Tatyana Lokshina:Human Rights Watch has been operating from Russia almost since the crumbling of the Soviet Union.It’s a good point to draw comparisons and conclusions between the developments. The biggest setback since the regime change came with the rise of Putin and since that time freedom of opinion has been decreasing through a raft of laws. The most recent such detrimental change took place this year, when all foreign funded, politically active NGOs have to register as “foreign agents.”It’s important to note that in Russian the phrase basically means spy; it has a very negative ring. Thus the aim is to demonize these associations in the eyes of the public. The other problem is in the sense of this law, political activity is any kind of activity that shapes public opinion. As many NGOs refused to register, the state began an aggressive round of punitive inspections, issuing many orders and precepts.As a result many judicial disputes and arguments arose, of which many ended with the NGOs on the losing side; in the case of some of them, it seems they could prevail. It isn’t so much about the principle of the rule of law, but the presidential discretion, as the law was not drafted that well; moreover, it came under foreign scrutiny at a time when the president was vulnerable on the human rights issue due to the approaching Olympic Games. At the same time, it is to be feared that after the Olympics the pressure will increase once again. Putin is trying to channel popular discontent expressed in the demonstrations against his re-election into a carefully cultivated “enemy.”This enemy is the defenders of human rights, foreign-funded NGOs, sexual minorities and migrants. The topic that pervades all of it is traditional vs. untraditional, where the latter is painted as a destructive threat.
Artyom Troitsky:We have recently received good news from Russia – some political prisoners will shortly be released, such as the members of Pussy Riot and Arctic Sunrise – but predominantly we get bad news. For instance, the replacement of RIA Novosti with an agency led by the pro-Putin Kisselyov. Whereas before Putin, it seemed there was a tacit agreement in Russia that the people could enjoy a certain freedom and the government was corrupt, now people’s freedom is increasingly restricted. The “foreign agents” law seemed a logical development to me, but it has been followed by a number of other restrictive laws. The anti-Putin activists are painted as eccentrics, perverts and ugly people. The anti-gay law and law against insulting religious persons are part of this. This pressure is needed, because the fact that the Russian economy is not faring well is driving the tensions. Protests can thus be feared from those who are not that interested in the human rights topic. The other thing that has Putin worried is the example set by the Orange Revolution. The upshot is that we have to wait in fear as to what will happen after the Sochi Games.
Vytis Jurkonis:At Freedom House, our view is that human rights are universal, whether it’s Belarus or Ukraine, who are EU Eastern Partnership members, or Kyrgyzstan and Russia, who are not and yet are so close. Many are discussing which of them is in worse shape. It’s sad that we don’t ask which is in better shape. Belarus’s location is of course, geographically very good, but the country’s government is very cynical and there’s almost no room for civil society there. In my opinion, there’s been no regime change to be seen in the last 20 years. Public support for Lukashenka is declining, but the support for the opposition is not rising. Most Belarusian NGOs are operating underground or in exile. It is so hard to carry out any modernization.Belarus is a test firing range for the Kremlin to try out things. Seventy percent of the economy is state-owned, if someone steps over a line, it’s easy to put pressure on them or their family. The situation is much better in Russia, let alone Ukraine. It’s hard to provide official support from the West if the non-profits are not officially organizations. Yet we shouldn’t just work with the ones in exile, we should encourage the ones in country. An opportunity may open up a year after Sochi, when Belarus hosts the ice hockey world championships.
Mall Hellam:It’s said that it takes just six months to destroy a regime, six months to reform a regime, and 60 years to build a new regime. It is difficult to build an open society; it’s supported by pillars such as rule of law, separation of powers, independent judiciary and media, and an active civil society. It’s hard to overcome the shadows of the past. Unofficial networks that developed under the last regime tend to take shape again. This legacy can also be seen in the case of Ukraine. The first problem is that it’s hard for people to get their voices heard in an equal manner in free elections. Secondly, democracy may become weaker to the point of non-existence if civil society does not put counter pressure on leaders. Third, no less important is the fact that Russia has an active interest in keeping Ukraine in its sphere of influence. Looking back at the post-Orange Revolution years, one of the most depressing things is that people have become indifferent. The political debate often became too pragmatic, too tied to business. But now, after Yanukovich’s decision regarding the EU association agreement, people have turned back to Ukrainian politics. Financiers in the EU and other Western countries have started analyzing what went wrong, what should be done differently and what will start happening. The main conclusion is that the approach should be diversified. It’s been stated that there the standardized and realistic angle of approach should be united and this should be done more effectively. This means that the standardized approach shouldn’t be abandoned but the necessary economic support must be found.The EU and others should speak more to civic society, besides the government. As T. G. Ash has said, our support should be realistic, taking into account only Russia, but our own authority and strengths. Russia produces tanks. Europe is not strong in this field, but we do thousands of other things that are smaller, softer and slower than tanks, which – considering the time and membership to be achieved in the end – could be a much greater force.I very much hope that the EU will soon be ready and wants to offer Ukraine a clear picture of membership so that the EU would be the goal of aspirations in Ukraine and elsewhere.
Jeffrey England:I’m glad that these two regions – Eastern Europe and the Middle East – are together in this panel, because the Middle East certainly can learn from the post-Soviet and other experiences. Above all, it’s a reminder as we move from the euphoria from uprisings to the reality of building governments. Civil society remains a proverbial canary in a coal mine, it demonstrates the openness of a society, it’s about the political practice, political and diplomatic dynamics and level of engagement in public life.It’s early to make a full determination on whether the change has been successful in the Middle East. The expectations of some groups in society have not been met – the ones who hoped for rapid change, material change. But the uprisings can also be called a success in changing the calculations of the public and definition of what the status quo should be. It’s raised the bar. What’s changed is how people see the role of the government and various political forces in society. There are problems in Tunisia and Libya, but there’s debate as there never has been. So I remain optimistic. One indicator of what I call the deep state is the changes in the legal framework. Previously governments were adept at creating systems for retaining the status quo, using laws, such as election laws. We can see the same thing in the NGO registration policy mentioned by the previous speakers. The second challenge for Middle East and North Africa is to turn the encouragement of civic activists from something on the street to something that can be channelled into a political process. If that doesn’t happen and the street remains the place to go to air grievances, that allows the deep state to retain its position and set red lines.
Ahmed Samih Farag:Egypt has the world’s oldest government. To bring down that kind of government is not an easy job. We are a young nation demographically. We had two revolutions in January 2011 and June 2013. I wouldn’t call the second one a coup d’état as the role of the military was supplementary to what the masses of young people can do. Once the people are on the street, it is hard to control the situation, even for those who started to motivate everything. We don’t have the option of losing in this changing game, as losing means you, your family and loved ones die and chaos in the country. This is the main motivation. Yet we have to make compromises. Four of my friends are in prison, 25 of 50 are drafting the new constitution. The atmosphere is tense and being in danger is an everyday matter. We have a deep state as the previous speaker described. This change comes over time and it is a natural part of the process for you to be in jail one day, then in parliament the next. I consider myself a moderate Islamist, but I am completely against the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology. Our society takes a tolerant and friendly view of Islam, but I am all the more glad that the Islamist government was toppled after Mubarak. It’s good that we’ve been able to show that the people don’t just effect cosmetic changes, but they also can punish the big fish. We have convinced the young generation that democracy works for them and they have a choice as to whether to live in Europe or build democracy in Egypt.
Sergei (question from the audience):I am from Belarus and my question is about the changing of the approach of European foreign policy – in many ways the isolation of Belarus is a part of the foreign policy of Europe which is conducted in a way I find debatable. It’s like the Berlin Wall still separates us and Poland and Lithuania. Europe says no discussions until the political prisoners are free. Shouldn’t Europe change its approach toward Belarus?
Mustafa Qadri (question from the audience):My question is to Mr. Farag. Won’t the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood lead many young men to join Al Qaeda?
Olga Zahharova (question from the audience):I’ve just come from Ukraine, from the middle of events. I can say that Ukrainians have understood that Europe is not a place just for shopping but has a values system. Shouldn’t more solidarity be shown or how do you feel Europe should respond?
Ahmed Samih Farag:From my experience, I can say that if you want to change something in an authoritarian system, you have to be a public figure. It’s hard to direct processes and last long underground; people have to feed their families and raise children. There are also difficulties getting your message out. In response to Qadri’s question: you make the same argument formerly used by the Brotherhood to increase their credibility on the international arena. But they aren’t moderates. I think that to keep terrorists away, the current approach to the Brotherhood is necessary. My position is that if you declare violence as the only means, you don’t have a place in my country.
Jeffrey England:I think that Farag brought out something important: the revolution was largely about reckoning with people as citizens. People want to be listened to, and they have to learn to listen to others. Our next goal should be to teach people that besides protesting on the street, there are other means of being heard.
Mall Hellam:The Ukrainian question can be summed up with an old cliché. It takes two to tango. It’s clear there’s a wall between the Belarus and EU and ordinary people will suffer because of it. But Belarusians must do work themselves to impact their government. The same goes for Ukraine, which is a little farther away. The EU is not a rose garden where you can enter and immediately enjoy all the fruits of the good life.
Vytis Jurkonis:Civil society is naturally needed for the democratic development of Belarus, and it’s hard to organize this from outside the country, but I still want to point out that practically no technical consultations are taking place between the EU and Belarus. At the same time, Belarus was there at the Vilnius meeting. Belarus is actually just as isolated as Lukashenka wants to be.
Artyom Troitsky:I understood that Belarusians are very indifferent, Russians less indifferent but not consistent, and the Ukrainians are less apathetic, which is why they have an opportunity. I’m proud of them, as I think they will all get what they have earned. I don’t think it’s right to accuse people of everything. That’s the way they have grown, culture and traditions are different. The same goes for EU peoples. They respond in the expected manner, considering what their media broadcasts. Russia is currently not very popular in Europe. Only bad news is heard from Russia. I think it’s regrettable that most European politicians react enough to what’s going on on the other side of the eastern border. Ilves is one of the few exceptions. Russia is free to play its energy policy games with Europe. Very many Russian oligarchs can freely transfer their money and life to Europe. That is shameful.
Tatyana Lokshina:Thank you to the organizers for discussing this topic. I want to sum up the topic with one thought. What bothers people in Ukraine and elsewhere is not the fact that one agreement was not signed. The reason is human dignity and respect for people. All authoritarian leaders such as Putin try to claim that human rights are a fine thing, but we are on a unique historical, traditional path, things are different than they are elsewhere.They have to be reminded that human rights are universal, they are a part of our common traditions and culture as people.