Russian and Belarussian partners meet in Copenhagen
The goal of the seminar in Copenhagen held on March 1-3rd, 2016 was to bring together the Institute’s partners from Russia and Belarus, exchange experiences, ideas and views on working with human rights in the region. In addition, the partners met with a number of Danish based organisations working in Eastern Europe. The topics discussed during the seminar covered a range of approaches to human rights work, such as human rights defence; dialogue between state and non-state actors, as well as awareness raising and education. Partner organisations from both countries presented their current work, brainstormed and exchanged ideas on how civil society actors can contribute to effective human rights protection and promotion in the current geo-political context in the region, taking into account the growing hostility towards human rights in Russia on one hand, and new opportunities for human rights dialogue between EU and Belarus on the other.
Mutual threats
Both Russian and Belarussian partners are working under tough conditions, with strict legislation limiting the place for manoeuvre for civils society organisations in both countries. One of the examples is the so-called “agents of international influence”-law adopted recently in Russia. According to this law, NGOs receiving international funds must be registered as “agents of international influence” and undergo more strict reporting procedures. They are also subjected to stricter monitoring by the authorities. Also the Belarussian civil society organisations’ access to international funding is strictly regulated. The issue of how civil society organisations can operate under these restrictions were discussed during the seminar. Representative from the Russian partner organisation “Man and Law”, Sergei Poduzov, says about what they learned from the seminar: “We have gained knowledge on how to work under severe restrictions, which are also being enforced in Russia these years. Three things are very important: Firstly, that our employees always stay updated on the law changes, and stay informed about the new laws coming up or amendments to the existing legislation. Secondly, that we know exactly which parts of the laws affect the common citizens and how, and thirdly that we are very aware of what we do as an organisation, and navigate in these constantly changing field. This way we can stay prepared for changes of the context, and adapt to it”. In Russia, there is right now two major threats Sergei says: “Restrictions on financial support from other countries and a specific law prohibiting unwanted and/or foreign NGOs operating in Russia”. “Man and Law” was added to the list of agents of international influence in 2015. The organisation is still operating implementing a number of human rights projects, including inspections of prisons aimed at assessing the human rights compliance of the conditions for prisoners in Russia.
These abovementioned threats are already present in Belarus. The vice-chair of the Belarussian Helsinki Committee, Vasil Sankovic, recounts how his organisation once had a big tax debt imposed on them in an attempt to shut them down. In addition, the foreign aid to human rights organisations in the Belarus is very filtered. Vasil says that his organisation’s overall strategy in these difficult conditions, is to position themselves as an organisation that can advise the government on human rights issues, and that is seen as a constructive dialogue partner – not a threat. “The UN’s Universal Periodic Review has given our government a list of recommendations and the government has actually accepted some of them. We can therefore help them implement these recommendations”.
Mutual strategies
Both the Russian and Belarussian partners express the need for more constructive dialogue on human rights issues between state and non-state actors in their countries. Fact-based, constructive and open dialogue seams for them to be a more effective way to achieve human rights change, rather than open confrontation. “We have learned from our work with the Danish Institute for Human Rights to be more strategic and take small steps. Our goal is to create change from the bottom and build trust instead of conflict”, says Vasil. He talks about a great level of apathy in his country. Many of his friends have left, but he refuses to leave. He would rather stay and fight. He is working on achieving results on the long end, and in that strategic approach the Institute have been an inspiration. One example of such strategic approach is to focus on social, economic and cultural rights because in Belarus they are less politicised. “Civil and political rights are very politicised and we cannot talk with the government about them, but we can make progress on the social, economic and cultural rights. So why not work with that?”
It is the exact same picture in Russia says Sergei: “Social and economic rights is a good base for dialogue between the state and civil society”. Sergei gives an example: “Our organisation has together with the Institute developed a toolbox for monitoring human rights violations in the health sector. The monitoring, conducted by “Man and Law” based on that methodology, then led to some recommendations for how to improve the health sector out of human rights perspective in two regions - Kaliningrad and Mari El. Three months later the biggest political party “United Russia” (lead by Dmitri Medvedev) and two other parties went forth with the exact same recommendations, but for the whole health sector in Russia”. As a result, neither political level, nor the Ministry of Health has doubted the methods or conclusions of his organisations. This shows, according to Sergei, that there are crossing points between the political level and civil society levels in Russia, and common points of interest can be found.
Evguenia Jane Klementieva, programme manager for Eurasia at the Danish Institute comments this strategic approach: “It is crucial to establish constructive fact based dialogue between state and non-state actors on human rights issues. Both “sides” have their own functions, roles and responsibilities when it comes to human rights. Not fully agreeing with each other is only natural, and actually necessary. However, conflicts and open confrontations does not bring us anywhere. If we want human rights change, we need to engage in constructive dialogue and try to find issues, which are of common interest. Only then the solutions can be identified and carry out. In Eurasia region we are working on establishing platforms for such dialogues, providing our partners (both state and non-state) with necessary tools, concepts, methods and capacity to carry out such dialogues and bring about human rights change.”