward. As most speakers have said, its chances of doing that are not very considerable, and the Commission and the Council will have to give some thought to how they will respond in the event of irregularities in the elections. While we are, of course, prepared to consider taking action in that event, we must, whatever happens, ensure that we do not hit the wrong target – as sanctions so often do. We do not want whatever we do to affect civil society – on the contrary, we want to promote its wellbeing, and we want to do everything possible to bring about change in Belarus, in the long term, and from the ground up. That is what we want to do, that is what the Council is working towards.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I thank honourable Members of Parliament for all their comments, which, in general, reinforce the commitment of this House to seek democracy and respect for human rights in Belarus.

As I stated in my opening remarks, the Commission, for its part, has played an active role in Belarus through its support for NGOs and media organisations and action to help raise awareness among the Belarusian population in the hope that this may bring about democratic change. The European Union has stressed the importance it attaches to a democratic election process, and we are ready to offer closer relations if and when we see convincing progress towards genuine democracy and respect for human rights.

In response to what Mr Wiersma and other Members said concerning the presidential election scheduled for 19 March, the Commission regrets that the European Parliament has not been invited to observe the elections. This is indeed disappointing, but not a surprising decision, given the situation in the country. We will be following closely what the OSCE/ODIHR mission will be reporting on the elections. MEPs could possibly form part of the national allocations from Member States to the OSCE/ODIHR mission.

Regarding the point raised by Ms Schroedter and other MEPs, I should like to repeat that the Commission is seeking to address the situation in a novel way through support for the European Humanitarian University in exile and for independent media.

Regarding what Ms Záborská said, I would again emphasise that a good part of the Commission strategy is to support independent media in both the Russian and Belarusian languages – Deutsche Welle in particular – to ensure that they can truly act as a catalyst for change.

Concerning the emphasis placed by Mr Muscat on youth, I thank him for his comments and assure him that the Commission is indeed focusing its efforts on civil society, including the youth of Belarus, who are the hope for a better future.

On the point raise by Ms Vaidere, I should like to state that discussions are under way at Council working group-level with a view to finding some practical solutions to the common approach on visa facilitation.

With regard to Mr Pavilionis’s point, I cannot agree more that we need to support any action in favour of the youth of Belarus and, in particular, in favour of the European Humanitarian University in exile.

The EUR 2 million media project involves not only partners from Germany and Russia, but also a Polish radio station, a Lithuanian radio station, German and Dutch NGOs and Belarusian journalists. It is therefore a Europe-wide project. The Russian television partner, RTVI, has demonstrated its fully independent stance from the Russian Government. As a matter of fact, RTVI is made up of journalists who have escaped government-controlled media outlets.

All television and radio programmes will be in both Russian and Belarusian. Television programmes aired in Russian will systematically be subtitled in Belarusian.

  President. – I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ pursuant to Rule 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The sitting was suspended at 4.50 p.m. for Commission Question Time and resumed at 5.30 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MRS KAUFMANN
Vice-President

(1) See Minutes.