Potential of Civil Society Actors' Engagement In
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 Poten�al of Civil Society Actors’ Engagement in Different Aspects of EU-Russia Rela�ons Asociace pro podporu demokracie a lidských práv / Associa�on for Democracy Assistance and Human Rights POTENTIAL OF CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS’ ENGAGEMENT IN DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF EU-RUSSIA RELATIONS Václav Lídl also sees the challenge of Islam as an area for joint ac- Table of Contents �on. He examines EU and Russian perspec�ves on a counter-terrorism strategy, an area where Russia is in fact more vulnerable than the EU. Here, he argues, NGO co-opera�on “could build trust between the EU JEFF LOVITT: Preface . 1 and Russia” on human rights. ELENA BELOKUROVA: The Role of NGOs in Cross-Border Nikola Karasová explores the human rights record of Vladimir Pu�n’s Cooperation between the European Union and Russia . 2 Russia, highligh�ng laws on “criminalisa�on of blasphemy” and on NIKOLA KARASOVÁ: Recent Key Developments in Russian “protec�on of Russian history” among the most recent legisla�ve steps Human-Rights Law. 6 aimed at the restric�on of freedom of expression. At the same �me, she argues that the tradi�onally weak role of civil PIOTR KAŹMIERKIEWICZ: Barriers to and opportunities for cooperation between think tanks in the EU and Russia . 10 society means that “the poten�al significance of the Russian non-profit sector in publicising human-rights concerns and demanding jus�ce for VÁCLAV LÍDL: Russia and the EU: Perspectives on those affected is immense”. a Counter-Terrorism Strategy . 14 Elena Belokurova also addresses the change in climate since the ANDREI RYABOV: Russia and the European Union return of Pu�n as Russian President, stressing that the introduc�on in the Post-Soviet Space: From Rivalry to Cooperation . 18 of the “foreign agent” rule was already having an impact before the Russia-Ukraine crisis: “The Russian offices of some foreign founda�ons and NGOs were closed or scaled back their ac�vi�es.” An area of com- mon ground, however, is cross-border co-opera�on on social protec�on issues - which, she writes, is regarded as problem-solving rather than Preface: “Shaping” minds to rebuild trust foreign interference, and is supported by Russia and the EU alike. It will be important, she argues, that the Ukraine-Russia crisis does not jeop- ardise cross-border co-opera�on. Civil society actors in Russia are now confronted with mul�ple chal- lenges to free associa�on and effec�ve implementa�on of their respec- Piotr Kaźmierkiewicz concurs with Ryabov that the economic sphere �ve missions and goals. From proscrip�on of foreign funding to curbs on provides scope for co-opera�on between think-tanks in Russia and public gatherings, these circumstances are compounded by an�-western the EU. While such co-opera�on could be a “win-win” axis, he says it propaganda broadcast through government-controlled mass media. is necessary to recognise that Russian think-tanks will face increasing difficul�es in ar�cula�ng a posi�on on foreign policy different from that Experts on EU-Russia rela�ons were brought together in Prague on promoted by the government and mainstream media. Common ground 27 May 2014 to examine ways forward for EU-Russia co-opera�on at on which to discuss regionally relevant issues will be lost, he writes. a debate organised by DEMAS – Associa�on for Democracy and Human “Reading the mind” of Russian policy-makers, argues Kaźmierkiewicz, Rights, which contributed to the formula�on of the following studies “is becoming a top priority in a new phase of rela�ons characterised by examining the scope for co-opera�on between civil society in Russia lower trust and fewer direct contacts”. Thus, he writes, opportuni�es and the EU. to exchange views at conferences, seminars and through study visits The geo-poli�cal context is sketched by Andrey Ryabov. A�er Russia’s “could help build trust, establish a shared vision of strategic problems, annexa�on of Crimea, he argues, it is important to iden�fy “corridors and eventually lead to joint ini�a�ves”. of opportunity” for construc�ve rela�ons. The confronta�on that fol- The compe��on to “shape” minds is part of the problem and the lowed from Russia’s policy of “rigid pressure on Ukraine”, he writes, solu�on. With the propaganda onslaught from Russian television, the “strengthened pessimis�c assessments of prospects of EU-Russia rela- challenge to offer a plurality of perspec�ves has become more acute. It �ons that were widespread in interna�onal poli�cal circles and expert will take �me to move from the zero-sum game to the shaping of com- communi�es”. mon objec�ves by the EU and Russia, but joint ini�a�ves at the civil soci- The no�on that the struggle for influence is carried out on the princi- ety level can contribute to laying the ground for the gradual emergence ple of a zero-sum game needs to be overcome, he argues, and a win-win of a win-win situa�on. outcome could be generated from the ambiguity that even an EU-fo- cused Ukraine will remain closely connected with Russia economically. He iden�fies con�nued poten�al in economic co-opera�on and joint J��� L����� efforts on the common challenge of Islam. PASOS – Policy Associa�on for an Open Society 2 Poten�al of Civil Society Actors’ Engagement in Different Aspects of EU-Russia Rela�ons and the end of the program in 2006, Russia received 2.7 billion euros The Role of NGOs in Cross-Border in TACIS funding for 1,500 projects in 58 regions2. The program sup- Cooperation between the European ported projects for the development of human resources, ins�tu�onal reforms and infrastructure, restructuring and priva�zing industry and Union and Russia agriculture and comba�ng so� security problems. In the case of Rus- sia the EU technical assistance was not made condi�onal on legisla�ve approxima�on to the EU acquis communautaire as in the other CEE ELENA BELOKUROVA countries preparing for EU membership, but rather on coopera�on Centre for German and European Studies, on increasing stability and security on their common borders. To that St. Petersburg State Unviersity end, TACIS placed significant emphasis on cross-border coopera�on in its programs for border regions of the EU and northwestern regions of Russia. In the NGO sphere, the 1990s were also characterized by very This paper presents some reflec�ons on the role played by non-gov- ac�ve establishment and development of independent organiza�ons, ernmental, non-profit organiza�ons (NGOs) in rela�ons between the which started to emerge from the poli�cal protest movements in the European Union and Russia, with special emphasis on cross-border late 1980s built around ecological, social, ethnic, cultural and human coopera�on. In comparison to the other, more poli�cized ‘high’ policy rights issues3. Some of these NGOs have become highly profession- areas, the cross-border coopera�on shows an example of the ‘low’ alized and now occupy leading posi�ons in their fields of ac�vity4. policy with more pragma�c approach on the local level. Usually such Another impetus for NGO development grew out of the urgent need policy fields are developing differently and more successfully than for self-help in the difficult �mes of the economic and social crisis of poli�cal ones. the 1990s. These mechanisms of coopera�on, as well as the role of NGOs, Because of the cri�cal economic situa�on, Western founda�ons, were elaborated during the 1990s and 2000s, and the first part of especially from the United States and the EU, became a very impor- the paper will analyze these processes before, in the second part, tant and o�en the only source of funding and training for newly estab- evalua�ng the current and poten�al role of NGOs. As a result, some lished NGOs. Branch offices of American and European founda�ons conclusions about the main factors influencing the NGOs role in the were established in Russia and these provided not only funding, but cross-border coopera�on are made as well as the recommenda�ons also training, capacity-building and networking opportuni�es. for its strengthening are given. The approach of the U.S. founda�ons differed slightly from the emphasis of EU programs: U.S. organiza�ons were more ac�ve in sup- por�ng NGOs, while the EU concentrated more on the strengthening The 1990s: Building Mechanisms of state ins�tu�ons and social partnership. Partly this was because of EU-Russia Relations, Cross-Border American funders drew on the American model of a more ac�ve NGO Cooperation and the Role of NGOs sector primarily funded by private sources, while the EU and EU mem- ber states brought their experiences of a tradi�onally stronger state to bear on the idea of more effec�vely influencing Russian policies The EU and the newly cons�tuted Russian Federa�on established rela- through state ins�tu�ons. Even when working with NGOs, the Eu- �ons at the beginning of the 1990s, a special �me both for Russia and ropean founda�ons and partners promoted coopera�on with state the EU. Russia had declared and implemented a radical policy shi� to- ins�tu�ons. ward democracy and the market economy. A�er the Maastricht Treaty the EU has got opportuni�es to be involved into the external rela�ons The difference between the U.S. and EU strategies could be also as the EU.